Trump's inclination to use military force against domestic protesters reflects his lack of respect for the rule of law, the First Amendment, and civil rights

Donald Trump uses military force in Portland (AP)

 

America supposedly is a nation of laws, but as we have reported on this blog for 17 years (see here and here), our federal courts are a sewage dump of incompetence and corruption -- and they repeatedly have failed to hold Donald Trump accountable per the rule of law. Thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts and his right-wing colleagues, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (who have clearly shown their votes on the U.S. Supreme Court votes are for sale), they have helped drive the trust that Americans have in the high court to record lows in recent polls. 

All of this comes to mind after Trump claimed over the weekend that military force should be used on election day against left-leaning individuals he calls "enemies" and "lunatics" -- in other words, people who do not agree with him. This is particularly troublesome when you consider Trump sicced the military on peaceful protesters in Portland, Oregon, in 2020. Is this lawful? In most instances, no -- and a  former  Trump-administration official says he is concerned about the former president's recent statements and says they should be taken seriously. 

Newsweek examines the thoughts of one-time Trump Secretary of Defense Mark Esper in a  story under the headline "Ex-Trump Aide Issues Warning About Military Being Deployed Against Citizens." Reporter Maya Mehrara writes:

A former aide to Donald Trump issued a warning about the National Guard being deployed against American citizens during an interview with CNN, saying that Americans should take Trump's words seriously.

In an interview with FOX News' Maria Bartiromo on Sunday, Trump responded to Joe Biden saying he's not confident the transfer of power after the election will be peaceful due to Trump previously disputing the results of the 2020 election.

Trump said, "I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within...We have some very bad people, some sick people, radical left lunatics. And it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military."

His comments raised concern on social media as people interpreted it to mean he would consider deploying the military and the National Guard against U.S. citizens.

Mark Esper, Trump's former secretary of defense, spoke to CNN's Kaitlan Collins about Trump's comments. "I think we should take those words seriously," he said.

When asked if he feared that Trump would try to utilize the military against US citizens, Esper said, "Yes, I do of course because I lived through that and I saw over the summer of 2020 where President Trump and those around him wanted to use the National Guard in various capacities and cities such as Chicago, Portland, and Seattle."

The comment relates to an allegation from his 2022 book A Sacred Oath that Trump made remarks about invoking the National Guard or the military to "shoot protesters" at the George Floyd marches in 2020.

In a statement to CBS at the time, Trump said in part, "This is a complete lie, and 10 witnesses can back it up. Mark Esper was weak and totally ineffective, and because of it, I had to run the military."

Esper brought up the law, which makes Trump's actions in Portland dubious at best, but federal courts seem unable or unwilling to make Trump act within the boundaries of the law. From the Newsweek  report:

Esper went on to say that he does not believe Trump has the authority under the law to deploy the military against U.S. citizens, with the only exceptions being if it was "some type of civil disobedience or insurrection." However, another expert, retired Major General Randy Manner, who has endorsed Kamala Harris, disagreed, telling CNN that if elected Trump could use the National Guard "almost in any way that he wants."

A report at The Hill, provides more background on the controversy. Sarah Fortinsky writes: 

Esper noted specifically an instance from June 2020 when, he said, Trump “wanted to bring in active duty military as well” against protesters.

“So that’s what equally concerns me about his comment would be the use of the military in these types of things,” Esper added.

Esper said the “good news” is that most of those uses of military force are unlawful, barring extenuating circumstances when something like the Insurrection Act might be invoked.

“But my sense is his inclination is to use the military in these situations, whereas my view is that’s a bad role for the military,” Esper said. “It should only be law enforcement taking those actions.”

One possibility, Esper says, is that Trump will surround himself with sycophants, who will not stand up to his abusive use of law. Fortinsky writes:

Esper also said he is concerned about the people Trump would bring into his administration if the former president is elected to a second term in three weeks.

Esper said he is concerned “the first year of the second Trump term will look more like the last year of the first Trump term.”

“I think President Trump has learned, the key is getting people around you who will do your bidding, who will not push back, who will implement what you want to do. And I think he’s talked about that, his acolytes have talked about that, and I think loyalty will be the first litmus test,” he added.

The former president in a Sunday interview suggested using the National Guard or the military on Election Day to combat what he described as potential chaos from “the enemy from within” — a group Trump said includes “radical left lunatics.”

Trump dismissed President Biden’s concerns that Election Day wouldn’t be peaceful and said, when asked, that he thinks “the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people that have come in and destroyed our country.”

“I think the bigger problem are the people from within,” Trump said. “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics.”

“And I think it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen,” he added.

Is this the kind of man we need in the White House, the kind of president who would take law-abiding U.S. citizens and make them targets of military forces, who have no business patrolling streets in a law-enforcement capacity. As we reported yesterday, Truthout stated that Trump's actions in Portland "serve as a warning that he may seek to use military force against his perceived political opponents if he returns to the White House."

Is that a sign Trump, who seems to savor the idea of being a dictator, essentially wants to turn the U.S. into a police state? I hope Americans who have told pollsters they intend to vote for Trump will give that question serious thought between now and election day.

The courts have played a huge role in allowing Trump to act with impunity, even allowing him to seek an office for which he is disqualified under the U.S. Constitution. We will have more on the sorry state of our courts, and their inability to rein in a rogue like Trump, in upcoming posts.

