Trump, Donald J

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      On Deadline, Decoding the Trump Indictment

      by

      Michael Rothfeld had just hours to annotate 29 pages of documents related to the charges against Donald J. Trump.Times Insider explains who we are and what we do and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.Just after 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, a news release from the Manhattan district attorney’s office landed in the inbox of Michael Rothfeld, an investigative reporter on the Metro desk of The New York Times: The indictment of Donald J. Trump had been unsealed. It was go time.Over the next several hours, Mr. Rothfeld combed through the 16-page indictment charging Mr. Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, a low-level felony in New York State. The charges center on a hush-money deal with the porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. (Mr. Trump pleaded not guilty.) Mr. Rothfeld also scrutinized a 13-page “statement of facts” in which the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, outlined a larger scheme that he said Mr. Trump and others orchestrated during the 2016 campaign to avoid negative press.Mr. Rothfeld, who was part of the team at The Wall Street Journal that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2019 for reporting on hush-money deals made on behalf of Mr. Trump, got to work annotating each document for an interactive Times piece, which allowed readers to see the files alongside expert context. The format was built by Charlie Smart, an editor on the Graphics desk; he started brainstorming for it in mid-March. “We weren’t sure when it would come,” Mr. Smart said of the indictment. “But we wanted to be ready.”As Mr. Rothfeld completed each annotation, Mr. Smart and Dagny Salas, a deputy Metro editor, reviewed it and added it to the article. In addition to the online display, the annotated document appeared in some print issues on Wednesday.In an interview, Mr. Rothfeld shared how he approached the annotation process and why it was beneficial for readers to see the actual documents.After receiving the documents, what was your first step?I skimmed the indictment first. It had a lot of echoes, so I didn’t read every word. All 34 counts were identical, but there were some differences in the types of records Trump was accused of falsifying.Once I had absorbed how the document was structured and what was repeated, I chose one example to annotate and pointed out how the context we were providing also applied to the other charges.Charlie had created a Google Doc, and that’s where I inputted my copy: the page number of the indictment, the section I wanted to highlight and the text of my annotation. The text was edited in the Google Doc before Charlie put it into the actual document.How long did it take you to get the first version of the article published?Not long after getting the documents, we posted them — without any annotations — just to get them up so people could see them. After that, I kept adding annotations. I’ve done a lot of reporting on legal issues and on the Trump hush-money payments, so I already had that knowledge base.Were you able to prewrite any annotations?We couldn’t prewrite anything without knowing what was in the indictment.How did you balance explaining general legal terminology with providing context on details specific to this indictment?I wanted to include some basic things like how this indictment came about, the fact it was voted on by a grand jury made up of regular New Yorkers who had been sitting for months. Then I highlighted the first instance of the particular crime Trump was charged with 34 times and explained that it’s more than a misdemeanor but the lowest felony you can have. I didn’t want to use technical jargon. I wanted people to understand the context and importance in the clearest possible terms.What is the benefit of readers’ being able to see the actual documents?It helps people trust what they’re looking at when they’re reading the actual document versus if they’re just relying on what I was choosing to highlight if I were writing a traditional article. It gives them a better window into the process of what’s happening in the case, with a little expertise to guide them through what they’re looking at.Were you surprised by anything?I was surprised that the second document, the statement of facts, contained a lot of color and narrative. That one was more fun to annotate because I could try to signpost the story being told by the district attorney of how hush money was paid by Trump throughout the 2016 election to various unnamed characters. I could go through the document and say, “OK, this begins the story of Stormy Daniels, who’s here referred to as Woman 2,” so you could follow along as you were reading the document. I felt like a narrator. More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      How Fox Chased Its Audience Down the Rabbit Hole

