Federal Judges Warn Of The Dire Threat To Democracy
David Kurtz – January 26, 2024
The Judicial System Is Failing Democracy
In retrospect, I came into the Trump era with way too much confidence that the legal system was up to the task. The last eight years have been humbling in that regard.
As a lawyer-turned-editor, I cautioned my reporting team not to be impatient with the pace and deliberation of legal processes. These things take time. Don’t be hot-headed about it. Chill out. Let things run their course.
The sometimes plodding pace of the system is by design, more a feature than a bug. There’s an entire vernacular around the downsides of too-swift justice: “rough justice,” “lynch mob,” “show trial,” “railroaded.” The list is long.
In the early days of the Trump presidency, efforts to obtain his tax returns or enforce the Emoluments Clause were slow, clumsy, and sometimes reluctantly undertaken by Democrats in Congress. I was inclined to excuse that slowness. But as the threat mounted and become more obvious and the reaction to it failed to rise to the challenge, my own sense of urgency began to change.
When the travesties of the Trump presidency accumulated and potential accountability shifted from the political to legal realms, especially after the Jan. 6 attack, I feared that the legal system was more inclined to sweep it all under the rug than confront it. A lot of our coverage was focused on framing the Jan. 6 attack as merely the culmination of a broad, months-long conspiracy to subvert the election. While the attack on the Capitol did historic damage and finally started to stir law enforcement into action, over-focusing on the physical attack would miss the myriad other ways the election had been subverted using the powers of the executive branch.
In the years since, it has become obvious that the slowness of the legal system isn’t merely the result of a careful, deliberative adherence to the rule of law and the procedural protections necessary to do proper justice. It is also a product of a wariness in confronting Trump and his legions of supporters, an unreasonable tendency to give him the benefit of the doubt, the judiciary’s own overweening sense that it is above politics, and a fundamental failure to appreciate that a strongman who attempted to seize power unlawfully once is a threat to the very existence of the legal system itself.
When the legal system itself is under threat, it must respond with extraordinary measures that continue to protect the procedural and substantive rights of the individual defendant but girds the system against attack, prioritizes institutional self-preservation, and is self-conscious of its role as a bulwark of democracy.
Some individual jurists, like U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who only got the Trump Jan. 6 case last August, have performed admirably. The legal system as a whole has not. The former chief judge in DC warned last fall that we are “at a crossroads teetering on the brink of authoritarianism.” During the sentencing yesterday of Trump White House official Peter Navarro, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta called bullshit on it being a “political prosecution.” Also yesterday, in the sentencing of a Jan. 6 rioter, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a long-serving Reagan appointee, let it rip:
The Court is accustomed to defendants who refuse to accept that they did anything wrong. But in my thirty-seven years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream. I have been dismayed to see distortions and outright falsehoods seep into the public consciousness. I have been shocked to watch some public figures try to rewrite history, claiming rioters behaved “in an orderly fashion” like ordinary tourists, or martyrizing convicted January 6 defendants as “political prisoners” or even, incredibly, “hostages.” That is all preposterous. But the Court fears that such destructive, misguided rhetoric could presage further danger to our country.
Six months ago, it looked like the first weeks of the new year would be dominated not by the GOP primary but by pretrial preparations for a whopping four criminal trials of Trump. The race was finally on to hold Trump to account for his cheating in the last two elections before he cheated in a third one. As we sit here at the end of January, the landscape is not what we anticipated.
The Mar-a-Lago case is almost guaranteed to happen after the election. So is the Georgia RICO case. The Jan. 6 case is stuck on pretrial appeals, with the DC Circuit and Supreme Court failing to push things along. The lesser of the four cases – the hush money case in New York – may be the only one tried before the election. Meanwhile, there’s a chance Trump will be brought down by the Disqualification Clause but no one is confident the courts will enforce that against him either.
I’ve gone from annoyed about the repeated complaints about the slowness of the system to sharing those sentiments myself to having my hair on fire that the gravity of the moment calls for so much more than the legal system is prepared to offer. In a way this a mea culpa for urging my staff over the last few years to chill out. Things have not been this urgent since the 1860s. And we’re failing.
Editor’s Note
I dispensed with the usual rundown of the day’s news to focus on the alarming lack of responsiveness from the legal system to the current threat it faces. Normal programming will resume Monday.
[Sponsored] An Inside Story Of The Democratic Party At A Moment Of Great Peril
The Truce, from journalists Hunter Walker (of Talking Points Memo) and Luppe B. Luppen, explores the major fault lines that define Democratic politics today and asks big questions about the future of the party. An engrossing page-turner, The Truce grapples with the dangers that threaten American democracy and the complicated cast of characters who are trying to save it.
