Foreign policy expert at the Heritage Foundation -- which has close ties toTrump admin -- is arrested after trying to enter Senate office building with drugs and ammunition

(MS Now -- News Junkies, Facebook)

An official with the Heritage Foundation faces a drug possession charge after a security screening found he had cocaine and fentanyl in his possession -- along with a pistol magazine and 10 rounds of ammunition -- as he tried to enter a U.S. Senate office building. The incident took place last Friday, July 24. The NOTUS (News of the United States) website apparently was first to report the arrest, with a post that was published at 4:38 p.m. on July 24 under the headline "A Heritage employee was caught with drugs trying to get into the Senate, Police say."

The article includes a sub-heading that reads "Matthew Christopher Wingate was stopped for having a pistol magazine in his briefcase, according to a court affidavit." Daniella Diaz writes for NOTUS:

A Heritage Foundation employee faces a drug-possession charge after a security screening at a Senate office building turned what tested presumptively positive as cocaine and fentanyl, according to court records.

Capitol Police officers detained Matthew Christopher Wingate on July 14 after he entered the Russell Senate Office Building and placed his bag on the X-ray belt as part of routine screening, according to an affidavit filed in Washington, D.C., superior court.

NOTUS identifies Wingate as an employee of the Heritage Foundation -- a right-wing think tank that is credited with creating Project 2025, which generally is seen as a governing blueprint for the Trump administration. And Wingate, it turns out, is much more than a low-level employee. Diaz writes:

Wingate is the government-relations director for defense and foreign policy at the Heritage Foundation, and previously worked as a national security adviser for Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and a military legislative assistant for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), according to Legistorm.

An officer observed an image consistent with a pistol magazine inside the brown briefcase, and a secondary screening found a magazine with 10 rounds of 9 mm ammunition, the affidavit states. 

Officers placed him under arrest, the affidavit states. That was apparently because of the magazine. Firearms and ammunition are generally prohibited from being carried into Senate office buildings. 

Why would a defense and foreign-policy expert for the best known and most influential right-wing think tank in Washington, D.C., be taking drugs and ammunition into a U.S. Senate building? That is just one of many questions this incident raises. Diaz writes:

Officers ran a check through the Metropolitan Police Department’s Gun Registry Unit, which confirmed Wingate held a valid license to carry a firearm in D.C., the affidavit states.

A crime-scene officer discovered a plastic sandwich bag in the exterior pocket of the briefcase containing four capsules and three blue-pressed tablets, the affidavit states. Field testing of the blue pills, which were imprinted with the letter “A” on one side and “7 6” on the other side, returned a presumptive positive result for cocaine and fentanyl, the affidavit states.

When questioned by officers, Wingate provided some curious answers of "the dog ate my homework" variety. Diaz reports:

Under questioning, Wingate said he forgot the magazine was in the briefcase and “explained that the drugs were his and were prescribed to him from a medical professional,” the affidavit states.

Wingate did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The Heritage Foundation and Wingate’s lawyer did not respond to requests for comment.

Wingate was released from custody on the misdemeanor charge and has an Aug. 27 court date, according to court records.

Given the prominent role the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 play with the Trump administration, this could prove to be a profoundly important story, one that raises a host of issues and questions. We will be examining those issues in upcoming posts.

As a guy who long has struggled to laugh, especially at himself, Trump flounders as his jokes fall flat before a room full of journalists, not MAGA faithful

Trump's barbs fall flat with journalists at WHCD (BBC)

If you scour social media or check recent approval ratings, you are likely to get the idea that millions of Americans would like to see Donald Trump get a new job -- any job, other than the one he has now.

Unfortunately, we received evidence over the weekend that Trump likely won't be trading in his presidential gig for a spot on the comedy-club circuit anytime soon. That's because we learned from his  performance last Friday as featured speaker at the White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD) that  Trump doesn't know any jokes -- other than those who reside on his hand-picked and uniquely inept cabinet. It also seems that, even if someone writes down a rib-tickler of the highest quality for him, Trump can't tell a joke to save his make-up shrouded skin. 

