“A president of the United States must have full immunity, without which it would be impossible for him/her to properly function,” Trump said in a lengthy post on Truth Social in all caps. “Any mistake, even if well intended, would be met with almost certain indictment by the opposing party at term end. Even events that ‘cross the line’ must fall under total immunity, or it will be years of trauma trying to determine good from bad.”
“Sometimes you just have to live with ‘great but slightly imperfect,'” Trump added. “All presidents must have complete & total presidential immunity, or the authority & decisiveness of a president of the United States will be stripped & gone forever. Hopefully this will be an easy decision. God bless the Supreme Court!”
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is expected to soon issue a ruling in the case brought by Trump in his effort to dismiss the federal election interference case against him. He has claimed that he should be immune from prosecution because his efforts to overturn the 2020 election fell within his official duties as president.
The court could issue a ruling that decisively resolves the immunity question, thereby allowing the election interference trial, scheduled to begin March 4, to move forward.
The judges could also issue a narrower ruling that could leave some issues unresolved. The court could also simply rule that Trump had no right to bring an appeal at this stage of the litigation.
The former president has argued that his effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and his involvement with the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection were part of his presidential responsibilities. He has said that he was investigating election fraud as president at the time even though there was no evidence of widespread fraud.
Trump’s Truth Social post came after he sat in a New York courtroom Wednesday in a trial to determine damages in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case against him.
MSNBC’s decision not to air Trump’s Iowa victory speech live ignites right-wing firestorm
Christopher Wiggins – January 17, 2024
Crybaby Donald J Trump Sane Person Rachel Maddow
Conservatives are seething online after discovering that MSNBC chose to protect its viewers from former President Donald Trump’s penchant for lying in front of cameras when the network did not broadcast his victory speech after Trump won the Iowa caucuses on Monday. Rachel Maddow announced the decision during MSNBC’s special broadcast covering the vote results.
Maddow explained the rationale behind this editorial choice.
“We will let you know if there’s any news made in that speech if there’s anything noteworthy, something substantive and important,” Maddow said. “There is a reason that we and other news organizations have generally stopped giving an unfiltered live platform to remarks by former President Trump. It is not out of spite. It is not a decision that we relish. It is a decision that we regularly revisit, and honestly, earnestly, it is not an easy decision. But there is a cost to us as a news organization of knowingly broadcasting untrue things that is a fundamental truth of our business and who we are.”
MSNBC ‘s decision was met with sharp criticism from right-wing influencers and commentators. One conservative influencer expressed their displeasure on X, formerly Twitter, remarking, “WOW—Rachel Maddow admits on air that they’ve decided to censor the leading Republican candidate’s victory speech and will decide what they want the public to know later. This why no one trusts the media—their tactics are exactly like 1984.”
Mercedes Schlapp, a well-known figure in conservative circles, joined in the criticism. She accused Maddow of engaging in “Marxist propaganda” by choosing not to broadcast Trump’s speech live, accusing the anchor of censoring a political candidate.
The situation highlights the ongoing challenges media outlets face in maintaining journalistic standards while addressing the diverse expectations of a politically polarized audience at a time when one candidate has proven himself to be a serial liar.
According to the Washington Post, Trump told more than 30,000 lies while in office. He has told countless more since he left office in 2021.
In contrast to MSNBC’s decision, CNN did carry Trump’s speech live for a time but chose to cut the speech short and return to analysis.
Trump solidified his position as the GOP frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, with his rivals coming in far behind. The caucuses, which saw the lowest turnout in a quarter-century, delivered Trump a roughly 30-point win, surpassing the previous record for a contested Iowa Republican caucus, the Associated Press reports.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished a distant second ahead of former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. While Trump’s victory strengthens his grip on the GOP nomination, DeSantis and Haley face an uphill battle to become his strongest challengers.
During the evening’s coverage, CNN anchor Jake Tapper highlighted a striking entrance poll in Iowa, which found that a majority of Republicans did not believe that President Biden had been legitimately elected, Forbesreports. Tapper noted that while this belief was false, it demonstrated the extent to which Trump had reshaped the Republican Party and convinced Republicans of his ideology, “even when empirically false.”
The Iowa results set the stage for the upcoming New Hampshire primary, where a shrinking field will compete to gain momentum in the race for the Republican nomination.
Opinion: Abbott’s war on migration has led to another tragedy in Texas
Opinion by Alice Driver – January 16, 2024
Editor’s Note: Alice Driver is a writer who divides her time between Mexico and the US. Her latest book is “The Life and Death of the American Worker: The Immigrants Taking on America’s Largest Meatpacking Company.” Her writing has appeared in The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books and Oxford American. The views expressed in this commentary are her own. Read more opinion at CNN.
On Friday, a woman and her two young children struggled to cross the Rio Grande’s unpredictable waters to get from Mexico to Eagle Pass, Texas. US Border Patrol agents tried to enter Shelby Park, which runs along the US side of the Rio Grande, to save the woman and her children. The agents reportedly reached out to Texas state officials about the emergency by phone but received no response.
Alice Driver – Luis_Garvan
Democratic US Rep. Henry Cuellar said in a statement late Saturday that US Border Patrol agents went to the park and asked to be allowed to render aid to the migrants, whom he identified as a mother and her two young children according to Mexican sources, but were denied entry.
“Texas Military Department soldiers stated they would not grant (the Border Patrol) access to the migrants — even in the event of an emergency,” Cuellar said, adding that Mexican officials recovered three bodies on Saturday.
Texas officials deny mishandling the crisis. “TMD (Texas Military Department) was contacted by Border Patrol at approximately 9:00 pm on Friday in reference to a migrant distress situation. TMD had a unit in the vicinity of the boat ramp and actively searched the river with lights and night vision goggles. No migrants were observed,” the agency said in a statement to a local ABC affiliate.
But Joaquin Castro, a Democratic congressman from Texas, suggested Gov. Greg Abbott bears direct responsibility for the tragedy. “Texas officials blocked US Border Patrol agents from doing their job and allowed two children to drown in the Rio Grande,” Castro said, an account confirmed by the Department of Homeland Security. “Governor Abbott’s inhumanity has no limit. Everyone who enables his cruelty has blood on their hands.”
To know that a young family is struggling to navigate cold, swift waters and to do nothing to prevent their deaths is cruel and evil.
But for Abbott it is more of the same: His policies take an unduly harsh line on immigration, even if it means putting the lives of innocent people at risk. The state of Texas should be held responsible for these deaths.
I’ve been an immigration writer for years, including at the Eagle Pass crossing, and I’ve seen heartless policies against people trying to enter the United States. Abbott’s are among the worst I’ve covered.
I’ve interviewed countless migrants very much like the woman who perished this weekend. If this mother and her two children had been saved, they might be applying for asylum and imagining a future together far from the harm and privation they likely experienced in their home country.
As The Atlantic explained in recent reporting, the mother and her children would face a backlog of asylum cases that grew to 1,009,625 in 2023, and they would wait an average of four years to get a hearing. Had they survived, I might be interviewing them today, as I have solicited the personal stories of hundreds of migrants along the US-Mexico border over the past decade.
The two children might be taking photos with the Polaroid camera that I carry around, and writing messages with the rainbow-colored markers I also keep at hand.
“What do you want me to write?” children often ask me, wide-eyed, when I tell them they can write or draw anything they want on their photos. They sometimes share messages like “I hope God grants me asylum” or “I hope I don’t get separated from my mom.” There is so much to learn from the stories of people fleeing war, famine, drought and the effects of climate change.
These are lessons, however, that appear to have been lost on Abbott. During his time in office, he has been on a warpath to criminalize and dehumanize migrants, spending more than $4.5 billion on Operation Lone Star since 2021, his ramped up effort to prevent border crossings, including by deploying floating razor wire barricades in the Rio Grande. And he has spent more than $100 million to send asylum seekers legally in the US to Democratic-run cities, usually without notice and without providing sufficient — if any — food or warm clothing for the journey.
Abbott’s policies seem not too dissimilar to the family separation initiative put into place by former President Donald Trump in that inflicting cruelty, pain and trauma appear to be tools to deter migration. Nevertheless, Operation Lone Star — like Trump’s family separation policies — appears to have had little effect on stemming migration. It would appear that the misery migrants have been fleeing for years is worse than even the cruel anti-immigration program that Abbott has devised.
On December 18, he signed into law SB 4, a measure that attempts to wrest the power the Constitution gives the federal government over immigration and put it in state hands. SB 4 made entering Texas illegally a statecrime. Abbott’s efforts to criminalize migration have included stringingconcertina wire and erecting anti-climb barriers along the border and installing an $850,000 floating barrier made of buoys separated by saw blades along the Rio Grande in Eagle Pass.