Donald Trump’s utmost assault on American democracy and the rule of law has been his ability to exploit these foundational institutions to weaken each as he constantly makes a mockery of both. It’s part and parcel of his efforts to sustain personal power. The ultimate goal is to enable oligarchic domination and facilitate financial looting by the uber-wealthy.
My aim in this commentary is to move beyond Trump’s procedural harms or distractions and to connect his very real substantive crimes, fraudulent behaviors, and policies of deception to the GOP’s larger and unending appropriation of accumulated capital from the US commonwealth.
Contrary to Trump’s repetitive narrative about how the Justice Department (DOJ), state prosecutors, and the courts are engaging in some kind of persecution or witch-hunt and/or weaponization of the rule of law against the former president as part of a “deep state” conspiracy to interfere with his winning back the presidency in 2024, these civil and criminal agencies of adjudication have been bending over backward to privilege or accommodate Trump’s perpetual lawlessness inside and outside various courthouses across America.
For example, the latest episodes of indulging the “man-child” occurred during closing arguments of Trump’s $370M civil fraud trial as well as his second sex abuse defamation civil trial in two Manhattan courtrooms located in close proximity.
In the latter case, which ended Friday with a jury judgment that Trump must pay E. Jean Carroll over $83 million in damages, Judge Lewis Kaplan had this testy exchange with Trump. “I understand you’re probably very eager for me” to remove “you from the trial.” To which Trump sitting between his two lawyers at the defense table shouted back, “I would love it.” Of course, Trump would.
Trump had already been warned that he could be expelled for continuing to disrupt the trial. Nevertheless, the judicially found rapist of Carroll could be heard remarking loud enough to his lawyers for the jurors to hear, “it is a witch hunt” and “it really is a con job.” Never mind that Trump in a previous lawsuit by a jury of his peers had already been found civilly liable for sexual assault as well as defamation of character to the tune of $5 million. It’s little wonder he stormed out of the courtroom on Friday.
In the former case, Judge Arthur Engoron bent the rules and allowed Trump “to go on a courtroom rant lasting several minutes,” which had nothing whatsoever to do with either the law or the facts of the case. Instead, Trump made another political speech claiming that the New York civil trial is a ‘fraud on me’ and that he was “an innocent man” who claimed among other things that the New York Attorney General Letitia James “hates” him and “doesn’t want me to get elected.” Trump also stated to the presiding judge, “I know this is boring you. I know you have your own agenda” here as well.
Procedurally, either Trump as the defendant or one of his attorneys, but not both, was entitled to make the closing argument. However, Judge Engoron made an exception allowing Trump and his attorney Chris Kise to speak during closing arguments. Before doing so, the judge re-iterated what he had previously spelled out one week earlier about what Trump could or could not comment about as part of his closing arguments. Predictably, Trump totally disregarded Judge Engoron’s instructions the same as he had Judge Kaplan’s.
On Friday, former federal judge Barbara Jones, appointed by Engoron to monitor the Trump Organization’s finances, told the judge that Trump had failed to provide “information required to be submitted to me pursuant to the terms of the monitorship order and review protocol.”
Engoron coddled the former president and permitted his procedural misconduct because the judge knew that after his final decision — dismantling Trump’s New York base business empire – to be rendered later this month, Trump and his attorneys would be appealing and filing an avalanche of motions mostly to delay rather than rectify justice. By allowing Trump to speak, Engoron figured there would be one less bogus motion to be made about how the former president had been denied his right to speak on his own behalf.
Again, I do not want to get caught up in these procedural abuses by Trump and his attorneys because their claims are primarily smokescreens designed to deflect attention away from the substantive lawlessness or fraudulent behavior involved in his adversarial conflicts with the administration of justice.
In the case of the fraudulent business trial brought by the New York Attorney General, Trump’s phony legal defense pertaining to his illegal acquisition of money or to his financial looting from both the Internal Revenue System and the US monetary system is that these lending transactions allegedly caused no injuries to the parties involved.
To paraphrase Trump: nobody was injured here or there were no harms to speak of. Of course, that is pure fiction or nonsense as the summary judgment has already been declared and as the final verdict will be revalidated in the next couple of days when Trump and company find themselves liable for at least $300 million.