      by

      Listen to This ArticleAudio Recording by AudmOn the evening of Nov. 19, 2020, Rupert Murdoch was watching TV and crawling the walls of his 18th-century mansion in the British countryside while under strict pandemic lockdown. The television hosts at Murdoch’s top cable network, Fox News, might have scoffed at such unyielding adherence to Covid protocols. But Jerry Hall, his soon-to-be fourth ex-wife and no fan of Fox or its conservative hosts, was insisting that Murdoch, approaching his 90th birthday, remain cautious.The big story that day, as it had been every day in the two weeks since the election, was election theft, and now Rudolph W. Giuliani was giving a news conference at the Republican National Committee. With Sidney Powell, the right-wing attorney and conspiracy theorist, at his side, Giuliani, sweating profusely, black hair dye dripping down the side of his face, spun a wild fantasy about Joe Biden’s stealing the election from President Donald J. Trump. Dizzying in its delusional complexity, it centered on a supposed plot by the Clinton Foundation, George Soros and associates of Hugo Chávez to convert Trump votes into Biden votes by way of software from Smartmatic and voting machines from Dominion Voting Systems.Murdoch wasn’t pleased. He had built the most powerful media empire on the planet by understanding what his audience wanted and giving it to them without fear or judgment. But Trump now appeared to be making a serious bid to overturn a legitimate election, and his chaos agents — his personal lawyer Giuliani chief among them — were creating dangerous new appetites. Now Murdoch was faced with holding the line on reporting the facts or following his audience all the way into the land of conspiracy theories. Neither choice was necessarily good for business. At 5:01 p.m. London time, he sent an email to his friend Saad Mohseni — an Afghan Australian media mogul sometimes referred to as the Afghan Rupert Murdoch — from his iPhone. “Just watched Giuliani press conference,” he wrote. “Stupid and damaging.” Shortly after, he sent another email, this one to his Fox News chief executive, Suzanne Scott: “Terrible stuff damaging everybody, I fear. Probably hurting us, too.”Murdoch had for weeks — for years, really — avoided making a choice. Trump and his supporters were already furious at Fox News for being the first network to call Biden the victor in Arizona, and two newer cable networks were offering them a version of reality more fully on Trump’s terms. One of them, Newsmax, was moving up in the ratings while refusing to call Biden the winner. When Murdoch’s own paper, The Wall Street Journal, reported a few days before Giuliani’s news conference that Trump allies were considering pouring money into Newsmax to help it mount a stiffer challenge to Fox, Murdoch alerted Scott to the piece. Fox would have to play this just right, he said in an email. Take Giuliani with “a large grain of salt,” he wrote, but also be careful not to “antagonize Trump further.”The network’s coverage of the Giuliani news conference showed just how impossible this balancing act would be. Immediately afterward, a Fox News White House correspondent, Kristin Fisher, went to the network’s camera position outside the West Wing and fact-checked the allegations. “So much of what he said was simply not true,” she told Fox viewers. Giuliani, she said, provided no hard proof for a claim that “really cuts to the core of our democratic process.” Fox’s opinion hosts, who had been broadcasting the Giuliani-Powell Dominion fantasies to varying degrees themselves — some appearing to endorse them outright — had been complaining internally that the news division’s debunking efforts were alienating the core audience. An executive at the Fox Corporation, the network’s parent company, had recently started a brand protection effort to, among other tasks, “defend the brand in real time.” After Fisher’s segment, the group sent an alert to top news executives. In a follow-up email, Scott vented to a deputy. “I can’t keep defending these reporters who don’t understand our viewers and how to handle stories,” she wrote. “We have damaged their trust and belief in us.” One of Fisher’s bosses told her that she needed to do a better job of “respecting our audience,” and Fisher later complained of feeling sidelined. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      8 Years in Trump Prison and Still Waiting on Parole

