Category Archives: Donald Trump

So Donald Trump is now the odds-on favorite to be president of the United States in 2025.

I know that lede sentence was also the headline, but I wanted you to read it one more time just to let it really settle in the ol noggin before pressing forward.

The twice-impeached, disgraced loser who was schlonged in the 2020 election, tried to stay in power against the will of the people, and then came ten cowardly Republican senators away from being disqualified from ever running for office again, is now more likely than any other person in the world to take the next oath of office on the Capitol steps on January 20, 2025.

How is that for some weird shit?

Now Im sure some will roll their eyes when this headline comes across the Twitter feed. Attribute this article to my raging Trump Derangement Syndrome or The Bulwarks Cady Heron-level obsession with Mar-a-Lagos in-house wedding toastmaster.

But this aint about my compulsions. Its the actual, real-world reality being presented by those who have the most skin in the game.

Both the major off-shore gambling quants and the online trading markets have moved in Mr. Trumps favor in the past couple weeks.

Over at Predict-It, on the question of who will win the 2024 election, Trump was the most expensive bet going for $0.28 while the incumbent is selling for $0.26. At Smarkets.com, the worm turned on October 12 with Trump moving past Biden as most likely to win in 2024 and hes expanded his advantage in the past few weeks.

Id understand if you had some doubts about whether the same stonkheads who sent the DWAC SPAC behind Trumps nonexistent social media site to the moon can be trusted when it comes to handicapping elections, but the offshore bookmakers are singing from the same Wall Street Bets hymnbook.

Oddschecker has Trump at about a 3:1 chance of winning (+333) while Biden is at 4:1 (+400). PaddyPower, the famed Irish bookmaker that is now backed by FanDuel, gave Trump the third best odds in August, but now has him in pole position. BetOnline.ag is even more bullish on the former guy, putting his odds at +250, with Biden at +350.

So Im not a big politics gambler and hadnt realized this sea change had happened over the past few weeks until I went looking for it after this disturbing realization came to me mid-shower the other morning. (Aside: Dear God, grant me the ability to think about something besides the 2024 election during my morning scrubdown.)

During a thorough lather I did some quick arithmetic. I figured that the Democrats are about a 52/48 favorite over the Republicans in 2024 based on incumbency and the thirty-year streak of winning the popular vote all but once. But Im not that good at doing math in my head so I rounded the odds to 55/45 in order to make things easier and give Uncle Joe a bit of a boost.

From there I figured that Biden is about 60 percent likely to run in 2024, given that hell be almost a decade older than Ronny Reagan was when he ran as the longest-in-the-tooth person to be nominated on a major party ticket in 1984.

So take a 55 percent chance of his party winning, add a 60 percent chance of running and that gives Biden a 33 percent chance of being re-elected.

Now lets look at Trump. I think its more like an 80 percent chance that he runs. Heres why: Its hard to imagine him being alive and allowing someone else to get all the attention.

You are telling me Trump is gonna be sending out Truth Social regeets from the Al-Saw palace while occasionally showing up as a surrogate for the Hot New Thing? Our Donald J. Trump? Sorry, dont buy it. Maybe the hamburgers could catch up to himthe actuarial tables are the actuarial tables. Or maybe Im wrong. But if Im right and Trump is alive, has two thumbs, and a smart phone, then aint nobody beating him in a Republican primary. Especially given that nobody would actually be competing against him. (More on this in a second.)

So take the 45 percent chance of his party winning and match it to the 80 percent chance that hes the nominee and even with the lowball estimate for the GOPs chances, Trump still has a 36 percent chance of doing the Grover Cleveland deal. Which is better odds than Biden.

So whats the point of this exercise, besides a little post-Halloween fright?

Its a wake-up call that people should start taking really fucking seriously the notion that a guy who incited a deadly mob on the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow our democracy is the frontrunner to become president again. Once that reality is accepted, there ought to be a lot of downstream considerations being made by different participants in our politics.

(1) The Democrats might want to focus more on competency and broadening their appeal, rather than participating in an internecine murder-suicide over how many trillions of dollars they spend. In addition they might also want to consider focusing on the problems that people tell pollsters they care about, rather than on the whims of D.C. interest groups.

(2) The media should probably start treating Donald Trump like the frontrunner he is, rather than a drunk uncle whose deranged ravings can be ignored unless its convenient or theres a hole in the D-block.

But most importantly, (3) Republican politicians and commentators who claim they dont want a wannabe authoritarian lunatic to become president again should probably do something to try and stop it.

And on this last point, I am deadly serious.

Nine months ago almost all the leading figures on the right stated that Donald Trump should be removed from office because he was so deranged and dangerous.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board called for Trumps resignation saying that he has refused to accept the basic bargain of democracy and that January 6 probably finished him as a serious political figure. National Review ran, by my count, seven separate columns, including one from The Editors, calling for his impeachment. There must be a consequence and it should come from the nations legislature, they wrote.

