Category Archives: Donald Trump

Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/Getty

Between Texas Gov. Greg Abbott letting the state power grid collapse while hes busing migrants to D.C. to get himself on Fox News, Jared Kushner getting $2 billion from the Saudis, and Donald Trump bragging to Sean Hannity about how well he knows Vladimir Putin, theres no end to the fuckery.

But the focus on The New Abnormal this week is on Donald Trump Jr., as CNN reporter Zachary Cohen breaks down his reporting on the namesakes post-election text messages to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows scheming on how to steal the election: We either have a vote WE control and WE win OR it gets kicked to Congress 6 January 2021.

That, Cohen tells co-host Molly Jong-Fast, shows that even in those earliest days, while the election votes were still being counted, there were high-level people, very close to the former president, including his chief of staff and his namesake oldest son, talking through the details about what would happen over the next two months in the lead up to Jan. 6, as far as the strategy to overturn the election. It really puts an important timestamp on when this strategy was being drawn upeven as the votes were still being counted.

Subscribe to The New Abnormal on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Amazon Music, or Overcast.

Whats interesting about Donald Trump Juniors text messages, Cohen explains, is that they refer to multiple paths that we control. There was an eye to Jan. 6 as sort of the backup plan where Junior alludes to a scenario where the House of Representatives can essentially vote to install Donald Trump as president, rather than Joe Biden. So Juniors lawyer told us, Look, this was given the date that this was sent. And, uh, he was, looks like he was forwarding along someone elses ideas, but weve also learned about a text that came immediately before that from Donald Trump, Jr. that says, Look, this is what we need to do. Please read it, please get it to everyone. We need to do it because Im not sure we're doing it. So he is clearly putting a stamp of approval on things.

Story continues

Plus University of California Law professor Rick Hasen, the co-director of the universitys Fair Elections and Free Speech Center and the author of Cheap Speech: How Disinformation Poisons Our Politicsand How to Cure It, explains how if we had the same polarized politics of today, but the technology of the 1950s, we likely wouldn't have had Jan. 6 and the insurrection and millions of people believing the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

Listen to The New Abnormal on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon and Stitcher.

Read more at The Daily Beast.

Get the Daily Beast's biggest scoops and scandals delivered right to your inbox. Sign up now.

Stay informed and gain unlimited access to the Daily Beast's unmatched reporting. Subscribe now.

Read more:

Donald Trump Jr. Was Up to His Ears in the Plot to Steal ...

Beltway pundits have been predicting former President Trumps political downfall almost from the moment Trump announced his candidacy in 2015. There may be a worse bet in Washington, but youd be hard-pressed to find it.

Trump seems to defy the laws of political gravity. Not only has he survived multiple accusations of sexual misconduct, countless administration scandals and a historic two impeachments, hes done so with his popularity largely intact among Republicans. And while a 44 percent national favorability rating isnt anything to celebrate, Trump has proven it is enough to win the presidency in a country deeply divided by political polarization.

But recent GOP primary polling and public comments by prominent Republicans indicate that the ground may be shifting under Trumps feet. Whats worse for The Donald, much of the harshest criticism comes from former MAGA faithful who are increasingly questioning Trumps fitness to lead the insurgent movement he founded.

Trump drew rare criticism from fellow Republicans for his endorsement of Dr. Mehmet Oz, a snake-oil selling daytime television star and Republican candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania. Former candidate Sean Parnell described himself as disappointed by Trumps decision, calling Oz the antithesis of everything that made Trump the best president of my lifetime.

Breitbarts Joel Pollak went further, warning that Trumps endorsement of Oz could divide MAGA in the only way that matters: He could lose the America First conservatives over it. For a party that loyally stomached Trumps full endorsement of Roy Moores doomed Alabama Senate bid, Dr. Oz is simply a bridge too far.

Trumps base of strength within the GOP has always been his ability to command loyalty from Republican lawmakers, even at the expense of their own political prospects. But pollster Frank Luntz suggests Trumps awe-inspiring effect on his partys players may be fading. In an interview with CNNs Dana Bash, Luntz described a former president widely mocked albeit privately and quietly within his partys elite circles. That might seem minor for Democrats used to mocking their partys agitators, but it represents a huge breach of loyalty in a Trumpified GOP.

The former presidents control over his party is slipping in large part because of a self-inflicted wound. During a radio interview on Feb. 22, Trump praised Russian President Vladimir Putin as a genius and applauded Putins savvy invasion of Ukraine. The issue became an immediate Republican loyalty test, dividing the party based on Republican lawmakers willingness to cheer authoritarianism if that pleases Trump.

Praising Putin earned Trump unexpectedly strong (if sometimes indirect) criticism from prominent Republican lawmakers such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who urged President Biden to take immediate action against Putins aggression. In a rare show of independence, Senate Republicans lined up to distance themselves from Trumps remarks by issuing their own condemnations of Putins lawlessness.

Republicans fleeting moment of Trump criticism on Ukraine has emboldened many within the party to voice their own concerns about the partys increasingly erratic direction. Trumps strident endorsement of Oz in Pennsylvania and the MAGA worlds confident rebuke of Trumps vaunted three-dimensional chess political strategy is the most public test yet of the former presidents ability to shape the GOP in his own image.