      by

      On Monday a friend breathlessly and sheepishly emailed: “Yes, I admit it: I’m watching the motorcade from La Guardia to Trump Tower. It’s like O.J.’s Bronco ride! And I swear, the lead car in the motorcade looks like a white Bronco! Could this be an inside joke by the N.Y.P.D.?”As delicious — indeed, bewitching — a possibility as this might be, I found myself shrugging. I didn’t watch the motorcade, nor could I watch the arraignment, though long have I fantasized about seeing Donald Trump perp-walked, mug-shot, fingerprinted, shackled, summarily convicted and motorcaded directly from court to the South Street Seaport and put aboard a ship for St. Helena.Why am I not jubilating, wallowing in a deep, warm bubble bath of schadenfreude? Why, instead of humming “Ding, dong, the witch is dead!” am I pressing buttons on the remote control to see what else is on — some politically themed movie, say, in which the president more or less gracefully accepts proof of his villainy, resigns and helicopters off to exile in, say, California? Those were the days. Instead, what’s currently on more resembles “Groundhog Day,” a replay of a movie about replay.Much as I hope to see justice served — if not, at this late point, piping hot — it feels as though we’re the ones who are already in jail. Mr. Trump came down that escalator into the lobby in 2015, making this the eighth year of our sentence in Trump Prison.Is there hope of parole? Remains to be seen. Despair is a mortal sin, and yet … who knows? We are relentlessly, remorselessly told by some constitutional pooh-bah that even if convicted, a person can 1) run for president and 2) be president. Who knew?Mr. Trump’s fame came largely from a reality TV show, every episode of which concluded with his snarling at people and telling them they were fired. His genius was to make us participants in this garish melodrama. Though many of us — but, alas, apparently not enough of us — yearn fervently to fire him, he has proved unfireable. Teflon, Kevlar, whatever your metaphor for “unassailable” — he endures. The show is renewed for another season. The concept of becoming ridiculous and tiresome by jumping the shark does not apply. The bigger the shark, the higher the jump. On to the Capitol! Hang Mike Pence! (who was last heard bemoaning the “weaponization” of justice). Oh, the humanity!I didn’t tune in live, but I did see a photo of Mr. Trump on Monday, entering the lobby of his namesake tower, where eight years ago he sentenced us to imprisonment. He didn’t look happy. Who would? Yet one wondered if, deep down inside, he was. Despite the circumstances — WITCH HUNT! — he was exactly where he craves to be: the orange omphalos of our world.Years ago, a now disgraced network television C.E.O. observed without shame that Donald Trump’s first run for office might not be good for the country but he was sure good for his network. These ratings are through the roof!Whom the gods would destroy, first they bestow upon them monster ratings. When Tucker Carlson lays his head upon his pillow after another day of bread and circuses, does he reconcile defending a man about whom he confided to colleagues, “I hate him passionately,” with suggesting to viewers that now might not be a good time to hand in their AR-15s? If he succeeds at this contradictory jujitsu, he deserves a black belt in cognitive dissonance.Democrats, it’s said, never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It may be time to revise this hoary axiom, for it’s the Republicans who’ve blown one opportunity after another. Not just two impeachments. As the historian Jon Meacham points out in The New Yorker, Republicans in Congress could have invoked the clause in the 14th Amendment that bars from public office anyone who attempts to overthrow the government.This was the lowest hanging fruit of all, but the party of Lincoln and Reagan didn’t raise a hand. In the same interview Mr. Meacham, the author of an admiring biography of George H.W. Bush, also expressed utter bafflement that Mr. Bush’s lifelong close friend and consigliere James Baker admitted to voting for Mr. Trump — whom Mr. Baker despises almost as much as Mr. Carlson does — not once but twice. Much as I miss Mr. Bush, I’m grateful he’s not around to hear this.The show will go on, endlessly renewed for another season. There will be more indications — sorry, indictments. The dogs will bark, but athwart the old proverb, the caravan will not move on.Christopher Buckley is a novelist and a humorist.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Three Takeaways From a Tumultuous Day in Politics