Mitch McConnell railed against Trump, after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in serious danger. Even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters their president sent a further tweet attacking [Pence]. Kevin McCarthy said Trump bears responsibility for the riot at the capitol. Seven Republican senators voted to disqualify him from ever running for office again.

And yet just yesterday one of their ostensibly more sane colleagues Tim Scott, a potential presidential candidate in his own right (in a non-Trump world), preemptively endorsed Trump for 2024! Why, God, why?

The Atlantic ran a silly, made-for-Twitter column over the weekend about how Never Trumpers should support anti-vaxxer-in-chief Ron DeSantis now, because hes better than the bad orangina. And I guess thats true in the most narrow and literal sense. I mean, having a rabid raft of fire ants build a nest inside my ass is also preferable to President Trump Part Deux but Im not sure a TDSer endorsing Butthole Fire Ants will have a major impact on the Republican primary electorate.

So rather than turning to us Never Trumpers to save the hot mess that is the GOP. . . maybe the DeSantis 2024 movement should start with all the people who supported Trump in 2016 and 2020 but then, when they thought the coast was clear, called for his impeachment a few weeks later?

Maybe those guys could show some balls and start a concerted effort to defeat Trump? But of course, the question answers itself.

Because if Republicans in good standing dont do anything to change the current dynamic and instead continue their strategy of owning the libs while secretly praying that their god king gets a move-on to his eternal reward, well, then were going to be repeating the same nightmare that engulfed us for the past half-decade, all over again.

So heres my message both to the cowards who know better and to the people of good will who put it on the line because they care about our constitutional Republic:

Right now, today, Donald Trump is the favorite to win the presidency again. If you dont want that to happen, then start acting like it.

See the original post:

Donald Trump Is Now the Odds-On Favorite to Be President in 2025 - The Bulwark

Hes the new Trump tower.

Teenage former first son Barron Trump was photographed in the Big Apple this week towering over his 5-foot-11-inch mom, Melania.

The rarely photographed youngest son of former President Donald Trump is already 6 feet 7 inches tall even though he only just turned 15.

He looked every inch of it on Wednesday when he stood head and shoulders over his mom and their security detail as they were snapped leaving their Manhattan home, the suitably named Trump Tower.

The towering teen, wearing a dark, long-sleeve T-shirt tucked into his jeans, also appeared to show impeccable manners, with the Daily Mail saying he was carrying his mothers bag for her.

The rare Louis Vuitton x Richard Prince bag cost $3,995 when it was released in 2008, the outlet said paling in comparison to the $11,000 black Hermes Birkin bag his mom toted.

Former model Melania, 51, also wore a black button-down shirt with white pants that she paired with $645 Christian Louboutin pointy-toe flats.

The former president himself no slouch at 6 feet 3 marveled at a GOP event in North Carolina last month how his youngest is also already the tallest.

Barron is 6-foot-7, can you believe it? And hes 15, Trump said.

Eric is short hes only 6-foot-6, he joked of his 37-year-old son, who was previously the tallest in the family.

Read the original post:

Barron Trump shows off his 6-foot-7 height in NYC

WASHINGTON (AP) A congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection moved aggressively against close Trump adviser Steve Bannon on Thursday, swiftly scheduling a vote to recommend criminal contempt charges against the former White House aide after he defied a subpoena.

The chairman of the special committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said the panel will vote Tuesday to recommend charges against Bannon, an adviser to Donald Trump for years who was in touch with the president ahead of the most serious assault on Congress in two centuries.

The Select Committee will not tolerate defiance of our subpoenas, Thompson said in a statement. Bannon, he said, is hiding behind the former presidents insufficient, blanket and vague statements regarding privileges he has purported to invoke. We reject his position entirely.

If approved by the Democratic-majority committee, the recommendation of criminal charges would go to the full House. Approval there would send them to the Justice Department, which has final say on prosecution.

The showdown with Bannon is just one facet of a broad and escalating congressional inquiry, with 19 subpoenas issued so far and thousands of pages of documents flowing to the committee and its staff. Challenging Bannons defiance is a crucial step for the panel, whose members are vowing to restore the force of congressional subpoenas after they were routinely flouted during Trumps time in office.

The committee had scheduled a Thursday deposition with Bannon, but his lawyer said Trump had directed him not to comply, citing information that was potentially protected by executive privileges afforded to a president. Bannon, who was not a White House staffer on Jan. 6, also failed to provide documents to the panel by a deadline last week.

Still, the committee could end up stymied again after years of Trump administration officials refusing to cooperate with Congress. The longtime Trump adviser similarly defied a subpoena during a GOP-led investigation into Trumps Russia ties in 2018, but the House did not move to hold him into contempt.

Even though President Joe Biden has been supportive of the committees work, it is uncertain whether the Justice Department would choose to prosecute the criminal contempt charges against Bannon or any other witnesses who might defy the panel. Even if it the department does prosecute, the process could take months, if not years. And such contempt cases are notoriously difficult to win.