A second term for Donald Trump in the White House could mean a return to the use of military force against U.S. citizens, as we saw in Portland, OR, in 2020

Donald Trump uses military force against domestic protesters (Getty)

 

Donald Trump is calling for U.S. military personnel to be used on election day against left-leaning individuals he refers to as "enemies" and "left-wing lunatics." In other words he wants to unlawfully use military strength against citizens who do not agree with him and have no intention of voting for him . . . ever. That's from a report at Truthout, under the headline "Trump Calls for Using Military Against Left-Leaning “Enemies” on Election Day; Trump’s calls for military action come as he’s made a number of disturbingly authoritarian comments this election cycle, where Chris Walker writes:

During an interview over the weekend, former President Donald Trump, the GOP nominee for president, said that the National Guard should consider using force against left-leaning people in the U.S., baselessly alleging that the left would disrupt the accuracy of the 2024 election and describing them as “the enemy from within.”

Trump made the remarks on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” program in response to a question about the possibility of foreign influence in the upcoming election. Trump’s answer focused on the domestic scene, arguing, without evidence, that a widespread coalition of leftist voters would rig the election against him.

“We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics,” Trump alleged, not providing any specific names of groups he was referring to. “And I think it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

Who gets to decide who is "bad" enough to have what could be described as members of a "military police state" used against them -- perhaps in a violent fashion -- for doing absolutely nothing unlawful? Who gets to decide who is "sick" enough" to have glorified brownshirts sicced on them? And who gets to decide that Trump's thugs must get rough because "they can't let that happen"? It sounds like Trump is reserving all of those duties for himself. Does that sound like an autocrat in the making? It sure does to me, and Truthout's Chris Walker seems to be thinking along the same lines:

Trump also said that he didn’t believe his own supporters would engage in such actions, despite the fact that hundreds of his loyalists attacked the U.S. Capitol building during the last election cycle in order to disrupt the certification of his election loss to President Joe Biden.

There won’t be violence “from the side that votes for Trump,” the former president claimed.

We certainly can trust Trump's word, coming from the only former president to be charged with a state or federal crime, earning the title of "convicted felon" after being found guilty in the Stormy Daniels hush-money case, and being found by a New York  court to be an "adjudicated rapist" in the E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse/defamation case.

A summary of Trump's legal travails can  be found here. Can you believe a significant number of Americans tell pollsters they intend to vote for this guy? That says a lot about the American populace, and none of it is good. When Dwight Eisenhower was planning the D-Day invasion, he surely wanted to make the country safe for the clinically brain dead to put a "convicted felon" and "adjudicated rapist" in the White House. Chris Tucker sprinkles a little reality into Trump's "wannabe dictator" daydreams:

As an ex-president, Trump no longer has any say over how the U.S’s military branches are used. However, his statement serves as a warning that he may seek to use military force against his perceived political opponents if he returns to the White House.

Trump has not committed to accepting the 2024 election results, saying he will only do so if the outcome is “honest” — likely meaning if he wins. His refusal to accept the results regardless of the outcome has worried a number of political observers, especially in light of his use of authoritarian and fascist language throughout his presidential campaign.

Trump has, for example, promised to be a dictator on his first day in office, vowing to relinquish those unprecedented (and unconstitutional) powers after he enacts his racist immigration policies. He has also pledged to use the same legal concepts that were utilized to create Japanese American internment camps during World War II to enact his mass deportation plans, and has called for a single day of police violence across the U.S. to supposedly quell crime.

Behind the scenes, Trump appears to be preparing to subvert the results of the 2024 presidential election should he lose to Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris. According to a report from Rolling Stone, which spoke to four sources close to Trump, the former president plans to claim, once again, that the election was “rigged” or “stolen” from him if Harris is the victor, using the same false claims of fraud in absentee voting that he did four years ago.

Earlier this year, Trump had softened his attacks against mail-in voting, but the Republican Party is still engaging in a multi-state effort to make the voting method, generally used more by Democrats than by GOP voters, harder to utilize. Republican-led lawsuits in various states aim to block votes for a variety of trivial reasons, including if absentee ballots are postmarked by Election Day but arrive late, or if votes include small technical errors, such as a voter forgetting to write the date on them.

“The GOP’s efforts could, if successful, tip the scales against the Democrats,” wrote Sasha Abramsky, a freelance journalist and part-time lecturer at the University of California at Davis, in an op-ed for Truthout earlier this month.

“The GOP is throwing spaghetti at the wall with these lawsuits, knowing that most will go nowhere, but hoping that enough will gain traction to cause an unholy mess in at least some swing states.”

A summary of Trump's history of using military force against domestic protesters can be found here. 

Discussion of legal issues surrounding his use of such force can be found here.

When Biden was his opponent, age was Donald Trump's friend, but with Harris atop the Democratic ticket, the press sees age as a factor to be overcome

Harris vs. Trump: Could age be a difference-maker? (Guardian)

The presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump probably was memorable mainly for the ease with which Harris handled Trump. A CNN flash poll of registered voters who watched the debate found that respondents thought Harris won by a comfortable margin -- 63 % to 37 %. Quite a few viewers, including yours truly, probably thought it was not that close. 