      by

      A blowout in Wisconsin, an indictment in New York and a progressive victory in Chicago.Supporters of the victorious Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate, Janet Protasiewicz, on Tuesday night in Milwaukee. Abortion was a key issue. Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesIt has been a big — even historic — week in American politics. Donald J. Trump was indicted. The liberal candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court, Janet Protasiewicz, easily prevailed over a conservative, Daniel Kelly. And Brandon Johnson, a progressive, was elected the mayor of Chicago.What did we learn? While in some cases it’s too soon to say much, here are a few early takeaways:It’s still 2022, at least in WisconsinIf the 2022 midterm elections offered any lesson, it was that liberals excel when abortion and democracy are on the ballot. Liberal voters turn out en masse. A crucial sliver of voters — perhaps as few as one in every 30 or 40 — will flip to vote for the Democrat when they otherwise would have voted Republican.That pattern continued in Wisconsin on Tuesday, when the liberal candidate won by 11 points, a striking margin for Wisconsin. Like many of the best Democratic showings of 2022, the Wisconsin race seemed likely to decide the fate of the state’s abortion ban and its gerrymandered legislative maps.Interestingly, Wisconsin was not a state where Democrats excelled last November. They didn’t fare poorly, but Senator Ron Johnson still won re-election and the incumbent Democratic governor won by just three points. The 2022 showing was no Democratic romp like in Pennsylvania or Michigan, where a stop-the-steal candidate or abortion referendum helped Democrats.This time, the issues facing Wisconsin voters were more like those in Michigan and Pennsylvania. As a result, Wisconsin liberals won a Pennsylvania-like and Michigan-like landslide.Too early to tell on Trump, but a short-term bumpIt’s still far too soon to say how the indictment of Mr. Trump will play out. But there are already plenty of signs that he has gained among Republican primary voters since last Thursday, when news of the indictment broke. Indeed, all four polls taken over this period showed Mr. Trump gaining compared with their previous survey.We’ll probably return to this question in more depth next week. After all, none of these polls were taken after his flight to New York or his surrender to authorities in Manhattan. And he was already gaining before the news of his indictment, so it’s hard to distinguish his latest gains from the continuation of a longer-term trend.Still, it would be no surprise if Mr. Trump is benefiting from the indictment. For days, the conservative media ecosystem has been dominated by a chorus of his defenders, including none other than his chief rival, Ron DeSantis. This is about as favorable of a media environment as it gets for a Republican primary candidate.How this will play over the longer term — especially if Mr. Trump faces other indictments — remains to be seen.Brandon Johnson, a progressive, as he concluded his victory speech on Tuesday in Chicago.Evan Cobb for The New York TimesBlack voters are the fulcrum of a divided Democratic electorateThe Chicago mayoral race wasn’t a Democratic primary, but it was about as close as it gets for a general election: Both candidates were Democrats, and 82 percent of Chicago voters backed Mr. Biden in 2020. Like many Democratic primaries over the last decade, it pitted an activist-backed progressive against a more moderate candidate.But while we’ve grown accustomed to victories for moderate Democrats in most of these intra-primary fights, in Chicago it was the progressive candidate Brandon Johnson who prevailed. That’s in no small part thanks to the backing of Black voters, who have often offered decisive support to high-profile establishment-backed candidates, from Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to Eric Adams.With many examples of Black voters backing moderate candidates over the years, it can be tempting to assume that they are the reliable moderate allies of the establishment. In reality, it’s not so simple. In particular, Black voters have often backed Black progressives over white moderates and liberals.In the New York mayoral race, Black voters overwhelmingly backed Mr. Adams over the liberal Kathryn Garcia, even though they also preferred the Black progressive Maya Wiley over Ms. Garcia, based on data from ranked choice balloting. When Black voters side with progressives, the establishment’s position suddenly looks a lot weaker: Black voters represent around 20 percent of Democratic voters.Mr. Johnson, who is Black, routinely won 80 percent of the vote in the South Side’s majority Black wards, helping him squeak past the moderate Paul Vallas, who won a lot of the rest of the city.Mr. Johnson’s success doesn’t necessarily mean that Black Democrats are feeling the Bern, or otherwise itching to support progressive candidates. In this year’s primary, Mr. Johnson fared best in relatively young and white progressive areas on Chicago’s North Side, while the incumbent, Lori Lightfoot, carried the South Side wards where Mr. Johnson would dominate just a month later.But the importance of Black voters to progressive fortunes might offer a lesson for activists who hope one of their own might win a Democratic presidential primary.After all, the last candidate to beat the Democratic establishment in such a Democratic primary was none other than Barack Obama. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Republican Party Sorts Through Its Mess