All that strife within the MAGA movement is hitting Trump where it hurts: rally attendance. With Trumps messengers internally conflicted, audiences are beginning to zone out. A recent North Carolina Trump rally drew a paltry 1,000 to 2,000 attendees, down almost 90 percent over a rally at the same venue during his 2016 presidential campaign. The MAGA movement drew Republicans with its ceaseless stream of attacks against Hillary Clinton and now Joe Biden. Voters seem less interested when MAGA leaders are unloading their ammunition on each other.

Trumps excesses havent doomed him yet, but his movement now faces its most sustained Republican criticism since Jan. 6, when Trump remained silent while his supporters ransacked the Capitol complex. With Trumps endorsed candidates inspiring as much derision as praise and a growing number of GOP hopefuls looking ahead to 2024, the question Republicans must now answer is whether Trump is still an essential part of the MAGA movement.

Unless Trump and his lieutenants can reinforce the former presidents grip on loose-lipped GOP critics, the MAGA movement could fracture just as Republicans head into a critical midterm election cycle. That would be disastrous for the GOP, but it would be politically fatal for an increasingly vulnerable Trump.

MaxBurnsis a Democratic strategist and founder of Third Degree Strategies, a progressive communications firm. Follow him on Twitter @themaxburns.

Link:

Is Trumpism finally cracking? | The Hill

An Ohio man who claimed he was only following presidential orders from Donald Trump when he stormed the US Capitol has been convicted by a jury that took less than three hours to reject his novel defence for obstructing Congress from certifying Joe Bidens presidential victory.

The federal jury on Thursday also found Dustin Byron Thompson, 38, guilty of all five of the other charges in his indictment, including stealing a coat rack from an office inside the Capitol during the riot on 6 January 2021. The maximum sentence for the obstruction count, the lone felony, would be 20 years imprisonment.

Jurors did not buy Thompsons defence, in which he blamed Trump and members of the presidents inner circle for the insurrection and for his own actions.

One juror who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity said: Donald Trump wasnt on trial in this case.

The juror, a 40-year-old man, said as he left the courthouse: Everyone agrees that Donald Trump is culpable as an overall narrative. Lots of people were there and then went home. Dustin Thompson did not.

Thompson himself, testifying a day earlier, admitted he joined the mobs attack and stole the coat rack and a bottle of bourbon. He said he regretted his disgraceful behaviour.

I cant believe the things that I did, he said. Mob mentality and group think is very real and very dangerous.

Still, he said he believed Trumps false claim that the election was stolen and was trying to stand up for him. If the president is giving you almost an order to do something, I felt obligated to do that, he said.

The US district judge Reggie Walton, who is scheduled to sentence Thompson on 20 July, described the defendants testimony as totally disingenuous and his conduct on 6 January as reprehensible. The judge also cast blame in Trumps direction after the verdict was announced.

I think our democracy is in trouble, he said, adding that charlatans like Trump did not care about democracy, only about power. And as a result of that, its tearing our country apart.

Prosecutors did not ask for Thompson to be detained immediately, but Walton ordered him held and he was led away handcuffed. The judge said he believed Thompson was a flight risk and posed a danger to the public.

Thompsons trial was the third to go before a jury among hundreds of Capitol riot cases prosecuted by the justice department. In the first two cases, jurors also convicted the defendants of all charges.

The assistant US attorney William Dreher said Thompson, a college-educated pest exterminator who lost his job during the Covid-19 pandemic, knew he was breaking the law when he joined the mob that attacked the Capitol and, in his case, looted the Senate parliamentarians office. The prosecutor told jurors that Thompsons lawyer wants you to think you have to choose between President Trump and his client.

You dont have to choose because this is not President Trumps trial. This is the trial for Dustin Thompson because of what he did at the Capitol on the afternoon on Jan 6, Dreher told jurors during his closing arguments.

The defence attorney, Samuel Shamansky, said Thompson had not avoided taking responsibility for his conduct.

This shameful chapter in our history is all on TV, Shamansky told jurors. But he said Thompson, unemployed and consumed by a steady diet of conspiracy theories, was vulnerable to Trumps lies about a stolen election. He described Thompson as a pawn and Trump as a gangster who abused his power to manipulate supporters.

The vulnerable are seduced by the strong, and thats what happened here, Shamansky said.

The judge had barred Thompsons lawyer from calling Trump and ally Rudolph Giuliani as trial witnesses. But he ruled that jurors could hear recordings of speeches that Trump and Giuliani delivered on 6 January, before the riot erupted. A recording of Trumps remarks was played.

Shamansky contended that Giuliani, the Trump adviser and former New York City mayor, incited rioters by encouraging them to engage in trial by combat and that Trump provoked the mob by saying: If you dont fight like hell, youre not going to have a country any more.

But Dreher told jurors that neither Trump nor Giuliani had the authority to make legal what Thompson did at the Capitol.

The juror who spoke on condition of anonymity said he was laughing under my breath when Thompson testified he took the coat rack to prevent other rioters from using it as a weapon against police.