Abbott has made Eagle Pass a focus of his immigration enforcement policies. But he has done so without the support of local authorities. Mayor Rolando Salinas questioned why Abbott closed Shelby Park, which is public, without his permission. “That is not a decision that we agreed to,” Salinas said. “This is not something that we wanted. This is not something that we asked for as a city.”
The confrontation between the US Border Patrol and the Texas National Guard troops and Texas Military Department represents a looming power struggle between Abbott and the Biden administration — one in which federal officials must assert their authority.
Even before the tragic deaths at Eagle Pass, the Biden administration appealed to the US Supreme Court about Texas blocking access to the border. Abbott’s power struggle with the Biden administration sets a dangerous precedent, one that shows wanton disregard for the lives of migrants.
By now, it should be clear to Abbott that ratcheting up cruelty is not a way to stem migration. Instead of militarizing the border, Texas and the federal government should instead invest in humane asylum policies that don’t heap tragedy upon people arriving to this country who have already experienced so much hardship and loss.
Chicago scrambles to shelter migrants in dangerous cold as Texas’ governor refuses to stop drop-offs
Alisha Ebrahimji, CNN – January 15, 2024
Hoping to halt migrant drop-offs as extreme weather plagues Chicago, Illinois’ Democratic governor warned in a letter Friday to his GOP counterpart in Texas that sending migrants now to the Windy City could cost lives, adding to the already deadly toll of the migrant crisis.
“While action is pending at the federal level, I plead with you for mercy for the thousands of people who are powerless to speak for themselves,” Gov. J.B. Pritzker wrote. “Please, while winter is threatening vulnerable people’s lives, suspend your transports and do not send more people to our state.”
“Your callousness, sending buses and planes full of migrants in this weather, is now life-threatening to every one of the arrivals,” he continued. “Hundreds of children’s and families’ health and survival are at risk due to your actions.”
Instead, however, Gov. Greg Abbott’s administration has doubled down on its mission since 2022 to dispatch migrants north from Texas via bus and plane to cities led by Democrats, including Chicago, New York and Denver, to “provide support to our overrun and overwhelmed border communities,” his spokesperson Andrew Mahaleris told CNN Friday, noting, “Governor Pritzker was all too proud to call Illinois ’the most welcoming state in the nation’ until Governor Abbott began transporting migrants to Chicago.”
Chicago’s wind chill is forecast to plummet by Tuesday morning to 32 below zero – cold so extreme it could cause frostbite on exposed skin in as few as 10 minutes, according to CNN Weather. For those unaccustomed to such bone-chilling cold – including migrants who often arrive with only the clothes on their back – it can be a life-or-death challenge.
Chicago shelters lately have been so full, incoming migrants were kept at a designated “landing zone,” with minimal access to food and sanitation and only parked Chicago Transit Authority buses for temporary heat.
There had been about 140 migrants on those buses, Democratic Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said Friday, down from a high of more than 300, though as of Sunday, there were no longer any migrants awaiting placement in shelters at the landing zone location, according to the city.
As to whether conditions at the landing zone were acceptable, Johnson said, “Look, that’s a good question, you know. It’s certainly not acceptable for the (Texas) governor to send people to the city of Chicago, but we’re meeting the moment.”
Over the last few weeks, mayors of New York, Chicago and Denver have been irked by “rogue buses” from Texas dropping off migrants by the thousands and tried in their own jurisdictions to slow the surge by enacting mandates and requirements for bus operators to coordinate arrivals under the threat of impound, fines and even jail time.
Meanwhile in New York, homeless migrants starting Tuesday will be subject to a new 11 p.m.-to-6 a.m. curfew at four respite centers managed by the city’s Emergency Management Department, a spokesperson for City Hall told CNN on Monday.
Migrants get food Friday outside Chicago’s migrant landing zone. – Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP via Getty Images
In November, Chicago implemented a 60-day shelter stay policy based on migrants’ arrival dates so as not overcrowd the shelter system and to provide asylum-seekers services while they set up long-term housing. But due to the harsh weather, city officials suspended that limit and made some exceptions to the policy, Johnson said Friday.
‘Do his job and secure the border’
As for Abbott’s position, “instead of complaining about migrants sent from Texas, where we are also preparing to experience severe winter weather across the state, Governor Pritzker should call on his party leader to finally do his job and secure the border – something he continues refusing to do,” his spokesperson Mahaleris told CNN in the Friday statement.
“Until President Biden steps up and does his job to secure the border, Texas will continue transporting migrants to sanctuary cities to help our local partners respond to this Biden-made crisis,” he added.
Chicago Transit Authority warming buses sit at the migrant landing zone during extreme, cold temperatures on Friday. – Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP via Getty Images
Over the weekend, the bodies of three migrants – a woman and two children – were recovered by Mexican authorities after they drowned in the Rio Grande in Eagle Pass, Texas, very recently the epicenter of the migrant crisis and an area where state authorities have blocked the US Border Patrol from accessing miles of the US-Mexico divide, officials said.
The Biden administration on Friday complained to the US Supreme Court about the state blocking Border Patrol from a city park along the river and asked the high court to quickly intervene. The state on Saturday told the high court it was “working promptly” to ensure Border Patrol has access to a boat ramp at Shelby Park.
The White House called the recent migrant deaths “tragic” and characterized Abbott’s directives on the border as “political stunts,” Angelo Fernández Hernández, White House assistant press secretary said Sunday.
“While we continue to gather facts about the circumstances of these tragic deaths, one thing is clear: Gov. Abbott’s political stunts are cruel, inhumane, and dangerous. US Border Patrol must have access to the border to enforce our laws,” Fernández Hernández told CNN in a statement.
CNN’s Andy Rose, Rosa Flores, Gloria Pazmino, Whitney Wild and meteorologist Allison Chinchar contributed to this report.
‘This to Him Is the Grand Finale’: Donald Trump’s 50-Year Mission to Discredit the Justice System
The former president is in unparalleled legal peril, but he has mastered the ability to grind down the legal system to his advantage. It’s already changing our democracy.
By Michael Kruse – January 12, 2023
Michael Kruse, senior staff writer at POLITICO and POLITICO Magazine.
POLITICO illustration by Emily Scherer/Photos by Getty Images, iStock
NEW YORK — What happened in Room 300 of the New York County Courthouse in lower Manhattan in November had never happened. Not in the preceding almost two and a half centuries of the history of the United States. Donald Trump was on the witness stand. It was not unprecedented in the annals of American jurisprudence just because it was a former president, although that was totally true. It was unprecedented because the power dynamic of the courtroom had been upended — the defendant was not on defense, the most vulnerable person in the room was the most dominant person in the room, and the people nominally in charge could do little about it.
It was unprecedented, too, because over the course of four or so hours Trump savaged the judge, the prosecutor, the attorney general, the case and the trial — savaged the system itself. He called the attorney general “a political hack.” He called the judge “very hostile.” He called the trial “crazy” and the court “a fraud” and the case “a disgrace.” He told the prosecutor he should be “ashamed” of himself. The judge all but pleaded repeatedly with Trump’s attorneys to “control” him. “If you can’t,” the judge said, “I will.” But he didn’t, because he couldn’t, and audible from the city’s streets were the steady sounds of sirens and that felt absolutely apt.
“Are you done?” the prosecutor said.
“Done,” Trump said.
He was nowhere close to done. Trump’s testimony if anything was but a taste. (In fact, he said many of the same things in the same courtroom on Thursday.) This country has never seen and therefore is utterly unprepared for what it’s about to endure in the wrenching weeks and months ahead — active challenges based on post-Civil War constitutional amendments to bar insurrectionists from the ballot; existentially important questions about presidential immunity almost certainly to be decided by a U.S. Supreme Court the citizenry has seldom trusted less; and a candidate running for the White House while facing four separate criminal indictments alleging 91 felonies, among them, of course, charges that he tried to overturn an election he lost and overthrow the democracy he swore to defend. And while many found Trump’s conduct in court in New York shocking, it is in fact for Trump not shocking at all. For Trump, it is less an aberration than an extension, an escalation — a culmination. Trump has never been in precisely this position, and the level of the threat that he faces is inarguably new, but it’s just as true, too, that nobody has been preparing for this as long as he has himself.