Members of the committee are pressuring the department to take their side.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who also sits on the Jan. 6 panel, said he expects the Justice Department to prosecute the cases.

The last four years have given people like Steve Bannon the impression theyre above the law, Schiff said during an interview for C-SPANs Book TV that airs next weekend. But theyre going to find out otherwise.

Schiff said efforts to hold Bannon and others in contempt during the Russia investigation were blocked by Republicans and the Trump administrations Department of Justice.

But now we have Merrick Garland, we have an independent Justice Department, we have an attorney general who believes in the rule of law -- and so this is why I have confidence that we will get the answers, Schiff said.

While Bannon has outright defied the Jan. 6 committee, other Trump aides who have been subpoenaed appear to be negotiating. A deposition by a second witness that had been scheduled for Thursday, former Defense Department official Kashyap Patel, was delayed, but Patel is still engaging with the panel, a committee aide said. The aide requested anonymity to discuss the confidential talks.

Two other men who worked for Trump former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and longtime Trump social media director Dan Scavino were scheduled for depositions Friday, but they have both been pushed back as well. Meadows, like Patel, has been given a short postponement as he is also engaging with the panel, the aide said, and Scavinos deposition has been rescheduled because there were delays in serving his subpoena.

It is unclear to what extent Trump has tried to influence his aides, beyond his lawyers attempts to assert executive privilege. In a statement Thursday, the former president said the members of the committee should hold themselves in criminal contempt and added the people are not going to stand for it!

Other witnesses are cooperating, including some who organized or staffed the Trump rally on the Ellipse behind the White House that preceded the riot. The committee subpoenaed 11 rally organizers and gave them a Wednesday deadline to turn over documents and records. They have also been asked to appear at scheduled depositions.

Among those complying was Lyndon Brentnall, whose firm was hired to provide Ellipse event security that day, and two longtime Trump campaign and White House staffers, Megan Powers and Hannah Salem. It is uncertain whether any of the others subpoenaed have complied.

Many of the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 marched up the National Mall after attending at least part of Trumps rally, where he repeated his meritless claims of election fraud and implored the crowd to fight like hell. Dozens of police officers were injured as the Trump supporters overwhelmed them and broke through windows and doors to interrupt the certification of Bidens victory.

The rioters repeated Trumps claims of widespread fraud as they marched through the Capitol, even though the results of the election were confirmed by state officials and upheld by courts. Trumps attorney general, William Barr, had said the Justice Department found no evidence of widespread fraud that could have overturned the results.

The panel has also issued a subpoena to a former Justice Department lawyer who positioned himself as Trumps ally and aided the Republican presidents efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election.

The demands for documents and testimony from that lawyer, Jeffrey Clark, announced Wednesday, reflect the committees efforts to probe not only the insurrection but also the tumult that roiled the Justice Department in the weeks leading up to it as Trump and his allies leaned on government lawyers to advance his election claims.

Clark, an assistant attorney general in the Trump administration, has emerged as a pivotal character. A Senate committee report issued last week showed that he championed Trumps efforts to undo the election results and clashed as a result with department superiors who resisted the pressure, culminating in a dramatic White House meeting at which Trump ruminated about elevating Clark to attorney general.

___

Associated Press writers Jill Colvin in New York, Michelle R. Smith in Providence, Rhode Island, and Farnoush Amiri and Zeke Miller in Washington contributed to this report.

Go here to see the original:

Jan. 6 panel moves against Bannon, sets contempt vote - Associated Press

In this golden age of true-crime programming, most people are well aware of the fact that if youve done something you dont want anyone to know about, whether its illegal or just embarrassing, you dont proceed to bring it up unprompted to a room full of people, which would obviously be a blatant tip-off. Killed your neighbor with a shovel? You dont show up to the block party and announce, I did not murder Jerry and bury him in my backyard this morning. Went to a housewarming party and on the way to the bathroom made a pit stop in the hosts bedroom, tried on all their clothes, and then rolled around under their covers? You dont rejoin the group and declare, You know what I definitely did not just do?

We mention this because someonelets call him Donald Trumpis apparently unaware of this well-known rule. Per The Washington Post:

In a private speech at [a Republican donor] retreat Thursday, Trump cast himself as the GOPs savior, saying he had brought the party back from the brink of disaster and helped Republicans hold seats on Capitol Hillfailing to mention that the party lost the White House and control of both the House and Senate under his presidency. It was a dying party, Ill be honest. Now we have a very lively party, he said, to a room of senators, donors and lobbyists, according to a recording of the event obtained by The Washington Post, before boasting of all the endorsements and telephone town halls he had done in the 2020 cycle.

In Trumps address, one of the final events of the retreat, the former president focused on re-litigating grievances he has retained since leaving office. Unprompted, he brought up an unsubstantiated claim he had interactions with prostitutes in Moscow before he ran for president. Im not into golden showers, he told the crowd. You know the great thing, our great first ladyThat one, she said, I dont believe that one.