See the rest here:

US Capitol rioter who blames Trump for his actions is found guilty - The Guardian

On Thursday, the Republican National Committee voted to withdraw its partys candidates from participation in the official presidential debates. Their unanimous vote to separate from the Commission on Presidential Debates is historic and comes after months of suggestions by the RNC and its chairperson Ronna McDaniel that the party would do so. While it is unclear whether such a move would bar a Republican standard bearer from participating if he or she chose to do so, such a move is a serious threat to the democratic process. It should also infuriate any potential 2024 Republican nominee who believes they could win a debate against President Joe Biden.

The Commission on Presidential Debates sponsors the general election debates between the partys presidential nominees (typically in three sessions) and the partys vice presidential nominees (in one session). The RNCs decision to withdraw from participation would not impact debates in the party primaries, which are typically formed from agreements among media organizations, a political party, and the potential candidates from a given party.

Republican Party leadership has been voicing anger over the rules that the Commission on Presidential Debates maintains and has suggested bias in the process, specifically around choices over moderator selection. Those concerns also extend to the timing of debates, term limits for members of the board of directors, and codes of conduct for staff and moderators. The party has demanded that the process and the commission be reformed.

The scope of reforms and the ability to influence the debate process is important to dissect. There are certain aspects of presidential debates that are set by the commission such as sites, moderators, etc. Other aspects of the debates are negotiated between campaigns and the commission, including minutiae like the position of podiums and the temperature of the air. The bigger picture issues, that (as noted above) RNC complaints center on, are typically determined by the commissions board of directors. That board is bipartisan in nature and many members have deep experience in politics and presidential debate procedure and history.

For most presidential candidates, debates are valuable. They serve as a large-scale, long-format means of detailing their plans and policies to the American public. Thus, it is surprising that the Republican Party would opt out of these debates during this cycle. First, it is always challenging for a presidential challenger to get as much airtime as a sitting president. Because of the nature of the office and the committed press coverage to a sitting President, the incumbent already has a leg up on the competition when it comes to delivering their message to the public. While there have been rumors that President Biden may not seek a second term, the Republican Party must operate under the assumption that he will seek reelection. As a result, the presidential debates offer a challenger an opportunity to be on the same playing fieldin some sense literallyas the sitting president.

Second, presidential campaigns are always a clash and contrast of ideas, and there is no grander stage for that to be played out than in a debate. There are no other opportunities for presidential (and vice presidential) candidates to face off, directly, across from one another, than in the commission sponsored debates. If a candidate is confident that they are a better candidate, with a more electable set of ideas, and would bring to the office a style and approach far superior to that of their opponent, they should clamor for the opportunity.

Third, Republicans have been quite confident in their debate performances in recent elections. On July 2, 2019, President Donald Trump tweeted his own opinion of the 2016 Commission on Presidential Debate-sponsored events stating, As most people are aware according to the Polls I won EVERY debate including the three with Crooked Hillary Clinton. In the following election cycle, the sitting president claimed to have won both debates once again.[1] After the first debate, he told the press corps, [b]y every measure, we won the debate easily last night. He even went on to suggest that despite his own desire for more debates, then-former Vice President Joe Biden wanted to opt out. Days after the second debate, President Trump tweeted about his winning, Debate Poll Average: 89% Trump. 11% Sleepy Joe Biden! Although, it should be noted it was not clear what poll average or specific polling the president was referencing with that claim.

Even the Republican National Committee chairperson praised Trumps debating in 2020. Ms. McDaniels statement tweeted by the official GOP account insisted that President Trump dominated tonights debate by aggressively highlighting that he accomplished more for the American people and the following day noted, President Trumps stellar performance in the second debate. Given this confidence, former President Trumps flirtation with another run in 2024, and polling suggesting he would be the Republican frontrunner, he should be embracing the opportunity to face off against the man who beat him in the 2020 race.

Fourth, withdrawing candidates from the commission-sponsored debates will not guarantee that those debates will be canceled. If the debate is not canceled and the Republican standard bearer opts not to attend, the event could provide President Biden or whoever is the Democratic nominee in 2024 if he were not to run, unfettered access to the American public. Those types of debates have happened in House and Senate races in which a candidate opts not to participate and either multiple candidates get more time than they would have otherwise, or a single candidate gets the entirety of the airtime.

Presidential debates are an important part of the democratic process in the United States. Failure to appear at one robs the American public from having a better understanding of what a candidate believes on a variety of issues, what that candidates demeanor and temperament as president would be like, and what management style he or she would bring to the Oval Office. In a country the size of the United States, the public does not have frequent access to the president or to presidential candidates, and so making an informed decision at the ballot box should require as much factual information about each candidate as is possible. Commission-sponsored debates allow for that possibility. Additionally, presidential candidates these days are kept in carefully protected bubbles in which surprises and curveballs rarely appear. It is at the commission-sponsored presidential debates when the public has the rare opportunity to see a president and/or a presidential candidate forced from that bubble and required to face the public directly.

