Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Texas Migrant Law Is Latest Test of America vs. Its States

      by

      The partisan gridlock gumming up Washington has prompted states controlled by one party to set off on their own.The face-off between Texas and the federal government over whether the state can enforce its own immigration policy reflects a broader and recurring feature of American politics: a number of hot-button issues have become proxy battles over who gets to decide.During the Trump administration, Democratic-run states like California and blue cities like New York waged legal fights over their right to pass sanctuary laws to protect migrants. Now, the conflict over whether Texas can arrest and deport migrants is just one part of a larger campaign that red states have directed at the Biden administration.A coalition of Republican state attorneys general has also gone to court to thwart the administration’s efforts to regulate methane emissions from oil and gas drilling, to block a program that allows humanitarian entry to migrants from specific countries, and to halt an effort to crack down on gun accessories, among others.The balance of power between the national government and states has been a source of tensions in the United States since its founding, leading to the Civil War. But in the 21st century, as partisan polarization has intensified, it has morphed into a new dynamic, with states controlled by the party opposed to the president regularly testing the boundaries.The political issues run the gamut — and include topics like abortion, gun control, same-sex marriage and even marijuana legalization — but the larger pattern is clear: Whenever one party wins control of the central government, the other party uses its control of various states to try to resist national policies.“We’re seeing stuff we’ve never seen in the modern era,” said Heather K. Gerken, the dean of Yale Law School who has written about contemporary federalism. “It’s really stunning what kind of proxy war is taking place. It’s all because the vicious partisanship that has long been a feature of Washington has now filtered down to the states.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Seeks to Delay Jan. 6 Civil Cases

      by

      The former president’s lawyers told the judge overseeing the proceedings it would be unfair to put on a defense now because it might reveal his strategy for the criminal case on related charges.Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump asked a judge on Tuesday night to pause a group of civil lawsuits seeking to hold him accountable for the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, until after his federal criminal trial connected to the same events was over.The request by the lawyers to pause the civil cases was the latest example of Mr. Trump trying to pit his multiple legal matters against one another in an effort to delay them. In the past several weeks, the former president and his lawyers have managed to gum up each of the four criminal cases he is facing, sometimes by persuading judges that the timing of the various proceedings were in conflict with one another.In their request for a pause in the civil cases, Mr. Trump’s lawyers told Judge Amit P. Mehta, who is overseeing the proceedings, that it would be unfair to the former president to be forced to defend himself against the suits at this point. They said that in so doing, he might reveal his strategy for defending himself against related criminal charges brought against him by the special counsel Jack Smith.“Given the substantial overlap in factual and legal allegations between these cases and the D.C. criminal case,” the lawyers wrote, there is “a substantial risk that proceeding in this matter now will expose the defense’s theory to the prosecution in advance of trial.”The lawyers added, “This would prejudice President Trump’s ability to effectively defend himself in both these civil cases and the special counsel criminal matter.”In the months after Jan. 6, a half-dozen lawsuits were filed against Mr. Trump by members of Congress and police officers who served at the Capitol that day, accusing him of inciting the mob that stormed the building. The lawsuits, which all are being heard in Federal District Court in Washington, have sought unspecified financial damages from Mr. Trump.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Melania Trump Avoids Saying Whether She Will Hit Campaign Trail

      by

      When the former president cast his vote in the Florida primary election on Tuesday, the former first lady was by his side.This was notable for a few reasons.Former President Donald J. Trump has said for months that his wife, Melania, would join him on the campaign trail. And for months, Mrs. Trump remained absent from campaign events and victory celebrations — after Mr. Trump cruised to a victory on Super Tuesday, his wife did not join him onstage to greet supporters at Mar-a-Lago, their home in Palm Beach, Fla.Always more content to be a cipher to the curious public than she is to gamely field questions, Mrs. Trump did something out of character when she replied to someone who asked whether she planned to be a more regular presence going forward.“Stay tuned,” she said.It was a reply, but not an answer.(“That’s the answer she gives when she doesn’t want to commit to anything,” Stephanie Grisham, her former communications director who wrote a memoir about the Trump White House, said in a text message.)Mrs. Trump, 53, has formally been a political spouse for almost a decade, but she has shown little interest in campaigning, despite her popularity as a surrogate for her husband.Her public appearances in recent months have been sparse, and they have not been in the service of her husband’s campaign.One of her most notable was to deliver a eulogy for her mother, Amalija Knavs, who died in January. In that rare speech, Mrs. Trump, who was close enough to her mother that Mrs. Knavs and her husband, Viktor, often lived in a suite at the White House, described her mother as “a ray of light in the darkest of days.”Before that, Mrs. Trump, a naturalized U.S. citizen, attended a naturalization ceremony in December and told participants that citizenship “means actively participating in the democratic process and guarding our freedom.” (Mrs. Trump received an immigrant visa reserved for “individuals with extraordinary ability” in 2001, when she was a model, and the circumstances surrounding her immigration process came under scrutiny when she was first lady.)And in November, she joined the other living first ladies at a memorial service for the former first lady Rosalynn Carter.On Tuesday, Mr. Trump told people gathered outside the polling location in Palm Beach that he had voted for himself. A spokeswoman for Mrs. Trump did not immediately respond to a request for information about the former first lady’s vote. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Sues ABC and Stephanopoulos, Saying They Defamed Him