Trump, of course, was referring to allegations in the Steele dossier, opposition research compiled by a British former intelligence officer that claimed, among other things, there was video footage of prostitutes urinating in front of Trump in a Moscow hotel room in 2013, and which was debunked by Robert Mueller.

Which makes it curious that, years later, he still feels the need to insist to people, who probably havent thought about the alleged pee tape in quite some time, that he doesnt like golden showers. Also curious is the fact that while Trump claimed on Thursday that Melania didnt believe that one, according to former FBI director James Comey, Trump had been extremely concerned his wife would think the allegations were true.

As Comey told George Stephanopoulos re: Trumps insistence the FBI investigate the tape he swore didnt exist:

He said, If theres even a one percent chance my wife thinks thats true, thats terrible. And I remember thinking, how could your wife think theres a one percent chance you were with prostitutes peeing on each other? Im a flawed human being, but there is literally zero chance that my wife would think that was true. So what kind of marriage to what kind of man does your wife think theres only a 99 percent chance you didnt do that?

See more here:

Donald Trump, Unprompted, Tells GOP Donors He Doesnt Like Having Women Pee on Him - Vanity Fair

Thirteen days before he was elected president in 2016, Donald Trump spoke at the grand opening of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., accompanied by his children Don Jr., Ivanka and Eric.

For a 75-year-old billionaire, Donald Trump doesnt seem to have passed down much of his fortune to his children. Many tycoons give away their empires early, not just because its a nice thing to do, but also because it helps to spare their kids from a massive estate tax when they die. A review of documents suggests that in the Trump family, however, the heirs dont hold ownership stakes in any of their fathers major assets, except one: The Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

The three eldest Trump childrenDon Jr., Eric and Ivankaall seem to have 7.5% interests in a lease on the property. Unfortunately for them, the asset has been performing poorly, losing so much money that one of Donald Trumps holding companies has had to inject additional cash to prop up the business, according to an analysis of financial statements that the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released last week. Representatives for the Trump family did not respond to a request for comment.

The heirs are partly to blame. Ivanka first identified the property as a potential investment opportunity. With her fathers support, the family decided to get involved, securing a deal in 2013 to lease the building from the federal government by promising that they would spend $200 million on the place.

Spend they did. Deutsche Bank provided $170 million of financing, and by August 31, 2017, the Trump Organizations financial statements listed $193 million for building improvements, $18 million for furniture and equipment, $5 million for operating supplies and $100,000 for tenant improvements, according to the House documents. Total tally: $216 million.

Don Jr. worked on leasing retail spaces, and Eric helped look after the operation, but things did not go well. Sure, plenty of lobbyists and foreign officials stopped by for drinks, but the financial performance was a mess. In the year ending August 31, 2018, operating profits (measured as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) were just $900,000, according to an analysis of the House documents. Net losses amounted to $13 million. One of Donald Trumps holding companies had to shift $4 million into the hotel to support the business. Twelve months after that, the small operating profit turned into a loss of $2 million, and the business bled $18 million on a net basis. Donald Trumps holding company, therefore, had to pump another $9 million into the hotel.

The following year, when Covid struck, things got even worse. Operating losses dropped to $9 million, and net losses hit $22 million. Donald Trumps holding company had to pony up an additional $11 million to stabilize the business, according to a review of the documents. At this point, the Trump family had invested an estimated $240 million$170 million of which came from Deutsche Bank and $70 million that seems to have come straight from the familys pockets.

Bad news, given that plenty of people dont think the place is worth $240 million. After speaking with seven real estate experts, Forbes estimated last month that the property was worth $173 million. Assuming the Trumps havent paid any of the principal back on their loan, that means their equity amounts to just $3 million, $67 million less than the amount of cash the family apparently invested into the place before August 2020. In other words, the only major asset where the Trump kids appear to have serious stakes looks like a rotten deal.

Or perhaps, looked like a rotten deal. On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the former presidents family is in advanced discussions to sell its right to the hotel for a whopping $370 million or more. Some industry insiders questioned the credibility of that report, given the sky-high price. But if such a sale actually goes through, all of the financial problems that the hotel has caused for the Trumps would suddenly wash away.

The kids apparent 7.5% interestswhich would be worth just $225,000 after debt at a $173 million valuationwould grow to an estimated $15 million apiece. Thats a lot of money for Eric and Don Jr., who Forbes estimated were each worth $25 million in 2019. Its also a fair chunk of change for Ivanka, who shares a fortune estimated at $375 million with her husband, Jared Kushner, heir to a separate real estate dynasty.

Donald Trumpthe richest of them all, with an estimated $2.5 billion fortunewould receive the largest payday. His estimated 77.5% interest would amount to just $2 million after debt at a $173 million valuation, but it would balloon to $155 million if the place were valued at $370 million. That would surely be enough to convince the former president that the last four years of financial problems, not to mention ethical headaches, were all worth it in the end.