Trump’s fraudulent business dealings involved in this civil case, like using other people’s money vis-à-vis deceitfully acquired lower interest rates along with tax evasion, are consistent with the former president’s modus operandi and sheds light on some of the other ways in which the 45th president’s appointments of free marketers and deregulators facilitated financial looting on a much grander scale. The GOP’s $1.9 trillion tax break for the wealthy, signed by Trump, is perhaps the most infamous example
As I have argued in Indicting the 45th President, “the Racketeer-in-Chief as POTUS had established from the top down an administrative apparatus marked by placing self-interest, profiteering, and corruption above the public welfare.” In similar fashion, Trump’s “networks for raising and flowing cash loads of electronic money also helped to contribute to the ‘deadly insurrection that was rooted in the same self-serving ethos’.”
By the end of 2023, the ex-president had already spent more than $57 million of other people’s money on his legal fees, which will very likely continue to grow for the foreseeable future. While raising money to steal the election was unlawful, raising money to defend those people from trying to steal an election is perfectly lawful.
As we have learned in some detail from the New York civil fraud trial, Trump has spent most of his dishonest life in search of money. His business history has been filled with overseas financial deals and missed deals. Some of these have involved the Chinese state where Trump “spent a decade unsuccessfully pursuing projects in China, operating an office there during his first run for president and forging a partnership with a major government-controlled company.”
China along with Britain and Ireland are three nations that we know about where Trump maintains bank accounts. These foreign accounts do not show up on Trump’s public financial disclosures where he must list his personal assets because these accounts are not in his name. In the case of China, the bank account is controlled by Trump International Hotels Management, LLC, whose tax records reveal that TIHM paid $188,561 in pursuing licensing deals there from 2013 to 2015 that did not pan out. During those same pre-MAGA years Trump had been paying the IRS less than $1,000 annually.
Until 2019, China’s biggest state-controlled bank rented three floors in Trump Tower stateside, a very lucrative lease that had generated accusations of conflicts of interest for the former president. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) in its January 15, 2021, report on corruption identified more than 3,700 conflicts of interest while Trump was president because of his decision while in office not to divest from his business interests.
As far as offshore banking laws and accounts go, the release of Trump’s taxes from 2015 to 2020 revealed that for at least 2016 he had an offshore bank account in the Caribbean nation of St. Martin, a popular place to avoid paying taxes. Nevertheless, recall when he was asked during the 2016 campaign whether U.S. citizens should be allowed to save or invest in offshore bank accounts, Trump responded: “No, too many wealthy citizens are abusing loopholes in offshore banking laws to evade taxes.”
At the time, key planks in Trump’s tax reform plan would have allegedly ended the practices of U.S. multinationals stockpiling offshore hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of jobs. For the record, the sheltered tax dollars did not come home nor did outsourced jobs ever come back to America. Those were merely “talking points” that were never going to materialize during a Trump administration.
When it came to stocking the laissez-faire policy swamps, Trump’s political appointments included more than its share of high rolling donors with no expertise in anything let alone with an appropriate area of specialty. As for those appointments where expertise was required, those were located primarily in the areas of business, finance, and the law.
The economic orientation or philosophy of these appointments reinforced generally a “hands off” approach to regulation and taxation. These free marketers were not about recouping billions let alone trillions of dollars from the tax avoiding and tax evading superrich or mega corporations. Quite the contrary, these appointments involved persons who had specialized in tax avoidance. For example, four of Trump’s key economic appointments had been beneficiaries of shell companies and offshore banking accounts including Gary Cohn, Rex Tillerson, Steven Mnuchin, and Randal Quarles.
Chief economic adviser Gary Cohn was the driver behind the White House tax reform act. Leaked documents reveal that between 2002 and 2006 Cohn was either president or vice-president of 22 separate offshore entities in Bermuda for Goldman Sachs. That was before Cohn eventually became the president and COO of Goldman Sachs, one of the foremost banking, securities, and investment management firms in the world.
As for secretary of state Rex Tillerson, leaked documents reveal that before he ascended to chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil in 2006 and while still presiding as president of ExxonMobil Yemen division, Tillerson was also a director of Marib Upstream Services Company that was incorporated in Bermuda in 1997.
Randal Quarles, Trump’s most senior banking “watchdog” was also outed in connection with offshore banks and tax evasion as he appeared prominently in the infamous Paradise Papers.
As we all know the only shining accomplishment of President Trump during his four years in office was a $1.9 trillion tax gift or cut enjoyed primarily by super-wealthy individuals, mega-corporations, and multinational businesses – to the ongoing detriment of the general population — who already had enjoyed the lowest tax rates in the corporate world.
These economic projections are consistent with the negative or not “trickling down” benefits and failures to increase production after the same types of Reagan and Bush II administrations’ tax cuts or benefits for the corporate wealthy had also occurred.
What is consistent is that these same types of neoliberal taxing policies or practices of financial looting from other commonwealths around the global economy have yielded the same dismal outcomes in Argentina, Brazil, Russia, and every other nation where they have been employed.