      by

      Listen and follow ‘The Run-Up’Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Amazon MusicIt may feel too early to be thinking about the 2024 presidential election — but it’s the perfect time to understand where the parties are at, and how their plans for the next election cycle are shaping up.In our first episode, we join the Republican National Committee in Dana Point, Calif., as it gathers for its winter meeting. After a disappointing midterms, fractures have formed within the committee’s ranks. After targeting Kevin McCarthy in the fight for House speaker, the grass roots turned their ire on Ronna McDaniel, the chair of the R.N.C.The effort to replace Ms. McDaniel at this year’s winter meeting is emblematic of what the party is at this moment: a mess of tangled lines and scrambled allegiances.Patrick T. Fallon/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAbout ‘The Run-Up’First launched in August 2016, three months before the election of Donald Trump, “The Run-Up” is The New York Times’s flagship political podcast. The host, Astead W. Herndon, grapples with the big ideas already animating the 2024 presidential election. Because it’s always about more than who wins and loses. And the next election has already started.Last season, “The Run-Up” focused on grass-roots voters and shifting attitudes among the bases of both political parties. This season, we go inside the party establishment.New episodes on Thursdays.Credits“The Run-Up” is hosted by More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Indictment Is Karmic Justice, Regardless of the Verdict

      by

      Finally, here we are: Donald Trump’s first indictment. The 34 felony counts unsealed at his arraignment this week focus on the falsification of business records in the first degree, a low-level felony charge. This indictment may not prove to be the rock-solid legal case one might hope it to be. It neither addresses the gravest allegations leveled at Trump — subverting the vote, attempted coup, rape — nor is it the most potentially persuasive case against him under consideration. Whether the evidence proves strong enough to convict him will be up to legal analysts to parse and ultimately, a jury to decide months from now.But for the moment, let’s appreciate the karmic justice of these particular charges — no matter the outcome. Falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to a porn star, brings us full circle to the sleaziness we knew about well before Trump ever set foot in office. In the indictment’s focus on Trump’s financial malfeasance and his flagrant misogyny, the charges recall two pivotal events that took place before his election: his failure to disclose his tax returns and the contemptuous behavior revealed in the “Access Hollywood” tape.Both told us everything we could have expected from a Trump presidency. Both should have stopped Trump from becoming president. And the fact that they didn’t — that roughly half of American voters were willing to overlook Trump’s moral failings in the service of politics — shows why the country is still so intractably polarized. But neither side can claim it didn’t know exactly the kind of person who was elected in the first place.Let’s step back, then, to Trump’s emergence as a presidential candidate in the 2016 election. Anyone who’d been following his antics for decades assumed, wrongly, that nobody would take seriously the prospect of a corrupt businessman, third-tier reality TV showman and object of tabloid ridicule as president.That many Americans nonetheless did take the prospect seriously seemed bound to be undone by those two pre-election events. First, Trump’s refusal to release his tax records was a departure from years of accepted practice. If he had nothing to hide, he would have shared his returns. If he had been telling the truth, he wouldn’t have repeatedly said he intended to share his returns. And if he couldn’t abide by this seemingly innocuous precedent, we knew he would not follow others. And that’s what we got: the blatant graft that marked his term in office, whether it was his rampant financial conflicts of interest, his frequent self-dealings and misuse of the Trump International Hotel and other properties or the taxpayer-funded excesses and shady profit-seeking by members of his extended family.The second event was the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape, which revealed a man with such disdain for women that he would respect neither their humanity nor their bodily autonomy. To anyone paying attention, Trump’s vocal contempt for women had been on display in New York and on “The Howard Stern Show” for decades. But “Access Hollywood” made it plain to everyone, immediately before the election, exactly what kind of man they were getting: one who would callously separate mothers from their children at the border and deliberately appoint people to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.Perhaps Trump himself recognized the parallel. As The Times reporter Maggie Haberman noted on the day he pleaded not guilty to the charges, “One of the few times Trump has looked as angry as he just did was when he was at the second presidential debate with Hillary Clinton two days after the infamous ‘Access Hollywood’ tape became public in October 2016.”Lying. Cheating, personally and professionally. Financial misdeeds. Sexism. Whatever the eventual outcome of this trial, the moral and political case against Trump now echoes the case against Trump back then.Last Thursday night at the end of a Broadway performance of “Parade,” a musical about the wrongful murder conviction of Leo Frank in Georgia in 1913, the star Ben Platt addressed the audience after the ovations to contrast that woeful history with the rightful indictment of Donald Trump that day. The audience’s resounding cheers in response may have surpassed the considerable applause for the performance itself.Some say the indictment of a former president, however justified, is no cause for celebration. That we should not be happy that a former American president has been charged with a crime. That it sets a dangerous precedent on the road to banana republic-dom.But we should be happy that this president was indicted.Too many years of knowing that Trump’s time in office would deliver on the sleaziness of its promise. Too many years of an endless cycle of revelations and accusations met with impunity have felt like an inconceivable injustice to those of us who continue to believe — against often crushing evidence to the contrary — in the existence of any kind of justice at all. There is, it must be said, a deep satisfaction in knowing that after too many years of suffering through the Trump we got, Trump himself finally has been gotten.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      What It Was Like Inside the Courtroom During Trump’s Arraignment