As the 2024 presidential race counts down to election day on Nov. 5, the debate is being viewed through a different prism. Reporters from The New York Times analyzed Trump's poor performance and examined questions it raised about the candidate's age, mental fitness, and tendency to engage in flashes of anger. Reporters Peter Baker and Dylan Freedman saw signs that Trump, at age 78, might not have the stamina and mental sharpness to serve effectively as president. The Times appears to be the first mainstream news outlet to take a close look at Trump's age and consider how it has changed him.

Under the headline "Trump’s speeches, increasingly angry and rambling, reignite the question of age," Baker and Freedman write:

Former President Donald Trump vividly recounted how the audience at his climactic debate with Vice President Kamala Harris was on his side. Except that there was no audience. The debate was held in an empty hall. No one “went crazy,” as Trump put it, because no one was there.

Anyone can misremember, of course. But the debate had been just a week earlier and a fairly memorable moment. And it was hardly the only time Trump has seemed confused, forgetful, incoherent or disconnected from reality lately. In fact, it happens so often these days that it no longer even generates much attention.

He rambles, he repeats himself, he roams from thought to thought — some of them hard to understand, some of them unfinished, some of them factually fantastical. He voices outlandish claims that seem to be made up out of whole cloth. He digresses into bizarre tangents about golf, about sharks, about his own “beautiful” body. He relishes “a great day in Louisiana” after spending the day in Georgia. He expresses fear that North Korea is “trying to kill me” when he presumably means Iran. As late as last month, Trump was still speaking as if he were running against President Joe Biden, five weeks after Biden's withdrawal from the race.

The script for the 2024 presidential race has rapidly evolved and eternally changed -- and neither of those attributes play in Trump's favor. History does not appear to be his friend, either. Write The Times' reporters: 

With Biden out, Trump, at 78, is now the oldest major party nominee for president in history and would be the oldest president ever if he wins and finishes another term at 82. A review of Trump’s rallies, interviews, statements and social media posts finds signs of change since he first took the political stage in 2015. He has always been discursive and has often been untethered to truth, but with the passage of time, his speeches have grown darker, harsher, longer, angrier, less focused, more profane and increasingly fixated on the past.

According to a computer analysis by The New York Times, Trump’s rally speeches now last an average of 82 minutes, compared with 45 minutes in 2016. Proportionately, he uses 13% more all-or-nothing terms such as “always” and “never” than he did eight years ago, which some experts consider a sign of advancing age.

Similarly, he uses 32% more negative words than positive words now, compared with 21% in 2016, which can be another indicator of cognitive change. And he uses swearwords 69% more often than he did when he first ran.

He seems confused about modern technology, suggesting that “most people don’t have any idea what the hell a phone app is” in a country where 96% of people own a smartphone. If sometimes he seems stuck in the 1990s, there are moments when he pines for the 1890s.

Sarah Matthews, who was Trump’s deputy press secretary until breaking with him over the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, said the former president had lost his fastball.

“I don’t think anyone would ever say that Trump is the most polished speaker, but his more recent speeches do seem to be more incoherent, and he’s rambling even more so and he’s had some pretty noticeable moments of confusion,” she said. “When he was running against Biden, maybe it didn’t stand out as much.”

Trump dismisses any concerns and insists that he has passed cognitive tests. “I go for two hours without teleprompters, and if I say one word slightly out, they say, ‘He’s cognitively impaired,’” he complained at a recent rally. He calls his meandering style “the weave” and asserts that it is an intentional and “brilliant” communication strategy.

Steven Cheung, the campaign communications director, called Trump “the strongest and most capable candidate” and dismissed suggestions that he has diminished with age. “President Trump has more energy and more stamina than anyone in politics, and is the smartest leader this country has ever seen,” he said.

The former president has not been hobbled politically by his age as much as Biden was, in part because the incumbent comes across as physically frail while Trump still exudes energy. But his campaign has refused to release medical records, instead simply pointing to a one-page letter released in July by his former White House doctor reporting that Trump was “doing well” after being grazed by a bullet in an assassination attempt.

Several former staffers who have worked with Trump for years have long been concerned about his mental acuity -- and at least 16 of those officials have spoken out to say they no longer support their former boss. Baker and Freedman write:

How much of Trump's rambling discourse can be attributed to age is the subject of some debate. Trump has always had a distinctive speaking style that entertained and captivated supporters even as critics called him detached from reality. Indeed, questions have been raised about Trump’s mental fitness for years.

John Kelly, his second White House chief of staff, was so convinced that Trump was psychologically unbalanced that he bought a book called The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, written by 27 mental-health professionals, to try to understand his boss better.

A 2022 study by a pair of University of Montana scholars found that Trump’s speech complexity was significantly lower than that of the average president over American history. (So was Biden’s.) The Times analysis found that Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level, lower than rivals such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who speaks at an eighth-grade level, which is roughly average for modern presidents. 

Trump’s complexity level has remained relatively steady and has not diminished in recent years, according to the analysis. But concerns about his age have heightened now that he is trying to return to office, concerns that were not alleviated by his unfounded debate claim about immigrants “eating the pets” in a small town.

Polls show that a majority of Americans believe he is too old to be president, and his critics have been trying to focus attention on that.