Particularly in an era of misinformation, disinformation, questionable attack advertising, a social media environment fostered by woefully inept leadership, and a huge cadre of Americans across the political divide who consume news in echo chambers, the commission-sponsored debates serve a vital democratic value. The Republican National Committee should reconsider its decision to withdraw or at least make public that it would take no punitive action against a candidate who sought to participate in the forums. And finally, the Commission on Presidential Debates is not immune from reform or criticism. Where genuine and reasonable reforms or changes can be enacted, the commission should consider them insofar as the integrity of the process is maintained, the changes do not bias a single candidate or party, and the American public gets to hear from the partys standard bearers.

[1] As a reminder, during the 2020 cycle, there were three presidential debates scheduled. The initially scheduled second debate was canceled because President Trump contracted COVID-19. The final and second debate was held on October 22nd.

Read the rest here:

Donald Trump should be furious the RNC nixed presidential debates - Brookings Institution

Donald Trump departed the presidency with the same power he wielded as a billionaire real estate developer: leverage.

Although Trump won more than 74 million votes in 2020, many Republicans wrote Trump off and were ready to move on from him, but Trump still had cards still to play. His leverage over the Republican Party is that he represents the bridge between the party that was and the party it is becoming. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) wrote on Twitter, We are a working-class party now. Thats the future.

Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), in a memorandum to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in March 2021, wrote: President Trump gave the Republican Party a political gift: We are now the party supported by most working-class voters. The question is whether the Republican Party will reject the gift or unwrap it and permanently become the party of the working class.

Trump can rally the working class vote like few Republicans have been able to do since Ronald Reagan. His Forgotten Man language connects him with those who believe that they are not getting a fair shake from Washington insiders, political elites and global corporations.

One problem with Trumpism is that it is built more on leverage than it is on a governing philosophy. This makes it more transactional than unifying. A Trump endorsement provides a level of built-in political support, especially in a primary election, but it also serves to brand a candidate with many of the pejorative invectives leveled against Trump the man, rather than his policies, and branding that can limit a candidates crossover appeal in the general election.

This is not to say that a Trump endorsement is not powerful and coveted by Republican candidates across America, because his endorsement provides a lift like no other endorsement can. As CBS News recently reported, Trump has endorsed nearly 130 candidates for 2022, testing his influence in the Republican Party. Trumps tried-and-true strategy is one that resurrected the political career of Richard Nixon after he lost the presidency in 1960 and governorship of California in 1962. Nixon would go on to win the Republican nomination for president in 1968, and the presidency.

No would have bet that, eight years after losing to John F. Kennedy and then losing to Democrat Pat Brown in California, Nixon would be back on top in 1968. In 1962, Nixon gave what many felt was his last news conference stating, I leave you gentlemen now, and you will write it. You will interpret. Thats your right. But as I leave you, I want you to know just think how much youre going to be missing. You wont have Nixon to kick around anymore, because gentlemen, this is my last press conference, and it will be the one in which I have welcomed the opportunity to test wits with you.

A lesson from Nixon in 1968 is that candidacies are decided more by events than by party leaders, press or prevailing wisdom. In Nixons case, the Republican Party took a disastrous turn to the right in 1964 by nominating Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona who infamously stated in his convention speech, Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue. Goldwater had branded himself and went on to win only six states. Conservatism was viewed as risky in the aftermath of his defeat.

The 1960s was a time of social upheaval and widespread domestic violence spawned from the civil rights movement and protests against the Vietnam War. It was a time when the American people wanted to return to some semblance of normalcy. Nixon represented normalcy. He was the safe bet, the man who had faithfully served as Dwight Eisenhowers vice president for eight years. Nixon had a lot of what we perhaps hoped we were getting with Joe Biden, until we didnt.

There are other parallels to today as we enter the post-COVID era with new challenges begun by Black Lives Matter and framed by the diversity agenda, and a revolt by parents against curricula about race and gender identity in schools that may change the face of politics in America. At this point, the Biden team seems like a crisis-creating machine and many Americans are starting to look beyond him toward a return to a less chaotic America.

This is why 2024 may be shaping up to be the second political resurrection of Trumps candidacy. Trump is building his political capital with his endorsements. He is raising money. The Biden administration, at least at this point, is handing him an I told you so agenda on which to run. The nation is exhausted in the wake of COVID-19 and scared by runaway inflation. The last normal time many people remember is pre-COVID. Trump would be well served to lay claim to the normalcy he created and to promise he can do it again for America.

Trumps greatest and perhaps insurmountable challenge is to move the focus to the issues and off himself. This will require him to define Trumpism as a governing philosophy and to frame issues that bring people together, rather than drive them apart. Too heavy a lift for Donald Trump? Maybe, but not if he keeps his eyes on the prize.

Dennis M. Powell is founder of Massey Powell, an issues management strategy consultancy based in Plymouth Meeting, Pa. He was retained for six years by Trump Entertainment Resorts to build coalitions.

Read more:

Donald Trumps Nixon strategy could pay off in 2024 - The Hill

Between Texas Gov. Greg Abbott letting the state power grid collapse while hes busing migrants to D.C. to get himself on Fox News, Jared Kushner getting $2 billion from the Saudis, and Donald Trump bragging to Sean Hannity about how well he knows Vladimir Putin, theres no end to the fuckery.