Former President Donald Trump, flanked by his attorneys, waits to take the witness stand at New York Supreme Court on Nov. 6, 2023, in New York City. | Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/AP
Trump and his allies say he is the victim of the weaponization of the justice system, but the reality is exactly the opposite. For literally more than 50 years, according to thousands of pages of court records and hundreds of interviews with lawyers and legal experts, people who have worked for Trump, against Trump or both, and many of the myriad litigants who’ve been caught in the crossfire, Trump has taught himself how to use and abuse the legal system for his own advantage and aims. Many might view the legal system as a place to try to avoid, or as perhaps a necessary evil, or maybe even as a noble arbiter of equality and fairness. Not Trump. He spent most of his adult life molding it into an arena in which he could stake claims and hunt leverage. It has not been for him a place of last resort so much as a place of constant quarrel. Conflict in courts is not for him the cost of doing business — it is how he does business. Throughout his vast record of (mostly civil) lawsuits, whether on offense, defense or frequently a mix of the two, Trump has become a sort of layman’s master in the law and lawfare.
“He doesn’t see the legal system as a means of obtaining justice for all,” Jim Zirin, the author of Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits, told me. He sees it rather as a “tool,” said Ian Bassin, a former White House lawyer in the administration of Barack Obama and the current executive director of Protect Democracy, “in his quest to command attention and ultimately power.” But it’s not merely any tool. It’s his most potent tactic and fundamental to any and all successes he’s had. “There’s probably no single person in America,” said Eric Swalwell, the Democratic member of Congress from California and a former prosecutor and Trump impeachment manager, “who is more, I would say, knowledgeable and experienced in our legal system — as both a plaintiff and as a defendant — than Donald Trump.”
Many have been confounded by the legal system’s inability to constrain Trump, by his ability to escape at least thus far any legal accounting for behavior that even some leaders of his own party excoriated — and why that reckoning might never come. To understand this requires seeing Trump in a new mode — not as a businessman-turned-celebrity-turned-politician, or as a nationalist populist demagogue, or as the epochal leader of a right-wing movement, but rather as a legal combatant. “This is not a political rally — this is a courtroom,” the judge admonished him at one point in November in New York. It was only in the most technical sense correct. Just as he had upended the norms inside the New York courtroom, Trump has altered the very way we view the justice system as a whole. This is not something he began to do once he won elected office. It has been a lifelong project.
Starting in 1973, when the federal government sued him and his father for racist rental practices in the apartments they owned, Trump learned from the notorious Roy Cohn, then searched for another Roy Cohn — then finally became his own Roy Cohn. He’s exploited as loopholes the legal system’s bedrock tenets, eyeing its very integrity as simultaneously its intrinsic vulnerability — the near sacrosanct honoring of the rights of the defendant, the deliberation that due process demands, the constant constitutional balancing act that relies on shared good faith as much as fixed, written rules. He has routinely turned what’s obviously peril into what’s effectively fuel, taking long rosters of losses and willing them into something like wins — if not in a court of law, then in that of public opinion. It has worked, and it continues to work. Trump, after all, was at one of his weakest points politically until the first of his four arraignments last spring. Ever since, his legal jeopardy and his political viability have done little but go up, together. Deny, delay and attack, always play the victim, never stop undermining the system: Trump has taken the Cohn playbook to reaches not even Cohn could have foreseen — fusing his legal efforts with his business interests, lawyers as important to him as loan officers, and now he’s done the same with politics. He’s not fighting the system, it seems sometimes, so much as he’s using it. He’s fundraising off of it. He’s consolidating support because of it. He’s far and away the most likely Republican nominee, polls consistently show. He’s the odds-on favorite to be the president again.
As Trump was on the witness stand on Nov. 6, Judge Arthur Engoron (bottom) all but pleaded repeatedly with Trump’s attorneys to “control” him. “If you can’t,” the judge said, “I will.” | Spencer Platt/Getty Images; Pool photo by Brendan McDermid
“He has attacked the judicial system, our system of justice and the rule of law his entire life,” said J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former federal appellate judge and one of the founders of the recently formed Society for the Rule of Law. “And this to him,” Luttig told me, “is the grand finale.”
The 2024 presidential election, in the estimation of Paul Rosenzweig, a senior counsel during the investigation of President Bill Clinton and an assistant deputy secretary in the Department of Homeland Security in the administration of George W. Bush, isn’t a referendum on Joe Biden. It isn’t even a referendum, he said, on Donald Trump. “This election,” he told me, “is a referendum on the rule of law.”
More unnerving, though, than even that is an idea that has coursed through my conversations over these past several months: That referendum might already be over. Democracy’s on the ballot, many have taken to saying — Biden just said it last week — but democracy, and democratic institutions, as political scientist Brian Klaas put it to me, “can’t function properly if only part of the country believes in them.” And it’s possible that some critical portion of the population does not, or will not, no matter what happens between now and next November, believe in the verdicts or other outcomes rendered by those institutions. What if Trump is convicted? What if he’s not? What if he’s not convicted and then gets elected? What if he is and wins anyway? More disquieting than what might be on the ballot, it turns out, is actually what might not.
“Our democracy rests on a foundation of trust — trust in elections, trust in institutions,” Bassin said. “And you know what scares me the most about Trump? It’s not the sledgehammer he’s taken to the structure of our national house,” he told me. “It’s the termites he’s unleashed into the foundation.”
Trump (left) stands with his father, Fred Trump, in Brooklyn in 1973. That year, the federal government sued Trump and his father for racist rental practices in the apartments they owned. | Barton Silverman/The New York Times via Redux Pictures
‘Attack, attack, attack — no matter what the merits are’
The United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc., filed by the Department of Justice on October 15, 1973, put a 27-year-old Donald Trump for the first time on the front page of the New York Times. He also used it to introduce himself to a man who was already an infamous rogue — Cohn becoming because of this case Trump’s most indispensable mentor.
Cohn, “clearly one of God’s most imperfect vessels” but “one of the most extraordinary, demonized, and misunderstood figures of 20th-century American politics,” Steve Bannon wrote in the 2023 Skyhorse Publishing reprint of Nicholas von Hoffman’s biography, “is more relevant today than when the book was originally published in 1988.” Bannon’s not wrong. And that’s because of Trump and what Trump has become. Pre-Trump, though, and before Cohn was disbarred and died in 1986 from complications from AIDS, Cohn was in post-World War II America a particular sort of poisonous force — the top attorney and aide to red-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s who then in the ’60s and ’70s turned his ill repute into a career as “ a legal executioner” for celebrities, executives and mob bosses. He didn’t pay his bills. He didn’t pay his taxes. He was shameless and remorseless and “ famous among lawyers for winning cases by delays, evasions and lies.” He was indicted four times, for bribery and conspiracy, for extortion and blackmail, for stock-swindling and obstruction of justice and filing false reports — and never once convicted. He was, to the people who knew him and watched him with some combination of wonder and disgust, “a bully,” “a scoundrel” and “as politically incorrect as they come.” Trump was transfixed.
Top: People sit outside Trump Village, a two-building apartment complex, in Brooklyn in 1973. Bottom: Donald and Fred Trump visit a tenant in one of their Brooklyn apartment buildings in Brooklyn in 1973. | Barton Silverman/The New York Times via Redux Pictures
And the federal race case was Trump’s first tutorial. “He went to court,” as Trump would put it, “and I went with him.” Cohn said the Department of Justice had “no facts to support the charges” that were “barebones” and “without foundation.” Cohn accused the feds of going after the Trumps’ organization because it was “one of the largest in the field.” He accused them of a “smear” that caused “damage” that was “never going to be completely undone.” Cohn filed a countersuit for a stunning $100 million that a judge tossed out as “frivolous” but not before it generated headlines and attention for a young Trump spoiling for a publicized fight. He accused a young female prosecutor of staging a “Gestapo-like investigation” with “undercover agents” wiretapping Trump offices and “marching around” like “storm troopers banging on the doors” — all charges the judge was forced to take the time to dismiss. And Cohn delayed, and delayed and delayed, frustrating for years a series of government attorneys who in court briefs repeatedly bemoaned Cohn’s “noncompliance” and “dilatory tactics” and “blithe disregard.” The director of the Open Housing Center of the New York Urban League worried that Cohn on behalf of Trump was, in spite of the evidence, actually “winning.”
Trump, with Roy Cohn beside him, speaks during a news conference where they announced a lawsuit against the National Football League in 1984. | Marilynn K. Yee/The New York Times via Redux Pictures
They weren’t. At least not officially. Because the DOJ got Trump and his father to sign a consent decree promising they would comply with the Fair Housing Act and create preferential vacancies and pay for ads for those vacancies and hire and promote minorities and self-report their progress. The agency called the agreement “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.” But Trump? He called it a win. He had been allowed to sign the decree without copping to guilt, and if that wasn’t quite a triumph, it also wasn’t in any real way a defeat. “Did Trump get nailed? No,” Cohn’s cousin, David Lloyd Marcus, told me. “He basically got out of it.” Trump had siphoned from Cohn lasting lessons. “He learned that the evidence can be irrelevant,” Zirin told me. He learned that “the law doesn’t matter, the government’s mission doesn’t matter,” Marcus told me. He learned “that you could use the law to sort of bend circumstances to your will,” former Trump attorney Ty Cobb told me. “Attack, attack, attack — no matter what the merits are — fuck the merits — attack, attack, attack,” longtime New York attorney Marty London told me. “That was Roy Cohn’s methodology that was adopted by Donald Trump.”
