More stories

  • in

    US supreme court presses Trump lawyer over immunity from prosecution claim – audio

    US supreme court justices on Thursday questioned a lawyer for Donald Trump about the former president’s claim of immunity from prosecution over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. They posed questions about what happens if a president sells nuclear secrets, takes a bribe or orders a coup or assassination. Trump took his case to the highest court after lower courts rejected his request to be shielded from four election-related criminal charges on the grounds that he was serving as president when he allegedly took the actions that led to the indictment More

  • in

    Trump the elephant in the room as supreme court hearing strays into the surreal

    It took two hours and 24 minutes for the elephant in the room to be mentioned at Thursday’s US supreme court hearing. “The special counsel has expressed some concern for speed, and wanting to move forward,” said Justice Amy Coney Barrett.That was shorthand for the gargantuan stakes at play in Trump v United States. The court was being asked to consider one of the most consequential prosecutions in US history – the four federal charges brought against former president Donald Trump accusing him of attempting to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election – and whether the case can conceivably go to trial.The supreme court has already moved at such a snail’s pace that the chances of the case coming to trial before November’s presidential election – in which the accused is once again standing for the most powerful job on Earth – are growing slim. The charges were filed by special counsel Jack Smith on 1 August, almost nine months ago.With the clock ticking down, the most conservative of the nine supreme court justices appeared determined to talk about anything but the case at hand. “I’m not concerned about this case, so much as future ones,” said Neil Gorsuch, one of the three justices appointed to the supreme court by Trump.“I’m not focused on the here and now in this case,” parroted another Trump appointee, Brett Kavanaugh. “I’m very concerned about the future.”Samuel Alito repeated the mantra. “I’m going to talk about this in the abstract because what we decide is going to apply to all future presidents,” he said.What the justices appeared to be overlooking in the rush towards abstraction was that the actual substance of the case – the here and now – is of monumental significance. Trump is charged with having orchestrated a conspiracy to subvert the bedrock of democracy – the outcome of a freely held election – as the first president in US history to resist the peaceful handover of power.As Michael Dreeben, who spoke for the government, put it, Trump’s novel legal theory that he enjoys absolute immunity from criminal liability would immunize any president who commits bribery, treason, sedition and murder. Or in Trump’s case, “conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power”.At times the epic debate, which lasted two hours and 40 minutes, strayed into the surreal. Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, argued that a president who ordered the assassination of a political rival or who instigated a military coup could only be prosecuted if he had been impeached and convicted first by Congress.The first question from the bench came from Clarence Thomas, the justice who stubbornly refused to recuse himself despite the inconvenient truth that his wife, Ginni, was profoundly mired in Trump’s conspiracy leading up to the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.The award for the most jaw-dropping display of jurisprudential sleight of hand goes to Alito. He invoked the goal of preserving a “stable democratic society” in support of Trump’s claim that he should be immune from prosecution for having attempted to destroy a stable democratic society.“If an incumbent who loses a very close hotly contested election knows that it is a real possibility after leaving office that he may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country?” Alito asked.“I think it’s exactly the opposite, Justice Alito,” Dreeben replied, with admirable restraint.It was all clearly too much for Ketanji Brown Jackson. Of the three liberal justices she put up the most impassioned counter-argument for the prosecution to go ahead.“If there’s no threat of criminal prosecution, what prevents the president from just doing whatever he wants,” she said. The justice left it implicit that this particular former president is potentially less than seven months away from returning to the Oval Office.How the court will rule is less than clear. It is a fair bet that four of the conservatives – Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas – will vote for an outcome that in some form spares Trump from facing a jury in DC before he faces the American electorate on 5 November.Barrett was harder to read. She appeared to be open to allowing the prosecution to proceed, albeit through a tighter lens to distinguish between Trump’s actions that were motivated by personal gain from those conducted in his official capacity.The final word may well fall – once again – to John Roberts, the chief justice. The thrust of his questioning (he alluded to one-legged stools and got stuck on the word “tautology”) suggested that he might be tempted to remand the case back to a lower court for further time-consuming deliberation.Which would play exactly into Trump’s hands. From day one, Trump’s strategy has been delay, delay, delay – with the endgame of kicking the prosecutorial can so far down the road that he can win re-election and appoint a manipulable attorney general who will scrap all charges, or even pardon himself.Which is why the elephant in the courtroom cut such a striking presence. Though with the exception of Barrett’s lone comment, it went entirely un-noted. More