Experts said it was hard to judge whether the changes in Trump’s speaking style could indicate typical effects of age or some more significant condition. “That can change with normal aging,” said Dr. Bradford Dickerson, a neurologist at Harvard Medical School. “But if you see a change relative to a person’s base line in that type of speaking ability over the course of just a few years, I think it raises some real red flags.”

Others who have encountered him since he left the White House have likewise described moments of forgetfulness. Most notable, perhaps, was his deposition in the defamation lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of raping her in the 1990s. Shown a picture of Carroll, Trump confused her with his second wife, Marla Maples. (A jury later found that Trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll.)

Roberta Kaplan, who was Carroll’s lawyer, said Trump lost control at times during the proceedings, blowing up when he should have remained calm. “I assume that was always part of his personality,” she said in an interview. “But it may be getting worse.”

Others who have spent time with Trump in private, however, insist that they notice no difference.

A 17-point advantage with moderate voters helps drive Kamala Harris to a five-point national lead in the latest survey from Susquehanna Polling & Research

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro speaks out for Harris (Shapiro Campaign)

Kamala Harris has taken  a five-point lead nationally over Donald Trump, driven partly by a whopping 17-point margin among independent voters, according to an article at floridapolitics.com (dated 10/3/24) about recent polling in the 2024 presidential race. Under the headline "Will moderate voters propel Harris to victory in November?" Ryan Nicol writes:

A new survey from Susquehanna Polling & Research (SP&R) shows Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris with a 5-point lead nationally over former Republican President Donald Trump.

SP&R pollsters found Harris with 49% support among 1,001 likely voters. Trump is at just 44% in the poll.

Harris is being buoyed by a big lead among independents, as she tops Trump 53% to 37%. Both candidates dominate among their respective parties, with Harris up with 94% support to Trump’s 0% among Democrats, and Trump leads among Republicans 93% to 2%.

Split along political ideology rather than by political party, Trump leads Harris 89% to 5% among self-described conservatives, while liberal/progressive voters prefer Harris over Trump 94% to 1%. Among self-described moderates, Harris also leads big, 67% to 26%.

The biggest gap in the survey, however, involves gender. Harris holds a sizable lead among people of color, while Trump has a similar margin among White voters. Harris has a big lead among young voters, while Trump's strongest age group is those 85 and older. (Are these folks aware that Trump and Congressional Republicans clearly intend to tinker with -- overhaul might be a better word -- Social Security and Medicare? Does anyone trust Trump and the GOP to make those programs better or just muck them up beyond recognition? I'm betting on the "muck them up" part. As for Nicol, he provides more detail on recent polling:

Reinforcing the massive gender split seen in previous polls, Trump leads among men 53% to 39%, while Harris leads among women 58% to 36%.

Harris has a big advantage with Black voters (83% to 6%) and Hispanic voters (71% to 25%), while Trump is winning among White voters (51% to 42%).

Harris’ biggest lead among various age groups is in the 18-29 demographic, where she leads 61% to 33%. Trump does best among voters 85 and older, where he leads 48% to 38%.

Harris also is up with voters aged 30-44 (51% to 45%), 45-54 (47% to 43%) and 65-74 (48% to 42%).

Trump, meanwhile, has an edge among voters aged 55-65 (49% to 47%) and 75-84 (49% to 47%).

SP&R conducted the survey Sept. 23 to Oct. 1. The poll has a 3.2-percentage-point margin of error.

Harris' overall advantage is larger than that shown in most major polling averages. And a number of key variables -- most especially the Electoral College -- could tighten the race even further. Nicol concludes:

Harris’ 5-point lead overall is larger than most major polling averages show. Nate Silver’s independent forecast has her up 3.4 points, while FiveThirtyEight gives her a 2.7-point lead and RealClearPolitics shows her ahead by 2.2 points.

It’s worth noting the election is decided state-by-state, not by the national popular vote, so it remains to be seen how Harris’ lead nationally will translate to the Electoral College. Forecasters do still seem to give Harris the edge there, however, with FiveThirtyEight giving her a 58% chance to win and bettors on PredictIt also pegging her as the favorite.

With Trump's poll numbers and fundraising flattening out, along comes another "attempted assassination" to maybe save the day. Strange? My answer is yes.

Vem Miller (Mirror)

Law-enforcement officials near Coachella, CA, say deputies probably prevented a third assassination attempt against Donald Trump when they arrested a man on firearms charges as Trump was preparing to speak at a rally in the area. Under the headline "US sheriff says ‘probably prevented’ third Trump assassination attempt; Suspect faces firearms charges but denies he tried to harm former US president and Republican candidate," Al Jazeera reports:

A United States sheriff has said law enforcement officers likely prevented a third assassination attempt against Donald Trump after a man was arrested with unregistered firearms near the Republican candidate’s California campaign rally over the weekend.

Speaking to reporters on Sunday afternoon, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco said deputies stopped the man at a security perimeter outside the former president’s event in the city of Coachella a day earlier.

Bianco said the suspect “showed up with multiple passports with different names, an unregistered vehicle with [a] fake license plate, and loaded firearms”.

“If you’re asking me right now, I probably did have deputies that prevented the third assassination attempt,” the sheriff told reporters.

The man, identified as 49-year-old Nevada resident Vem Miller, was taken into custody without incident, the sheriff’s office said in a statement earlier in the day.