More than anything, though, Cohn had shown Trump not simply how to turn a loss into a win but how to turn a case on its head — how, in other words, to take the United States v. Trump and make it Trump versus the United States.
The Trump Parc East building, which was formerly known as 100 Central Park South, is seen in New York City in 2016. | Frank Franklin II/AP
‘Suddenly you are being sued. It gives you a headache’
If the ’70s were a training ground, the ’80s were a proving ground. And if Cohn was a weapon —“a weapon for me,” as Trump told the writer Ken Auletta — so, too, was the law and the legal system itself. Lawsuits were as central as public relations or loans from banks to the building of Trump’s business and the burnishing of his brand. And he came to understand during the decade of the ’80s that he didn’t have to play defense. He could just start on offense.
Trump bought the 15-story apartment building at the prime location of 100 Central Park South in 1981. He wanted to turn it into a fancier condominium. He just needed the mostly rent-controlled tenants to get out, and he quickly began legal proceedings to try to make that happen, filing with the city applications for permits for eviction and demolition. He sued one tenant for not paying his rent even though he had. He also got the company he had hired to run the building to cut back on services, like security, hot water and heat. At one point he made a plainly disingenuous offer to the city to house free of charge some of the area’s homeless in the building’s few vacant units. “I just want to help with the homeless problem,” he told the Times. He put tin on the windows of the empty apartments to make the whole building look shabby. One of the tenants told the Times, it felt like they were “living under a state of siege.”
So the tenants pooled money to hire attorneys to sue back. And judges sided with the tenants, not him, and so did state and city agencies, ruling that Trump had initiated “spurious” and “unwarranted litigation” that added up to “an unrelenting, systematic and illegal campaign” to “force tenants from their housing accommodations at the earliest possible time.” By 1985, Trump had built Trump Tower, opened two casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and been on the cover of GQ. But Central Park South? This, as New York magazine put it on its cover, was “A Different Kind of Donald Trump Story” — “a fugue of failure, a farce of fumbling and bumbling.” The tenants had had it. “This merchant, this gambler, this Atlantic City man-whore,” one of them told a reporter for a British magazine. “He wants to be Jesus. He wants to be Hitler. He wants to be the most powerful thing in the world.”
Stymied, Trump in December of that year filed, of all things, a $105 million racketeering suit — in effect accusing the tenants’ attorneys and state and city agencies of conspiring against him in a criminal enterprise. He shared the details with the New York Post before he even filed the papers in court.
Trump, shown above in 1986, wanted to turn 100 Central Park South into a fancier condominium after buying it in 1981. He just needed the mostly rent-controlled tenants to get out. | Mario Suriani/AP; Bettmann Archive via Getty Images
“He had a temper tantrum,” Rick Fischbein, one of the attorneys for the tenants, told me recently. “He sued the firm. He brought a RICO action,” said David Rozenholc, another one of the attorneys for the tenants, “to try to get leverage.” It was “frivolous” and “absurd,” Rozenholc told me. But still: “You are an attorney representing a client, and suddenly you are being sued. It gives you a headache, it gives you a problem, it gives you an issue — you have to deal with it, you have to hire a lawyer …”
That lawyer was Marty London. “We attacked the claim on the merits, and quickly,” London told me. And time was of the essence, he explained, in large part because the firm’s bank account had been frozen because of the size of Trump’s claim. Any undue delay would accrue to the benefit of Trump and to the detriment of the defendants — and the judges seemed to understand. “It took a month to get it dismissed,” London recalled, and the appeal was similarly fast-tracked. “Further pleading would merely waste the time and resources of the litigants as well as divert scarce judicial resources,” an appellate judge concluded, denying Trump’s motion to replead “with prejudice.”
“Trump saw that the way to beat these people, these tenants, it was not on the merits, because there were no merits,” London told me. “So what you do is attack the lawyer,” he said. “You make the lawyer so afraid of Trump that he quits. That’s what he tried to do.”
But the lawyers did not quit. London even got a judge to order Trump to pay Fischbein’s firm $700,000 in fees, including London’s costs in the RICO case. Fischbein hung on the wall of his office a framed copy of Trump’s check along with a blue-T-shirt with a boast: “ I was sued by Donald Trump for $105 million.”
“He lost,” Fischbein told me last month.
Eventually, though, Trump turned 100 Central Park South into a condo called Trump Parc East. “His public position now,” Wayne Barrett would write in his book about Trump published in 1992, “was that the tenant battle had delayed his project just long enough for him to benefit from the boom in the market. So he announced that he had made money from the protracted conflict.” The upshot in The Art of the Deal: “All’s well that ends well.” A legal loss, Trump reasoned, didn’t have to be a loss overall.
A portrait of Donald Trump hangs inside Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., in 1995. | Ron Galella via Getty Images
‘He uses the legal system to tire people out’
Trump was in deep financial distress in the early ’90s. The arc of his life could have been irrevocably altered — and that of the nation, it turns out — had he been truly brought low by his debts, and had a passel of people with power made different decisions. That image he sought to convey, that brand he wanted to burnish — money maestro, billionaire business boss — in this window of time might have been tarnished forever. “Survive ‘til ’95,” Trump liked to say. He did it with family money. He did it through bankruptcy. He did it by turning his casinos into public money — a lifeline that was “the general public” in “middle America” trusting Trump and buying literal stock called DJT. He did it by turning Mar-a-Lago into a private club — and a lawsuit into a golf course. And he did that by opening up a whole new legal front in Florida — in Palm Beach.
“He sued the county,” former county commissioner Karen Marcus told me, “over airport noise.”
It was June of ’95. This had been a Trump pet peeve for years — almost ever since he had bought Mar-a-Lago 10 years before. But now he actually filed a suit for $75 million in damages because one of the flight paths for Palm Beach International Airport took low-flying planes directly over Mar-a-Lago. “Mar-a-Lago can no longer be enjoyed for its original purposes of relaxation, entertaining and everyday living,” the suit said. The next week, county commissioners sued him back, hiring a law firm for $190 an hour. “I think it’s ridiculous Mr. Trump has taken on the taxpayers of Palm Beach County,” commission chairman Ken Foster said at the time, “thinking his pockets are deeper than ours.” It’s exactly what he was thinking.
Top: A plane flies over Mar-a-Lago in 1999. Bottom: (Left to right) Businessman Alfons Schmitt, Trump, and golf course architect Jim Fazio at the Trump International Golf Club groundbreaking ceremony in Palm Beach in 1997. | Art Seitz/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images; Davidoff Studios/Getty Images
“I first met Trump in the late ’80s,” former Palm Beach town councilman and mayor Jack McDonald told me. “And for all those years,” he said, “the strategy’s been quite clear.”
“He uses the legal system,” said Alan (no relation to Karen) Marcus, a Trump publicist at the time, “to tire people out.”
“He thinks the lawsuit will be easier for him to bear than his opponent,” a person in Palm Beach familiar with Trump who requested anonymity to speak candidly told me recently. “He doesn’t think he’s going to win necessarily,” this person continued. “He thinks that he’ll spend more money than the other side will, including municipalities, even Palm Beach, and that all of those expenses are much more wearing on government officials than they are on Donald Trump.”
And he was right.
By November ’95, the county’s attorneys told the county commission the Trump airport suit was going to cost the county perhaps more than $1 million. By April of ’96, the county’s attorneys and Trump’s attorneys were talking about a settlement. By September, it was official: Trump agreed to drop the suit. In return he got the right to lease at $438,000 a year — for at least 30 years, and up to 75 — 214 acres of untouched scrub land by the very same airport so he could build the golf course that is now Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach. To boot, the county promised to keep the planes from flying directly over Mar-a-Lago.
Trump’s attorney called it “a win-win.” Plenty of people in Palm Beach had feelings that were decidedly more mixed. “I realize you’re settling a lawsuit, but you’re giving up the use of that land for 75 years,” former county commissioner Bill Medlen told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel at the time. Said the Palm Beach Post’s editorial board: “Rather than getting him out of their hair, they have gotten themselves into a 30-year lease with the litigious Mr. Trump.”
