<....Orden: “No problem finding a fourth wife,” I believe was the gist of it.

Ben, we’re talking a few days after Cohen completed his testimony. Cross-examination can be very dramatic in the moment, but those reactions can dissipate over time. You were in the courthouse for all of the days of his testimony. At this point, what are the one or two things that have stayed with you as an observer?

Feuerherd: It’s sort of like one of these classic things where one day you hear the direct examination, and you’re like, “Oh, wow, they really hit it out of the park.” And then the next day you hear the cross and you’re like, “Oh my gosh, they really hit it out of the park.”

The prosecutors laid out through Cohen’s testimony the story that there was this hush money payment that was directed by Trump. Trump was literally in the room with Allen Weisselberg [the former Trump Organization CFO] and Cohen, when they told Cohen they’d reimburse him and when Weisselberg said, “This is how you’re going to get reimbursed. And here’s the math.”

And then later, according to Cohen, he met with Trump in the Oval Office, and Trump acknowledged this reimbursement scheme again.

That seems to be crucial testimony to the case, but then you have, obviously, these legitimacy issues with Cohen that were beaten to death by Blanche in a cross that jumped all over the place constantly.

And then you had this dramatic moment with Blanche presenting Cohen with this Oct. 24 call in 2016 and saying, “You know, are you sure that you called Trump’s bodyguard, Keith Schiller, and then Schiller handed Trump the phone, and then you can confirm that this happened?” The defense argued that Cohen was getting harassed by someone who purported to be a 14-year-old and he was actually calling Schiller because he wanted to get that handled — not to undermine the 2016 election.

When that exchange happened, you were sitting in the courthouse in an overflow room with other journalists and some members of the public watching on television monitors. Was there any sort of detectable shift in people’s attention?

Feuerherd: There was definitely an audible gasp.

Orden: It was also hard not to. Todd Blanche was practically shrieking at that point, so even if you weren’t paying attention, you would have started because his delivery was noticeable.

What did you make of Cohen’s presentation and his demeanor on the stand? Orden: He was extremely carefully prepped for this. Extremely. I would love to ask his lawyer what she did.

He really didn’t lose his cool or break character. And it was a character for anyone who has seen him outside of this courtroom.

That is not how Michael Cohen generally behaves. I’ve never seen him behave that way. Even during cross he was calm, collected, polite, respectful, very measured in his delivery.

And he even pretty effectively — you know, when Todd Blanche would get to a key moment in his questioning, Cohen always tended to not understand the question at that moment and not give an answer and force Todd Blanche to go back and break up the question and explain it. So he rarely got that sort of satisfying bullet point that he was looking for out of his line of questioning. We may never know whether that was on purpose or not, but Cohen seemed to do it quite a few times.

I thought one of the effective ways that Blanche sort of pierced this facade was introducing these clips from Cohen’s podcast, where — I don’t know if it was turned up to an extreme volume on purpose, but it was very loud in the room — you were presented with the audio of Cohen, you know, this foul-mouthed, angry, vindictive persona, in contrast to the guy who you’ve been watching for the last two days at that point on the stand.

If you were a juror who isn’t terribly familiar with Cohen, you might have been a bit taken aback by that and thought, “You know, this guy is not who he says he is. He’s not the person I’m seeing on the stand.”

I don’t know if anyone thought that way. But I wouldn’t be surprised.

<....I was a little surprised, honestly, that they didn’t play more video. Actually, did they play any video during his cross — like clips from his cable appearances?

Orden: I don’t think so.

They should have paid the money to pull some of that together for the jury. Meridith, I want to talk about the politics of this because I sensed — among the very broad community of legal analysts, commentators and reporters — that the cross of Cohen may have destabilized some people’s confidence that this case is headed toward an easy conviction and that this could be a trickier battle for the prosecutors at the end of the day.

Did Cohen’s testimony break through on the campaign trail and in the political world in any serious way?

McGraw: Trump and his allies were always going to push the line that Michael Cohen is a liar and you can’t believe him.

I think a big moment was when there was a revelation that he had stolen from the Trump Organization. That’s obviously going to be something that they seize on.

It’s so interesting to me hearing everybody talk about what Michael Cohen was like in the courtroom as somebody who’s covered and followed Trump world. Cohen is such a big character in it. To hear what he was like in the courtroom versus how he’s obviously behaved for years — it’s been really fascinating. So I think that really is an interesting question — how much does that juxtaposition break through — that Erica was raising.

But just in terms of public opinion, and how Trump’s people have seen it, I think they really feel like they knew Michael Cohen was going to be a problematic witness.

We’re close to the end of this now, with closing statements in a matter of days. How do you think the prosecution and the defense see the state of things at this point now? Let’s start with Josh.

Gerstein: I think that the prosecution case came in pretty much as people expected it to, and the strengths were sort of the strengths and the weaknesses were the weaknesses that we’ve discussed earlier. So I think on their side, it is not really much different from expectations.

With the Costello testimony from the defense, I think part of the reason they called him was to have him, in my opinion, play the role of Donald Trump. I think another reason was, as you just alluded to, to the extent that this becomes a referendum on Michael Cohen, Trump stands a much better chance of acquittal or a hung jury.

To make Michael Cohen the centerpiece of the case — I don’t think prosecutors had a choice. They had to call Stormy Daniels and they had to call Michael Cohen. It just would have been too awkward not to.

I’m not sure that the prosecutors could have proven a case without calling Cohen. They at least seem to have thought that Cohen was necessary, because no sane prosecutor would call Michael Cohen unless they absolutely had to.

