Tag: stormy daniels
New York Judge Sets Trump Criminal Trial For February Or March

New York Judge Sets Trump Criminal Trial For February Or March

New York (AFP) - The New York judge presiding over Donald Trump's criminal case asked the prosecution and defense Thursday to agree a specific trial date for February or March next year.

The instruction means the historic trial over hush-money paid to a porn star will occur in the thick of the Republican primaries for the 2024 presidential race in which Trump is seeking to regain office.

Judge Juan Merchan said that once the date is fixed then all parties, including Trump, who is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, should not schedule other events.

"He cannot agree to any speaking engagements, appearances," during the trial, Merchan said at the Manhattan state court, where Trump was not present.

His comments came during the first hearing in the case since Trump was arraigned last month on 34 counts of falsifying business records.

Merchan heard arguments surrounding a request by prosecutors that Trump be prohibited from publicizing elements of the prosecution's case.

The judge said that once he makes a ruling Trump will be required to appear in court virtually via camera to be advised of it.

Trump denied the charges related to reimbursements to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen for the $130,000 payment to pornographic actress Stormy Daniels.

Prosecutors say the 2016 payments were intended to silence Daniels over sex she says she had with the ex-president years earlier.

Trump is the first former or sitting president to ever be charged with a crime.

The criminal case is one of several legal challenges facing Trump as the 76-year-old Republican seeks a return to the White House in next year's election.

He is being investigated over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the southern state of Georgia, his alleged mishandling of classified documents taken from the White House and his involvement in the storming of the US Capitol by his supporters on January 6, 2021.

Bill Barr's Misconduct Should No Longer Shield Trump

Bill Barr's Misconduct Should No Longer Shield Trump

In the days since Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg unveiled his office’s 34-count indictment of Donald J. Trump, arguments over about the likelihood of conviction have erupted on every cable news program, as the former president spews fusillades of lies and threats.

Most of this noise is pointless and hardly worth engaging. The only opinion that matters may someday be announced by a jury foreperson in a court of law.

Yet there is one defense of Trump, repeated even by people who aren’t his sycophants, that does demand closer examination – the claim that Bragg, a local prosecutor, shouldn’t bring charges that the Justice Department already rejected.

To establish that Trump committed felonies, they note, Bragg must prove that he not only concocted fake business records to cover up hush-money payoffs to adult film star Stormy Daniels, but that he intended to conceal violations of federal campaign or other laws. And they will say that the prosecution of presidential campaign finance crimes is usually the responsibility of federal law enforcement agencies.

That rationalization elides the central question: Why should Trump escape accountability for the same crimes that sent his former attorney and “fixer” Michael Cohen to prison? It’s a hard question to answer in a system that supposedly upholds equal justice for all.

And the canned response doesn’t hold up well under scrutiny.

It begins to fall apart when we recall that in the sentencing memorandum that urged a harsh punishment for Cohen, the Justice Department identified a co-conspirator it called “Individual-1,” a thin scrim used to disguise Trump, as the actual instigator of the payoff scheme.

It disintegrates completely when we remember who really made the decision to abandon the case against “Individual-1.”

That was William Barr, the former Attorney General who has tried to shine up the terrible reputation he earned on the job by stating the obvious fact that Trump’s claims of election fraud were “complete bullshit.” That acknowledgment of reality, no more or less than his position demanded, only serves to highlight the abject cowardice of nearly all his fellow Republicans. But it doesn’t absolve Barr of his other horrifically unethical actions in office.

According to Geoffrey Berman -- the former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, whose office oversaw the guilty plea and sentencing of Cohen -- Barr sought to undermine any potential prosecution of Trump from his first day as attorney general in 2019. To protect Trump, he even considered overturning Cohen’s campaign-finance convictions, as the astonished Berman recounted in his memoir.

On several occasions, Barr sought to take control of the investigation. He ordered Justice Department lawyers to come up with reasons to abandon the case. He tried more than once to force Berman to drop it. When none of those tactics worked, he attempted to move the case from Berman’s office in the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District, where he evidently believed that the U.S. attorney would help him to bury it.

This kind of misconduct became a pattern for Barr when he interfered outrageously in the cases against Trump adviser and dirty trickster Roger Stone and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Infuriating career prosecutors, he behaved more like a mob defense counsel than the chief law enforcement officer, sworn to uphold the law and stand guard against national security threats. Among other things, he had Trump fire Berman and tried to replace him with a toady.

So what Alvin Bragg actually did by bringing the Trump indictment was to vindicate the constitutional system that Bill Barr corruptly sabotaged over and over again.