Indeed, for the litigious Mr. Trump, a Palm Beach coda came a decade later. In 2006, he put up in front of Mar-a-Lago an American flag that was so big it was against town code — 15 by 25 feet of the Stars and Stripes mounted atop an 80-foot pole. It was bait. The town took it. The fine was $1,250 a day. Trump sued — for $25 million — arguing his giant flag was constitutionally protected speech. “No American should have to get a permit to fly the flag,” he crowed in interviews. Eventually, of course, Trump and the town settled — he made the flag a little smaller, the town waived the fines — but for Trump it was another legal draw that was in all other ways nothing but a win.
A large 15-by-25-foot American flag flies over Mar-a-Lago in October 2006. | Alyssa Schukar/The Palm Beach Post via AP
“It was a success for him in terms of how he was viewed across America,” McDonald, who was the mayor of at the time, told me. “Because that all of a sudden,” said McDonald, who was once a member of Mar-a-Lago but not anymore and told me he’s never voted for Trump, “made him this great American patriot.”
“I think he learned right on this little island a lot of the techniques that he used to become president,” said Laurence Leamer, the author of a book about Trump, Mar-a-Lago and Palm Beach. “Trump came down here just not giving a damn, pushing and pushing, pushing the town, pushing the law.”
According to Tim O’Brien, who came out with a book about Trump in 2005 and and was sued because of it, Trump sued him because of the brand — “to create it, maintain it, and cast it forever in amber.” | Peter Kramer/Getty Images
‘The Rosetta Stone of Donald Trump’s hallucinations’
By the time of the Palm Beach flag flap, any ’90s taint was gone, the overwhelming initial success of “The Apprentice” having reintroduced Trump to much of the country not as a hokey, aging emblem of the high-flying, go-go ’80s but as a still preeminent and ubiquitous tycoon — as a billionaire. The brand was somehow intact, and now again on the rise, and it needed to be protected at all costs.
So he sued Tim O’Brien.
“This book,” O’Brien told the Palm Beach Post when TrumpNation came out in the fall of 2005, “is about how a cartoon character became one of the most famous businessmen in America.”
Plenty of things in the book were unflattering. O’Brien quoted Trump, for instance, saying he had been “bored” when Marla Maples was walking down the aisle at the second of his three weddings. He pegged the Trump Organization as “a teeny operation.” And Trump told the author some things that stood out then and stand out even more now. “If you don’t win, you can’t get away with it,” Trump said. “And I win, I win, I always win …” He also said he considered crying a sign of “weakness” and as an example brought up mob boss John Gotti — the “Teflon Don.” Gotti, Trump told O’Brien, “went through years of trials. He sat with a stone face. He said: ‘Fuck you.’”
None of that, though, is why Trump sued O’Brien. He sued O’Brien essentially because of two sentences that cut straight to the core of the brand.
“Three people with direct knowledge of Donald’s finances, people who had worked closely with him for years,” O’Brien wrote, “told me that they thought his net worth was somewhere between $150 million and $250 million. By anyone’s standards this still qualified Donald as comfortably wealthy, but none of these people thought he was remotely close to being a billionaire.”
Tim O’Brien, shown above in 2017. After O’Brien’s book came out, Trump in the press described him as “a third-rate writer,” a “loser” and “a whack job.” | Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images
Donald J. Trump v. Timothy L. O’Brien was in some sense a direct extension of Trump versus the other Trumps — Jules and Eddie Trump — from the suit back in the ’80s.
Those Trumps’ use of their own name, Roy Cohn wrote in court papers in December of 1984, “can only be viewed as a poorly veiled attempt at trading on the good will, reputation and financial credibility of” his client. Their use of the corporate name of the Trump Group, Cohn concluded, was therefore “untenable.” It was a bold claim not least because Jules and Eddie Trump, South African emigrants, were big businessmen themselves — by some measures bigger, in fact, than Donald Trump. One of the main reasons Donald Trump even knew of Jules and Eddie Trump, after all, was that the other Trumps had just bid to buy a drugstore chain for $360 million. The other Trumps’ attorneys’ response was basically bafflement at the notion of “barring the defendants from using their family name.” The legal back-and-forth nonetheless went on for five years.
The other Trumps’ attorneys during their deposition of Trump in not so many words tried to make the case that Trump was a serial legal scourge. They peppered him with questions about the number of times he’d been deposed.
“I really don’t know,” he said. It “unfortunately” was “a part of doing business.” Trump grew testy the longer this line of query lasted. He called their questions “ridiculous.” He complained they were “trying to harass me.”
The other Trumps’ attorneys astutely went back to the beginning. They brought up the DOJ’s case from 1973. Trump bristled. “We acknowledged no wrongdoing,” he said before quickly attacking the inference of racism that hung in the air. “Your clients come from South Africa,” he said, “so don’t tell me about it.”
It was a split decision in the end. A judge concluded that “the name ‘Trump’ is well-recognized in the New York real estate development community, but the court does not think this is the same as being ‘unique.’” Trump did, however, successfully petition the Patent and Trademark Office, which ruled the other Trumps could keep using the name the Trump Group but could not keep the Trump Group trademark. The other Trumps had spent $250,000 in legal fees, because they could, but still: “It was very costly,” Jules Trump would tell the Miami Herald, “and a huge waste of time.” Not for Donald Trump. In his mind, the name was the brand, and the brand belonged to him.
Trump sued fellow New York businessmen Eddie (left) and Jules Trump in the 1980s because they had the same last name.The legal back-and-forth nonetheless went on for five years. | Paul J. Richards/AFP via Getty Images; Monica Schipper/Getty Images
Now, though, in 2005, here was O’Brien’s book. “The thrust of the book,” the suit stated, “is that Trump is an unskilled and dissembling businessman” — his attorneys saying Trump was worth at least $2.7 billion, seeking $5 billion in damages and calling the book “defamatory,” “malicious” and “egregiously false.” Trump went on the offensive in the press as well, describing O’Brien as “a third-rate writer,” a “loser” and “a whack job.”
A judge at first ruled that O’Brien had to reveal his sources, those three people “with direct knowledge” of Trump’s finances — but O’Brien’s lawyers won a series of appeals based on the broad protections for reporters provided by the nation’s libel laws. “The libel laws are very bad,” Trump told the New York Post in 2009. Those laws in essence said O’Brien had to have demonstrated “actual malice” and a “reckless disregard” for the truth in reporting what he did, and an appeals court finally in 2011 reaffirmed “no triable issue as to the existence of actual malice.”
“That case never had a chance of success,” Michael Cohen, Trump’s fixer of a lawyer at the time, told me. “His hope was that he could intimidate O’Brien,” he said. It was also, Cohen added, a threat of sorts meant for other reporters — “a warning shot,” he said.
But that’s not really why Trump sued O’Brien, O’Brien told me when I told him what Cohen had said. It was all about the brand, O’Brien said, just as it’s always been — “to create it, maintain it, and cast it forever in amber.”
“And his deposition was an eternal embarrassment,” O’Brien added. “That deposition is the Rosetta Stone of Donald Trump’s hallucinations, about how he runs his business, how much money he has, how he values things, and who he is in this world.”
“Have you ever lied in public statements about your properties?” Trump was asked.
“When you’re making a public statement, you want to put the most positive — you want to say it the most positive way possible,” he said.
“I’m no different from a politician running for office.”
Trump signs copies of his audio business course — produced by Trump University — called “How to Build a Fortune”, in 2006 in New York City. | Louis Lanzano/AP
‘The Roy Cohn stuff is still really ingrained in him’
Trump University, Donald Trump had announced in 2005, was going to be “Ivy League-quality” with “world-class faculty” ready to “teach you better than the best business school.” What it ended up being, according to “students” and staff, was “a joke” and “a lie.” So some of them sued him. Customers filed class-action suits starting in 2010. And then the attorney general of New York filed a sweeping $40-million civil suit in 2013, charging that thousands of people paid up to $35,000 for what in the main was a sham, leaving them with scant lessons of any value but mired in mountains of debt and regret. “Trump University,” Eric Schneiderman said, “with Donald Trump’s knowledge and participation, relied on Trump’s name recognition and celebrity status to take advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand.”
Trump was on defense again — reminiscent in this respect of the DOJ case from a full 40 years before. And even without Cohn in his corner, of course, Trump went to work in time-tested ways. “The Roy Cohn stuff is still really ingrained in him,” said Ty Cobb, the former Trump attorney. “I have thoughts about Roy Cohn,” longtime politically connected New York P.R. man George Arzt said, “almost every time I see Donald Trump.”
Trump’s new Cohn?
It wasn’t Michael Cohen, and it wasn’t anybody else, said Lawrence Douglas, an Amherst College professor who’s written extensively about Trump and the law.
“It’s Donald Trump.”