      by

      Here are some of the most important moments from the hearing where criminal charges against Donald Trump were unveiled.Former President Donald J. Trump sat quietly in a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday as prosecutors described the accusations against him. The proceeding marked his first experience as a criminal defendant.A 32-page transcript of the hearing offers only a hint of the dramatic implications of the arraignment and the lengthy legal process to come. It was one of the most-anticipated court proceedings in the world. And yet, it was seen firsthand only by the few dozen people who were present in the courtroom where the charges against Mr. Trump were unveiled.Here are some of the most important moments from the arraignment:The hearing begins, and Mr. Trump pleads.THE COURT: Let’s arraign Mr. Trump.THE CLERK: Donald J. Trump, the grand jury of New York County has filed indictment 71543 of 2023 charging you with the crimes of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.How do you plead to this indictment, guilty or not guilty?DEFENDANT MR. TRUMP: Not guilty.The shades were down in the courtroom when Mr. Trump entered around 2:30 p.m., wearing a navy suit, a red tie and a blank expression. Armed court officers flanked him on both sides as he walked down the aisle toward the front. Photographers were briefly allowed to enter the jury box to take his picture, and he turned and stared at the cameras until their operators were made to leave.Mr. Trump’s arraignment did not begin immediately after he came in. He was compelled to wait about 10 minutes, seated silently at the defense table, as a lawyer representing media organizations requested that journalists be granted more access to the proceeding. Mr. Trump visibly scoffed when that lawyer asserted that professional journalists could be trusted.When that lawyer was finished speaking, the judge, Juan M. Merchan, referred to in the transcript as “The Court,” called for Mr. Trump to be arraigned. The former president was read the charges against him — 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. In the hushed courtroom, Mr. Trump leaned forward and, speaking into the microphone at the defense table, said that he was not guilty.A prosecutor previews the case.MR. CONROY: The defendant, Donald J. Trump, falsified New York business records in order to conceal an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 presidential election and other violations of election laws.Chris Conroy, a prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, then stood up and began to detail the charges. They stem from a hush-money payment that Mr. Trump’s former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, paid to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, in the run-up to the 2016 election. Mr. Trump reimbursed Mr. Cohen after he was elected. Prosecutors are accusing Mr. Trump of orchestrating the creation of false business records related to the reimbursements.Falsifying business records is only a felony in New York State when it is committed with the intent to “commit or conceal” another crime. In saying that Mr. Trump had falsified records “to conceal an illegal conspiracy,” Mr. Conroy offered a potential preview of the office’s broader case against Mr. Trump.Members of the defense team were handed copies of the indictment. Mr. Trump passed a copy to one of his lawyers, Joseph Tacopina. The former president was the only person at the defense table not to accept a copy.Mr. Trump’s recent social media posts are entered into the record.An extraordinary moment came when Mr. Conroy began to reference Mr. Trump’s recent social media posts. The former president promised that “death and destruction” would follow were he to be charged and posted racist language and threatening images directed at the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg.MR. CONROY: We have significant concern about the potential danger this kind of rhetoric poses to our city, to potential jurors and witnesses, and to the judicial process.Mr. Conroy then passed out printed copies of Mr. Trump’s posts to the judge and defense team. Mr. Trump passed his copy to Mr. Tacopina, but a minute later requested it