Head-to-head: Trump accounted for the largest deficit growth in the 21st century of $6.7 trillion in four years while Biden accounted for only $2.5 trillion in his first three years in office.
In stark contrast, however, the deficits accumulated during the Obama and Biden administrations have benefitted the American people in numerous ways, for example, from health care coverage to infrastructure development. Meanwhile, the deficits accumulated by Bush II and Trump had only benefited the wealthy.
While men ran for cover, women rose and stared down Donald Trump | Opinion
Gene Nichol – January 27, 2024
I’m much taken with a particular photograph of Nancy Pelosi. It’s from October 2019. In it, Pelosi stands across the White House Cabinet Room pointing an accusing finger at a seated Donald Trump. The president and the speaker are only a few feet apart. Still, Pelosi is resolute, undaunted. Punctuating a heated foreign policy disagreement, she was reportedly saying that, with Trump, “all roads lead to Putin.” Frosty and fearless.
But that’s not what I find most remarkable about the photo. Pelosi and Trump were not alone in the room. They were surrounded by executive officials and congressional leaders. None, except Pelosi, seemed comfortable with the turn of events. The AP reported:
“Eyeballs – most belonging to men – are averted. Heads are bowed around the table, including those of Joint Chief of Staff Chairman, Mark Milley and House Republican Whip Steve Scalise. House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy’s eyes are closed. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is leaning back, a few chairs down from Trump.”
As the males looked for cover, Pelosi rose, and led.
It reminded me of video clips I’d seen from the Oval Office. President Trump would meet in the lavish room with Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to hammer out their multifaceted differences. Schumer might be energetic and forceful at the press conference afterwards, beyond the confines of the famous building. But when sitting across from Trump, Schumer seemed afraid to look him in the eyes. Only Pelosi fixed her gaze on the bully. Brave, resolute, mission-driven. Never, even for a moment, contemplating fear. Courage occupied only one seat in those meetings. And it wasn’t companion to the males.
The picture I describe points to a growing reality – the outsized role of women in modeling courage, teaching fearlessness, in the new American battle for democracy. We’ve all seen this, thought of it, been marked and altered by it.
Liz Cheney stood not only against Trump, but almost every shamed and humiliated enabler of her caucus and political party. She put her leadership position and her congressional seat on the line in favor of her sacred oath and love of country. She did it all knowingly, without a conceivable doubt about what was to come. I can’t forget the words:
“Tonight I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible. There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”
Nathan Hale had nothing on Liz Cheney.
Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, election workers from Fulton County, Georgia, refused to surrender to the intimidation, slanders, and threats of Rudy Giuliani in one of modern America’s starkest contests between good and unrelenting evil. Their prior lives and attachments to beloved community had been sundered by darkness. Trump boasted on a fateful call to Brad Raffensperger that “Freeman’s reputation is done – she is known all over the internet for fraud.” But unlike the fabulist of Mar-a-Lago, Freeman and Moss’ character abides. It gleams. And teaches.
Cassidy Hutchinson, with astonishing stoicism, quietly insisted on the truth, under unspeakable pressure, as Mark Meadows hid, dissembled and conceded his powerlessness before the master — as if gutlessness is all one can expect from human beings.
And E. Jean Carroll, an 80-year-old sexual assault survivor, reclaimed her life, amid continuing taunts by Trump, even at the cost of having to face down her vile assailant. It’s not right to force “a woman to be quiet,” she explained. Even if supposed toughs depend on it.
If we see more women leaders, we’ll see more courage.
Contributing columnist Gene Nichol is a professor of law at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
Trump Privately Pressuring GOP Senators To ‘Kill’ Border Deal To Deny Biden A Win
The former president is telling Republicans he “doesn’t want Biden to have a victory” in 2024, said a source familiar with the bipartisan negotiations.
By Jennifer Bendery and Igor Bobic – January 24, 2024
WASHINGTON – Donald Trump on Wednesday privately pressured Senate Republicans to “kill” a bipartisan deal to secure the U.S. border because he doesn’t want President Joe Biden to chalk up a win ahead of the 2024 presidential election, according to a source familiar with the tenuous negotiations on the package.
Trump directly reached out to several GOP senators on Wednesday to tell them to reject any deal, said this source, who requested anonymity to speak freely. The GOP presidential frontrunner also personally reached out to some Senate Republicans over the weekend, the source told HuffPost.
“Trump wants them to kill it because he doesn’t want Biden to have a victory,” said the source. “He told them he will fix the border when he is president… He said he only wants the perfect deal.”