Orden: I agree with that.

Gerstein: My view is that it’s not the defense’s obligation, especially in a case like this, to present a coherent view of the world. The prosecutors have to do that, because they need to build a case that goes beyond a reasonable doubt and that meets all of the elements of the charges.

The defense just can throw spaghetti at the wall and hope that something sticks, and they can actually make arguments that contradict one another. Now, if you make 10 different arguments that are all contradictory, the jury may throw up its hands and think you guys are just giving us nonsense and wasting our time, but you can hope to pick off a juror here with this argument, and maybe a juror there with the other argument.

That’s how a lot of defenses work, especially in this kind of a case. If members of the jury are really hostile to Trump — it’s possible some of them are — the defense’s best hope may be to pick off a juror here or there and convince them of a particular argument and try to shut the case down that way, or at least push it back down to a misdemeanor instead of felonies.

I think someone has to ask the judge to instruct the jury on the lesser included misdemeanor offenses for that to happen. As far as we’re aware, that has not happened.

I’d like to talk a little about a notion that we have heard during the trial at times — the notion that documents can speak for themselves. As you know, the prosecutors admitted handwritten notes outlining and breaking down the reimbursement to Cohen. According to Cohen, those notes were prepared with Weisselberg before a meeting with Trump, which, if true, would provide further evidence of Trump’s involvement in the broad scheme.

Here’s a way in which the documents don’t speak for themselves. We have to believe Cohen that those notes were created before rather than after the meeting with Trump, and also that the calculations or something like them were actually discussed with Trump.

<....And part of the reason is that prosecutors didn’t call Allen Weisselberg to testify. Who knows what he would have said, but the point is, Cohen is the only testimony they have regarding that note and the meeting.

Gerstein: Yeah, Cohen is the only direct testimony.

You could infer all these things happening from a lot of other things the prosecutors tried to point to, like the fact that Trump runs such a tight ship financially, that he’s so stingy. There were a lot of things that came in from testimony and from Trump’s books that were designed to show that the idea that Allen Weisselberg would pay $420,000 out of Trump’s personal funds to some random person with Trump not being apprised of the details of why that was necessary — I guess you could have the idea that Weisselberg and Cohen cooked up a scam to rip Trump off or something like that.

But the idea that this was totally freelanced by Weisselberg — the prosecution tried to make that sound basically insane, and that tends to diminish the significance of the actual alleged meeting with Cohen and Trump.

Yeah, framed that way, it is insane. But that’s a false choice — that either Trump is guilty or Weisselberg freelanced it all.

Feuerherd: There’s also a second set of notes with back-of-the-envelope math that Jeff McConney [the former Trump Organization controller] testified about. The figures were the same.

McConney didn’t testify that Trump ever saw those notes or that those notes were discussed with him, right?

Feuerherd: Yeah, I don’t think so.

Orden: Yeah, the only link to Trump is that meeting.

The even weirder thing about it is that, given the point that we discussed about how Cohen essentially conceded that he stole tens of thousands of dollars from Trump, that means that the jury is being asked by the prosecution to believe Cohen’s account of a meeting with Trump during which — by his own account now — he stole from his own client. It’s a very strange thing.

Orden: Even regarding the Costello stuff, we’re supposed to believe that Cohen is telling the truth now about the fact that he lied to Costello [about having incriminating information on Trump]. You’re supposed to believe that Cohen lied to him then for a specific reason, but now he’s saying the truth.

The same structure of that dilemma presents itself with respect to Cohen’s guilty plea on fraud charges.

Orden: Yes, correct.

He’s telling us now that he lied then.

Orden: That one is even more complicated because he also has said these things did happen but I shouldn’t have been prosecuted for them, but other times he says they didn’t happen. He has said both of those things.

He has said repeatedly that the case was bogus in the past. But he said on the stand that he hasn’t said that, but instead he just said that he shouldn’t have been prosecuted — that it should have been resolved civilly. But that is not what he has said in the past.

Ben, I’ll give you the last question. To wrap it all up, how do you think the defense sees the state of things headed into closing arguments?

Feuerherd: They’re probably hoping, like you said, that the jury sees the case as hinging on Cohen, and they probably are hopeful that they’ve dirtied Cohen enough, and that they’ve proven him to be this completely dishonest operator.

But I thought it was interesting — your discussion about the jury having to believe that Cohen was telling the truth about lying to Costello. It speaks to the sort of characters involved in all of this. I come across sort of believing Cohen about that, because if you were in Cohen’s shoes, you would lie to a guy like Bob Costello in that situation.

Those are the characters that are involved here. Nobody comes across looking very well here.>

<The use of ballot drop boxes was the focal point of much election misinformation and chaos for election-denying Republicans following the 2020 election. But now they might be coming around to embracing it.

As the Wisconsin Supreme decides whether or not to reinstate the use of ballot drop boxes ahead of the 2024 election, Republican lawmakers in the state have suddenly changed their perspective, saying they would encourage Republican voters to use drop boxes and other early voting methods that they had previously claimed was a source of election manipulation and ballot harvesting.

The about face is also out of necessity. If Republicans have any hope of carrying Wisconsin in 2024, they’re going to have to change their messaging around absentee voting and ballot drop boxes, election experts told TPM.

“One of the two parties decided that their path to victory perhaps involved making repeated false claims about certain voting processes,” David Levine, senior elections integrity fellow at the Alliance for Securing Democracy, told TPM. “And not only does that get you potentially in a world of legal trouble, but it can also increase your likelihood of losing, so now we’re seeing an adjustment.”