back, beckoning with his right hand. Another of his lawyers, Todd Blanche, objected strongly to Mr. Conroy’s comments about the social media posts.MR. BLANCHE: It is true that President Trump has responded, and responded forcefully. It is true that as part of that response, he’s absolutely frustrated, upset, and believes that there is a grave injustice happening with him being in this courtroom today.Mr. Blanche asserted that Mr. Trump “ has rights, he’s allowed to speak publicly.”That appeared to prompt Justice Merchan, who spoke calmly and soberly, to respond that he had no immediate intention of placing a “gag order” on Mr. Trump, counter to concerns expressed recently by the former president’s legal team. Prosecutors have not requested a gag order.THE COURT: Certainly, the court would not impose a gag order at this time even if it were requested.Such restraints are the most serious and least intolerable on First Amendment rights. That does apply doubly to Mr. Trump, because he is a candidate for the presidency of the United States. So, those First Amendment rights are critically important, obviously.But Justice Merchan, a judge in the State Supreme Court since 2009, did warn the defense to speak to Mr. Trump “and anybody else you need to, and remind them to please refrain from making statements that are likely to incite violence or civil unrest.”The prosecution details potential constraints on Mr. Trump.MS. MCCAW: Defendant may not provide the materials he receives through the discovery process to any third party, including the press, and he may not post them to social media.As Mr. Trump continued to sit in silence, Catherine McCaw, another prosecutor, told the judge that her team was working with Mr. Trump’s lawyers to draft a protective order, a document that would place certain constraints on Mr. Trump.One of those constraints, she said, would bar the former president from posting certain case material on social media, or from sharing it with reporters. Were Mr. Trump to violate any constraints that are in place, Justice Merchan would decide whether and how to sanction him.Mr. Trump speaks again.As his arraignment went on, Mr. Trump increasingly fidgeted. He wove and unwove his fingers repeatedly. He crossed and uncrossed his arms. He knocked his knuckles on the hardwood table. Once, he puffed out his cheeks in a sigh.Finally, more than a half-hour after he entered his plea, he spoke again — after being prompted by his lawyers — but only to respond to Justice Merchan when the judge informed the former president about his right to be present at proceedings — and the ways that right could be forfeited.THE COURT: If you become disruptive to such a degree that it affects my ability to preside over this case and my ability to ensure that the case is treated the way it needs to be treated for both sides, I do have the authority to remove you from the courtroom and continue in your absence, do you understand that?DEFENDANT MR. TRUMP: I do.The judge requests Mr. Trump’s presence.THE COURT: I expect all other defendants to appear in court, even high-profile defendants.Given that Mr. Trump was charged with nonviolent crimes, prosecutors were barred from even requesting that he be put in jail. As Justice Merchan prepared to release the former president, Mr. Blanche suggested that Mr. Trump might not appear at his next court date, scheduled for Dec. 4. When asked for his reasoning, Mr. Blanche cited “the incredible expense and effort and security issues” that attended the arraignment.The judge acknowledged that it had been a huge undertaking for everyone involved. But he noted that December was “quite a ways out.” Finally, he noted that “in the interest of transparency and assuring the rules of law evenhandedly,” he was going to disagree with Mr. Blanche. The implication: As much as possible, the judge intends to treat Mr. Trump like any other defendant.When the arraignment adjourned around 3:25 p.m., Mr. Trump was the slowest person at the defense table to stand up. He smoothed the lapels of his blue suit jacket, neatened a stack of paper in front of him and walked out of the courtroom.Embed Only More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley Raises Over $11 Million to Start Her 2024 Campaign