That is because it has been widely reported that he has a limited, almost nonexistent, sense of humor -- mainly because of an inability to laugh at himself. Mary Trump, Donald's niece who is a best-selling author and political analyst, with a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, probably knows the president's fragile and damaged psyche better than anyone. In a May 2024 article at HuffPost, Mary talked about the incident that probably created Donald's inability to laugh:

Mary Trump said her uncle Donald Trump’s inability to laugh at himself is a “dangerous” trait that can be traced back to at least a humiliating incident in his childhood, which she called the former president’s “origin story.”

On TikTok, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s niece recalled the time her father, Fred, dumped a bowl of mashed potatoes onto his younger brother Donald’s head to stop him from tormenting their even younger brother Robert.

Donald stopped acting out and Robert stopped crying, she said. But then everyone started laughing at Donald and he “probably felt humiliated for the first time in his life,” she continued. 

The incident was frequently brought up at family gatherings and “every single time, even six decades after the event itself occurred, Donald reacted exactly the same way,” said Mary Trump, who is one of her relative’s biggest critics.

“While everybody was laughing about it, he crossed his arms. And he pouted and he sulked until somebody changed the subject,” she said.

Mary Trump also explained the significance of an incident that long ago entered family lore:

“I think it says something about Donald that even as a little kid, he was incapable of having a sense of humor about himself, which is really not great,” she said.

“Kids need to have that kind of resilience that he never had,” she added. “But worse, at seven decades later, he still does not have the ability to laugh at himself, which I think is a dangerous thing.” 

Perhaps that is why Trump's attempts at humor during the WHCD were met mostly with a combination of quiet titters and silence. In a jointly published article at CNN and Yahoo! News, Brian Stelter provides an up-close look at the proceedings under the headline "Trump bombed at the White House Correspondents Dinner -- and proved its point." Stelter writes:

President Donald Trump bombed at the White House Correspondents' Dinner Friday night. He knew he was bombing, too, and he even tried to meta-joke his way out of it.

But no. Even the president's jokes about his bad jokes fell flat, and he was widely ridiculed for the comedy routine afterward. 

Members of the media mocking a leader's dismal performance on live TV and all across the internet? In some other countries, that's a criminal offense. But in the US, it's the norm, so maybe Trump's speech unwittingly underscored the theme of the dinner: America's robust First Amendment protections.  

In a rambling hour-long speech, Trump insulted journalists by name, repurposed old nicknames for political opponents, made a strange number of fat jokes that weren't funny at all, and sounded mad at his unnamed writers for giving him weak material to work with. "Does anyone understand this stuff?" he said at one point, and the answer was generally no.

It was bad enough that Trump's timing was poor, his material was shaky and (at times) inappropriate -- even for a glorified roast. But worst of all, the president's schtick was just plain dull, as Stelter explains:

Some of Trump's remarks were "vicious," as press secretary Karoline Leavitt promised. But more than anything, the speech was just… boring.

And boring is one thing Trump never, ever wants to be. He claimed to be singlehandedly keeping the news business afloat, commenting, "When I'm gone, you're all going to be broke."

"Nobody gives a damn about anybody else," he said, and proceeded to count how many stories on The New York Times front page are about him.

That sounds like the malignant narcissist that resides in Trump was rearing its ugly head.  It could not be pleasant for the assembled journalists to get an unobstructed view of a president at perhaps his most dysfunctional and dangerous. Stelter writes:

Attendees were mostly silent while Trump delivered lines better suited to a MAGA rally than a black-tie dinner.

Trump's low energy led more than one TV executive to muse that the president had stumbled upon a new technique against the media: Tank the ratings with a snoozefest.

Some attendees said they were surprised that Trump didn't bring more original material, given how highly anticipated the dinner was, in part because his attendance ended his years-long boycott of the White House Correspondents' Association's annual fundraiser.

Friday's dinner was a smaller-scale redo of the April 26 affair that was postponed after a gunman tried to rush into the ballroom of the Washington Hilton hotel.

The do-over dinner was held across town at the Waldorf Astoria, a building Trump once operated as his namesake DC hotel — and an unofficial clubhouse for his first administration.

 As a president who fancies himself an expert on all things related to construction, design, and renovation, it was no surprise that Trump became obsessed with the lighting in Friday night's surroundings:

"See those beautiful chandeliers? I can tell you everything about them," he threatened.