Trump’s meddling generated an “emotional” discussion in a closed door meeting between Senate Republicans on Wednesday, as senators vented their frustrations for hours about the largely secret negotiations over emergency aid for Ukraine, Israel and immigration. The conference is splintering into two camps: those who believe Republicans should take the deal, and those who are opposed at any cost.
“The rational Republicans want the deal because they want Ukraine and Israel and an actual border solution,” said the source. “But the others are afraid of Trump, or they’re the chaos caucus who never wants to pass anything.”
“They’re having a little crisis in their conference right now,” the source added.
A bipartisan group of senators has been working for months to craft a border deal, and Trump has made it no secret that he opposes it. Last Wednesday, he wrote on Truth Social, his conservative social media site, “I do not think we should do a Border Deal, at all, unless we get EVERYTHING needed to shut down the INVASION of Millions and Millions of people.”
What’s different now, though, is that Trump, who appears to have the GOP presidential nomination locked up, is now directly telling GOP senators to oppose any deal. His meddling has left their conference in even more disarray than it was already in, and a potential border deal in limbo.
Donald Trump is privately telling Senate Republicans to kill a bipartisan deal to secure the U.S. border because he doesn’t want President Joe Biden to chalk up a win ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) demurred when asked if he thinks it’s constructive for Trump to tell Republicans not to make any border deals.
“I could probably go through any number of things that Biden is saying that are not constructive when he’s on the campaign trail, but that’s the nature of campaigns,” Tillis said. “So I’m not going to criticize President Trump or his positions.”
But, bucking Trump, he said he supported passing the bipartisan border deal, which Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) has been working on with Democrats.
“Based on what I’ve seen and based on the work that James Lankford has put in, it goes far enough for me,” said Tillis. “If anyone’s intellectually honest with themselves, they all know these would be extraordinary tools for President Trump.”
During Wednesday’s meeting, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) referenced comments Trump made as president in 2018 about the difficulty of getting Democrats to agree to changes to immigration laws. McConnell, who is no fan of Trump, was making the case that Republicans should agree to a border deal now, since the likelihood of Democrats potentially cutting a deal with Trump in the White House again would be highly unlikely.
At the meeting, senators also viewed footage of the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) making a prophetic warning about Russia’s designs on Europe after Vladimir Putin ordered an invasion of Crimea in 2014 — a bid by Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) to build support for Ukraine aid.
Tillis, who is an advocate of aid to Ukraine, told HuffPost there is “a general consensus in the majority of our conference that we need to support Ukraine.”
He warned what it would mean if the U.S. gives up on Ukraine: “This won’t take decades to regret. This will be in a matter of years. People who choose to ultimately exit Ukraine, if they are successful, for as long as I am breathing, I will remind them of the consequences I am convinced we will have to live through.”
Multiple senators described the meeting as a healthy airing of views, but none believed that it changed any minds.
“I don’t think Russia’s going to keep going,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), said when asked about the dangers of abandoning Ukraine.
Exclusive-Russia struggles to sell Pacific oil, 14 tankers stuck – sources, data
Reuters – January 26, 2024
FILE PHOTO: Regional office of Russian oil firm Rosneft is seen in city of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk on Sakhalin Island
This content was produced in Russia where the law restricts coverage of Russian military operations in Ukraine
More than a dozen tankers loaded with 10 million barrels of Russia’s Sokol grade crude oil have been stranded off the coast of South Korea for weeks, so far unsold due to U.S. sanctions and payment issues, according to two traders and shipping data.
The volumes, equating to 1.3 million metric tons, represent more than a month’s production of the Sakhalin-1 project, once a flagship venture of U.S. major Exxon Mobil, which exited Russia after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.
Sakhalin-1 was one of the first post-Soviet deals in Russia made under a production sharing agreement. When Exxon Mobil left in 2022, output fell to nearly zero and hasn’t fully recovered since.
Difficulties in selling Sokol grade pose one of the most significant challenges Moscow has faced since the West imposed sanctions and one of the most serious disruptions to Russian oil exports in two years.
Washington has said it wants sanctions to reduce revenues for President Vladimir Putin and his war machine in Ukraine but not to disrupt the flows of Russian energy to global markets.
Last year, the United States imposed sanctions on several vessels and companies involved in transporting Sokol.
As of Friday, 14 vessels loaded with Sokol were stuck around South Korea’s port of Yosu, including 11 Aframax vessels and three very large crude carriers (VLCCs), according to LSEG, Kpler data and traders.
The volume stored in tankers represent 45 days of production from Sakhalin-1, which averages output of 220,000 barrels per day (bpd).
Supertankers (VLCCs) La Balena, Nireta and Nellis with some 3.2 million barrels onboard (430,000 metric tons), currently near South Korea’s Yosu, are acting as a floating storage for the Russian oil grade, Reuters sources said and Kpler and LSEG shipping data show.