Go here to read the rest:

Trump's Kids Went Into A Terrible Deal With Their Dad. They Might All Get Bailed Out - Forbes

While Trump was not present when the incident occurred, lawyers for the plaintiff want to question him to determine if he is responsible for his employees conduct. While we cant say for sure if the former real estate developer instructed his security team to allegedly assault the plaintiffs, hes obviously a huge fan of violence, havingtoldsupporters at a rally to knock the crap out of protesters,instructedpolice officers to let suspects heads knock against the side of their squad cars, and insisted that a violent insurrection that left five people dead was justified.

Trumps lawyers did not respond to CNNs request for comment.

In addition to next weeks deposition, Trump has also been ordered by a separate judge to answer questions under oath by December 23, in the defamation suit brought against him by former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos, who accused Trump of defaming her when he denied her allegations of sexual assault. According to Zervos, during a meeting to discuss a job, Trump thrust his genitals on her and groped her breast. As Trump declared during the infamous Access Hollywood tape, Im automatically attracted to beautiful womenI just start kissing them, its like a magnet. Just kiss. I dont even wait. And when youre a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab em by the pussy.

In related news, in December 2020 and February 2021, respectively, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. were deposed under oath by D.C.s attorney general, and it certainly seemed as though they lied about their involvement in their fathers 2017 inauguration. So theres probably at least a tiny possibility Trump will also fail to tell the truth.

If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, clickhereto subscribe.

Insane Texas school district declares teachers must include opposing perspectives on the Holocaust in classrooms

As weve noted a number of times around these parts, Texas has rapidly become an uninhabitable hellhole that should pop up on Zillow when people are looking at properties at Guantanamo Bayas a neighborhood you might also be interested in. Abortion has effectively been banned at six weeks, the governor practically insists everyone must get COVID, you can carry a gun without a license, background check, or training, and Ted Cruz could be lurking around the corner, unless hes en route to Cancn. Oh, and now at least one school district is insisting teachers give equal weight to Holocaust deniers as they do to people who actually accept the fact that the Holocaust happened.

Per NBC News:

A top administrator with the Carroll Independent School Districtin Southlakeadvised teachers last week that if they have a book about the Holocaust in their classroom, they should also offer students access to a book from an opposing perspective, according to an audio recording obtained by NBC News. Gina Peddy, the Carroll school districts executive director of curriculum and instruction, made the comment Friday afternoon during a training session on which books teachers can have in classroom libraries. The training came four days after the Carroll school board, responding to a parents complaint, voted to reprimand a fourth-grade teacher who had kept an anti-racism book in her classroom. A Carroll staff member secretly recorded the Friday training and shared the audio with NBC News.

Just try to remember the concepts of [House Bill] 3979, Peddy said in the recording, referring toa new Texas lawthat requires teachers to present multiple perspectives when discussing widely debated and currently controversial issues. And make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust, Peddy continued, that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives.

Read the original post:

Trump Will Be Deposed Under Oath Next Week, and You Know What Happens When Trumps Are Under Oath - Vanity Fair

Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) has suggested that Donald Trump will run again in 2024 in order to "keep ahead of the jailer," with the former president facing a number of lawsuits and criminal investigations.

Speaking to The New York Times podcast Sway, the chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence said he "absolutely" believes that Trump will announce his intentions to run again, but ultimately will not become president once more.

"It would be intolerable to him to see anyone else get the attention. I mean the idea of Donald Trump sitting at home watching Mike Pence become the nominee, or Nikki Haley, or Chris Christie, or any of these people," Schiff said. "He would go out of his mind. And so I think he feels a compulsion, it's a pathology."

Schiff, who led the prosecution for Trump's first impeachment trial in 2017 and is part of the House Committee panel investigating the January 6 attack, also suggested that the former president will want to get back in the White House as he thinks it's a "great way to make money" and "may keep him one step ahead of the jailer."

"As long as he is a president, or a presidential candidate. Maybe he can keep ahead of the jailer," he added.

Trump faces a number of criminal investigations, but has not been formally charged in any of them.

In Georgia, the Fulton County District Attorney's office is investigating Trump's phone call to secretary of state Brad Raffensperger in which he asked him to help him "find 11,780 votes" in an apparent attempt to overturn the election results in 2020.

In May, New York Attorney General Letitia James confirmed that a long-running investigation into allegations that the Trump Organization altered property values to avoid tax liabilities is "no longer purely civil in nature."

The probe is running alongside an investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr into alleged criminal conduct at the organization. The investigation is also looking into Trump's longtime chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg.

Vance's office is investigating if the Trump Organization inflated the value of some New York properties to obtain better loans from banks, as well as claims some failed to pay taxes on a number of company benefits.

Elsewhere during the interview, Schiff told Sway that he doesn't think Trump will ultimately win in 2024 as the country does not "want to go back to that nightmare."

He added: "With every passing day, when we gain more and more perspective on what we've been through, I think people will recoil more and more every day at the idea of ever going back to that.

"They're not going to want to go back to the days of a president calling everything a hoax and attacking the media as the enemy of the people."

Trump's office has been contacted for comment.