Trump did strike some notes of unity, praising the Secret Service and denouncing political violence. "In this country, we believe in freedom of speech," he said. "We settle our differences not with bullets, but with open and vigorous debate. And no deranged loser with a gun will ever change that."

Then he joked about dinnergoers wearing bulletproof vests under their fancy outfits, "which many people didn't want to wear because they'd rather die than look 20 pounds heavier."

That last bit was genuinely funny. It had just a hint of meanness to it, but it hit on a subject -- the fear of being seen as overweight -- to which many people can relate. If Trump has a wheelhouse for humor -- perhaps one he didn't know he had -- that joke was in it. 

The WHCD seemed to spotlight this truth about our 47th president: Trump struggles to live with the media, but he can't live without it, as Stelter writes:

Trump's remarks showed how he understands the power of the press — and that he gets angry when he can't control it. He singled out several CNN journalists by name.

In response, CNN CEO Mark Thompson said in a statement, "We stand by our journalists and the integrity and fairmindedness with which the CNN team reports the news. Honest, accurate journalism may sometimes irritate politicians, but our right to report and present that reporting to the public without government interference is fully protected by the US Constitution. CNN will continue to exercise this right."

Trump also gave shoutouts to media executives whom he views as allies, namely Larry and David Ellison, who took control of Paramount last year and are now trying to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, CNN's parent company. Paramount suffered a major setback earlier on Friday when it agreed to accept a months-long delay to the merger while legal challenges are resolved.

Invoking the fact that Paramount owns CBS News, Trump said David Ellison is "going to make, I think, fantastic changes and keep some of the great stuff going." 

Trump also made a convoluted joke about the controversial changes implemented by Ellison's handpicked editor-in-chief of CBS News, Bari Weiss: "Under my administration, a once-feared and powerful regime that relentlessly attacked America has finally been toppled. Their former leaders have been removed, and they're now being run by a gay dictator facing internal divisions. But I, for one, wish Bari Weiss all the best at CBS News. She's a wonderful woman." 

Ultimately, Trump could not resist bringing his own peculiar brand of politics into the evening:

Toward the end of the speech, the president donned a red "Trump 2028" hat. His choice of attire seemed like a deliberate troll, given the outrage that erupts every time he talks about a constitutionally barred third term. He also said that he was only kidding about running again. Earlier in the evening, during a lengthy digression about his White House ballroom addition, he remarked that "I'm only going to be using it for about six months" before leaving office, a rare acknowledgment that his term has an expiration date.

At times, Trump seemed to be losing his audience, and that probably is because the speaker and the environment did not mesh. Trump is at his best speaking before a group of MAGA loyalists, in a campaign-style, off-the-cuff way -- tossing out red meat like a zookeeper feeding the lions, not worrying about whether his words are accurate or make sense. It's just a matter of pushing the emotional buttons of people who already support him. Trying to entertain and enlighten journalists is a much more nuanced task, one for which Trump is poorly suited. Stelter writes:

The more resentful and recycled Trump's speech got, the more attendees seemed to tune it out.

CNN's Betsy Klein, who was in the room, said many people were on their phones or talking amongst themselves. Others were eating macarons from the dessert trays, using the bathroom or mingling in the lobby.

"The person at the table next to me has just poured himself a comically large glass of wine," she observed nearly an hour in.

CNN's Kristen Holmes said a Republican source of hers in the room said to her, "Whoever wrote this speech should be fired."

But a few of the jabs will surely travel well on right-wing social media platforms, and Daniel Dale predicted that "the silence in the room will be portrayed by the president's allies as evidence he roasted the 'fake news' so bad they were stunned into submission."

Trump is pissed because he can't play with the jet Qatar gifted him, so a disgusted judge reminds DOJ lawyers they still must abide by First Amendment in NY Times case

(Richard Ray, FOX 4, Facebook)

A Trump administration attempt to short-circuit the U.S. Constitution met an ignominious end yesterday as a federal judge grew impatient with Department of Justice lawyers who seemed to have a hard time explaining their questionable actions, and after some tense interplay, wound up forcefully telling them it might be 2026, but you still have to play by the provisions of First Amendment law. The judge's words drew cheers from free-press advocates and made it clear that Trump's efforts to chill The New York Times' reporting on a matter close to his heart were not going to end well.