Miller faces gun charges after he was found in possession of two guns and a high-capacity magazine, authorities said. He was released on bail and is scheduled to appear in court on January 2, 2025.

Miller said he had no intention of harming Trump, the former president and the Republican nominee in the 2024 race: From the Al Jazeera report:

In an interview with Southern California News Group, Miller – who said he is a Trump supporter – denied trying to harm the former president.

“These accusations are complete bulls**t,” Miller said. “I’m an artist, I’m the last person that would cause any violence and harm to anybody.”

Trump’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press news agency on the arrest.

“The US Secret Service assesses that the incident did not impact protective operations and former President Trump was not in any danger,” the US Attorney’s Office said in a statement on Sunday. “While no federal arrest has been made at this time, the investigation is ongoing.”

The first alleged assassination attempt against Trump came on July 13 in Butler, PA. The second was  on Sept. 16 at Trump's golf course near West Palm Beach, FL. The third, which has yet to be classified as an assassination attempt, was on Oct. 12 in Coachella, CA. That makes three possible assassination attempts against one presidential candidate in a 64-day time period.

Does that sound peculiar to you? It sure does to me. Has such a series of events ever happened to another presidential candidate in U.S. history? I don't remember one, and my research has turned up nothing. It seems that about every 21 days -- when Trump's poll numbers are declining (which they are), or his fund-raising is sinking (and it is, especially among small donors) -- another assassination story seems to pop up in the news, prompting some supporters to respond with empathy, enhanced donations, or heightened determination to support their guy at the voting booth. Some even suggest Trump is protected by divine intervention, a narrative Trump seems in no hurry to tamp down. This odd situation -- and there are other oddities we will address in future posts -- suggests to me that the alleged gunmen fingered by law-enforcement did not act alone. As for the latest polling and fund-raising trends, Nate Silver's average of 20 polls between Oct. 4-8 shows Harris leading Trump nationally 48.5% to 46.1%. It also shows Harris took the lead on about Oct. 1, and it has steadily grown -- although the race remains tight -- until it reached 2.4% on Oct. 13. Here is more from Al Jazeera:

The incident comes just weeks after authorities in late September charged a man with attempting to assassinate Trump at his Florida golf course.

Prosecutors have accused Ryan Wesley Routh of intending to kill the former president as he golfed at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach on September 15.

Routh has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.

The arrest in Florida marked the second apparent assassination attempt against Trump in the past few months. In July, he was shot in the ear after a gunman opened fire at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania.

That shooting prompted fierce criticism and questions about the security protocols that were put in place for the event.

Trump-Putin phone calls bring the Logan Act out of moth balls by raising the question: Did the calls violate a long-standing, but seldom used, federal statute?

Trump and Putin: Phone buddies (Reuters)

Donald Trump's phone calls with Russia's Vladimir Putin not only became a major international news story, they might also have been illegal, according to a  report at Axios. Under the headline "Logan Act: Why it could be illegal for Trump to call Putin," Ivana Saric writes:

Recent revelations about former President Trump's personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin have raised questions about whether Trump violated U.S. law.

Why it matters: With just weeks to go before the presidential election, the reports from journalist Bob Woodward's new book "War" have raised fresh questions about Trump's ties with leaders of one of the U.S.' greatest geopolitical adversaries.

Driving the news: News of Trump's reported phone calls with Putin have caught the attention of his opponents as a possible violation of the Logan Act, which restricts private citizens from engaging in diplomatic affairs with U.S. rivals.

• A spokesperson for the Harris campaign told Axios Tuesday that Trump's engagement in diplomacy outside of the government could be illegal under the Logan Act — a view echoed by former Biden White House advisor Susan Rice on X Wednesday.
• "Private citizens are forbidden under the federal Logan Act from engaging in foreign policy undercutting America. So why did private citizen Donald Trump have at least SEVEN one on one phone calls with Putin since he left the White House (in which time Putin invaded Ukraine)?" the Lincoln Project, a group of anti-Trump Republicans, wrote on X Tuesday.

How exactly did we reach this point? Many questions still hang over the story, but Saric brings some clarity to the picture: 

Woodward reported that — according to an unidentified Trump aide — the former president and Putin have had "as many as seven" personal conversations since Trump left office in 2021.

• "War" also revealed that Trump sent Putin COVID-19 testing machines during the early days of the pandemic for the Russian leader's personal use.

What they're saying: Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told Axios Wednesday that reports of phone calls between Trump and Putin were "unequivocally false" and "completely fabricated."

• The Kremlin on Wednesday confirmed Woodward's claim that Trump had indeed sent Putin COVID-19 testing equipment but denied the report about the two men's phone calls.

Many Americans probably have not heard of the Logan Act, but they will be hearing a lot about it in the coming days. While president, Trump himself did a lot to bring the obscure statute into the news. Talk about irony. Saric writes:

The Logan Act prohibits private U.S. citizens from engaging without authorization in diplomacy with foreign governments that are in dispute with the U.S.

• It "requires an intent to influence the conduct of a foreign government in relation to a dispute" with the U.S. or to "defeat a U.S. policy," Julian Ku, a law professor at Hofstra University, told Axios Wednesday.
• Violations of the law could be met with a fine or up to three years in prison.

State of play: Though the Logan Act was enacted in 1799, the law has rarely been enforced, according to a 2018 report from the Congressional Research Service.