Republicans in Wisconsin have begun to “read the tea leaves,” Jay Heck, executive director of the non partisan Common Cause Wisconsin similarly told TPM, knowing that the liberal majority on the state Supreme Court will likely rule in favor of ballot drop boxes and absentee voting — an effective and safe way to cast a ballot.

The strategy now for Republicans, as the Wisconsin Supreme Court weighs this decision, will likely be twofold, he said. They will continue to play into the hands of election conspiracy theorists, all while urging their voters to use drop boxes.

“The strategy will be, on the one hand, urging their [Republican] voters not to wait till the last minute and rely on the U.S. mail if they’re voting by absentee ballot and use the drop boxes,” said Heck. “But on the other hand, raise the specter of fraud.”

It’s a line-straddling strategy the national Republican Party, and Donald Trump himself, has had to embrace as well post-2020 as Republican strategists and party officials realized that relentlessly demonizing non-Election Day voting practices, like mail-in voting, did not help Republicans win elections in 2020 and 2022.

In July 2022, the state Supreme Court’s then-conservative majority ruled in a case brought by two Waukesha County voters who were represented by the right-wing Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty that ballot drop boxes were illegal in Wisconsin, noting in that 4-3 decision that the Wisconsin Elections Commission incorrectly told local election clerks in 2020 that ballot drop boxes are a permissible way for voters to return ballots. According to the court, because state law did not expressly allow drop boxes to be used, they were not legal, ruling that absentee ballots now needed to be delivered directly to municipal clerks.....>

<....Although the use of drop boxes expanded during the 2020 election due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the practice had been legal for decades in Wisconsin and elsewhere across the country prior to 2020.

“The illegality of these drop boxes weakens the people’s faith that the election produced an outcome reflective of their will,” the 2022 opinion read. “The Wisconsin voters, and all lawful voters, are injured when the institution charged with administering Wisconsin elections does not follow the law, leaving the results in question.”

Earlier this year, however, the left-leaning political action committee Priorities USA challenged the 2022 Supreme Court decision, in a lawsuit joined by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and state Attorney General Josh Kaul.

“…before drop boxes became so politically charged, there was consensus that they were lawful and appropriate,” reads a brief from Evers.

And now this month, Brian Schimming, Republican Party of Wiscosin [sic] Chair has said more than once that he will encourage Republican voters to use ballot drop boxes in the fall, if they are to become legal.

“All I can tell you as chairman is I’m not going to leave any potential advantage that we might have on the table,” Schimming said at a state Republican convention, according to USA Today.

“This messaging is a sharp turn from 2020 and something of a break with President Trump’s disparaging of methods of voting outside of the traditional election day experience,” Barry Burden, political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Director of the Elections Research Center, said in an email to TPM.

The rationale for the flip-flop is mostly practical and due to the fact that Republicans have been losing statewide elections in Wisconsin since Trump came to office. “There is a sense that Democrats have gotten an edge over the GOP by utilizing all voting practices rather than limiting themselves to traditional ways of voting,” Burden noted.

Levine emphasized, however, that even though Wisconsin Republicans may be embracing the use of ballot drop boxes now, that is likely to change.

“You support the voting method until you’re losing,” he said. “What we’ve seen is that for some folks who are losing, they’re willing to go to pretty much any ends to try and ensure they can win.”>

<By announcing her intention to vote for Donald Trump for president, Nikki Haley did the most Nikki Haley thing possible: She caved to Trump and depressed every conservative Never Trumper who pulled the lever for her.

For those paying close attention, however, this outcome was predictable, given the last decade, or so, of Haley’s career. Perhaps a quick recap is in order: In 2015, she criticized Trump’s temperament, saying, “That’s not who we are as Republicans. That’s not what we do.” (Spoiler: It <is> who we are and it is what we do, at least in the post-Trump GOP.)

In her 2016 State of the Union response to then-President Barack Obama, Haley cryptically warned, “During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices.” A month or so later, she said Trump represented “everything a governor doesn’t want in a president.”

Next, Haley admitted she would vote for Trump in 2016, but said she was “not a fan.” This vague response was enough to facilitate her appointment as Ambassador to the United Nations. Upon leaving her post, Haley wrote a book that lavished praise on Trump.

That rosy view lasted until the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, which inspired Haley to say, “We need to acknowledge [Trump] let us down… He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.”

By Oct. 2021, Haley changed her tune yet again, saying of Trump, “We need him in the Republican Party. I don’t want us to go back to the days before Trump.”

Fast forward to her 2024 campaign, where she said, “I would not run if President Trump ran,” before changing her mind and running against him.

See a pattern? When it comes to Trump, Haley is conflicted, inconsistent, and unstable. Whether ambition or cowardice are to blame is unclear.

So why were some of us still holding out some small glimmer of hope that this time would be different?

Haley’s presidential campaign suggested she had grown as a Never Trump leader.

“At the start of the campaign, Haley sounded like she was running for vice president, promising to support Trump as the nominee even if he were convicted of crimes,” A.B. Stoddard recalls. But “[b]y the end of the campaign, she said she no longer felt obligated to support him, that he was responsible for failing to stop the violence on Jan. 6, and that she isn’t sure, if returned to office, that he will follow the Constitution.”

Haley’s latest flip-flop on Trump is probably her worst because she had become something of a symbol of the conservative resistance. She has been garnering roughly 20 percent of the vote in Republican primaries, despite dropping out of the race months ago.