In the midst of war in Iran; a string of fatal ICE shootings from Maine to Minnesota to Texas,; and an outbreak of a parasitic illness that causes "explosive diarrhea," how did it become one of the biggest days for the First Amendment in quite some time? Courthouse News Service has the story under the headline "Ripped by judge, DOJ drops subpoenas of New York Times reporters." The piece comes with this sub-header: "Justice Department lawyers initially refused to withdraw the requests, despite admitting they were rife with 'inadvertent errors.'” Erik Uebelacker writes:

The Department of Justice on Thursday agreed to withdraw grand jury subpoenas of a group of New York Times reporters who covered President Donald Trump’s new Qatari-donated Air Force One jet — only after a federal judge grilled the department for issuing them in the first place.

The Times was seeking to quash the subpoenas, claiming they were issued in bad faith to deter the journalists from continuing to produce reporting that enraged the president. The stories at issue cited anonymous sources and surrounded security concerns aboard Trump’s new plane that prevented him from using it during a recent trip to the Middle East.

At a Thursday hearing, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian chided the government for hastily issuing the subpoenas that even the DOJ’s own attorneys acknowledged were rife with “inadvertent errors.”

“Subpoenas are the last step -- not the first step, but the last step,” the Joe Biden appointee said.

In other words, to remain within the framework of the First Amendment, the government must first try to get the information it seeks from sources other than journalists. But instead of following black-letter law, administration lawyers went straight to subpoenas, which can include invasive and intimidating measures, such as depositions of reporters and editors, copies of internal communications, even questioning of reporters' friends and family members. DOJ lawyers made an effort to explain why they "took the road that is not supposed to be taken." Their tack essentially was this: "We aren't trying to interfere with The Times' reporting; we are just trying to find the source of leaks about the president's new Qatari jet." In short, the government's exercise in press intimidation was driven by the fact Trump was pissed because he could not immediately play with his new toy. 

To be fair, the DOJ's argument might have worked with some judges. It did not, however, work with Subramanian. Uebelacker writes:

The roughly 90-minute hearing got increasingly tense as Subramanian pressed Sean Buckley, chief counsel to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, on the department’s apparent neglect of regulations set to protect First Amendment rights. He lambasted the government for not trying to secure the information it sought before rushing to send out the subpoenas.

“When you see something like this, if this were a civil proceeding, what I’d normally do is ask the parties to show cause why sanctions should not be issued or steps shouldn’t be taken with respect to the incorrect statements or misstatements,” Subramanian said.

He told Buckley that he effectively had two options: quash the subpoenas from the bench or allow Buckley to agree to withdraw them.

Those words should have sent an unmistakable message to Buckley: "Your argument is a loser." But the Trump lawyer, not surprisingly, must have a thick skull because it took a while for the words to register:

Buckley had initially sought to merely suspend the subpoenas as the department continued its investigation into the source of the information leaked to The Times. But after the dressing-down from Subramanian and a brief recess to consult with the newspaper’s counsel, he eventually agreed to withdraw them altogether.

Perhaps trying to make it clear that he meant business, Subramanian brought a new actor up to the stage, Uebelacker reports:

At one point, the judge called Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Sullivan, who was seated in the gallery, to the well to answer questions about additional subpoenas into the reporters’ phone records. According to Subramanian, Sullivan misled another judge about the publicity of the investigation when seeking a sign-off on those subpoenas.

“It was an oversight on the government’s part,” Sullivan said.

The department also admitted its subpoena of one of the journalist’s mothers and two of their spouses was unintentional. Of that, Buckley said “that is an error that we own.”

The judge seemed to enjoy making one of Todd Blanche's chief lieutenants look foolish:

“It seems like the inadvertent errors and ‘we should’ve done things differently’ are piling up,” Subramanian quipped.

Does all of this mean the party's over for Trump's DOJ on this particular issue? Not necessarily, Uebelacker writes:

While the DOJ agreed to pull the subpoenas, the department could potentially issue them again in the future if it fails to get the information it’s seeking in its investigation.

The government claims it’s targeting the source of the leaks to The Times reporters, not the reporters themselves, who revealed that the new Air Force One plane lacked antimissile and other defensive features.

A DOJ spokesperson railed against Subramanian in a statement following the hearing, claiming the judge “blocked us from presenting the meticulous process of this investigation.”