• There have been only two prosecutions under the Logan Act — in 1803 and 1853 — neither of which resulted in a conviction.
• The act has rarely been used because of questions over its constitutionality, including whether it violates free speech protections, per the report.
• This is in part because the law was enacted at a time when the First Amendment was interpreted differently than it is today, and the law was simply never repealed, according to Ku. The big question of the moment: Did Trump violate he Logan Act? Saric dives into some murky water seeking an answer:

• Whether Trump's reported phone calls with Putin violate the Logan Act depends on the content of their conversations, which remains unknown, according to Ku.

• "They could just be talking about the weather, in which case there's no violation ... if they're talking about a plan to undermine U.S. policy toward Russia, then that would violate the Logan Act," Ku said.

Between the lines: However, criticism of the Logan Act as possibly violating the First Amendment means that even if the conversations did violate the law, the former president would still have a "pretty good First Amendment defense if it ever got to court," Ku added.

How has the Logan Act been used?

Although the Logan Act may not be a frequently used legal tool, it's often bandied by politicians and other political groups to take aim at their opponents. That sounds exactly like the kind of annoying claim Trump would like to toss toward a rival. He might find that it's not quite so pleasant to be on the receiving end of the Logan Act, especially with the 2024 presidential election less than one month away. Talk about karma. Scaric writes:

• Trump accused former Secretary of State John Kerry of violating the Logan Act in 2019 for allegedly participating in negotiations with Iran. Kerry denied any accusations of wrongdoing.
• In 2020, Trump suggested that Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) had violated the Logan Act by meeting with Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
• Murphy denied the charge, writing on X that as the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations' subcommittee on the Middle East, "it's literally my job to meet with regional leaders."

The big picture: The Logan Act has remained a "useful way for people to accuse each other of undermining U.S. foreign policy" because its broad language makes it widely applicable to different correspondences with a foreign government, Ku said.

• Accusing political opponents of violating related laws, like the Espionage Act or the Foreign Agents Registration Act, would be much harder to prove, Ku added.

Has Trump been accused of violating the Logan Act before?

Trump himself was accused of violating the Logan Act in March by hosting a meeting with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at Mar-a-Lago.

• Orbán claimed Trump promised him that he would cut off military aid to Ukraine — a direct contradiction of current U.S. policy of support for Ukraine.

The bottom line: While Trump's actions might be "unseemly," the history of the Logan Act and the fact that it's never been legally tested mean that it's not a "meaningful law" that's "likely to ever be used, against Trump or anyone else," Ku said.

A snarly Trump reacts with venom and a harsh critique to Bob Woodward's expose of the former president's cozy relationship with Russia's Vladimir Putin

 

Putin and Trump share a chummy chat (AP)

Former U.S. President and 2024 Republican nominee Donald Trump has much closer ties to Russia's Vladimir Putin than previously was thought, according to an article yesterday from Associated Press (AP)  and Yahoo! News, based on reporting from a book due out next week by famed journalist Bob Woodward. Under the headline "Woodward book reveals Trump's calls with Putin and Biden's private remarks on Obama and Netanyahu," AP's Michelle L. Price and Meg Kinnard write:

Donald Trump has had as many as seven private phone calls with Vladimir Putin since leaving office and secretly sent the Russian president COVID-19 test machines during the height of the pandemic, Bob Woodward reports in his new book, War.

The revelations were made in the famed Watergate reporter's latest book, which also details President Joe Biden's frustrations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman 's assortment of burner phones. The Associated Press obtained an early copy of the book, which is due out next week.

Trump denied the reporting in an interview with ABC News' Jonathan Karl. “He’s a storyteller. A bad one. And he’s lost his marbles,” Trump said of Woodward.

Trump had previously spoken to Woodward for the journalist's 2021 book, Rage. Trump later sued over it, claiming Woodward never had permission to publicly release recordings of their interviews for the book. The publisher and Woodward denied his allegations.

Here is the Trump campaign's full reaction to Woodward's latest work:

None of these made up stories by Bob Woodward are true and are the work of a truly demented and deranged man who suffers from a debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Woodward is an angry little man and is clearly upset that President Trump is successfully suing him because of the unauthorized publishing of recordings he made previously. President Trump gave him absolutely no access for this trash book that either belongs in the bargain bin in the section of a discount  bookstore or used as toilet paper. Woodward is a total sleazebag who has lost it mentally, and he's slow, lethargic, incompetent, and an overall boring person with no personality. 

-- Steven Cheung communications director

(It should be noted that Trump never denies any of the information in Woodward's book, and Cheung provides no facts to support his bashing of perhaps the biggest name in journalism. (Woodward and his publishers filed a motion to dismiss in Sept. 2023, and we have found no reports that the case has been settled or otherwise resolved, so Trump has not "successfully" sued anyone at this moment. In fact, Trump might have left himself open to a motion for costs or a countersuit for portraying Woodward in a false light -- both of which could hit Trump where it hurts, in the wallet.) 

One of Trump’s longest-term allies, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, blamed Trump’s ongoing false claims that the 2020 election was rigged to a cult of personality in which the former president’s ensconcement at Mar-a-Lago amid a tight circle of aides and advisers “constantly feeds this narrative,” according to the book.