In this regard, she was serving as something of an avatar of the Never Trump conservative movement that was starved for a leader. Haley could have been that leader. Instead, she sold us out....>

<....It’s one thing to be defeated. It’s another thing to go into exile. What Haley has done is more like surrendering. It has the effect of not just disappointing the troops, but also demoralizing them. For many of us, though, this is déjà vu all over again.

My biggest faceplant came when I naively believed that Marco Rubio was the future of conservatism. But it wasn’t Rubio’s 2016 GOP primary loss that disillusioned me; his seamless transformation into MAGA Marco is what really broke my spirit.

Former Sen. Ben Sasse was another promising conservative politician who disappointed me. Sasse had much to recommend him, but he didn’t have the courage to remain true to his principles in the admittedly challenging Trump era.

You can probably tell that (like many Never Trumpers) I had a “type”—young, charismatic, and conservative pols who gave inspiring speeches. Realizing this inherent weakness, I was less susceptible to the charms of Nikki Haley than I might otherwise have been.

That is good news because if there’s one thing we have learned (besides not trusting Nikki Haley), it's that there is no correlation between these superficial attributes and the ones that really matter.

Having been let down before, my attitude regarding Haley could best have been described as cautiously optimistic.

One strategy employed by die-hard sports fans desperate for self-preservation is to bet against their favorite team. This serves as a sort of hedge; either your beloved team wins, or you pocket some cash. To avoid having our hearts broken yet again, many of my Never Trump conservative brethren have employed a similar defense mechanism: As Mel Brooks advised, we “hope for the best” and “expect the worst.”

And, in this regard, Nikki Haley is merely the latest Republican to disappoint in a long string of disappointments.

Here’s hoping that we someday get a decent center-right leader with character and integrity. And I don’t care how old or boring they are.>

Whaddaya think, <fredtheinterloper>? Glad Haley returned to the bosom of <odious orange>, ready to go down for him on command?

<Donald Trump is facing backlash after focusing one of his Memorial Day posts on his various legal challenges while he runs for reelection.

The former president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee made two posts to his Truth Social account Monday morning in reference to the federal holiday. One of the two featured a picture of Trump saluting a grave with the text, "We can never replace them. We can never repay them, but we can always remember."

In the second, which was shared a little over two hours later, the former president wished a "Happy Memorial Day to All, including the Human Scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country."

The post mentioned the "Radical Left, Trump Hating Federal Judge" Lewis Kaplan, who presided over his two separate defamation cases brought against him by former columnist E. Jean Carroll. Trump also took a hit at New York Judge Arthur Engoron, who in February found the former president, his two eldest sons and others associated with the Trump Organization liable of defrauding lenders.

Several of Trump's critics took to social media and criticized the former president for using his Memorial Day message to make a statement about his legal battles. The Biden-Harris HQ account, which is associated with President Joe Biden's reelection campaign, shared a screenshot of Trump's controversial post to X, formerly known as Twitter, writing, "Trump posts Memorial Day message with zero mention of fallen American service members, instead calling those who don't support him 'Human Scum.'"

The X account Republicans Against Trump also attacked the former president in a post, writing that his "Memorial Day post says nothing about our fallen heroes who paid the ultimate price for defending our freedoms, instead, he's focused on attacking the judges and the prosecution in his criminal trial. Trump is utterly unfit for office."

"What in G.d's green earth is wrong with this country," wrote Andrew Weissmann, an attorney and frequent legal analyst for MSNBC who was responding to a post that compared Trump's message to one from former President Barack Obama. "What happened to patriotism and decency and self-sacrifice? So grateful to those who serve in and out of uniform everyday."

"Where are all the Republican elected officials sharing Trump's long Memorial Day post?" added Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of the progressive news site MeidasTouch and a frequent critic of Trump. "Aren't you proud of the leader of your party and what he had to say? Why won't you post it to your supporters and constituents?"

Newsweek has reached out to Trump's press team via email for comment on the criticism.

The former president is facing four criminal indictments while vying for a second shot at the White House. He has also been found liable of sexual abuse and business fraud.

Trump is set to face Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in November. The president said in his Memorial Day post to X on Monday, "Since America's founding, our service members have laid down their lives for an idea unlike any other: the idea of the United States. Today, as generations of heroes lie in eternal peace, we live by the light of liberty they kept burning. May God bless them, always."

A handful of Trump's supporters responded to criticisms of the former president, noting that his post regarding his legal battles came after a message about remembering those who died while serving in the U.S. armed forces. Conservative commentator and executive producer of The Benny Show podcast Alex Lorusso wrote underneath the post by the Biden-Harris HQ account, "Conveniently didn't mention his first post of the day."

Trump's campaign account, Team Trump, shared multiple posts in honor of the holiday, including one that included audio of the former president's Memorial Day speech in 2018. Former first lady Melania Trump said in her own statement to X, "Today, we pay tribute to the brave souls who sacrificed their lives for our freedom. Their selfless acts of courage will forever be remembered and honored.">

<Embattled ex-president Donald Trump raged against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Sunday as his hush money trial gears up for closing arguments.

The Republican politician, who is currently campaigning against President Joe Biden to win a second shot at the White House in elections later this year, uploaded a string of posts on social media site Truth Social blasting the case against him. The first-ever criminal prosecution of a U.S. president has been underway for the past few weeks, but is now nearing its conclusion with closing arguments expected on Tuesday, meaning the jury could potentially give its verdict this week.