The big difference, though, was that Trump now was much more squarely playing politics, too. He had talked about running for president in the late ’80s. He had launched a brief third-party bid in 2000. But by this point he was considering more seriously a run for the White House. He spent a lot of 2011 stoking the racist “birtherism” lie that Barack Obama had been born in Kenya and therefore was not a legitimate commander in chief. He thought hard about running in 2012, and though he didn’t, his endorsement meant something in the GOP. And he had his eye on 2016 — and the damning, mounting legal problems stemming from his for-profit “school” were a problem.
“No one, no matter how rich or famous they are, has a right to scam hardworking New Yorkers. Anyone who does should expect to be held accountable,” Schneiderman told the New York Daily News. Trump is “going to have to face justice,” he said on CNBC. “And he doesn’t like doing that.”
What Trump University ended up being, according to “students” and staff, was “a joke” and “a lie.” | Gregory Bull/AP
Trump attacked Schneiderman personally, calling him “a lightweight” and “a sleazebag” and countersuing for (a familiar) $100 million. He hit him legally, calling the suit “incompetent.” And he attacked Schneiderman politically — the suit, he said, was “thug politics.”
Trump had made to Schneiderman in 2010 a $12,500 donation. “He was very unhappy because he wanted me to do much more than that,” Trump said on Fox News. “He wanted me to introduce him to a lot of my friends, my big business friends. I didn’t have time for it. He came up to my office. And, in fact, I actually gave him a contribution before he was elected. I think he was down in the polls. But it was never enough for him.”
“By the way,” Trump told George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America” on ABC, “he meets with President Obama on Thursday evening in Syracuse. He meets with him. On Saturday at 1 o’clock, he files a suit. So I’m gonna ask you …”
“So you’re saying President Obama is behind this?”
He didn’t answer. He just repeated himself. “He’s been looking into this thing for two years. He brings a lawsuit on Saturday afternoon, right after he meets with President Obama …”
Two and a half years later, obviously, Trump was at the very center of American politics, and the Trump University suits were not only still active but getting closer and closer to going to trial. And Trump was railing away not on TV talk shows but at packed rallies as the would-be Republican nominee. At a rally in Arkansas in late February of 2016, he attacked one of the class-action plaintiffs, mispronouncing her name and calling her a “horrible witness.” He attacked the attorney general for “doing a terrible job.” And he attacked one of the judges, whom he called “very hostile,” referring, too, to his Hispanic heritage in a plain, race-baiting dig.
Copies of “How To Build Wealth,” a series of nine audio business courses created by Trump University, lie on display at a Barnes & Noble store in New York City in 2005. | Scott Gries/Getty Images
“But I believe I can turn it around,” Trump told the crowd, “just to show you how dishonest these people are.” And the crowd cheered. And then Trump won on Super Tuesday, and then the party’s nomination, and then the November election. And then the president-elect settled with the attorney general and the class-action plaintiffs, agreeing to pay an aggregate $25 million.
That Trump would win the White House on a populist platform while preying on poor people — it’s a paradox that confounds his critics. “He has these people that are drawn to him because of his charisma and this image that he projects, and then the people that loved him the most, he actually hurt the most,” Tristan Snell, the lead prosecutor in the attorney general’s case, told me. “That’s the thing that people don’t get about this — still to this day — and it’s been replicated with the people who support him politically now.”
Snell has a book due out later this month. It’s called Taking Down Trump.
“There is still understandably a great deal of mixed feeling, of cautious optimism and bitter pessimism, on the question of whether justice will one day come for Donald Trump — or whether justice in America still exists all. It is perhaps the most important question,” Snell writes. “The answer to that question may well determine much of our collective fate.
“If the greatest malefactors are, in effect, untouchable, beyond the reach of the law, subject to a different set of rules — or no rules at all,” he continues, “then we will likely slip into a spiral from which we may never recover.”
A vendor moves his cart, which includes a flag that reads “THE RULES HAVE CHANGED,” outside a Trump rally on Dec. 19, 2023, in Waterloo, Iowa | Charlie Neibergall/AP
‘He’s pushing the system to the breaking point’
“Waterloo,” said Donald Trump.
“We cover all corners of your great state. You know that,” he said at the start of his rally late last month in this small city in eastern Iowa. “And they said, ‘What about Waterloo?’ I said, ‘We gotta get to Waterloo.’”
In spite of the potentially inauspicious name of the site of this event, Iowa, it seems, will not be Trump’s end. He enters Monday as maybe the biggest Republican favorite in the history of the state’s caucuses. At Trump’s rallies these days the most notable addition to the standard red MAGA hats and the vulgar Biden signs and the “Macho Man” soundtrack are the mug-shot shirts — with Trump’s glowering face on the front coupled with his message of “NEVER SURRENDER.”
At this particular convention center, I met a 55-year-old “semi-retired” independent contractor from Evansville, Indiana, who was attending his 86th Trump rally. “I’ll still vote for him if he’s in a prison cell,” Mike Boatman told me. “They can bring the Oval Office desk right inside of the prison cell.” I met a 27-year-old Muslim from the suburbs of Chicago who is training to be a police officer and was wearing a red hat. He asked that I not name him because his immigrant father detests Trump and didn’t know he was here. “My faith in the justice system, because of the indictments,” he said, “is at an all-time low.” I met a couple from nearby Charles City. Trust the justice system? “Why the fuck would I?” said Jeannie Waddingham, 53. But Trump? “I do,” she said.
“This is the lawfare by the Democrats to take him out, and people see that as unjust,” said Mike Davis of the Trump-supporting Article III Project. “No way” Trump would be looking like the runaway nominee, Davis told me, if not for the indictments.
And that’s because people don’t trust the system. They trust Trump. And that’s because Trump’s told them to — for 50 years. He started doing this in the ’70s, teaming with Cohn and accusing the government of “Gestapo-like” tactics and “smears.” He kept doing it in the ’80s, always playing the victim of Central Park South, claiming people were out to get him and using the courts to do it. “Trump,” Trump told the Times, “is not going to be harassed.” He did it in Palm Beach, and he did it when he sued O’Brien, and he did it with Trump U., and he only escalated the efforts once he came down the escalator in Trump Tower in 2015 and especially after he lost to Biden in 2020. He sends to supporters email after email every day asking for money for his campaign by attacking “Crooked Joe” and “the Radical Democrats” and “villainous forces” and “crooks” and “thugs” and “fools” and “their phony charges” and “this vicious witch hunt” and their “SHAM TRIALS.” Nothing is on the level, and the institutions can’t be trusted, and the system can’t be trusted, he has insidiously hammered home, and so he is free, he suggests, to go after the people he says have gone after him. It is, as George Conway said at the opening gathering of the Society for the Rule of Law in early November in Washington, “an infectious disease that is affecting the entire body politic.”
“He has made himself the arbiter of fairness,” Hank Sheinkopf, the longtime New York Democratic strategist who has watched Trump work for decades, told me, “for those who feel that they have been unfairly put upon.”
“He is wearing our institutions down to their nubs,” lawyer and legal analyst Danielle McLauglin told me, “and the judicial system, the system of justice, I think, is particularly vulnerable to him.”
“He’s pushing the system to the breaking point,” Ian Bassin told me.
“He’s poisoned the well,” Brian Klaas told me.
“It’s of surpassing importance what happens,” Judge Luttig told me, “but that still doesn’t change the fact that he’s already laid waste to our democracy and to our elections and to the rule of law.”
At Trump’s December rally in Waterloo, the most notable addition to the standard merch were the mug-shot shirts — with Trump’s glowering face on the front coupled with his message of “NEVER SURRENDER.” | Scott Olson/Getty Images
“That’s really the greatest danger he poses to our democracy,” Zirin told me. “Not that there would be a Muslim ban, not that he would give tremendous tax breaks to the rich who support him, not any of the Republican plans that he associated with, and not even that he would disengage us from foreign alliances,” he said. “The greatest danger is his undermining of the rule of law.
“Trump,” as Swalwell put it to me, “is a legal terrorist.”
“We’re about to go through a great trial in this country. … We’re going to be testing the proposition that the rule of law applies to everyone and no one’s above the law,” California congressman and Senate candidate Adam Schiff told me. “It will be particularly wrenching because Trump will continue to make the false claim that he’s being politically persecuted,” said Schiff, a former federal prosecutor and an impeachment manager in Trump’s first impeachment, “and it will also give Trump the continuing opportunity to tear down the system.”