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump filed a defamation lawsuit against ABC News on Monday, arguing that the anchor George Stephanopoulos had harmed his reputation by saying multiple times on-air that Mr. Trump had been found liable for raping the writer E. Jean Carroll.A jury in a Manhattan civil case last year found Mr. Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Ms. Carroll, but did not find the former president liable for rape. The judge, however, later clarified that because of New York’s narrow legal definition of “rape,” the jury’s finding did not mean that Ms. Carroll “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’”Mr. Stephanopoulos, who was named as a co-defendant, said Mr. Trump was found liable for rape during a contentious interview on March 10 with Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina. During the interview, Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Ms. Mace, who has spoken publicly about being raped as a teenager, why she continued to support Mr. Trump in light of the outcome of the civil case.Mr. Trump, who often galvanizes his supporters by attacking the press, has filed a string of unsuccessful defamation suits against major media organizations. Federal judges have dismissed his suits against CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post.ABC News had no comment on Monday. Mr. Trump’s suit was filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Access Hollywood’ Tape Can Be Discussed at Trump Hush-Money Trial, Judge Rules

      by

      Jurors in Donald J. Trump’s hush-money case will hear testimony about the “Access Hollywood” recording in which he boasts about groping women. They will not hear his voice.A New York judge on Monday ruled that prosecutors can introduce a variety of damaging evidence in Donald J. Trump’s coming criminal trial, including references to the infamous “Access Hollywood” recording in which Mr. Trump boasts about groping women.Mr. Trump’s lawyers had sought to keep the tape out of evidence, and the judge, Juan M. Merchan, struck something of a compromise. He ruled that it was unnecessary for prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office to actually play the tape for a jury, but that they could question witnesses about it.In other rulings on Monday, the judge strengthened the prosecution’s hand heading into the trial, which is tentatively set to start in mid-April. Jury selection was originally scheduled to have begun March 25, but the judge last week delayed the trial at least three weeks after more than 100,000 investigative records came to light.Unless the judge delays it again, it almost certainly will be the first of Mr. Trump’s four criminal cases to be heard by jurors, and will be the first prosecution of a former American president in the nation’s history.Some of the evidence prosecutors want to introduce does not directly relate to the core accusation in the case — that Mr. Trump covered up a potential sex scandal involving the porn star Stormy Daniels to clear his path to the presidency in 2016. But it strikes at the heart of Mr. Trump’s potential motive for approving a hush-money payment to Ms. Daniels. He did that on the heels of the “Access Hollywood” recording being made public, a development that upended Mr. Trump’s campaign in the weeks before Election Day.The judge withheld a decision about some of the most damaging pieces of evidence that prosecutors want to introduce: three public accusations of sexual assault lodged against Mr. Trump after the tape was released. Persuading the judge that allegations of sexual assault should be allowed could be difficult, given that judges are supposed to carefully evaluate evidence that could unfairly harm a defendant in the eyes of the jury.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Serbian Leader Says Kushner Deal Is Not an Effort to Influence Trump