Bragg indicted Trump last year on 34 felony counts after he was accused of falsifying internal company records to hide alleged "hush money" payments to his lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, to help cover up allegations about his sexual relationship with porn star Stormy Daniels. The pay-out was made in 2016 as Trump was campaigning for the presidency, making it a separate crime, such as attempting to influence an election, prosecutors say. Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels and denies falsifying business records.

Trump's legal team rested their case last Tuesday and the judge, Justice Juan Merchan, dismissed the jury for seven days, telling them to return on Tuesday for closing statements from both sides. They were not sequestered, which means they were sent home, and will enjoy the long Memorial Day weekend before returning to court.

Over on Truth Social this weekend, Trump's outburst against Bragg saw him brand the high-profile lawyer as "corrupt" and complicit in "an Election Interfering Witch Hunt" orchestrated by the Biden administration. He also slammed the judge and blamed Bragg for the "DELAY of 7 days to his Corrupt and Unconstitutional Case against me, with no sequester."....

....Trump's attorney Alina Habba told Fox News on Sunday that she was concerned that the jury has been sent home for such a long wait, saying she fears they could be swayed by TV reports or friends and family over the Memorial Day weekend.

"They should have been sequestered," she said. "Because, in my opinion, these jurors are handling something that is completely unprecedented and unwarranted in America and for them to be able to be out and about on a holiday weekend with friends and families who have opinions, who are watching the news, the TV is on the background at the pool party... I have serious concerns if they're left wing and they're watching MSDNC, as my client calls it, or CNN, they're not going to get fair news,"

Later that day, Trump echoed her comments online in a lengthy rant.

"Can anyone believe that Soros backed D.A., Alvin Bragg, was able to get a DELAY of 7 days to his Corrupt and Unconstitutional Case against me, with no sequester?" he wrote. "Legal Expense = Legal Expense! The only thing Bragg has going for him is the Corrupt and highly Conflicted Judge - Which is a lot!!!"....>

<....In order to find Trump guilty of falsifying business documents, the jury must believe he did so as part of a separate crime. The judge ruled that the jurors do not have to agree what that crime actually was; it could be a tax crime, or a violation of state or federal election law. The outcome could see the jury return a guilty verdict, an innocent verdict, or a hung jury.

"The reason the Radical, highly Conflicted Judge Juan Merchan had to come up with three FAKE options for the jury to choose from, without requiring them to be unanimous, which is completely UNAMERICAN AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL, is because the Corrupt, Soros backed D.A., Alvin Bragg, couldn't come close to proving that any crime was committed," Trump said on Truth Social. "THERE WAS NO CRIME. Legal Expense paid to a lawyer was marked, by a bookkeeper using a dropdown menu in a computer program, as Legal Expense paid to a lawyer. WHAT ELSE COULD YOU CALL IT? There is NO CASE, just a Democrat Persecutor controlled by Crooked Joe Biden's White House, a Democrat Judge, and a biased venue. This is nothing but an Election Interfering Witch Hunt, and the American People know it! MAGA2024. [Make America Great Again 2024]"

"In addition to the fact that I did nothing wrong, NDA's [non-discolsure agreements] are totally legal and commonly used, and that virtually every legal Scholar and Expert says, in written form, that this is a case which has NO MERIT and should not have been brought, my lawyers have informed me that the highly Conflicted and Corrupt Judge, Juan Merchan, will not allow RELIANCE ON COUNSEL, which virtually everyone is allowed to use, as an additional, though not needed because I did NOTHING WRONG, Defense. This 'Case,' which could have been brought seven years ago but wasn't because it has no merit, is a disgrace. It was only begun to interfere with Crooked Joe Biden's Political Opponent, ME. RELIANCE ON COUNSEL. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Trump made similar claims on Truth Social on Friday, when he described the trial as a political "persecution."

But other legal analysts suggested the case did not look good for Trump, while one expert commentator suggested Cohen's testimony had made Trump look "most like a criminal.">

<Donald Trump’s campaign has issued another extraordinary fundraising request to supporters by doubling down on a false claim that rival Joe Biden was prepared to hurt or kill him by authorizing the use of deadly force during an FBI search for classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago compound in August 2022.

The claim has become a currency among some Trump supporters and is widely described by them as an “attempted assassination” – but rests on a misquoted section of FBI policy in a legal motion. Moreover, Trump was not even in Florida during the search.

The revival of the claim came late Sunday came in the form of an email to supporters headlined:“This is an Alert from Donald Trump.” “DEADLY FORCE? Biden authorized it. They brought guns to the raid on Mar-a-Lago!” it read.

“I’m sick and tired of the Radical Left destroying this country and trying to destroy me,” it continued, before detailing raids, indictments and arrests Trump claims he has been subjected to for political purposes.

“Here’s the bottom line: I WILL NEVER SURRENDER. AND NEITHER WILL YOU!’ It concluded with a request for donations of up to $500 and a demand to “drop all charges” against him.

As laid out in the justice department’s justice manual. (A)gents are permitted to use deadly force “when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person”. It is standard procedure in many cases and the execution of a search warrant on Mar-a-Lago was communicated ahead of time with Trump’s Secret Service detail.

In a statement, the FBI described the language as “a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force. No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter.”

Since leaving office in 2021, Trump is estimated to have spent more than $100m on lawyers and other costs related to various investigations, indictments and legal defense costs – or roughly $90,000 a day.

Most of those expenses are met by donations in to [sic] political action committee and campaign funds set up to contest the results of the 2020 election. But those accounts are running low, and the former president could be facing a cash crunch.