The VLCCs previously accepted oil from several Aframax vessels via ship-to-ship, the data showed. Supplying oil volumes from smaller ships to bigger ones can save on freight.
The rest of the Sokol oil loaded from November to January is stored on smaller Aframax vessels (able to carry 500,000-800,000 barrels) – Krymsk, NS Commander, Sakhalin Island, Liteyny Prospect, NS Century, NS Lion, NS Antarctic, Jaguar, Vostochny Prospect, Pavel Chernysh and Viktor Titov.
Shipments of Sokol to the Indian Oil Corp have been delayed by payment problems, forcing India’s biggest refiner to draw from its inventories and buy more oil from the Middle East.
A source close to IOC said the company did not expect to receive any Sokol shipments soon due to a disagreement over which currency would be used to pay for it.
IOC is the only state refiner that has an annual deal to buy a variety of Russian grades, including Sokol, from Russian oil major Rosneft. IOC and Rosneft did not reply to Reuters requests for comment.
(Reporting by Reuters reporters in Moscow, Nidhi Verma in India, Muyu Xu in Singapore; Editing by Louise Heavens and Ros Russell)
Conservative CNN Pundit Says Nikki Haley Baited Trump Into ‘A Strategic Mistake’
Josephine Harvey – January 25, 2024
Donald Trump missed an opportunity after winning New Hampshire’s GOP presidential primary against Nikki Haley on Tuesday, according to a conservative commentator for CNN.
“He made a mistake last night,” Scott Jennings said Wednesday on the network.
“He could’ve walked out there and just said: ‘This race is over. I appreciate all my opponents. I appreciate Ambassador Haley. All Republicans are welcome to join. Let’s go beat [Democratic incumbent] Joe Biden,’” added Jennings, a former aide to President George W. Bush.
“And he just couldn’t do it.”
Haley, Trump’s onetime United Nations ambassador, gave an upbeat speech after her 11-point loss, criticizing the former president and vowing to continue her campaign through next month’s primary in her home state of South Carolina.
In the days prior to the New Hampshire vote, she had stepped up her criticism of Trump, questioning his mental acuity. The tactic appeared to get under his skin, as Trump’s victory speech was filled with grievances and insults directed at the former South Carolina governor.
“The Haley people went out and spoke early to try to bait him into that reaction. And he took the bait,” Jennings said on CNN. “Now we’re going to fight it out … for another month.”
He added, “It was a strategic mistake.”
During the victory speech, Trump fumed that Haley hadn’t dropped out of the 2024 race, commented on the way she dressed and said, “I don’t get too angry — I get even.”
The Haley campaign responded by mocking his “angry rant.”
“This is why so many voters want to move on from Trump’s chaos and are rallying to Nikki Haley’s new generation of conservative leadership,” a Haley spokesperson said.
Trump didn’t seem to have cooled off by Wednesday, with his criticism of Haley only increasing in vitriol. In one social media tirade, he said that anyone who donates to the Haley campaign would be “permanently barred” from his “Make America Great Again” movement.
Ex-Trump Staffer Brilliantly Responds To Trump’s Warning To Haley Donors
Ron Dicker – January 25, 2024
Sarah Matthews, who briefly served as Donald Trump’s deputy press secretary, happily defied Trump’s warning to Nikki Haley donors by giving money to Haley’s campaign on Wednesday.
Matthews took that as encouragement and shared a receipt for her contribution to Haley’s underdog bid against the GOP front-runner while attaching Trump’s threat on Truth Social.
“Done. Join me in donating to @NikkiHaley,” she wrote while including the link.
Matthews resigned on Jan. 6, 2021, the day a Trump-inspired mob laid siege to the Capitol. She said she was “deeply disturbed” by what happened and held Trump accountable for not keeping the peace. She later testified before a Jan. 6 panel and has periodically sounded the alarm on Trump’s rhetoric.
Haley also worked in the Trump administration as the U.N. ambassador and has been dismissed by the former president as a “birdbrain” while she carries on her presidential campaign against him despite long odds.
UN appeals for $7.9 billion to help millions of migrants flee climate change, conflict
Michael Dorgan – January 25, 2024
The United Nations has appealed for a whopping $7.9 billion to bolster its efforts to migrate people around the world who it says have been forced to leave their homes for various reasons, including climate change and conflict.
The plea was made by the U.N.’s International Organization for Migration (IOM) in Geneva Monday to support its operations and help “create a system that realizes migration’s promise as a force for good throughout the world.”