See original here:

Adam Schiff Says Donald Trump Will Run in 2024 to 'Keep Ahead of the Jailer' - Newsweek

Sign up here to get On Politics in your inbox on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

RICHMOND, Va. In the main auditorium for a conservative rally titled Take Back Virginia this week in the states capital, speakers promoted election conspiracy theories, warned of a coming civil war with liberal states, and proclaimed President Biden should be arrested for treason.

But in the events back room, that grim tenor gave way to the type of darkly festive tone often found at one of former President Donald J. Trumps signature rallies food, drinks and laughter. The sounds of a football tailgate converging with political grievances.

As a politics reporter for The New York Times, I have been to nearly two dozen events of this kind, including Mr. Trumps stadium rallies, smaller events like this, or makeshift festivals like Trumpstock for Mr. Trumps super fans in Northern Arizona. Each time, Im reminded of how these occasions are constructed to barely feel like a political event.

Mr. Trump has his signature rally playlist which his die-hard supporters have come to memorize full of wide-ranging music including opera, rock and even Memories, from the musical Cats.

The event in Virginia, where Mr. Trump delivered an address by phone, served meatballs and cheese plates and had a cash bar, where customers could watch speakers from the other room. At one point, two patrons swapped petitions about election integrity, updating each other on ongoing efforts to overturn the 2020 election while ordering a glass of wine.

However, the most noticeable reflection of how Mr. Trumps most ardent fans have taken on his personality and grievances is in the clothing. Among some attendees, it is not enough to go to an event in the name of Mr. Trump; their attendance also requires wearing something that mimics some of his political calling cards mocking his political opponents, using vulgar language and openly embracing political incorrectness. At some events, Ive seen people with particularly crass T-shirts hold their own photo lines, as others queue for selfie after selfie.

In Virginia, I talked to three men all dressed fairly typically for an event like this about what they decided to wear, and how their clothing reflected their political beliefs.

These interviews have been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

James Thornton, 47, of Virginia

Im open to both sides. But when I go over to the other side, they dont like me. I want to hear their side and they can hear my side. Thats the way society should be. Not shutting down things because you cant answer.

Education for me is the biggest thing. The critical race theory and the L.G.B.T. Which I dont mind. I dont care if youre gay. Its when you push your views onto my views. Where do your rights start and mine end?

Its not that I hate Democrats. Its their agenda and what they push. Im a hard-working person. And I see my tax dollars not benefiting me at all. It benefits a kind that dont want to give 100 percent and give that effort. I know everyone isnt like that. Some people need help, no doubt. But when I see a 27-year-old laughing, saying, I get assistance, I go, What! Im paying for that. You know I used to have a sticker that said, Keep working the millions on welfare depend on it.

Val Yurachek, 52, of Virginia

Im worried about our freedoms. The American people want what this country is based on, which is our freedoms. And all these mandates and forced vaccinations, thats not America and thats not freedom and thats not our God-given rights. Rights come from God. And thats what the Constitution is based on.

We dont want to go the route of a socialist or communist country. My family came from a place that had one of those types of regimes, and thats not something that we want here.

I was in the Marine Corps. And my father was in the Marine Corps, too. And as Americans we love our country, and the flag and the eagle represent that. I dont want to put a blanket over everyone and say only one party supports that. But if youre going to support America, and youre going to support patriotism, the conservative side the Constitution side thats the group to do it. The left has gone too far to communism and socialism.

Robert Levy, 62, of New Jersey

We started the T-shirt company last summer. First it was a couple of shirts, and then we put up a sign fighting the Covid restrictions and it was a big hit.

Its gotten easier to sell anti-Biden stuff. Because of the horrendous stuff hes doing, people on both sides of the aisle are sick of what hes doing. If youre not brain-dead, you dont support these type of policies.

We have to go to events like these, because if we tried to sell on Facebook, wed get taken down. Because they dont like the message. We have to dance to the music. We have to find our people who have our political beliefs.

Our biggest seller is a shirt that says Stolen Property with a picture of the White House.

On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.

Is there anything you think were missing? Anything you want to see more of? Wed love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.

Read more:

Trump Fans Wear Their Grievances at Conservative Rallies - The New York Times

Late last Friday, the Biden administration did something that was, in a way, surprising. Across many years and multiple administrations, presidents have jealously guarded the executive branchs prerogative to withhold certain categories of information from Congressas well as from the courts and the publicinsisting that executive privilege is both constitutionally grounded and essential to the separation of powers. But the Biden administration decided to go against that norm, announcing that it would not invoke executive privilege to block the release of White House documents requested by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

The letter announcing the decision, from White House Counsel Dana Remus to the archivist of the United States (in whose custody the documents reside), explained that President Joe Biden has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interests of the United States, and therefore is not justified as to any of the documents. A second letter, released by the White House Wednesday night, acknowledged that former President Donald Trump had informed the archivist that he wished to assert executive privilege over the requested documents, but that after due consideration, Biden adhered to his original determination. This clears the path for the documents release to the committee, although Trump may still attempt to use the courts to blockor at least delaythe committees access.