But Trump’s claims ignore the realities that fears of rising political violence during this election cycle are mostly focused on the threat from the far right.

“You know they’re just itching to do the unthinkable,” read the previous Trump campaign fundraising email, signed with the former president’s name. “Joe Biden was locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger.”

The government’s charges that Trump hid classified documents taken from the White House at the end of his term and then refused requests to turn them over is currently stalled by legal challenges.

But the sense that the government itself is working against justice in the case of Trump is a powerful fundraising tool for his campaign.

Trump’s latest assassination-warning email comes as his trial on campaign finance charges is coming to a conclusion in New York. Final prosecution and defense arguments are expected on Tuesday. Opinion polls suggest that the month-long proceedings have not so far moved the needle either way on Trump but merely served to reinforce existing opinions.

But a verdict could change that – or not. Either way both presidential candidates are likely to make political hay from whichever way it goes. Trump has made the dingy corridor outside the courtroom a campaign stage, with Republican allies turning up daily to show their support.

According to Politico last week, Biden plans to address the matter once a verdict is reached. But he may do so from the White House, not from the campaign trail, to show his statement isn’t political. But with political heat rising, the reactions of both men will likely be seen primarily through the political lens.>

This was a rollercoaster ride; a near TN in the opening (though not a very good one) and an inferior middlegame, but my opponent misjudged the position:

<[Event "93rd Mass Open"] [Site "Westford Mass"]
[Date "2024.05.26"]
[EventDate "2024"]
[Round "3.11"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Archibald, John"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "E62"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<The House GOP effort to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress is in limbo, with Republicans unsure whether they have the votes to pass the measure.

Two committees last week easily passed resolutions to censure Garland, and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has since projected confidence, saying he expects the measure to pass “handily” once lawmakers return from their weeklong Memorial Day recess.

But a source familiar with behind-the-scenes discussions said there are at least two Republican members who have privately said they will not vote for the measure.

That’s a problem given the razor-thin House GOP majority, which leaves Republicans only able to pass bills with one or two defections, if Democrats are unified. Leadership was whipping the Garland vote this week as some GOP members suggested some of their colleagues are not yet on board.

“We’re not gonna do it unless we know we can pass it,” Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) told The Hill, adding “there’s more than one” GOP colleague who has reservations.

He said dynamics could shift over the break as “people figure out how to get comfortable with it.”

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) said some members may be “squishy” on the issue.

“If they got problems, they’re from squishes, not me,” he said when asked about the timing of the vote.

The fact the House did not vote on the Garland matter over the past week was notable.

Johnson has called the vote timing a “calendar issue,” and while a delay isn’t unheard of, leadership typically schedules votes on such matters while they still have momentum coming out of committee.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.) the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, said matters were complicated by the rowdy May 15 Oversight meeting to consider the matter, which descended into chaos with a lengthy sidebar over whether to censure Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) after she commented on Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s (D-Texas) use of fake eyelashes.

“Some of the members on the other side were saying that Chairman Comer presided over so much chaos and dysfunction in our committee that they lost the thread of what they were doing there,” Raskin said.

“I mean, the whole country was looking at Marjorie Taylor Greene talking about fake eyelashes, but nobody was focused at all on their outlandish claim that the attorney general of the United States is in contempt of Congress.”

GOP lawmakers have presented a confusing case about the need to hold Garland in contempt after he refused to turn over the audio recordings of President Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur.

Lawmakers already have a transcript of the interview, and on the eve of the committees’ meetings, Biden claimed executive privilege over the tapes.

Impeachment investigators have claimed the recording is an important part of their probe, even as the transcript makes clear topics from their impeachment probe were not covered in the course of a two-day interview squarely centered on how classified documents ended up in Biden’s home and a prior office.

Some of the GOP’s more moderate members have said they don’t see any connection between the tapes and the impeachment investigation, even as they likewise argue Garland should turn over the tapes.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), a target for Democrats in this fall’s elections, was noncommittal about how he would vote while being critical of Garland.

“They’re not tied together. It’s two separate issues,” he said of impeachment and the tapes.

“The Department of Justice has a responsibility to comply with lawful subpoenas. You don’t get to pick and choose which ones are lawful,” he said, telling reporters “we’ll see” when asked about his vote....>

<....Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who also represents a swing district, cast it as an important election year issue.

“We’re entitled to have that tape, bottom line,” he said, answering “not really” when asked if he saw the audio as connected to the impeachment probe.

He said voters should be able to hear the tapes given Hur’s comments about Biden’s mental acuity and remarks that jurors might view him as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

“The prosecutor made a decision not to prosecute because he said he wasn’t mentally up to the trial — I’m using my own words. So we should know what’s on that tape, because that’s an important thing. We have an election going on,” Bacon said.

That is one of the top concerns from Democrats, who have argued the GOP only wants the tapes to slice and dice for campaign commercials.

“They want the audio tape, and that’s obviously for political TV commercials,” Raskin said Thursday.

Garland defended his decision at a Thursday press conference, saying he went to “extraordinary lengths” to accommodate Congress’s request.

“I have released the full and unredacted report of Mr. Hur, we permitted Mr. Hur to testify for over five hours on everything that happened in connection with its investigation, and we provided the transcripts of the interviews in which the committee is interested,” Garland said.

“But on the other side, the president of the United States has exerted executive privilege in order to protect the Justice Department’s ability in future investigations to get cooperation in high-profile cases, particularly involving the White House. My job is to protect the Justice Department’s ability to conduct those investigations, my job is to protect the rule of law — and that’s what I’m doing.”