      by

      After news reports that Jared Kushner plans to redevelop a site in Belgrade bombed by NATO in 1999, Serbian politicians clashed over whether the deal was appropriate.The president of Serbia on Monday batted away any suggestion that he might have intentionally tried to steer a valuable real estate project in Serbia’s capital to Jared Kushner, Donald J. Trump’s son-in-law, in an effort to influence Mr. Trump should he return to the White House.“I died laughing,” the Serbian leader, Aleksandar Vucic, said at a rally, referring mockingly to news reports that Mr. Kushner was close to an agreement to invest $500 million in redeveloping a high-profile site in central Belgrade, the capital. “I read in some papers that I used this for a political influence on Trump, that corrupted America or someone in America. I am a miracle. It is incredible what all I can do.”Mr. Kushner, who was a senior White House adviser under Mr. Trump, has teamed up with a second former Trump aide, Richard Grenell, on the plan.The tentative agreement between the Kushner team and the Serbian government would grant Mr. Kushner’s investment firm a 99-year lease, at no charge, and the right to build a luxury hotel and apartment complex and a museum on the site of the former headquarters of the Yugoslav Ministry of Defense in Belgrade, which was bombed by NATO in 1999.News of the proposal provoked strong objections on Monday from opposition party leaders in Serbia during a meeting of the parliament.Opposition party leaders said they had not been properly informed of the plan and called it inappropriate that an American company owned by a Trump family member would be allowed to earn profits off a site that a United States-led coalition bombed 25 years ago.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Kushner Deal in Serbia Follows Earlier Interest by Trump

      by

      More than a decade ago, before running for president, Donald Trump expressed interest in developing the same site in Belgrade that his son-in-law now plans to invest $500 million in rebuilding.The plan by Jared Kushner and his business partners to redevelop a prized location in Serbia’s capital, Belgrade, echoes interest from Donald J. Trump a decade ago in pursuing a deal for the site and a similar proposal pushed during his White House term by a top aide now working with Mr. Kushner, a review of the project shows.The tentative agreement between the Kushner team and the Serbian government would grant Mr. Kushner’s investment firm a 99-year lease, at no charge, and the right to build a luxury hotel and apartment complex and a museum on the site of the former headquarters of the Yugoslav Ministry of Defense in Belgrade, which was bombed by NATO in 1999. A draft outline of the agreement was provided to The New York Times by a Serbian official.In 2013, two years before he began running for president, Mr. Trump — Mr. Kushner’s father-in-law — told a top Serbian government official that he wanted to build a luxury hotel on the site. Associates of the Trump Organization traveled to Belgrade to inspect the location. The project did not come together before Mr. Trump’s election in 2016, and after being sworn in he vowed to not do any new foreign deals.But developing the site would again draw interest from Mr. Trump’s circle.Richard Grenell, whom Mr. Trump had appointed as a special envoy in the Balkans, pushed a related plan during the Trump administration that Serbia and the United States jointly work to rebuild the Defense Ministry site. He argued in favor of using American investments to transform the Belgrade site while he was still serving in his official capacity as an American diplomat in 2020, according to transcripts and a recording of remarks made during several government news conferences.Mr. Kushner said in an interview on Sunday that he had never discussed the Belgrade project with Mr. Trump and was not aware of his father-in-law’s prior interest in redeveloping the site.“I had no idea my father-in-law had been interested in that region, and I doubt he has any awareness of this deal we are working on,” Mr. Kushner said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      What Really Causes Poor Performance in School

      by

      More from our inbox:Becoming a Republican to Vote Against TrumpCountering Propaganda From the Fossil Fuel Industry Wayne Miller/MagnumTo the Editor:Re “We’re Not Battling the School Issues That Matter,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, March 7):I completely agree with Mr. Kristof’s column. The situation is serious, not only for education but also for our embattled democracy.I would like to add some nuance. I have been working on a state-by-state analysis of the possible influence of racism, specifically anti-Black racism, on educational achievement.What I have found so far indicates that some children are taught quite well: those in private schools, of course; Asian American children (particularly those whose families are from India); white children of families prosperous enough to be ineligible for the National School Lunch Program; children of college-educated parents; and Hispanic children who are not English-language learners.Some students are in groups that are not likely to be taught to read effectively: Native Americans, children who are poor enough to be eligible for the National School Lunch Program and Black children.None of this will be news to Mr. Kristof. What is surprising to me is the sheer extent and arbitrary nature of the failure by school authorities. Almost everywhere that urban schools, in particular, are failing, socioeconomically similar children are being taught much more effectively in the nearest suburban districts.Part of the reason is money: Per-student expenditure is associated with educational achievement.But part of the problem — most of it — is a matter of administrative decisions: placing the best teachers in schools with the “best” students; equipping schools, in effect, in accordance with parental income; offering more gifted and talented classes to white students — all the perhaps unconscious manifestations of everyday racism.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More