But the focus on The New Abnormal this week is on Donald Trump Jr., as CNN reporter Zachary Cohen breaks down his reporting on the namesakes post-election text messages to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows scheming on how to steal the election: We either have a vote WE control and WE win OR it gets kicked to Congress 6 January 2021.

That, Cohen tells co-host Molly Jong-Fast, shows that even in those earliest days, while the election votes were still being counted, there were high-level people, very close to the former president, including his chief of staff and his namesake oldest son, talking through the details about what would happen over the next two months in the lead up to Jan. 6, as far as the strategy to overturn the election. It really puts an important timestamp on when this strategy was being drawn upeven as the votes were still being counted.

Subscribe to The New Abnormal on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Amazon Music, or Overcast.

Whats interesting about Donald Trump Juniors text messages, Cohen explains, is that they refer to multiple paths that we control. There was an eye to Jan. 6 as sort of the backup plan where Junior alludes to a scenario where the House of Representatives can essentially vote to install Donald Trump as president, rather than Joe Biden. So Juniors lawyer told us, Look, this was given the date that this was sent. And, uh, he was, looks like he was forwarding along someone elses ideas, but weve also learned about a text that came immediately before that from Donald Trump, Jr. that says, Look, this is what we need to do. Please read it, please get it to everyone. We need to do it because Im not sure we're doing it. So he is clearly putting a stamp of approval on things.

Plus University of California Law professor Rick Hasen, the co-director of the universitys Fair Elections and Free Speech Center and the author of Cheap Speech: How Disinformation Poisons Our Politicsand How to Cure It, explains how if we had the same polarized politics of today, but the technology of the 1950s, we likely wouldn't have had Jan. 6 and the insurrection and millions of people believing the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

Listen to The New Abnormal on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon and Stitcher.

Go here to see the original:

Donald Trump Jr. Was Up to His Ears in the Plot to Steal the Election for His Daddy - The Daily Beast

The move underscores the importance and urgency of Georgia in Trumps eyes. Kemp has a substantial polling lead over Perdue and has far outpaced his rival in fundraising, despite absorbing more than a year of attacks from the former president. Trump recruited Perdue into the primary and nudged out another candidate who threatened to cut into Perdues vote. The former president recently held a rally for Perdue, recorded a TV advertisement for him and hosted a fundraiser benefiting his campaign.

It is unclear where else Save America PAC will make significant investments, though Trump advisers say another top priority is unseating Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, a high-profile Trump nemesis. And Trump advisers declined to specify exactly how much they planned to spend ahead of the Georgia primary. The $500,000 infusion came as Kemp, Perdue and allies have already spent millions on TV this year.

President Trump is committed to supporting his endorsed candidates across the nation, but we wont be telegraphing our efforts to the media, Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich said in a statement.

Since receiving the donation from Save America PAC on March 25, the anti-Kemp Get Georgia Right super PAC began running a TV ad saying that Kemp dismissed concerns about voter fraud in the 2020 election. The ad argued that if Kemp cant beat voter fraud, he wont beat [Democratic candidate] Stacey Abrams in the November general election.

The commercial is running in the more conservative parts of the state, with an eye toward driving Trump supporters out to the polls for Perdue. The super PACs senior adviser is Gregg Phillips, a conservative activist whom Trump name-checked in a 2017 tweet after Phillips made the unfounded claim that 3 million votes were cast fraudulently in the 2016 election.

President Trump has demonstrated a strong interest in making sure the truth emerges about what happened in Georgia. He has also stated that the best way to solve this problem is electing people who acknowledge it and are committed to improving election integrity, said Jessica Freese, a Get Georgia Right spokesperson.

There is widespread concern about the Kemp-Perdue primary within Trumps political orbit. Trump himself has privately expressed unease with Perdues standing in the race, and he has been non-committal about traveling to the state to hold another rally, according to two people familiar with the internal deliberations. Trump advisers say they are prepared to take other steps to bolster Perdues standing including small-dollar fundraising, hosting a tele-town hall rally, and sending out Trump-recorded phone calls before determining whether to hold another in-person campaign-style event.

Kemp has capitalized on his incumbency to establish a major financial advantage over Perdue. According to AdImpact, which tracks campaign advertising, through Tuesday Kemp and allied groups had spent or reserved $11.4 million worth of TV ads, compared to just $2.7 million for the pro-Perdue forces a difference of more than 4-to-1. Kemp has benefited from the support of the deep-pocketed Republican Governors Association, which has been airing commercials touting his record as governor. The organization is expected to run ads for the duration of the contest.

Trump has appeared to acknowledge the challenge of defeating Kemp, saying during a recent appearance on a conservative radio show that its always hard to beat a sitting governor.

Its hard. Its very hard to beat, because they have a lot of money behind them. You know, everybody is giving them money, Trump added. But we will see what happens.

The Trump team is hoping to prevent Kemp from reaching 50 percent of the vote in the primary, which would force him into a June 21 runoff. Three other lesser-known Republicans will also be on the ballot on May 24, which could divide the vote.