If leadership brings the contempt resolution to the floor when it returns, it will happen within days of Garland’s June 4 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

Many in the GOP are eager to get to a vote, even as the chairs of the two committees that lead the effort — the House’s Oversight and Judiciary committees — were unclear on timing.

House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) told reporters Thursday he had been given no assurances on the timing of any vote but said he “assume[d] it’ll come to the floor.”

And House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said he expected a vote shortly after recess.

“The case is as compelling as it gets. So I’m all for doing it. And I think it’s gonna happen as soon as we come back,” he told The Hill.

“I’m for doing it as soon as possible.">

<In closing arguments, the Trump defense will attack the credibility of key witnesses. But jurors may not need to believe Michael Cohen, David Pecker, or Stormy Daniels to convict Trump. Here are 10 persuasive pieces of evidence that practically speak for themselves. During Tuesday's closing arguments in the Donald Trump hush-money trial, jurors are sure to hear a lot about the motives and credibility of key prosecution witnesses Michael Cohen, David Pecker, and Stormy Daniels.

But jurors may not need to believe these witnesses to convict Trump.

Here are 10 stand-alone pieces of evidence that practically speak for themselves.

1. "So, what do we got to pay for this?"

2. *** THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS***********

3. "PAY … ASAP … OK"

4. The single most important piece of evidence in the case: People's 35

5. "Sleep well tonight, you have friends in high places."

6. "He will make sure to tell the President"

7. "From which he entered into, through reimbursement…"

8. "Mr. Trump fully reimbursed Mr. Cohen in 2017"

9. The AMI non-prosecution agreement

10. Finally, a smoking micro-gun>

<Special counsel Jack Smith is preparing legal action if a Donald Trump-appointed judge refuses to rein in the former president's comments, a former prosecutor has said.

Trump has repeatedly said that the FBI was willing to use legal force while searching his Mar-a-Lago estate for classified documents.

Smith filed a motion to Judge Aileen Cannon on May 24 seeking an alteration to Trump's bail conditions, in which he would be restrained from making dangerous and untrue comments about the FBI.

Smith was appointed special counsel supervising Trump's federal indictments. Newsweek sought email comment from Trump's attorney on Monday.

Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance wrote in her legal blog, Civil Discourse, on Sunday that Smith decided not to apply for a gag order because he knows that it would be easier to appeal if Cannon refuses his request to adjust Trump's bail conditions.

"Why did Smith go this route instead of asking for a gag order? That's a great question, and I think it suggests where Smith is headed," wrote Vance, who served as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama during the Obama administration.

She said the relevant federal law "specifically authorizes the government to appeal if a district judge denies a motion to modify the conditions of release."

"That's what this is all about. Donald Trump isn't the only one who can take an appeal for strategic reasons. Judge Cannon has had real trouble ruling for the government in routine motions that clearly merited that treatment. If she rules against them here, they'll be prepared to take a quick appeal," Vance wrote.

Cannon is a U.S. district judge based in Florida and was appointed by Trump in 2020. She is now presiding over the DOJ's case against the former president. He is accused of illegally keeping classified documents that he took with him after leaving the White House in 2021 and then obstructing the government's efforts to retrieve them. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Cannon has faced criticism and calls to recuse herself from the case for making a several decisions that some say have favored the former president.

Vance said "the more pressing question" is what Smith will do if Cannon deliberately doesn't move on his request—"if she sits on the motion, as she has on so many others in this case, without ruling or even scheduling a hearing."

"Smith will likely be politely persistent at first, asking her to schedule the hearing," she wrote.

If that doesn't work, Smith will likely seek a writ of mandamus to the appeal court, Vance believes.

"Mandamus asks an appellate court to order a trial judge to do something they are obligated to do but won't or to refrain from doing something they are not permitted to do," she explained.

The search warrant used in the 2022 raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence was recently unsealed in Trump's classified documents criminal case in Florida. The raid led to the seizure of hundreds of documents containing classified information, which resulted in dozens of felony counts against the former president.

The former president posted misleading claims about the warrant's wording on his Truth Social account, alleging that the DOJ "AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE." In addition, a Trump campaign email that was recently sent to supporters said that FBI agents were "authorized to shoot" Trump, saying President Joe Biden was "locked & loaded and ready to take me [Trump] out."

However, the FBI said in a statement that the wording of the warrant was standard and the phrase "deadly force" was also included when agents searched Biden's Delaware home for classified materials.

"The FBI followed standard protocol in this search as we do for all search warrants, which includes a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force. No one ordered additional steps to be taken and there was no departure from the norm in this matter," the agency's statement said.

Discussing Trump's claim about the search warrant, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said at a news conference on Thursday that the "allegation is false and it is extremely dangerous," reiterating that the document in question is standard policy.

Smith's filing to Cannon on Friday included 12 pages of Trump's online about the FBI deadly force claim, along with another from X account PatriotTakes, which describes itself, in part, as "researchers monitoring and exposing right-wing extremism." The latter said former Trump adviser Steve Bannon had claimed that "the Mar-a-Lago FBI classified document search was 'an attempted assassination' by Joe Biden on Trump and his associates.">

<"Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril" - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Another predictably bland post going way out on a limb above, given that National Master James R West wrote a book on the dubious Philidor Countergambit that he has steadfastly played COUNTLESS times in his 40 YEARS. In fact, West will sometimes play a... reversed Philidor Countergambit ...with the White pieces!?