“The grand jury has a right to hear testimony from all material witnesses in a federal criminal investigation,” the spokesperson said. “This judge’s conduct overrides clear longstanding principles and common sense — blocking the grand jury from receiving core evidence in a national security investigation. Make no mistake, this investigation remains ongoing, and we will pursue justice against those threatening national security by leaking classified information, a serious federal crime.”

A senior official with The New York Times saw the ruling as a win for freedom of the press. Uebelacker reports:

David McGraw, senior vice president and deputy general counsel at The New York Times, said the court appearance was “an important affirmation of our country’s commitment to a free press.”

“We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place,” McGraw said in a statement. “The Times and our journalists will continue to report and seek the truth without fear or favor. We will not be deterred in the face of tactics like these."

That last sentence appears to be a not-so-subtle dig at Trump for consistently trying to chop away at rights that are enshrined in the First Amendment. This is a president who makes a habit of ignoring laws and constitutional rights with which he does not agree. Trump almost seems proud of the lawlessness that has come to pervade his administration, meaning he has earned the disdain that David McGraw expressed. 

This hardly is the first time the White House has tried to wring information out of journalists. In fact, it almost has become a calling card of Trump loyalists. From the Courthouse News report:

The Trump administration has come under fire from critics and First Amendment activists over its persistent bids to get information from journalists about their reporting. DOJ officials recently withdrew similar subpoena requests from The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, compelling them to testify in front of a grand jury.

“The second Trump administration is being particularly aggressive when it comes to leak enforcement and, in particular, going after journalists to identify their confidential sources,” Gabe Rottam, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told Courthouse News on Thursday.

Rottam added that he doubts this is the last time this DOJ tries to subpoena reporters for this information, but he hopes “the department’s track record in court would give them pause before they do this again.”

The administration has also faced heat for taking the luxury jet as a gift from Qatar last year. The administration announced in May 2025 that it was taking the $400 million Boeing 747-8 to be used as Air Force One, with plans to eventually transfer it to Trump’s presidential library. 

Donald Trump paid E. Jean Carroll $5.6 million in lawsuit proceeds less than two weeks ago; now he wants it back, using tactics that range from dubious to corrupt

(Radar Online, Facebook)

Donald Trump's attorneys are asking a federal judge in New York to order E. Jean Carroll to repay lawsuit proceeds Trump paid her less than two weeks ago. Carroll's legal team responded with fierce words that roughly translate to "No way, no how." Like many court cases, this one has moved slowly -- and Trump is doing his best to drag it out even further. So what's the latest, and where is this headed? For that, we turn to the UK Independent, which broke the story of Trump's latest legal maneuver. Under the headline "E. Jean Carroll's lawyers blast Trump's attempts to claw back money he was ordered to pay her; President Donald Trump already paid out millions in the sexual abuse and defamation case. Now he wants it back," Alex Woodward writes:

President Donald Trump is trying to force E Jean Carroll to pay back the $5.6 million he was ordered to pay the former Elle magazine writer after a federal jury found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

That money was disbursed to Carroll from a court-controlled escrow account on July 9.

But the president’s legal team is seeking an emergency injunction that would order Carroll to return the payment to the account in the hopes that the Supreme Court will grant him a legal Hail Mary and reverse the judgment, sending the money back to him.

Carroll's lawyers aren't the only ones displeased with Trump's latest legal stunt. U.S. Judge Lewis Kaplan (S.D. of New York) is not too keen on it either, as we learn in a report from People magazine: 

Trump’s legal team is seeking an emergency injunction that would force Carroll to return the amount she was paid following a judge’s July 8 ruling that ordered the payment process to begin, according to The Independent. 

The money, sent to Carroll from an escrow account overseen by the court, came three years after a federal jury found Trump, 80, liable in the case.  In ordering Trump to pay the $5.6 million, Judge Lewis Kaplan said that the president had spent years delaying the case despite repeated losses in court.

“Defendant has been stalling this case for years,” Judge Kaplan wrote in his ruling. “A jury unanimously concluded that he sexually abused and defamed plaintiff and awarded her damages accordingly. The judgment on that verdict has been upheld on appeal.”

Kaplan also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court — including three justices appointed by Trump — declined to review the case “without dissent,” adding that “it is time” for the president to “pay the judgment.”