The weekend after Russia invaded Ukraine, Graham was with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, which the senator characterized as “a little bit like going to North Korea.” Graham added that “everybody stands up and claps every time Trump comes in.”

On politics, Woodward wrote that Graham’s counsel was part of what persuaded Trump to run again for the presidency.

In March, during one of his many visits to the Middle East since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, Graham told Woodward that he had been meeting with the Saudi crown prince when Graham suggested they call Trump. From “a bag containing about 50 burner phones,” Prince Mohammed “pulled out one labeled ‘TRUMP 45.’” On another trip, Woodward wrote, the Saudi leader retrieved another burner phone, "this time labeled JAKE SULLIVAN ” when the men called Biden’s national security adviser.

(The Trump lawsuit vs. Woodward and his publishers is ongoing, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss in Sept. 2023. We've seen no reports of a settlement or other resolution, so as of this moment, it appears Trump has not "successfully" sued anyone. In fact, Woodward might have a countersuit for portraying him in a false light -- or he could file  motion for costs, which would hit Trump where it hurts, in the wallet.)  

So, what got the Trump team so riled up? The AP reporters provide insight, stating, "Here is more from the new book":

Trump has had multiple calls with Putin since his White House term ended

Woodward reports that Trump asked an aide to leave his office at his Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, so that the former president could have a private call with Putin in early 2024. The aide, whom Woodward doesn’t name, said there have been multiple calls between Trump and Putin since Trump left office, perhaps as many as seven, according to the book, though it does not detail what they discussed.

Trump senior adviser and longtime aide Jason Miller told Woodward that he had not heard Trump was having calls with Putin and said, “I'd push back on that.” But Miller also said, according to the book, “I’m sure they’d know how to get in touch with each other."

Trump's relationship with Putin has been scrutinized since his 2016 campaign for president, when he memorably called on Russia to find and make public missing emails deleted by Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said.

U.S. intelligence agencies later determined that Russia had meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump, though an investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller found no conspiracy between the Trump team and Russia. In 2018, Trump publicly questioned that finding following an in-person meeting with Putin in Helsinki.

Trump long has sided with Putin over officials from his own administration, raising questions about the apparent chumminess of the relationship, and whether it could be used to undermine U.S. interests -- especially since Trump is known to have taken classified documents when he left the White House and has failed to respond appropriately to requests from the National Archives that he return them. Also, Special Counsel Jack Smith apparently has made some of the documents a central part of his election-interference case before U.S. Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C.:

The AP's Price and Kinnard write:

In recent years, Trump has criticized U.S. support for Ukraine as it fights off Russia’s invasion. He has said Ukraine should have made concessions to Putin before Russia invaded in 2022. He also previously touted his good relationship with Putin and called the Russian leader “pretty smart” for invading Ukraine.

Woodward reports that Trump sent Putin COVID-19 test machines for his personal use as the virus began spreading in 2020.

Putin told Trump not to tell anyone because people would be mad at Trump over it, but Trump said he didn’t care if anyone knew, according to the book. Trump ended up agreeing not to tell anyone.

The book doesn’t specify when the machines were sent but describes it as being when the virus spread rapidly through Russia. It was previously reported by The Associated Press and other agencies that Trump’s administration in May 2020 sent ventilators and other equipment to several countries, including Russia.

The Woodward book drew a strong reaction from Kamala Harris, Trump's Democratic opponent for the presidency along with other subjects in the narrative. Price and Kinnard write:

Vice President Kamala Harris, in an interview Tuesday with radio host Howard Stern, accused Trump of giving the machines to a “murderous dictator” at a time when “everyone was scrambling" to get tests.

“This person who wants to be president again, who secretly is helping out an an adversary while the American people are dying by the hundreds every day," said Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate.

Biden highlighted the report during a stop in Pennsylvania on Tuesday.

“You see what came out today?” Biden said at a fundraiser for Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA). “So he calls his good friend Putin — not a joke — and makes sure he had the tests. He had the tests.”

The book also details Biden’s complicated relationship with Netanyahu as well as private moments when the president has been fed up with him over the Israel-Hamas war.

Biden’s “frustrations and distrust” of Netanyahu “erupted” this past spring, Woodward writes. The president privately unleashed a profanity-laden tirade, calling him a “son of a bitch” and a “bad f——— guy," according to the book. Biden said he felt, in Woodward’s accounting, that Netanyahu “had been lying to him regularly.” With Netanyahu “continuing to say he was going to kill every last member of Hamas.” Woodward wrote, “Biden had told him that was impossible, threatening both privately and publicly to withhold offensive U.S. weapons shipment.”

Biden and Netanyahu have long been acquainted, although their relationship has not been known to be close or overly friendly. Last week, Biden said he didn’t know whether the Israeli leader was holding up a Mideast peace deal in order to influence the outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

Asked about the book's reporting, White House spokesperson Emilie Simons told reporters Tuesday that “The commitment that we have to the state of Israel is ironclad.”

Simons, when pressed on the details, said she wouldn't comment on every anecdote that may come out in Woodward's reporting. She added of Biden and Netanyahu: “They have a long-term relationship. They have a very honest and direct relationship, and I don’t have a comment on those specific anecdotes.”

The book details Biden’s criticism late last year of President Barack Obama’s handling of Putin’s earlier invasion of Ukraine, when Russia seized Crimea and a section of the Donbas in 2014, at a time when Biden was serving as the Democrat’s vice president.