  • in

    Trump’s hush-money case might finally show him what accountability feels like | Margaret Sullivan

    Donald Trump, who once bragged that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters, has gotten away for years with unimaginable amounts of malfeasance.He grifted and insulted and lied his way into the White House, embarrassed the nation while president, refused to accept his defeat to Joe Biden in 2020 and then incited a riot at the US Capitol as he tried to overturn the election.And still, he kept his iron grip on the Republican party and maintained the adulation of his red-capped fans.But now, each day in a Manhattan courtroom, Trump is finding out that there’s a limit. History is being made; this is the first criminal trial of a former US president. That alone is a humiliation.And each day, he must sit there and listen to a recitation of his misdeeds (though sometimes he falls asleep instead). New York supreme court judge Juan Merchan, who has dealt with Trump cases in the past and knows the score, was considering punishing Trump for violating the rule against attacking witnesses, jurors, lawyers and court officials.Whether Trump ultimately will be convicted of the crimes associated with hush money paid to the porn star Stormy Daniels is unknown. I have my doubts, especially after seeing a rundown of what sources of news the jurors have, according to a New York Times report based on a questionnaire. Although heavy on the Times itself, the sources also include TikTok, Fox News and the Daily Mail.But whatever happens, the day-to-day trial is providing a measure of accountability.It puts, front and center for the public, the facts of the case – which simply ooze with sleaze. To recap: before the 2016 election, Trump had his lawyer pay Daniels to keep quiet about an alleged sexual affair. Then he paid back that lawyer, Michael Cohen, and went on to lie on business records that the payments were legal fees, not hush money.It’s a crime in New York state to falsify business documents for political gain, and though some would like to portray this as little more than a bookkeeping error, it’s not.“This case is the origin story of Trump’s efforts to cheat during elections,” as Joyce Vance, a law professor and former US attorney, puts it.I’ve always thought it would be poetic justice for this case to be the one to bring Trump down.The tawdriness makes it a perfect fit; it exemplifies who Trump is – from his bragging about grabbing women below the belt to his love for gold-plated everything.Classy, he is not.The location is part of the aptness. New Yorkers know precisely who Trump is – a businessman who doesn’t pay his bills and whose touted-to-the-skies ventures often go belly-up, and a conman who never met a grift he didn’t love.In recent weeks, he’s been hawking “God Bless the USA” Bibles for $59.99, and his wife, Melania, is selling a chintzy Mother’s Day trinket for $245. (No, a portion of these proceeds is not going to charity.)skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThis case “is the best chance yet to ensure some accountability for the former president and protect the country from further crimes”, Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, believes.As he sees it, a conviction would prove, once and for all, that Trump is not the normal politician that many in the media and his political allies continue to act like he is.“Institution after institution has passed on the chance to hold Trump accountable, from the Senate voting to acquit him after his impeachment for inciting an insurrection, to House Republicans blowing up a bipartisan commission to investigate those events, to the Supreme Court declining to enforce Trump’s disqualification under the 14th amendment to the Constitution,” Bookbinder, a former federal corruption prosecutor, wrote in Salon.A conviction requires unanimous agreement by the jury. That’s a high bar.After all, it’s impossible to get 12 New Yorkers to agree on the city’s best bagel joint, much less something with considerably more consequence – not to mention the likelihood of abuse after the trial should they be identified.It might be more satisfying, of course, to have Trump’s comeuppance brought about by something more substantive – especially his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, as in the Georgia case in which he twisted the arm of the secretary of state to “find” more votes.But for those who long have hoped for some accountability for the Fifth Avenue miscreant, a conviction here would be more than enough.
    Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist More

  • in

    Trump’s hush-money trial: National Enquirer publisher says he was ‘eyes and ears’ of 2016 campaign