"Dubious, therefore playable."
- Savielly Tartakower

"To be honest I believe that it is best to know a 'dubious' opening really well, rather than know a 'good' opening only slightly." - "Ginger GM" Simon Williams

A tip o' the cap to gambiteer West, who has followed his passion faithfully and shared his knowledge.>

A standard smorgasbord of quotes from others--being as he is signally unable to come up with anything original--so must resort to those bouts of psychotic rage which are, only too obviously, part of his being.

<Donald Trump’s lawyers looked to pull the old switcheroo Monday when they requested a federal judge to reject the gag order in the classified documents case that was requested by special counsel Jack Smith’s request – and instead find the prosecution in contempt.

Smith’s office last week requested Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing the classified document case in Florida, to impose a gag order on Trump, limiting his ability to publicly discuss the law enforcement search of his Mar-a-Lago resort back in 2022. That came after the former president falsely claimed that the FBI had been authorized to kill him, a claim rebutted by the bureau itself.

On Memorial Day, the preemptive GOP nominee’s attorneys claimed that the gag order request was an “extraordinary, unprecedented, and unconstitutional censorship application,” meant to target Trump’s speech during his run for president, CNN reported. Vehemently contested is the special counsel's suggestion that the gag order be added to Trump’s conditions of pre-trial release, meaning that a probation officer, not a judge, would decide whether the former president’s comments are a violation.

Trump is currently under a gag order in New York state court for his ongoing hush money trial and in Washington, DC for his election interference case.

In Florida, Trump’s defense attorneys argued that the special counsel “improperly” requested a gag order “based on vague and unsupported assertions about threats to law enforcement personnel.” Attorneys also referred to prosecutors as “self-appointed Thought Police,” and claimed they were “seeking to condition President Trump’s liberty on his compliance.”

Trump’s legal team implored the judge to not only reject the gag order but also impose sanctions on “all government attorneys who participated in the decision to file the Motion.”

Randall Eliason, a law professor at George Washington University and former federal prosecutor, suggested the defense arguments were without merit, posting on X: “I think this is the whiniest pleading I've ever read.”>

This was even more full of whingeing than the standard <fredthejackal> screeds after he gets what he gives, then runs to the support page crying of how hard done by he is.

#heartlandscumowned
#ignoramussilencedhereforever
#pureevilowned

<In an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, comedian Bill Maher warned that a "civil war" in the United States is a realistic possibility.

While promoting his new book, 'What This Comedian Said Will Shock You,' Maher criticized both major political parties. He argued that the perception of each side seeing the other as an "existential threat" has driven the country into a "terrible" predicament.

Bill Maher warns of potential civil war in America in his new book's last chapter "We find ourselves in this situation where both sides are literally siding with enemies of America rather than the opposition party within the country. You see Republican MAGA people with t-shirts that say, 'I'd rather be with Russia than Democrats,'" Maher said.

The comedian also ridiculed Tucker Carlson's "dog and pony show," referencing a recent video where the former Fox News host visited a Russian grocery store and appeared openly impressed by the prices.

Maher further criticized the left, stating, "On the left you see them marching for Hamas, a terrorist organization," in reference to pro-Palestinian college campus protests across the country.

The 'Real Time' host explained that he titled the final chapter of his book 'Civil War' because he believes it "could happen here."

"This is a terrible place to be, and it can happen here. The last chapter in the book is called ‘Civil War' and you hear more about it all the time, people who are actually pining for it, civil war, come on…let's do this thing! Let's get this going. Let's have this national divorce - it can't work. It won't work," Maher said.

He then added, "Half the country is not going to self-deport even if you win every election."

The comedian concluded the interview with a direct warning about Donald Trump, predicting potential problems regardless of whether the former president wins or loses the upcoming November election.

"Donald Trump is not going to concede the election so what happens in January 2025 on the 20th when inauguration day rolls around and he didn't win the election?" Maher said, adding, "He's not just going to go away. And if he wins and he's the President on January 20, 2025, he's never going to give that up."

Maher's view on a potential civil war was met with widespread backlashes as several people said the 'Real Time' show might lack "self-awareness."

One viewer shared, "A complete void where self-awareness should be."

In a similar vein, another observer chimed in, "Maher is impossibly lacking self-awareness. All he does is make vast generalizations."

Moreover, a viewer highlighted, "The smartest guy on the planet hasn't figured out it's not smart to think you're the smartest guy on the planet.."

Adding to the conversation, a follower contributed, saying, "The horse Bill rides in on is too high."

A comment emphasized, "Maher is a clever entertainer who has made a fortune. He is not an expert on any particular crucial subject. Sometimes his opinions make sense and sometimes they don't. He is also a compulsive self-promoter with a big ego which is usually a requirement in his line of work. No one should take Maher as a nuanced thinker who cherishes in-depth knowledge above entertainment and self-promotion."

Echoing this sentiment, another comment noted, "He has become crotchety. Sometimes interesting and funny nowadays, but far too often self-centered and bitter, attacking almost everybody else, but insisting he's right, and especially saying, "The young people nowadays aren't like me when I was young. I was so much better." Such a tedious bore. Last year, I just had to stop watching the show because it was so unpleasant."

Expanding on the topic, an individual elaborated further, saying, "Bill Maher: The arrogant individual who thinks he can never be wrong about anything. Sound familiar?">

The threat in this country is from those Far Right pharisaical zealots, imbued with the moralistic certitude that their views on life are the Only Way.