“The IOM Global Appeal seeks funding to save lives and protect people on the move, drive solutions to displacement and facilitate safe pathways for regular migration,” a statement released by the IOM says. Those objectives form part of the IOM’s new five-year Global Strategic Plan.
The organization says that the nearly $8 billion would go toward serving nearly 140 million people, including internally displaced people and the local communities that host them. Crucially, it would also allow for an expansion of IOM’s development work, which helps prevent further displacement, the appeal states.
The IOM has called on governments, the private sector, individual donors and “other partners” to contribute to the fund, noting it’s the first time it has put out such an appeal.
Of the $7.9 billion, around $3.4 billion would go toward “saving lives and protecting people on the move,” and $1.6 billion would be spent on facilitating “regular pathways for migration.”
It is unclear how exactly this would be spent, but the U.N. has been known to distribute cash debit cards to migrants and provide food, basic necessities and prescription drugs.
Around $2.7 billion would be allotted for “solutions to displacement,” including reducing the risks and impacts of climate change, the appeal states, while another $163 million would go toward “transforming IOM to deliver services in a better, more effective way.”
Amy Pope, the director general of the IOM, said migration has reached unprecedented levels and that it benefits the world.
Migrants camp near Lukeville, Ariz. The appeal states there are an estimated 281 million “international migrants” around the world.
“The evidence is overwhelming that migration, when well managed, is a major contributor to global prosperity and progress,” Pope said.
“We are at a critical moment in time, and we have designed this appeal to help deliver on that promise. We can and must do better.”
The appeal comes as countries around the world are facing hefty bills to house and feed migrants who cross their borders illegally.
For instance, a study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) last year found that illegal immigration is now costing U.S. taxpayers $151 billion a year, marking a 30% increase in five years. The largest cost that FAIR identifies is K-12 education, which the group estimates costs $78 billion a year.
The U.S. government is already the U.N.’s biggest donor, contributing about $18.1 billion to the global body in 2022, a massive increase from its $12.5 billion allocation in 2021, according to the U.N.’s website.
The appeal states that there are an estimated 281 million “international migrants” who generate 9.4% of global GDP, although it does not show how it came to that figure.
“Migration is a cornerstone of global development and prosperity,” the appeal states.
A migrant was lowered from a border wall in Naco, Arizona, by a human smuggler in an exclusive Fox News video screen grab.
Many migrants make the often treacherous journeys to other countries to claim asylum, and the appeal argues that limiting regular migration pathways and protections leaves people vulnerable to violence, exploitation and danger.
For instance, the IOM estimated that at least 60,000 migrants died or disappeared on perilous journeys over the last nine years.
“The consequences of underfunded, piecemeal assistance come at a greater cost, not just in terms of money but in greater danger to migrants through irregular migration, trafficking and smuggling,” the appeal states.
“Well-managed migration has the potential to advance development outcomes, contribute to climate change adaptation, and promote a safer and more peaceful, sustainable, prosperous and equitable future.”
Is the border deal falling apart because of Donald Trump? Sen. Mitt Romney thinks so
Gitanjali Poonia – January 25, 2024
Migrants walk along the highway through Arriaga, Chiapas state in southern Mexico, on Monday, Jan. 8, 2024, during their journey north toward the U.S. border. | Edgar H. Clemente, Associated Press
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a private GOP meeting Wednesday that his conference is in “a quandary” with the proposed supplemental funding that links foreign aid to Ukraine and Israel with border security.
Neither House Republicans nor former President Donald Trump, who is the likely GOP presidential nominee after his wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, back the border reforms negotiated in the last few months. McConnell’s suggested solution? Split up the two funding agendas.
Related
But this proposition has fueled infighting among Republicans who want stricter border reform versus those who want to stick to the $1.66 trillion deal congressional leaders shook hands on earlier in January. Sen. Mitt Romney falls in the latter camp.
What did Romney say about Trump and the border deal?
After the closed-door meeting, Romney, a Utah Republican, blamed Trump for dividing Republicans.
“I think the border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it is really appalling,” he told reporters, as posted on X by CNN’s Manu Raju.
“But the reality is that we have a crisis at the border, the American people are suffering as a result of what’s happening at the border,” he said, adding, that Trump’s strategy is to allow the Republicans to “save that problem,” and let him “take credit for solving it later.”
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told Politico that this issue is “all about politics and not having the courage to respectfully disagree with President Trump.”
“I didn’t come here to have a president as a boss or a candidate as a boss,” he added.
Will Trump not support the border deal?
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., in an interview with Fox News on Wednesday night, said he and Trump have been talking about the deal “pretty frequently,” and “it doesn’t sound good at the outset.”