And now here in Waterloo I heard Trump say immigrants “coming from all over the world” were “destroying the blood of our country.” I heard him say he will “begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” I heard him say “slum areas will be demolished.” I heard him say he “will rout the ‘fake news’ media.” I heard him say he’d never even read Hitler’s Mein Kampf. I heard him call the 2020 election “rigged.” I heard him call Biden “truly the worst, most incompetent and most corrupt president in the history of our country.” I heard him call Biden “crooked” — 12 times. I heard him say, “They say, ‘I’m a threat to democracy.’ No, Joe Biden is a threat to democracy.” I heard him call the FBI “the Biden FBI” and the Department of Justice “the department of injustice.” I heard him say he “will direct a completely overhauled DOJ to investigate every radical, out-of-control prosecutor.” I heard him call special counsel Jack Smith “deranged.” I heard him call the documents case a “hoax.” I heard him say he “can’t get a fair trial in Washington.” I heard him say “Biden and the far-left lunatics” were “willing to violate the U.S. constitution.” I heard him say they were “weaponizing law enforcement.” I heard him call the indictments against him “a great badge of honor.” And I heard him say he had good news. “The good news is people get it. That’s why my poll numbers are so high,” he said. “I think we’d be winning by a lot, but now we’re winning by numbers that nobody can believe.” I heard the crowd roar. “This is the single biggest election in the history of our country,” Trump said. “This is going to determine whether or not we even have a country.”
And when the rally was over, I watched the people walk out into the cold, dark night, past the mug-shot merch, past the bumper stickers saying RIGGED, past the flags saying THE RULES HAVE CHANGED.
Trump attorney Chris Kise asked Judge Arthur Engoron, who is overseeing Trump’s New York fraud trial, to allow Trump to speak on his own behalf during closing arguments. Engoron asked Trump if he would agree to stick to the facts and relevant law but the former president launched into a lengthy diatribe, accusing the judge and New York Attorney General Letitia James of waging a “political witch hunt” and demanding “damages” because the real “fraud is on me.”
During one portion of his rant, Trump referred to a key allegation in James’ lawsuit alleging that the former president’s Trump Tower penthouse was valued at three times larger than it actually is.
“They made a mistake. It was an honest mistake,” Trump said.
James’ team allowed Trump to speak until the judge ultimately shut him down and pleaded for Kise to “control your client.”
“There may be a reason that James’ staff didn’t interrupt,” wrote NBC News legal analyst Lisa Rubin. “The AG’s office may have struck gold because some of what Trump said was so damaging to him, especially his explanation of the triplex square footage ‘error.’”
Former New York prosecutor Charles Coleman Jr. agreed that Trump “hurt himself” with the outburst.
“I think that what he was trying to do was force the judge into a position where, by denying him an opportunity to speak, he would have created an issue for appeal for himself,” he told MSNBC on Friday.
“Judge Engoron basically gave him the rope, and he hung himself, predictably,” he continued. “What he ended up doing was creating a space where this is one less thing that becomes an appealable issue in the long run for an appeal. That he might be able to go back and say, ‘Look, I was treated unfairly and my rights were abridged in some way, shape, form or fashion.'”
Coleman said Engoron took a “calculated risk” by allowing Trump to ramble.
“He understood that there was a risk that this could happen, but, ultimately, it didn’t play a factor in the way Donald Trump wanted it to,” he said.
Coleman also questioned Trump’s legal team for allowing their client to behave that way in court.
“Even if you had a client who wanted to testify, and you thought that was a bad idea, and you still allowed that client to exercise their right to testify during your closing argument, you are absolutely not allowing your client to leave that judge or that jury with the final impression of what it is that your case represents,” Coleman told MSNBC. “Particularly if you know or have any inkling that that client is going to get on the stand and get in the well and gesticulate and berate the court officers and berate the judge and the entire justice system that is responsible for conducting this hearing, that you are an officiant of, as a lawyer, you’re not going to do that.
Former federal prosecutor Kristy Greenberg, who was in the courtroom, told CNN she was stunned to “see somebody have so much disrespect” for the judge and the court.
“The attacks on — the personal attacks on the judge — this is a judge who had a bomb threat this morning. That’s why the amount of security that was in the courthouse was unlike anything I have seen. and I have been other days when various Trump family members have testified, and this was heightened. They were very concerned about threats,” she said.
“I’m waiting for the judge to tell him ‘You’re done and if you continue you’ll be held in contempt!’” she added. “That’s what happened to me and any other lawyers happening in courts and it was not done.”
Greg Abbott Laments That Texas Can’t Shoot Migrants Because Murder Is Illegal
Nikki McCann Ramirez – January 11, 2024
Texas Governor Greg Abbott lamented that Texas can’t shoot migrants trying to cross the border illegally because “the Biden administration would charge us with murder.”
On Jan. 5, Abbott appeared on the radio show of former NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch. During a discussion of Texas’ efforts to curb the illegal entry of migrants through the southern border, Loesch asked “what can be done, like right up to the line, where maybe they would come and say, ‘Governor you’re breaking the law we’re going to arrest you,’” in terms of border enforcement.
Abbott responded that his administration is “deploying every tool and strategy that we possibly can,” to stem the flow of immigration, including building a border wall, placing barriers in the Rio Grande, and passing legislation making illegal border crossings a state crime.
“The only thing that we’re not doing is we’re not shooting people who come across the border because of course, the Biden administration would charge us with murder,” Abbott added. The governor’s comments were resurfaced on Thursday by Heartland Signal.
Earlier this month, the Biden administration sued Texas over a law signed by Abbott that would grant local law enforcement the authority to arrest migrants and allow judges to order deportations. The administration argues that the law goes against constitutional mandates granting the federal government authority over border enforcement.
Shooting unarmed civilians attempting to cross the border would absolutely constitute murder. It would also violate a myriad of state, federal, and international laws protecting migrants and asylum seekers.
That potential retaliation from the Biden administration is the only thing Abbott referenced as a reason not to shoot migrants signals how extreme the Republican position on immigration has become. In 2019 The New York Times reported that former President Donald Trump privately suggested in a meeting that border patrol be allowed to shoot migrants in the legs to slow them down. As reported by Rolling Stone in June, former Trump immigration adviser Stephen Miller once reportedly suggested the use of predator drones to blow up migrant boats.
Trump has also floated granting himself widespread executive powers if reelected in November to completely reshape the American immigration landscape. The former president and his allies prepared to conduct mass deportations and construct a network of detainment camps to facilitate their rounding up of undocumented people. It’s safe to say that if Trump wins the White House in 2024, the already thin barriers preventing more extreme brutality against migrants may crumble very quickly.
Trump’s Boldest Argument Yet: Immunity From Prosecution for Assassinations
By Adam Liptak, Reporting from Washington – January 10, 2023
A lawyer for the former president said he would be immune from prosecution for the murder of a political rival while in office unless he was first impeached and convicted in Congress.
Former President Donald J. Trump has long sought expansive immunity. Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times
Eight years ago, just before the Iowa caucuses, Donald J. Trump crowed about his invulnerability.
“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” he said. “It’s, like, incredible.”
On Tuesday, at a federal appeals court argument held the week before this year’s caucuses, a lawyer for Mr. Trump said that the Constitution basically states the same thing.
It took a few questions from Judge Florence Y. Pan to pin down the lawyer, D. John Sauer. But in the end he made the jaw-dropping claim that former presidents are absolutely immune from prosecution even for murders they ordered while in office.
“I asked you a yes-or-no question,” Judge Pan said. “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
Mr. Sauer said his answer was a “qualified yes,” by which he meant no. He explained that prosecution would only be permitted if the president were first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
Impeachments of presidents are rare: There have been four in the history of the Republic, two of them of Mr. Trump. The number of convictions, which require a two-thirds majority of the Senate: zero.
A member of Congress might be reluctant, in any event, to vote against a president prepared to order the military to murder his opponents.
Mr. Sauer’s answer instantly entered the annals of candid concessions that helped doom an argument. It was reminiscent of a government lawyer’s statement, at the first argument in the Citizens United campaign finance case, in 2009, that Congress could in theory ban books urging the election of political candidates.
“That’s pretty incredible,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said at the time. When the case was reargued, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, now a member of the Supreme Court, modified the government’s position but lost anyway, by a 5-to-4 vote.
Mr. Sauer’s statement also called to mind a more direct echo, from a 2019 federal appeals court argument over whether Mr. Trump could block state prosecutors from obtaining his tax and business records. He maintained that he was immune not only from prosecution but also from criminal investigation so long as he was president.
At that time, Judge Denny Chin pressed William S. Consovoy, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, asking about his client’s statement that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without losing political support.
“Local authorities couldn’t investigate?” Judge Chin asked, adding: “Nothing could be done? That’s your position?”
“That is correct,” said Mr. Consovoy, who died last year. “That is correct.”
This headline followed: “If Trump Shoots Someone on 5th Ave., Does He Have Immunity? His Lawyer Says Yes.”
Mr. Trump’s general strategy is not new. He has long sought expansive immunity, and he has frequently invoked impeachment as the primary remedy for presidential misconduct.
But Mr. Sauer’s reading on Tuesday of what lawyers call the impeachment judgment clause did not impress legal scholars.