    Donald Trump sat for the second day of witness testimony in court in Manhattan on Tuesday in his criminal trial over hush-money payments to an adult film star and an alleged fraudulent cover-up of those payments just weeks before the 2016 election.David Pecker, the ex-president’s longtime ally and former publisher of the National Enquirer – who prosecutors contend was integral in illicit, so-called catch-and-kill efforts to prevent negative stories about Trump from going public – was on the stand again as a prosecution witness after a brief appearance on Monday following opening statements.He told the court about being invited to a meeting with Trump and his then lawyer, Michael Cohen, in New York in 2015 after Trump had just declared his candidacy for president and was seeking a friendly and powerful media insider.“They asked me what can I do – and what my magazines could do – to help the [election] campaign … I said what I would do is I would run or publish positive stories about Mr Trump and I would publish negative stories about his opponents, and I said that I would also be the eyes and ears because I know that the Trump Organization had a very small staff,” he said.Earlier on Tuesday, however, Judge Juan Merchan heard arguments about a request from prosecutors to hold Trump in contempt of court. They said he repeatedly violated a gag order barring him from publicly attacking witnesses in the trial.Todd Blanche, Trump’s lawyer, argued that his client was just responding to political attacks, not flouting the judge’s order, and that seven of the instances cited were reposts of other people’s content on social media, which “we don’t believe are a violation of the gag order.”Merchan asked whether there was any case law on it. Blanche replied: “I don’t have any case laws, your honor, it’s just common sense.”As Blanche continued to repeat that claim, the judgesaid:“Mr Blanche you’re losing all credibility…with the court. Is there any other argument you want to make?”Merchan on Tuesday did not announce a decision on the contempt issue.Trump’s criminal hush-money trial: what to know
    A guide to Trump’s hush-money trial – so far
    The key arguments prosecutors will use against Trump
    How will Trump’s trial work?
    From Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels: The key players
    Pecker first took the stand on Monday and provided brief testimony of his work as a tabloid honcho. “We used checkbook journalism and we paid for stories. I gave a number to the editors that they could not spend more than $10,000 to investigate or produce or publish a story, anything over $10,000 they would spend on a story, they would have to be vetted and brought up to me, for approval.”Pecker said he had final say over the content of the National Enquirer and other AMI publications.Prosecutors contend that Pecker was at the center of a plot to boost Trump’s chances in the 2016 election. The alleged plan with Trump and Cohen was, if Pecker caught wind of damaging information, he would apprise Trump and Cohen, so they could figure out a way to keep it quiet. That collusion came to include AMI’s $150,000 payoff to the Playboy model Karen McDougal, who claimed to have had an extramarital affair with Trump, prosecutors have said.This kind of “catch-and-kill” tactic did not happen with Trump before he ran for president, Pecker said.The alleged plot to cover up a claimed sexual encounter between Daniels and Trump is the basis of prosecutors’ case.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn October 2016, the Washington Post published a video featuring Trump’s hot-mic comments during an Access Hollywood taping, in which he boasted about sexually assaulting women. The comments, which Colangelo read to jurors, included “Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything … Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”After they surfaced, the campaign went into panic mode, Colangelo said. It worked to characterize these comments as “locker room talk”, but, when Daniels’ claim came across Trump and his allies’ radar, they feared the backlash: people would see these ill-behaved ways were not mere talk.“Another story about infidelity, with a porn star, on the heels of the Access Hollywood tape, would have been devastating to his campaign,” Colangelo said in his address to jurors. “Cohen carried out a $130,000 payoff to Daniels which Trump allegedly repaid him in checks that he listed as legal services in official company records.“Look, no politician wants bad press, but the evidence at trial will show that this wasn’t spin or communication strategy,” Colangelo continued. “This was a planned, coordinated, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures – to silence people with something bad to say about his behavior.“It was election fraud, pure and simple.”Trump denies the charges. On Tuesday afternoon, Steinglass asked why Pecker said he would notify Cohen if he heard “anything about women selling stories”.Pecker said: “In a presidential campaign, I was the person that thought that there would be a lot of women that would come out to try to sell their stories because Mr Trump was well-known as the most eligible bachelor and dated the most beautiful women.”In fact, he was also accused of sexual assault and harassment by a series of women. In a civil case, Trump was found liable last year for having sexually abused the New York writer E Jean Carroll in the 1990s.Pecker said he ran negative stories about Trump rivals, including presidential opponent Hillary Clinton and GOP rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.He said he paid $30,000 to catch and kill a story from a doorman purporting that Trump had fathered an illegitimate child with a woman who cleaned his New York penthouse.The trial is due to resume on Thursday. More