Trump has a lot more riding on Georgia beyond the governors race. Hes endorsed a slate of primary candidates, including GOP Rep. Jody Hice, who is looking to unseat Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, another target of Trumps derision because of Raffenspergers refusal to indulge the former presidents complaints about the 2020 election.

Save America will likely need to invest a substantial sum to have an impact in the governors race, given the large amounts already being spent. But even if Trump blankets the airwaves for Perdue, theres no guarantee it will be enough to defeat the governor, some Republicans say.

Any Republican running in a competitive primary would want Trumps support, said Chip Lake, a veteran Georgia-based Republican strategist. That being said, you still have to bring something else to the table that resonates with voters, and thats where David is struggling.

View post:

Trump pours money into a midterm race for the first time - POLITICO

Lets say you were under investigation for attempted murder. While this was happening, it probably wouldnt be a great idea to try and murder another person, and it definitely wouldnt be a good idea to get caught attempting to murder thesameperson the cops already suspected you tried to kill. To most people, this is common sense. But of course, not everyone is savvy to the dont try to murder someone while already under investigation for attempted murder rule, and by some people, we meanDonald Trumpand his cronies, who are at this very moment, despite the active congressional investigation into their attempt to overturn the 2020 election, still trying to overturn the 2020 election.

John Eastman, the right-wing attorney who played a huge role in trying to get the election results thrown out more than a year ago, has not stopped in his quest to have Joe Bidens win decertified, ABC News reports. During a private meeting on March 16, Eastman and a small group of Trump allies spent nearly two hours attempting to convince the Republican leader of the Wisconsin State Assembly to invalidate the Electoral College results, according to Will Steakin, Katherine Faulders,and Laura Romeros report. Eastman reportedly pushed Speaker Robin Vos to start reclaiming the electors and either completely do over the election or have a new slate of electors seated that would declare someone else the winner. As Vanity Fairs Eric Lutz reported earlier this month, last summer, Vos hired Michael Gablemanan early supporter of Trumps rigged election claimsto launch an investigationto restore full integrity and trust in elections and answer the many questions that had been raised about the 2020 vote, which Vos previouslyclaimedwas plagued by irregularities. Gableman, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, told Wisconsin lawmakers in early March that they ought to take a very hard look at decertifying the election. So you can see why Eastman and Co. believed theyd have a receptive audience.

Following the March 16 sit-down, Trump said in a statement that Speaker Vos should do the right thing and correct the Crime of the Centuryimmediately! It is my opinion that other states will be doing this, Wisconsin should lead the way! Sources told ABC News that the ex-president has been in contact with multiple people in Wisconsin working on the effort and has received regular updates from MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, the conspiracy theorist who was sued by Dominion Voting Systems for $1.3 billion over his unhinged claims about its voting machines.

The Wisconsin meeting is only the latest recent attempt by Trump allies to nullify Bidens win, more than 17 months on from the election, according to ABC. In February, for instance, Eastman teamed up with a group of Colorado election deniers for an emergency town hall meeting. There, the crowd attacked Colorado secretary of state Jena Griswold, falsely claiming shed participated in an election-fraud conspiracy. Eastman also bragged about election lawsuits in Texas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Wisconsin, and said that people whove condemned his effort to overturn the results of a free and fair election are pure evil.

Incredibly, all of this is happening as Trump, Eastman, and other allies of the former president are being investigated by the Houses January 6 committee. In March, a judge ordered the conservative attorney to hand over emails hed been trying to withhold from the panel on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The judge sided with House lawmakers, who had argued the documents were no longer privileged if they were part of a crime. The true animating force behind these emails, JudgeDavid Carter wrote, was advancing a political strategy: to persuade Vice President[Mike]Penceto take unilateral action on January 6. He added that based on the evidence, Trump more likely than not committed a crime in trying to block Bidens win. And apparently, he and his pals are still at it!

In a statement, Jefferson Davis, a Wisconsin activist who was present at the March 16 meeting, insisted to ABC News that John Eastman has never suggested a do-over and did not say so in the closed meeting with Speaker Vos.Voss office did not respond to multiple requests for comment from ABC News.

In an interview with The Washington Post published last week, Trump appeared to suggest that Biden should be forced to vacate the White House, and that he should replace him. If you are a bank robber, or youre a jewelry store robber, and you go into Tiffanys and you steal their diamonds and get caught, you have to give the diamonds back, he said.

In related news...

The New York Times has obtained audio of a December 30, 2020, conference call in which a Trump ally and Roger Stone mentee named Jason Sullivan told supporters of the then president to storm the Capitol on January 6 and intimidate lawmakers into blocking Bidens win.

Originally posted here:

Surprise: Trump and His Cronies Are Still Actively Trying to Overturn the 2020 Election - Vanity Fair

If you want to satirise a power figure or a political movement, you automatically reach for Shakespeare. Theatrical history is littered with examples. In 1937, Orson Welles staged a modern-dress Julius Caesar that evoked the worlds of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. In 1941, Bertolt Brecht used Richard III as a template for his anti-Hitlerian The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui. In 1966, Barbara Garsons MacBird! daringly suggested that Lyndon Johnson was a modern Macbeth implicated in the death of JFK. So it is hardly surprising that writers and directors turn to the Bard in depicting Donald Trump.