Adam Serwer: The Capitol rioters won

In its strongest form, the argument for executive privilege holds that it is necessary to the presidents discharge of the constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Because few executive-privilege disputes reach judicial resolution, the practice and precedents of the political branches form the backdrop against which future disputes play out. At first blush, then, the decision to allow congressional access to these documentssome of which likely reveal the details of presidential conversations and decision making, exchanges that executive-branch lawyers typically view as covered by an especially strong form of executive privilegeappears to be at odds with the executive branchs long-term institutional interest in retaining the ability to assert executive privilege.

But thats not the right way to understand the Biden administrations decision. Its decision is actually consistent with the principles and purposes that underlie executive privilegeprinciples that receded in the Trump administration, as the executive branch adopted a posture of complete defiance of congressional demands for information. The determination here is both faithful to the purposes of executive privilege, and also an important instance of constitutional course correctionone that confirms the role of legitimate congressional oversight in our scheme of separated powers.

First, despite its importance and constitutional foundations, executive privilege is far from absolute; indeed, in the very case in which the Supreme Court first recognized the privilege and pronounced it fundamental, the Court went on to unanimously order President Richard Nixon to turn over the Oval Office tapes he sought to withhold. Deciding whether to make or sustain a claim of executive privilege always requires balancing the need for confidentiality against the countervailing need for the requested material.

Just as the Court in United States v. Nixon found the need for evidence in the context of an ongoing prosecution weightier than the presidents generalized interest in confidentiality, previous presidents have made the same determination in the context of various important investigations. President George W. Bush granted the 9/11 Commission access to hundreds of sensitive Presidents Daily Briefs from the Bush and Clinton administrations; that commission also received testimony from Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. During the Iran-Contra investigation, President Ronald Reagan made numerous executive-branch officials and documents available to the committees investigating the affair, and even went so far as to turn over his personal diaries.

In the context of the January 6 investigation, the legislative interests are unusually compelling and consequential. The committees mandate is to investigate and report on the events of January 6 and their causes, with a goal of preventing future acts of violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism, including acts targeted at American democratic institutions. The Remus letter references the unique and extraordinary circumstances, and emphasizes the Committees need to understand the facts underlying the most serious attack on the operations of the Federal Government since the Civil War.

A second factor that both supports the decision and suggests that it will not weaken executive privilege more broadly is the fact that some of the requested documents likely contain evidence of serious misconduct or wrongdoing. The Remus letter, which conveys familiarity with the requested documents, references an assault on our Constitution and democratic institutions provoked and fanned by those sworn to protect them. It also explains that the Documents shed light on events within the White House on and about January 6, and concludes that the constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield, from Congress or the public, information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself.

The executive branch has long taken the position that serious allegations of executive-branch wrongdoing undermine if not vitiate the privilege. As the current acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Dawn Johnsen, wrote in a law-review article in 1999, where a President asserts executive privilege in order to hide evidence of illegal acts or other wrongdoing by high level executive officials, the assertion is illegitimate. Although the Supreme Court hasnt squarely addressed this issue, some relevant judicial authority does exist. In the 1974 Senate Select Committee case, in which the D.C. Circuit denied access to White House tapes to the Senate committee investigating Watergate, the court nevertheless emphasized that the Executive cannot invoke a general confidentiality privilege to shield its officials and employees from investigations by the proper governmental institutions into possible criminal wrongdoing. More recently, the same court explained that at least one strain of executive privilege, the deliberative-process privilege, disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred. The court in that case found that another strain of executive privilege, the presidential-communications privilege, does not disappear upon an allegation of misconduct, but can be overcome with a specific showing of why it is likely that the subpoenaed materials contain important evidence and why this evidence, or equivalent evidence, is not practically available from another source.

David Frum: Dont let anyone normalize January 6

There is already significant evidence, both public and likely in the committees custody, that President Trump was engaged in an effort to promote a false narrative of widespread voter fraud, undermine the elections results, and ultimately delay or prevent the final stage in the Electoral College process for confirming Biden as the next president. Additional evidence of his efforts emerges by the day. It is difficult to imagine a more serious act of presidential misconduct than a protracted effort to subvert the results of a presidential election. But many specifics of Trumps activities on January 6 remain unknown, and the committee has no obvious other route to obtaining that information. Under these circumstances, no interest in concealing such conduct could possibly outweigh the congressional and public interest in disclosure.

In addition, although the picture of Trumps activities over the course of January 6 remains murky, theres a strong argument that both at the rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol, and in the hours afterward, Trump was acting in a way that is best understood as outside the scope of his official duties. Drawing a line between the official and unofficial acts of a president is surely a difficult task, and its not a line that courts have typically used in cases implicating executive privilege. But in related contexts, the Supreme Court has rejected presidents efforts to shield themselves from ordinary legal process. The Court in Trump v. Vance rejected Trumps efforts to protect his financial records from release to the Manhattan district attorney, explaining that it was refusing to extend protection designed for official documents to the Presidents private papers. The Court treated President Bill Clintons efforts to delay his response to Paula Joness civil lawsuit similarly, largely because the alleged misconduct was unrelated to any of his official duties as President. However else we might characterize a scheme to attempt to cling to power after losing an election, it does not fall within the scope of a presidents official duties.