Court documents show Carroll's lawyers fired a blitzkrieg of disdain in Trump's direction, making it clear they find his tactics deplorable. From People: 

Carroll’s lawyers opposed Trump’s request for the injunction, writing that the request is “procedurally improper, substantively meritless, and yet another example of Defendant’s pattern of ‘slow-roll[ing] his defenses, asserting or inventing a new one each time his prior effort to delay the case fails.

“But rather than accept the reality that he lost, [Trump] has engaged in a series of maneuvers trying desperately to forestall payment.”

A report at The New Republic (TNR) notes the juxtaposition of Trump trying to skate from paying E. Jean Carroll while using the power of the presidency to significantly pad his personal bank account. The president certainly has no grounds to seek the court's mercy by pleading poverty, per TNR:

Donald Trump has made billions of dollars grifting the American public since returning to office, yet he’s still trying to find a way to weasel out of paying E. Jean Carroll. 

That sounds like the Donald Trump many Americans have come to know and despise. As for the history of the case, and the many procedural machinations involved, we return to Alex Woodward at the UK Independent: 

The payment to Carroll — more than three years after the jury’s verdict — “should have been the end of this case,” her lawyers said. “But Defendant now demands yet another unprecedented remedy. … The judgment here is final, the money has already been disbursed, and Carroll is entitled to keep it.”

Trump’s request also comes to the court “with very unclean hands” after repeating the same defamatory attacks against Carroll that lost him his case in the first place, her lawyers wrote.

A seven-year legal battle follows the first of two defamation lawsuits from Carroll, who accused Trump of assaulting her inside a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s.

A federal jury unanimously awarded her $5 million after finding him liable for sexual abuse and then defaming her with his denials. A separate jury in 2024 ordered the president to pay Carroll another $83 million in additional defamation damages.

On July 8, Judge Kaplan ordered a court-monitored escrow account to begin payments from the initial verdict after the Supreme Court rejected the president’s appeal.

She then received $5,625,005.48.

That is a lot of money, but the tab does not end there. Perhaps that is why Trump appears desperate to avoid having to pay $83 million on top of the $5.625 million he already has paid -- and is trying to claw back. In essence, Trump created his own legal bog by failing to keep his mouth shut. Woodward writes:

Trump’s lawyers said Carroll should wait until the ​Supreme Court “fully” decides whether to re-hear the president’s attempt to overturn the verdict, otherwise he faces an “unrecoverable loss” of millions of dollars that will cause him "irreparable harm.”

Is anyone out there shedding a tear for Donald Trump's financial "woes," especially considering a report out yesterday from Thom Hartmann, indicating Trump appears to be making big bucks off Venezuelan oil? Hartmann writes:

In January, American troops captured Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro and replaced him with Vice President Delcy Rodriguez. Since then, the Trump administration has seized control of Venezuela’s oil exports, which make up roughly a quarter of that country’s entire economy.

The Financial Times reports that the move has generated about $13 billion in revenue so far. And the White House has been unusually quiet about what happened to all that money.

Maybe the judge in the Carroll case should force Trump to testify under oath about the missing $13 billion? That might solve a lot of legal issues in a hurry? Meanwhile, Trump seems to have other slick tricks up his sleeve, but the information highlighted in yellow below should bring Trump's challenge to a conclusion. Woodward reports:

Carroll’s lawyers now say he has run out of options.

“Defendant has lost before a jury, the district court, a unanimous Second Circuit panel, the full Second Circuit, en banc, and the Supreme Court of the United States. He agreed — in a signed stipulation — that Carroll could collect her judgment once his certiorari petition had been denied. That happened,” they wrote Monday. “Carroll should not have to wait any longer.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s Department of Justice (acting once again as his personal lawyer, at taxpayer expense) has joined his Supreme Court fight to prevent Carroll from receiving another $83 million from the president. Woodward writes:

Trump took the extraordinary step of trying to replace himself as a defendant with the U.S. government as he fights for “immunity” from having to pay her. 

A brief court filing signed by top Justice Department officials earlier this year claims there is “good cause” to pause the case and let the administration argue Trump’s immunity claims on his behalf.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear that case. 

Can Trump lawfully claim immunity in a civil matter such as the Carroll case? We will consider that question in an upcoming post.