The provision says: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”
It is plain that “the party convicted” in the Senate can still face criminal prosecution. But Mr. Sauer argued that the clause implied two other things: that conviction in the Senate is always required before a criminal prosecution and that acquittal in the Senate bars such prosecution.
Abner S. Greene, a law professor at Fordham University, said that “the impeachment arguments are sure losers — both that the president may be criminally prosecuted only if impeached and convicted, and that the president may not be criminally prosecuted if impeached and not convicted.”
Mr. Trump was acquitted at his second impeachment trial when only 57 senators voted against him, 10 shy of the two-thirds majority needed to convict.
There are reasons to question whether that acquittal bars criminal prosecution. First, Mr. Trump was impeached for inciting insurrection, a claim notably absent from the federal indictment in the election-interference case.
Second, many senators voted to acquit Mr. Trump at the impeachment trial at least in part because he was no longer in office and so, they said, was not subject to the Senate’s jurisdiction.
Third, Mr. Trump’s own lawyers argued at the impeachment trial that the proper response to their client’s conduct was criminal prosecution.
Given Mr. Sauer’s answer on assassination and the gaps in his argument grounded in the impeachment judgment clause, Mr. Trump is likely to lose before the three-judge panel. But he has achieved a significant interim victory. Proceedings in the trial court have been suspended during the appeal and the scheduled start of the trial, on March 4, may slip.
Should Mr. Trump lose before the three-judge panel, he may ask the full appeals court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to rehear the case. It is unlikely to agree to do so, but ruling on the request could take time.
After that, Mr. Trump would very likely ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Last month, the justices turned down an unusual request from Jack Smith, the special counsel, to leapfrog the appeals court and consider the matter immediately.
But that is no reason to think the Supreme Court will not want to have the last word on a question as consequential as the scope of presidential immunity. Even if the court moves very quickly — as it so far has on the separate question of whether Mr. Trump is eligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment — it could take several weeks to render a decision.
Time, in other words, is Mr. Trump’s friend. If he can defer the case beyond the election in November and win at the polls, he could try to pardon himself or instruct the Justice Department to drop the case against him. Such moves, in turn, could bring the matter full circle — by prompting calls for a third impeachment.
Takeaways From Trump’s Indictment in the 2020 Election Inquiry
Four charges for the former president. Former President Donald Trump was charged with four counts in connection with his widespread efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The indictment was filed by the special counsel Jack Smith in Federal District Court in Washington. Here are some key takeaways:
The indictment portrayed an attack on American democracy. Smith framed his case against Trump as one that cuts to a key function of democracy: the peaceful transfer of power. By underscoring this theme, Smith cast his effort as an effort not just to hold Trump accountable but also to defend the very core of democracy.
Trump was placed at the center of the conspiracy charges. Smith put Trump at the heart of three conspiracies that culminated on Jan. 6, 2021, in an attempt to obstruct Congress’s role in ratifying the Electoral College outcome. The special counsel argued that Trump knew that his claims about a stolen election were false, a point that, if proved, could be important to convincing a jury to convict him.
Trump didn’t do it alone. The indictment lists six co-conspirators without naming or indicting them. Based on the descriptions provided, they match the profiles of Trump lawyers and advisers who were willing to argue increasingly outlandish conspiracy and legal theories to keep him in power. It’s unclear whether these co-conspirators will be indicted.
Trump’s political power remains strong. Trump may be on trial in 2024 in three or four separate criminal cases, but so far the indictments appear not to have affected his standing with Republican voters. By a large margin, he remains his party’s front-runner in the presidential primaries.
A Guide to the Various Trump Investigations
Confused about the inquiries and legal cases involving former President Donald Trump? We’re here to help.
Key Cases and Inquiries: The former president faces several investigations at both the state and the federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers. Here is a close look at each.
What if Trump Is Convicted?: Will any of the proceedings hinder Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign? Can a convicted felon even run for office? Here is what we know, and what we don’t know.
Receive a Weekly Update: Sign up for the Trump on Trial newsletter to get the latest news and analysis on the cases in New York, Florida, Georgia and Washington, D.C.
“FBI arrests Jan. 6 fugitives early this morning in Lake County, FL,” the agency wrote on X on Saturday, 6 January, adding that the trio are expected to appear in federal court on 8 January in Ocala, Florida.
Two men and one woman were arrested: Joseph Daniel Hutchinson III, Jonathan Daniel Pollock, and Olivia Michele Pollock.
Mr Hutchinson, 27, and Ms Pollock, 33, were wanted for assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers, aiding and abetting, knowingly entering restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.
Mr Pollock, 24, was wanted for the same offenses, as well as theft of government property.
The FBI warned that all three “should be considered armed and dangerous.”
FBI announces capture of three Jan 6 fugitives on third anniversary of riot (FBI)
Federal arrest warrants were issued for the trio — along with two others — on 25 June, 2021.
According to the criminal complaint, Mr Pollock came dressed to the Capitol riot wearing an all-camouflage outfit, including “ballistic plate-carrier vest” and kneepads. The complaint accuses him of stealing an officer’s riot shield and being physical with police, including “holding the officer’s neck, in a choking action.”
He had taken several weeks off work to travel to Washington DC, and when he returned, he apparently showed photos of himself to “brag to his coworkers about having been on the news.”
After returning to the office for a day, he told his superiors that “he had a ‘family emergency,’ left the worksite, and did not return again,” the complaint states.
Olivia Pollock, the sister of Jonathan Pollack, was wearing a white flag insignia, a green headband, and the same type of vest, according to the filing. Footage captured Ms Pollock carrying a flagpole with the American flag and allegedly stripping a baton from an officer.
The Pollock family owns a Lakeland, Florida gun shop, where Mr Hutchinson works. Footage captured Mr Hutchinson punching an officer, the filing states.
More than 1,200 people have been charged in connection to the Capitol riot, the Justice Department said. Like this trio, more than 450 have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers and over 1800 have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building.
Supreme Court to decide if emergency room doctors can perform medically necessary abortions in states that prohibit them
Devan Cole, CNN – January 5, 2024
The Supreme Court said Friday that it will decide whether emergency room doctors can perform medically necessary abortions in states that prohibit them, bypassing the court of appeals to resolve on an expedited basis a lawsuit brought by the United States against Idaho.
It’s the second major abortion case the court will consider this year amid the fallout from the reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022. The justices are already set to hear a case about access to the abortion drug mifepristone – even in states where the procedure is legal.
Idaho’s Defense of Life Act is a near total ban on abortion, but there is an exception to prevent the mother’s death. The law imposes penalties on doctors who perform prohibited abortions unless the “physician determined in good faith medical judgement and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Physicians who violate the law could face criminal penalties and risk the suspension of their licenses.
The Biden administration sued, claiming that a provision of a federal Medicare statue – the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) – preempts Idaho’s law in emergency rooms.
The federal law requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients regardless of their ability to pay. It was enacted to ensure that the poor and uninsured receive emergency medical care at hospitals receiving Medicare reimbursement.
A district court in Idaho blocked the law in hospital emergency rooms that receive Medicare funding, holding that the state law interferes with a federal Medicare statute.
In 2022, US District Judge B. Lynn Winmill said that the “broad scope” of Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion meant that he was not convinced that it would be possible for emergency health care workers to “simultaneously comply with obligations” under both state and federal law. “The state law must therefore yield to federal law to the extent of that conflict,” he wrote.
A federal appeals court later agreed to put the district court ruling on hold pending appeal, but a larger panel of judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the pause on November 13. The Idaho law will now be in effect pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
The state, represented by a conservative legal group that opposes abortion, then turned to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to step in on an emergency basis to put the district court ruling on hold while appeals play out.
“After Dobbs,” Erin Hawley a lawyer for the Alliance Defending Freedom told the justices in court papers, “the United States adopted the novel view that EMTALA creates a federal right to abortion in emergency rooms, even though EMTALA is silent on abortion and actually requires stabilizing for the unborn children of pregnant women.”
The Justice Department warned the justices that the law’s provision could have “devastating harms” for women in the state and urged the court to keep that part of it on pause.
“As the district court recognized, when state law criminalizes essential care required by federal law, ordinary principles of preemption require state law to give way,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in court papers.
“The narrow preliminary injunction is preserving the status quo and protecting women and doctors in Idaho from the devastating harms that would result if doctors could be subjected to criminal prosecution for providing essential emergency care,” Prelogar wrote.
The ruling will have national implications.
“While the mifepristone case is especially relevant for the availability of abortions in states in which they are still largely legal, this case has enormous ramifications for the availability of abortions in emergency circumstances in states in which they are not,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
This story has been updated with additional details.