Taken together, these circumstances warrant the unusual step of declining to assert executive privilege. They are also distinct enough that they can coexist with a strong commitment to executive privilege under ordinary circumstances.

Finally, some may see the Biden administrations move as purely politicalhanding Trumps documents to a Congress controlled by Democratsand one that could come back to haunt Biden if and when his administration faces a hostile Congress. This too misses the mark. First, the January 6 committee is bipartisan; that fact both complicates the partisan-collusion narrative and provides an important way to distinguish this case from any purely partisan efforts to access White House information. In addition, the Biden administration has shown itself quite willing to assert various privileges to protect the information of previous administrations, including a DOJ memo related to former Attorney General Bill Barrs determination that Trump had not obstructed the Mueller investigation, and, just last week, testimony regarding Bush-era detention and interrogation, which the Biden administration argues remains shielded by the state-secrets privilege.

Trump may yet file suit to protect these documents. If he does, existing authority suggests that Bidens views should prevail. As the Supreme Court has explained, the incumbent President is vitally concerned with and in the best position to assess the present and future needs of the Executive Branch, and to support invocation of the privilege accordingly. The point here is that executive privilege protects the institutional presidency, not any individual presidents interests, and theres no reason to believe Biden is not acting in the institutional interests of the presidency. Indeed, an overly broad or aggressive assertion of privilege, where all relevant criteria tilt against its existence, would risk a ruling that cuts the privilege back. So perhaps thats whats most surprising of all: In this case, declining to assert the privilege may not only promote a healthy balance of powersit may be the best way to protect the privilege itself.

Read more here:

Executive Privilege Should Not Protect Trump's January 6 Actions - The Atlantic

Delusional thinking

A recent letter writer stated that Trump loved God and his country, which reveals the particularly delusional thinking of many on the right. Simply reviewing Trump's quotes mocking the "losers" who died in wars or his self-acknowledged history of manipulating anyone to his personal benefit, makes it crystal clear he is neither a patriot nor a man of faith.

He has denied the need for any forgiveness from anyone (a valued Christian tenet), rarely attends any religious proceedings while several of his top aides acknowledge that he frequently mocked his Christian supporters as dupes and hustlers.

More: Letters to the editor for Wednesday, Oct. 6: Miss Donald Trump yet?

Meanwhile, not only did he deceptively avoid the draft, but also even said to Gen. John Kelly on Memorial Day when they were visiting the gravesite of Kelly's son, "I don't get it. What was in it for them?"

Essentially, Trump is incapable of understanding the idea of doing something for someone other than himself, which is at direct odds with someone who would love either God or country and more aligned with an immoral narcissist who so wanted to remain in power that he encouraged an attempted insurrection while promoting a well-documented lie about the election.

Shame on him and those who continue to excuse his unconscionable behaviors.

John Pinney, Eugene

In response to Lynn Thomasons question of Does anyone miss Trump yet?, let me count the ways I dont.

Do I miss the misogyny and unrelenting disrespect of women? (Grab em by the p----. You can do anything.) Nah, I dont think so.

How about the blatant racism; its just so charming. Nope, not even a little bit.

The lying, OK,who doesnt miss the constant lying? (Obama wasnt born in America.) Not me, not a chance.

The never-ending whining, the blaming everybody else for his shortcomings, the petulancy that a three-year old has discarded. Now, come on, I must miss those. Umm, nope.

Am I saying I dont miss the boasting, the bragging, the inflated sense of self-importance? Yeah, I guess I am.

Norma Sax, Eugene

Two writers recently have written about their problems with our country. One says he and others want to get rid of all of our lawmakers from president to mayor. He says any lawmaker who tells us what to do or how to live needs to be removed. In other words, any laws, regulations or mandates he doesnt like should be abolished, which sure sounds like anarchy where we all do as we please regardless of how dangerous to other citizens.

The second cant sleep at night because of our current president and his policies. She longs for the good old days when our former president bullied, blasphemed and constantly mislead our citizens, and even brought about an attempt to overthrow our constitutionally elected government while assaulting Capitol police officers. This same former president, without any medical expertise, advised our citizens to inject bleach or take animal medications to protect themselves from a deadly virus which he called a hoax that killed more than a half-million of our citizens on his watch.

It seems like both writers need to pack up and leave our misguided country and maybe both can sleep well.

Hal Huestis, Eugene

Submit a letter of 200 words or fewer to rgletters@registerguard.com. Include your full name, mailing address and phone number for purposes of verification.

View post:

Letters to the editor for Wednesday, Oct. 13: Donald Trump stirs the pot again - The Register-Guard