  • in

    Trump has dodged financial calamity – for the time being | Lloyd Green

    Donald Trump dodged financial calamity on Monday. The office of Letitia James, the New York attorney general, and lawyers for Trump reached agreement in open court on the terms governing the appellate bond posted by the former president. After nearly an hour of argument and an extended recess, the parties achieved a workable solution. It is a ray of sunshine in Trump’s otherwise bleak legal landscape.Trump would be required to leave $175m in cash only as collateral for the bond. Mutual funds or other securities will not suffice. In addition, the brokerage account holding the funds would fall under the exclusive control of the bonding company.Trump would no longer maintain any authority over the account. In turn, James remains barred from enforcing her $454m judgment against Trump and his businesses. For those keeping score, Trump is now out-of-pocket in a neighborhood north of a quarter of a billion dollars and counting.His pretense of being cash-rich is soiled. In March, he shelled out for a separate $91.63m bond while he appeals the $83.3m verdict in the latest E Jean Carroll defamation case. Earlier, he paid another $4m into court to block Carroll from collecting a prior defamation judgment, also on appeal.The stock price of Trump Media & Technology Group – his eponymous meme stock, DJT – is in the doldrums. Politico also reports that Save America, a Trump-controlled Pac, has already spent $59m on his legal fees and may run shortly out of money.Beyond that, Trump World tussles with Ken Griffin, a major Republican donor and the chief of Citadel Securities, a leading Wall Street market-maker. Last Thursday, Devin Nunes – the former Republican congressman who resigned from the House to run Trump’s media company – wrote to the head of the Nasdaq, raising the issue of “potential market manipulation” of DJT stock and blasting “naked short-selling”.Griffin, whose wealth is estimated at a cool $37bn, quickly struck back. He branded Nunes a “proverbial loser” whom Trump “would have fired on The Apprentice”. He also accused the humorless Californian of trying to deflect blame for DJT’s lackluster stock price.The hush-money trial in Manhattan, however, is presently Trump’s greatest fear. On Monday, the case finally kicked off with opening arguments. David Pecker, of the National Enquirer, will reportedly be the prosecution’s first witness – but not the witness likely to garner the most attention. Not even close.Stormy Daniels, the adult film star, will eventually take center stage, with assists from Hope Hicks, an ex-senior Trump White House aide, and Karen McDougal, a Playboy model and one-time playmate of the year. Testimony by Daniels and McDougal will likely turn graphic.According to reports, Hicks has already met with prosecutors. Purportedly, she was involved in negotiations aimed at preventing Daniels from publicly disclosing her alleged trysts with Melania’s husband and Ivanka’s dad. For the record, neither woman is expected to attend the trial.The criminal case also involves alleged hush-money payments to McDougal. She too claims that she had sex with Trump, albeit “many dozens of times”.“I was in love with him. He was in love with me,” she said in a 2019 interview. “I know that because he told me all the time.“He’d say, ‘You’re my baby and I love you.’ He showed me off to his friends.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe sincerity of Trump’s purported displays of extramarital affection may likely be met with disbelief by at least one jury member. In court, the juror disclosed that she thought Trump to be “very selfish and self-serving”.Last Friday, Juan Merchan, the trial judge, looked at Trump and sternly announced: “Sir, can you please have a seat.” To some, it sounded as if Merchan were talking to an unruly dog. On Monday, the court ruled that if Trump takes the witness stand, he may be cross-examined over past bad acts.Don’t hold your breath on Trump testifying in his own defense. It would likely be embarrassing, if not necessarily perjurious.The emcee of Mar-a-Lago stands diminished. Together, all this may be straining his coping mechanisms, wallet and poll numbers. In contrast, Joe Biden demonstrates renewed political vitality. On Saturday, he scored a major legislative victory, a foreign aid package that bolstered Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. Punchbowl’s headline blared: “Attention House GOP: Biden is the winner”.Looking back, when Trump complained to Randall Stephenson, then CEO of AT&T, of women being the bane of his existence he wasn’t far off. Among female voters, Trump consistently trails Biden by double digits. Meanwhile, James stands ever ready to separate the man from his money.“For the next six weeks, a man who values control and tries to shape environments and outcomes to his will is in control of very little,” wrote Maggie Haberman. His image as a pugnacious rule breaker will likely get dinged. “Vagina is expensive,” Trump once reportedly told radio shock-jock Howard Stern.
    Lloyd Green is an attorney in New York and served in the US Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992 More