The current example is Mike Bartletts The 47th at the Old Vic, which uses King Lear, Julius Caesar and Richards II and III to try and nail the Trump phenomenon: although highly ingenious, it is hardly likely to cause controversy. The opposite was the case when, in 2017, the New York Public Theaters annual summer Shakespeare in the Park production was a Julius Caesar in which the tyrant was a blond-quiffed figure with a Slovenian-accented wife: a conspirator even argued that the Romans loved him so much that they would forgive him if Caesar had stabbed their mothers on Fifth Avenue. Such was the uproar over the assassination of the Trump-like Caesar that two of the Public Theaters sponsors pulled their support. That production features prominently in a book by Jeffrey R Wilson unequivocally entitled Shakespeare and Trump.

I can understand the temptation to look to the man from Stratford to explain the disruptive politician from Queens. My problem is that Trump lacks the reflectiveness, the rhetoric, the political acumen and the psychological complexity of Shakespeares tragic heroes and emblematic kings. When Bartlett wrote King Charles III, it was possible to believe that our future monarch would suffer the crises of conscience of his Shakespearean forebears. In the case of The 47th it requires all the skill of the brilliant Bertie Carvel to persuade us that Trump is a dramatically compelling protagonist.

The more Bartletts Trump mimics the irony of Mark Antony or the demonism of Richard III, the more conscious you become of the gap between the politician and the prototype. Bartletts Trump is at his best when, still speaking blank verse, he attacks Kamala Harris for the Democrats failure to listen to peoples needs. You speak to them like kids, he tells her. And not just kids but poorer, less good-looking / Trashy kids that you and your celebrities / All constant lecture from your raised pile. That hits home. But, while Bartletts play is amusing and reads well, it struck me that the real Shakespearean parallel with Trump lies not among the kings and emperors but in the figure of Parolles in Alls Well That Ends Well: a hollow braggart who adopts a tone of leering curiosity towards women (Are you meditating on virginity? he asks Helena) and who lies his way out of trouble.

So how do you dramatise Trump? Four years ago, Tony Kushner announced he was writing a play about him: having classified Trump as borderline psychotic, Kushner went on to say that he really is very boring, and so far nothing has emerged. My own hunch is that you either have to tackle Trump on his own terms as a man who treats politics as a form of performance art or you have to analyse the source of his appeal rather than the man himself.

In the first category, I would place a Harold Pinter sketch, The Pres and an Officer, which was premiered as part of Jamie Lloyds season of short Pinter plays in 2018. In the sketch we saw an orange-complexioned, extravagantly coiffured Jon Culshaw, in a fit of pique, ordering the nuking of London under the mistaken impression it was the capital of France. The other method, of examining why people actually voted from Trump, was pursued by a number of writers in a show called Top Trumps staged by Theatre 503 in 2017. One particular piece by Christopher Adams was simply a verbatim interview with the writers mother on why she felt Trump would make her and the nation safer: Mark Lawson in his review said the piece should be taught on creative writing courses as an example of how to explore views with which the writer disagrees.

But if any one play explained Trumps America it was Lynn Nottages Sweat, written in 2015 before his election and set in a Pennsylvania rustbelt town in 2000. Through diligent research and careful listening, Nottage explored what she called the American de-industrial revolution and the anger and despair that greeted increasing unemployment and a steel firms proposal that everyone take a 60% pay cut to save the plant. Trump was never mentioned, but Nottages play did more than all the spoofs and satires to explain his electoral success. Shakespeare himself, of course, had a phrase for this process: By indirections find directions out.

See the original post here:

Sad! Is Donald Trump just too boring for a grand Shakespearean makeover? - The Guardian

The attorney general, Merrick Garland, is facing more political pressure to move faster and expand the US Department of Justices investigation into the January 6 Capitol attack and charge Donald Trump and some of his former top aides.

With mounting evidence from the January 6 House panel, court rulings and news reports that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy in his aggressive drive to thwart Joe Bidens election win in 2020, Garland and his staff face an almost unique decision: whether to charge a former US president.

Ex-justice officials caution, however, that while theres growing evidence of criminal conduct by Trump to obstruct Congress from certifying Bidens win on January 6 and defraud the government, building a strong case to prove Trumps corrupt intent a necessary element to convict him probably requires more evidence and time.

In an important speech in January this year, Garland said he would hold all January 6 perpetrators, at any level accountable, if they were present at the Capitol that day or not, who were responsible for this assault on our democracy, which suggested to some ex-prosecutors that Trump and some allies were in his sights.

But rising pressures on Garland to move faster with a clearer focus on Trump and his top allies have come from Democrats on the House panel investigating the Capitol attack.

Those concerns were underscored this past week when the House sent a criminal referral to the justice department charging contempt of Congress by two Trump aides, trade adviser Peter Navarro and communications chief Dan Scavino, who refused to cooperate after being subpoenaed.

We are upholding our responsibility, the Department of Justice must do the same, panel member Adam Schiff said. Likewise, Congresswoman Elaine Luria urged Garland to do your job so we can do ours.

About four months ago, the House sent a criminal contempt of Congress referral to the justice department for the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, but so far he has not been indicted.