We must remind ourselves often that the former president, like any other accused suspect, is innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But we should also remember what the Justice Department said about Michael Cohen in its sentencing memorandum, which insisted on a prison term despite his cooperation: “His offenses strike at several pillars of our society and system of government: the payment of taxes; transparent and fair elections; and truthfulness before government and in business.”

Those words apply with equal if not greater force to “Individual-1,” as Trump was called in that same document – and the chance to hold him accountable is at last drawing nearer.

Kevin McCarthy

Hey Mr. Speaker! Keep Your Hands Off Alvin Bragg

Now that the Manhattan district attorney has filed an historic indictment of former President Donald Trump, nothing is certain except this: The former president, the Republicans in Congress and their partisan propaganda outlets will seek to shield him from accountability at any cost.

Evidently the House Republican leaders are carrying out that campaign — which has lately included gross attempts by Rep. Jim Jordan and others to intimidate District Attorney Alvin Bragg — in coordination with Trump's legal defense. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., who ranks third in leadership, is said to have assured Trump even before the indictment that her caucus would mount an "aggressive" assault on the district attorney, and presumably any other prosecutor who dares to bring charges against her Dear Leader.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced that "the House of Representatives will hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account," and accused the prosecutor, more than 18 months before November 2024, of attempting to "interfere in our presidential election."

Fortunately, Bragg is not about to buckle under to such threats, not even when the former president poses with a baseball bat aimed at his head and mutters ominously about the "death and destruction" that will ensue if he is prosecuted. Bragg's office responded briskly to demands for documents and testimony from three Republican committee chairmen by scolding their "unlawful" interference with his work — and basically urged them all to refrain from further debasing their institution.

Since debasing our institutions seems to be their principal purpose in public life, let's keep expectations low. Based on past performance, neither Jordan nor his fellow committee chairmen are likely to realize that they're making fools of themselves. After all, their letter demanding documents from Bragg said Congress is considering legislation to prohibit prosecution of future ex-presidents — as if they had never read the Constitution and learned its fundamental concept of equality under law. With this loutish crew, that is a distinct possibility.

But anyone else who feels outraged by Bragg's indictment of Trump — and might be tempted to applaud the attempted congressional incursion against him — should try a brief thought experiment.

Specifically, they ought to ask themselves how they would have greeted an attempt by congressional Democrats to interfere with the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton. Based on premises weaker than any of the current investigations of Trump, that probe almost certainly cost her the White House. And it is now clear that politically motivated FBI personnel forced then-FBI director James Comey to reopen the case on a dubious pretext, after she had been exonerated.

Yet had Democrats sought at any moment to stymie or bulldoze the Justice Department during its protracted investigation of "her emails," the Republican screams of protest would still be echoing. But no Democrat ever made such an attempt — despite ample doubt that proved correct — because they honored the rule of law over partisan imperatives.

Republican hypocrisy in these matters is endemic, as it is today in almost all spheres of public life. During the Whitewater investigation, which under Kenneth Starr magically became the wholly unrelated Lewinsky investigation and ultimately brought on impeachment, President Bill Clinton's allies and aides didn't hesitate to criticize the independent counsel, as was their right. But no congressional Democrats ever exploited their official powers to attack Starr.

One member of Congress who did behave badly back in 1999, when he served as a House manager of Clinton's impeachment, was South Carolina's Lindsey Graham, now in the Senate. Graham and other Republicans misused their authority to bully White House staff who had questioned Starr's probe. Starr himself even summoned a presidential aide to testify before his grand jury, on the authoritarian theory that criticism somehow equaled obstruction.

Here we see again the comically flaccid ethics of the Republicans, despite their pretensions to hard moral absolutism. When Democrats even criticize a prosecutor, they are engaged in an obstruction conspiracy. But when Republicans brazenly impede and intimidate a prosecutor, they're just "defending America," or something.

What they are doing, in concert with Trump, more closely resembles an obstruction conspiracy by public officials than anything we have seen since... well, since Trump and his Congressional stooges tried to obstruct the constitutional process that ended his presidency in January 2021. They can say anything they want, about Bragg or any of the prosecutors looking at their idol's misconduct. But they need to stop abusing their power now.

To find out more about Joe Conason and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Danziger Draws

Danziger Draws

Jeff Danziger lives in New York City and Vermont. He is a long time cartoonist for The Rutland Herald and is represented by Counterpoint Syndicate. He is the recipient of the Herblock Prize and the Thomas Nast (Landau) Prize. He served in the US Army in Vietnam and was awarded the Bronze Star and the Air Medal. He has published eleven books of cartoons, a novel and a memoir. Visit him at DanzigerCartoons.