  • in

    On trial, Trump is a shadow of the superhero his supporters crave | Sidney Blumenthal

    Donald Trump is already in jail. He is pressed into confinement every weekday, except Wednesdays, beginning bright and early, no excuses, at 9.30 in the morning, in the dreary courtroom in Manhattan, where his impulse to mouth off wearies and worries his lawyers, and he must listen, for the first time since his father slapped him down, to an authority telling him to gag himself. He had more leeway when Fred Trump shipped the problem child to the New York military academy where Donald bullied his classmates.Trump’s required attendance in the courtroom as a criminal defendant is his first loss of liberty.His image there is raw, uncut and unfiltered, like Andy Warhol’s film Sleep,in which Warhol fixed a camera on his slumbering lover for six hours. It’s not a Trump rally. The withering focus – without the introduction of the thumping music, his emergence from a dry ice-generated cloud of fog and the predictably orgasmic reception of frenzied minions – reveals something less than the conquering hero in a “Make America Great Again” red baseball cap clapping his hands.Day after day, Trump slumps in his chair, his eyes narrowing and closing, his facial features sagging, until he suddenly jerks to life, once muttering a seemingly veiled threat to a potential juror that earned him a rebuke from Judge Juan Merchan that if he persisted he would be in contempt for witness intimidation. Without self-discipline, Trump invites being disciplined. Lacking control, he fails to control himself. Time and again, he falls asleep, “appeared to nod off a few times, his mouth going slack and his head drooping onto his chest”, Maggie Haberman reported in the New York Times.He appears to pass through the seven ages of man in a blink of the eye without having gone through those of adulthood, leaping from caterwauling infant to angry curmudgeon, the stages from napping to napping.Trump clearly prefers to be where he is when his eyes are closed rather than when they are open. His sleeping might be a form of passive aggression, showing his hostility, and at the same time willful avoidance and denial. Railing on his Truth Social account, while minute by minute the price of the market-listed “DJT” dives, he wails in capital letters against the trial – “THIS SCAM ‘RUSHED’ TRIAL TAKING PLACE IN A 95% DEMOCRAT AREA IS A PLANNED AND COORDINATED WITCH HUNT” – and the judge – “POSSIBLY THE MOST CONFLICTED JUDGE IN JUDICIAL HISTORY, WHO MUST BE REMOVED FROM THIS HOAX IMMEDIATELY.”For Trump, the trial is an ordeal – literally an ordeal, in the sense of a medieval trial in which the offender is subjected to torture to determine guilt or innocence. Documents and witnesses did not figure into those trials in the Middle Ages. The verdict was procured by ordeals of walking on fire or boiling in water. Trump, for his part, flips the historical script. He is out to discredit the documents and witnesses. He acts as if the only truth appears when he speaks outside the courtroom. He wants his devotees to see the trial as an ancient ordeal by combat in which he is warrior, not the offender.In a waking moment, Trump’s promise that he will testify shows his understanding of the trial as more than a matter of the law, but a spectacle that raises the central issue at stake in his cult of personality. Of course, if he were to take the stand, inevitably to allegedly lie, as he has in past depositions, and inescapably to present himself to the jury as an unsympathetic narcissist, he would undermine his case, and possibly face additional severe penalties for obstruction of justice and perjury up to a separate sentence of seven years in jail.But it is likely that Trump will not take the witness chair to subject himself to the prosecutor’s cross-examination. Trump’s dissembling is a gesture of false bravado showing that he intuitively grasps that for his followers his image as a strongman is on trial. He needs to tell them he fears nothing. He’ll think of an excuse later. He is on trial because he has been accused of bribing people not to tell the truth, but he has to lie to maintain his myth.The trial is a morality play that has also become a mortality play. His elemental appeal is that he can do whatever he wants, that his power derives from making a mockery of the rules. He wants more than presidential immunity for anything he has done, from the attempted coup of January 6 to stealing national security secrets. He demands absolute immunity from social norms and conventions. His defiance, so far without consequences, is essential to demonstrating his strength. He appears immune to ordinary strictures. But strongmen can’t exist within