Meanwhile, Trump in a post on Truth Social Wednesday did not hold back. He said he is against the package “unless we get EVERYTHING needed to shut down the INVASION,” while giving Johnson a shout-out for only making “a deal that is PERFECT ON THE BORDER.”
Senate Republican Policy Committee Chair Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, reportedly appealed to his backers, asking those who endorsed Trump to ask him to not slash the deal, per The Hill.
But more conservative lawmakers, like Utah Sen. Mike Lee, point fingers at McConnell, and not Trump, for agreeing to the deal in the first place when all it did was “sharply divide Republicans while uniting Democrats.”
Trump Privately Pressuring GOP Senators To ‘Kill’ Border Deal To Deny Biden A Win
The former president is telling Republicans he “doesn’t want Biden to have a victory” in 2024, said a source familiar with the bipartisan negotiations.
By Jennifer Bendery and Igor Bobic – January 24, 2024
WASHINGTON – Donald Trump on Wednesday privately pressured Senate Republicans to “kill” a bipartisan deal to secure the U.S. border because he doesn’t want President Joe Biden to chalk up a win ahead of the 2024 presidential election, according to a source familiar with the tenuous negotiations on the package.
Trump directly reached out to several GOP senators on Wednesday to tell them to reject any deal, said this source, who requested anonymity to speak freely. The GOP presidential frontrunner also personally reached out to some Senate Republicans over the weekend, the source told HuffPost.
“Trump wants them to kill it because he doesn’t want Biden to have a victory,” said the source. “He told them he will fix the border when he is president… He said he only wants the perfect deal.”
Trump’s meddling generated an “emotional” discussion in a closed door meeting between Senate Republicans on Wednesday, as senators vented their frustrations for hours about the largely secret negotiations over emergency aid for Ukraine, Israel and immigration. The conference is splintering into two camps: those who believe Republicans should take the deal, and those who are opposed at any cost.
“The rational Republicans want the deal because they want Ukraine and Israel and an actual border solution,” said the source. “But the others are afraid of Trump, or they’re the chaos caucus who never wants to pass anything.”
“They’re having a little crisis in their conference right now,” the source added.
A bipartisan group of senators has been working for months to craft a border deal, and Trump has made it no secret that he opposes it. Last Wednesday, he wrote on Truth Social, his conservative social media site, “I do not think we should do a Border Deal, at all, unless we get EVERYTHING needed to shut down the INVASION of Millions and Millions of people.”
What’s different now, though, is that Trump, who appears to have the GOP presidential nomination locked up, is now directly telling GOP senators to oppose any deal. His meddling has left their conference in even more disarray than it was already in, and a potential border deal in limbo.
Donald Trump is privately telling Senate Republicans to kill a bipartisan deal to secure the U.S. border because he doesn’t want President Joe Biden to chalk up a win ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) demurred when asked if he thinks it’s constructive for Trump to tell Republicans not to make any border deals.
“I could probably go through any number of things that Biden is saying that are not constructive when he’s on the campaign trail, but that’s the nature of campaigns,” Tillis said. “So I’m not going to criticize President Trump or his positions.”
But, bucking Trump, he said he supported passing the bipartisan border deal, which Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) has been working on with Democrats.
“Based on what I’ve seen and based on the work that James Lankford has put in, it goes far enough for me,” said Tillis. “If anyone’s intellectually honest with themselves, they all know these would be extraordinary tools for President Trump.”
During Wednesday’s meeting, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) referenced comments Trump made as president in 2018 about the difficulty of getting Democrats to agree to changes to immigration laws. McConnell, who is no fan of Trump, was making the case that Republicans should agree to a border deal now, since the likelihood of Democrats potentially cutting a deal with Trump in the White House again would be highly unlikely.
At the meeting, senators also viewed footage of the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) making a prophetic warning about Russia’s designs on Europe after Vladimir Putin ordered an invasion of Crimea in 2014 — a bid by Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) to build support for Ukraine aid.
Tillis, who is an advocate of aid to Ukraine, told HuffPost there is “a general consensus in the majority of our conference that we need to support Ukraine.”
He warned what it would mean if the U.S. gives up on Ukraine: “This won’t take decades to regret. This will be in a matter of years. People who choose to ultimately exit Ukraine, if they are successful, for as long as I am breathing, I will remind them of the consequences I am convinced we will have to live through.”
Multiple senators described the meeting as a healthy airing of views, but none believed that it changed any minds.
“I don’t think Russia’s going to keep going,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), said when asked about the dangers of abandoning Ukraine.
“They have fought for two years just to try to get 50 miles in Ukraine. How in the hell are they going to go to Poland, Sweden, keep going through Europe?” he wondered. “That’s not going to happen.”