Some former top DoJ officials and prosecutors, however, say Garland is moving correctly and expeditiously in pursuing all criminal conduct to overturn Bidens election in its sprawling January 6 inquiry.

When people (including many lawyers) criticize the DoJ for not more clearly centering the January 6 investigation on Trump, they are expressing impatience rather than a clear understanding of the trajectory of the investigation, the former justice inspector general Michael Bromwich told the Guardian.

DoJ is methodically building the case from the bottom up. It is almost surely the most complex criminal investigation in the nations history, involving the most prosecutors, the most investigators, the most digital evidence and the most defendants, he added.

Bromwich added that people view the scores of ongoing criminal prosecutions of participants in the January 6 insurrection as somehow separate from the investigation of Trump. They are not. He is the subject of the investigation at the top of the pyramid. People need to carefully watch what is happening, not react based on their impatience.

The departments investigation is the biggest one ever. More than 750 people have been charged so far with federal crimes, and about 250 have pleaded guilty.

Still, concerns about the pace of the investigation and why charges have not been filed against Trump have been spurred in part by a few revelations over the last couple of months.

Last month, for instance, federal judge David Carter in a crucial court ruling involving a central Trump legal adviser, John Eastman, stated that Trump more likely than not broke the law in his weeks-long drive to stop Biden from taking office.

Dr Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history, Carter wrote in a civil case which resulted in an order for Eastman to release more than 100 emails he had withheld from the House panel.

Similarly, the January 6 select committee made a 61-page court filing on 2 March that implicated Trump in a criminal conspiracy to block Congress from certifying Bidens win.

On another legal front that could implicate Trump and some top allies, the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, revealed in January that the DoJ was starting a criminal investigation into a sprawling scheme reportedly spearheaded by Trumps ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign aides to replace legitimate electors for Biden with false ones pledged to Trump in seven states that Biden won.

Further, the Washington Post reported late last month that the DoJ had begun looking into the funding and organizing of the January 6 Save America rally in Washington involving some Trump allies. Trump repeated his false claims at the rally that the election was stolen.

We won this election, and we won it by a landslide, Trump falsely told the cheering crowd. You dont concede, when theres theft involved, he said, urging the large crowd to fight like hell, shortly before the Capitol attack by hundreds of his supporters that led to 140 injured police and several deaths.

A Trump spokesperson, Taylor Budowich, has called the House January 6 inquiry a circus of partisanship. And Budowich attacked Judge Carters ruling as absurd and baseless, noting that Carter was a Clinton-appointed judge in California.

Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, told the Guardian that recent actions by the House January 6 panel and by the DoJ, along with court opinions, have notably increased legal threats to Trump. Anyone would need ice in their veins not to feel the heat when all three branches of the federal government are breathing down your neck, he said.

On the issue of whether Trump may be indicted, Donald Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general in the George HW Bush administration, said the critical question should be whether there is adequate proof of wrongful intent. Citing Carters ruling that Trump more likely than not broke the law, Ayer said that the evidence of such intent has recently become a lot stronger.

Nonetheless, Ayer and Aftergut stress Garland has to juggle competing priorities lest he politicize his department, while being extra careful to ensure any charges he may bring against Trump will stand up in court.

Garlands between the rock of defending one justice department ideal and the hard place of protecting another. On one hand, no person is above the law. On the other hand, the department needs to avoid, as much as possible consistent with the first ideal, appearing political, Aftergut said.

Theres nothing easy about the position Garlands in, Aftergut added. The safest course, before considering a prosecution of a former president, would be to demand considerably more evidence of guilt than youd require in any other case.

Ayer added: Garland is right not to be discussing the specifics of whether and how Trump may be indicted, a stance Garland has adopted to protect the DoJs credibility as not political. At the same time, Ayer suggested that Garland should spend more time talking to the country about impartial justice and the idea that no person is above the law.

There are clear risks in moving too fast to appease critics.

Garland must make his decisions based on the law in relation to the facts, the former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin said. The more politicians endeavor to pressure Garland to act, it runs the risk that any decision Garland makes will be seen as politically motivated rather than based on purely legal considerations.

That seems to fit with Garlands approach. In his 5 January speech this year, Garland emphasized, we follow the physical evidence. We follow the digital evidence. We follow the money. But most important, we follow the facts not an agenda or an assumption. The facts tell us where to go next.

And, if there is enough evidence, following the rules could end up with Trump getting charged.

DoJ will never announce that it is investigating Trump and his inner circle. Such an announcement would violate DoJ policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation, said Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan Law School and a former attorney for the eastern district in Michigan.

Garland, McQuade added, is avoiding the mistake FBI director Jim Comey made in investigating Hillary Clinton, for which Comey was properly criticized, referring to two status reports about the investigation made in the months before the 2016 election.

Ultimately, McQuade said that Garlands biggest challenge will be proving that Trump had corrupt intent or intent to defraud, both of which would require proving that he knew his fraud claims were false. It can be very difficult to prove what was in someones mind, but it is not impossible.

See the original post here:

Is Trump in his sights? Garland under pressure to charge ex-president - The Guardian