someone else’s regime. The trial is a prequel of Trump caged. He doesn’t play by the rules, but now he has to obey them.Trump has strategized that he could use the trial as his platform to depict himself as the superhero against the system. He would invert the terms of the prosecution to persecution and convert the trial into his campaign trail. As a victim of the forces of evil elites, he would inflate himself into a larger fighter for his followers. “I am your retribution!”But the action hero can’t move without permission. “Sir, would you please have a seat,” the judge ordered when he stood up to walk out before adjournment. Superman can’t fly. He may dream of racing like Batman through Gotham, but he is facing the judge on the high bench issue a ruling about his contempt for violating the gag order.He has lost more than his ability to articulate; he is becoming disarticulated as a figure. “It is a shame,” he whined. “I am sitting here for days now, from morning until night in that freezing room. Everybody was freezing in there! And all for this. This is your result. It is very unfair.” Under the weight of the trial, he is decaying, “haggard and rumpled, his gait off-center, his eyes blank”, according to the Times.Trump is widely seen as obnoxious, vile and no model for children, even by some who support him, but he retains one great political asset that has allowed him to transcend his toxicity. He is perceived as a “strong and decisive leader”, according to the Gallup Poll. For his followers his strength has been immutable. This image is at the heart of his cult of personality, the center of his political theology and the core of his authoritarianism.The trial is about facts, fiction and putrefaction. The prosecution will present its facts to strip Trump of his lies, his fiction. That regular and expected process has surprisingly but naturally disclosed his physical deterioration, which is hardly incidental but critical to his projection, which is another fiction.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn the kitsch art of Trumpism, a cross between Stalinist socialist realism and comic books, his true believers always, without exception, portray him as a physical strongman. In popular versions, there is Trump in leather jacket on a Harley, Trump on a galloping horse holding a flag, and Trump in fatigues holding an AR-15 rifle standing next to Lincoln and Washington, also in fatigues.Trump, used to living the life of a sloth of the leisure class, actively encourages and profits from these images of virility. When he announced his re-election campaign for president in December 2022, he sold a deck of digital cards for $99 showing himself as Superman (with a “T” on his muscled chest), a Star Wars-like hero, and another holding a lightning bolt in his hand with jet planes in the background and the logo: “Superhero.”His obsession with cultivating the strongman image, like that of Vladimir Putin posing shirtless on a horse, reached an apogee in October 2020, when he was released from the Walter Reed medical center for treatment of Covid, and planned to rip open his shirt to reveal a Superman’s letter “S”. Instead, he stood on the White House balcony and tore off his mask.Trump now aspires to be a dictator “only on day one”. His desire to be an absolute despot is another of his wishful medieval anachronisms. “Be a king, be a killer,” Fred Trump told him. If he is the personification of the Leviathan, the state itself, a divine monarch above the law, his corporeal body merges with that of the body politic. His followers already accept implicitly that tenet of his myth, whether they know it or are Know Nothings. It is vital to his cult.But, if true, the physical decline of his body must be reflected in the decline of his body politics, his kingdom of Maga, which is not the state, at least yet, unless there is a new law of succession, not yet introduced by the Freedom Caucus. Trump’s putrefaction in the courtroom is refutation of his pretension to royalty apart from any legal argument that might be considered by the conservatives on the supreme court to grant his plea of immunity as if he were king.Being tried on the evidence trail of his pathetic old affairs is a cruel irony for the lumpish former man-about-town forced to sit today in the courtroom. He is being visited by the ghost of Playboy Mansion past.“I am supposed to be in Georgia; in North Carolina, South Carolina. I’m supposed to be in a lot of different places campaigning, but I’ve been here all day,” Trump complained. “It’s a whopping outrage and it is an outrage. Everybody is outraged by it.”
    Sidney Blumenthal, former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth. He is a Guardian US columnist More