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump, in comparison, raised only $9.5 million during the same period after announcing his third presidential run.Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, raised more than $11 million in the first six weeks of her presidential run, her campaign said on Wednesday, a sizable sum that easily eclipses what former President Donald J. Trump was able to raise during the same period after announcing his candidacy.Ms. Haley received 70,000 donations, from all 50 states, the vast majority of which were under $200, her campaign said in a news release that described the contributions as a sign of her broad appeal and effective fund-raising efforts.Ms. Haley was the first major Republican candidate to enter the race with Mr. Trump, who announced his third bid for the White House shortly after the midterm elections in November. He raised only $9.5 million in his first six weeks, his campaign said in February, a relatively weak showing.But the announcement of criminal charges against him in a hush-money case appears to be helping him make up for the sluggish start: He has pulled in more than $12 million since his indictment on Friday, his campaign said on Wednesday.Early polling has shown Ms. Haley trailing significantly behind Mr. Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who has not yet formally entered the race. She has sought, in her early and energetic campaign stops, to position herself as a “tough-as-nails woman” who could offer a seasoned, reasonable alternative.The fund-raising sum reflects the six-week period between Feb. 14, when Ms. Haley formally entered the race, and the end of March. An official figure will be released in the coming weeks as part of the campaign’s required quarterly filing. She had about $7.8 million cash on hand at the end of the quarter, her campaign said.Eric J. Tanenblatt, a Georgia-based Republican strategist and fund-raiser who has supported Ms. Haley since her state campaigns, said the numbers “solidify” her as a serious candidate and give her “a good foundation to build on.”“It is a robust number,” said Mr. Tanenblatt, who hosted a fund-raiser for Ms. Haley last month. “I don’t think anyone should underestimate her.”The numbers released Wednesday do not include money raised by Stand for America PAC, the political action committee she created in 2021 and which is aligned with her campaign. Such groups can raise unlimited funds from donors, while funds raised by the campaign committees are held to strict caps for individual donors.Her super PAC had raised $17 million and reported $2 million on hand at the end of 2022, filings show. The next round of figures is due in July.A super PAC supporting Mr. Trump reported having $54.1 million on hand at the end of 2022. As for Mr. DeSantis, a super PAC aligned with him said Tuesday it had raised $30 million since March 9. He also had at least $80 million in a state committee at the end of February, Florida records show.But it is the funds raised by campaign committees, despite the restraints, that are considered a more critical measure of a candidate’s popular appeal. The money they raise goes further — for example, federal law allows political candidates to pay the lowest available price for broadcast ads, while super PACs have no such protections.“In just six weeks, Nikki Haley’s massive fund-raising and active retail campaigning in early voting states makes her a force to be reckoned with,” Ms. Haley’s campaign manager, Betsy Ankney, said in a statement Wednesday. “Voters and donors are clearly responding to Nikki’s conservative message and her call for a new generation of leadership to make America strong and proud.”Ms. Haley has made a big ground-level push in early primary states. In February and March, she made several trips to Iowa and New Hampshire for town halls, meetings with local lawmakers, and other voter events. More