  • in

    Prosecutors accept modified $175m Trump bond in New York civil fraud case

    New York state lawyers and an attorney for Donald Trump settled their differences on Monday over a $175m bond that Trump posted to block a large civil fraud judgment while he pursues appeals.The agreement cut short a potential day-long court hearing in Manhattan that was to feature witnesses.As part of a deal struck during a 20-minute recess, lawyers for former president Trump and Knight Specialty Insurance Company agreed to keep the $175m in a cash account that will gain interest but faces no downside risk. The account so far has grown by more than $700,000.The bond stops the state from potentially seizing Trump’s assets to satisfy the more than $454m that he owes after losing a court case brought by the Democratic New York attorney general, Letitia James. She had alleged that Trump, along with his company and key executives, defrauded bankers and insurers by lying about his wealth.The ex-president and presumptive Republican nominee denies the claims and is appealing the judgment.Judge Arthur Engoron, who in February issued the huge judgment after concluding that Trump and others had deceived banks and insurers by exaggerating his wealth on financial statements, presided over Monday’s hearing and at times was caught in a testy exchange with Trump’s attorney Christopher Kise.Engoron challenged Kise with examples of how the money Trump had posted might not be available for collection if the judgment were upheld, leading Kise to respond in one instance that the judge’s “hypothetical is … wildly speculative”.At another point, Kise expressed frustration with the James’s office, saying: “It appears that no matter what we do they’re going to find fault with it.”But Andrew Amer, an attorney for New York state, proposed settlement terms soon after he began speaking at the hearing. He said the state wanted extra assurances because Trump had raised the money with help from a relatively small out-of-state insurance company.As part of the deal, Knight Specialty Insurance, a Wilmington, Delaware-based part of the Los Angeles-based Knight Insurance Group, will have exclusive control of the $175m and will submit to the jurisdiction of the New York state court while agreeing not to move the money into mutual funds or other financial instruments.Speaking to reporters in the hallway outside Trump’s separate criminal hush-money trial, his attorney Alina Habba, said Engoron “doesn’t even understand basic principles of finance.“We came to an agreement that everything would be the same,” she said. “We would modify terms and that would be it.”Trump also railed against Engoron, accusing him of not understanding the case.“He challenged the bonding company that maybe the bonding company was no good. Well, they’re good. And they also have $175m dollars of collateral – my collateral,” he said. More

  • in

    The Guardian view on arming Ukraine: US Congress votes against appeasement | Editorial

    In chaos theory, the flapping of butterfly wings can cause a hurricane on the other side of the world. This weekend, Ukraine experienced a butterfly moment. Donald Trump’s efforts to conceal the fact that he bought the silence of a porn star before the 2016 election landed him in court, facing charges that preoccupy him enough for congressional Republicans to reject his policy of prematurely ceding territory to Russia in return for peace in Ukraine. Kyiv will now get billions of dollars to buy the weapons crucial for it to defend against, and push back, the Russian advance. It is fitting that Mr Trump’s divisive appeasement has been defeated – for now – by a bipartisan defence of democracy.The presumptive Republican nominee had, in an election year, counted on using his mendacious, inflammatory rhetoric to further convert his party into a truth-denying sect prepared to abandon the rule of law for the rule of revenge. Instead, he is required to attend every day that the Manhattan court is in session, for a trial expected to last at least six weeks. The proceedings will be closely followed around the world. But they will not be televised. It will be a circus, but without its ringmaster. Deprived of the camera’s attention, the former president won’t be able to bully Republican lawmakers or rally his followers so effectively.Mr Trump’s diminished status was not lost on many Republicans in Congress. President Joe Biden had first called on them to back Ukraine with arms and cash last October. However, it was not until Mr Trump’s attention was elsewhere that the House on Saturday passed the $61bn aid bill for Ukraine. The vote was 311 for and 112 against, with all the Democrats and 101 Republicans voting in favour of the bill and 112 Republicans voting against. It can only be good news that there are still Republicans who want America to be governed effectively. It also signals that Ukraine should deal with Russia from a position of strength not weakness.In the last two months, most Democrats and a sizeable number of Republicans have voted to pass bills to avoid government shutdowns and commit to traditional national security priorities. This governing coalition is on the right side of history. But it may not last. Mr Trump faces four separate indictments. The current case is about sex, money, deception and blackmail. It’s more tawdry than the other, weightier trials about alleged election interference and the mishandling of classified documents. However, only the jury in New York is likely to produce a verdict before the election in November.Mr Trump is an unscrupulous demagogue without the slightest qualification to be president. The US, under his presidency, was maintained at the edge of chaos, between too much and too little control. The long-festering problems in the GOP gave rise to a leader only nominally affiliated with it.By being the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose the House, the Senate and the presidency in a single term, Mr Trump has gained a reputation for being a loser. But the billionaire is not interested in restoring Republican dominance, only shaping it into a cult of personality. He will only fail if he faces active, sustained opposition. Mr Biden has done that by highlighting the choices that divide congressional Republicans. But challenging Mr Trump also means challenging the system that produced him. Mr Biden still has work to do on that score.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More