“They f----- up in 2014,” Woodward wrote that Biden said to a close friend in December, blaming the lack of action for Putin’s actions in Ukraine. “Barack never took Putin seriously.”

Biden was angry while speaking to the friend and said they “never should have let Putin just walk in there” in 2014 and that the U.S. “did nothing.”

Woodward reports Biden was privately furious with Attorney General Merrick Garland for appointing a special counsel to investigate Biden’s son Hunter in a tax-and-gun prosecution.

“Should never have picked Garland,” Biden told an associate, according to Woodward. The journalist did not name the associate.

Hunter Biden was convicted in June on federal gun charges and faces sentencing in federal court in Delaware in December. He pleaded guilty to federal tax charges in California and is also set to be sentenced in that case in December.

 U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), never known as one to toss out entertaining anecdotes, apparently made an exception for a reporter of Bob Woodward's stature. The AP reporters write:

Graham says going to Trump's Florida home, Mar-a-Lago, is ‘a little bit like going to North Korea’

One of Trump’s longest-term allies, Graham, blamed Trump’s ongoing false claims that the 2020 election was rigged to a cult of personality in which the former president’s ensconcement at Mar-a-Lago, with a tight circle of aides and advisers, “constantly feeds this narrative,” according to the book.

The weekend after Russia invaded Ukraine, Graham was with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, which the senator characterized as “a little bit like going to North Korea.” Graham added that “everybody stands up and claps every time Trump comes in.”

On politics, Woodward wrote that Graham’s counsel was part of what persuaded Trump to run again for the presidency.

In March, during one of his many visits to the Middle East since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, Graham told Woodward that he had been meeting with the Saudi crown prince when Graham suggested they call Trump. From “a bag containing about 50 burner phones,” Prince Mohammed “pulled out one labeled ‘TRUMP 45.’” On another trip, Woodward wrote, the Saudi leader retrieved another burner phone, "this time labeled JAKE SULLIVAN ” when the men called Biden’s national security adviser.

College-educated voters, especially White ones, are flocking toward Kamala Harris' corner, often after settling in suburbs of cities like Atlanta and Detroit

Kamala Harris attracts college-educated voters in record numbers (ABC)

Kamala Harris is on track to to win White college graduates by the largest margin in recorded history, according to reports yesterday at multiple news outlets. Citing the work of CNN data analyst Henry Enten, this is from a report at Mediaite: 

CNN’s data analyst Harry Enten presented some big numbers in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris that pointed to a potentially historic margin.

In a segment about 2024 election voters with college degrees, Enten told anchor John Berman that Harris was on track to win the largest margin of voters with college degrees in recorded history, seeing numbers that outdid the two most recent Democratic presidential candidates -- former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden. But it was Harris’s gains with White college voters that were particularly notable to Enten:

Enten: Let’s start with White college grads, because White college grads have been this group that have been moving further and further to the left. Alright, this is the Democratic margin among White college grads. Look, Hillary Clinton won ’em by five points. Then Joe Biden won ’em by nine. Look at this margin that Kamala Harris is pulling up in the polls right now among White college grads. It’s an 18-point margin, double the margin that Joe Biden had just four years ago.

Enten: I went back through the record books. This would be the largest win for a Democratic presidential candidate among White college grads in recorded history. That is all the way back since the early 1950s. You could probably go back even further. But the bottom line is that Kamala Harris amongst this group is doing ridiculously, ridiculously well. And it’s one of the main reasons that she has been able to counter Donald Trump’s rising support among voters without a college degree. It’s because she’s doing very well among White voters with a college degree.

         Berman: What about all voters, not just White voters?

Enten: All right. So we looked at White voters with a college degree. How about all voters with a college degree? It’s basically the same story. It’s historically high support for a Democratic candidate. You see right now, Kamala Harris leads in the polls by 21 points with college-educated voters. That’s three points higher than Joe Biden did four years ago, at six points higher than Hillary Clinton did eight years ago. The bottom line is this, Mr. Berman, the electorate is becoming more polarized along education. And Democrats, at least among those with a college degree, are the beneficiaries of it. And Kamala Harris is doing historically well for a Democrat among voters with a college degree.

Berman then brought up another part of the equation — how many voters have college degrees? Enten had those numbers too. 

Enten: So, this is the second part, the key nugget here. An increasing share of the electorate — you know, you go back 44 years ago, just 21 percent of the electorate had a college degree. You go back 24 years ago, 31 percent. You go back four years ago, you’re up to 40 percent. This year, it looks like a historically high proportion of the electorate, 41 percent will have a college degree. You know who those voters are, they’re in the suburbs of places like Philadelphia, of Detroit. You go obviously to Madison, Wisconsin, right? A rising tide. More and more voters with a college degree. It’s what flipped the great state, and part of what flipped the great state of Georgia, right? Those voters with a college degree in the suburbs of Atlanta. 

This is a big reason Kamala Harris is still running a tight race right now, because even though she [is] losing a little bit of support among voters without a college degree, she’s gaining rapidly among those with a college degree, specifically White voters with a college degree. Either way, you look at it, historically high support at this particular point. 

Berman: So, put it in one sentence: More voters than ever with a college degree, she’s doing better than ever with voters with a college degree. Enten replied: That's exactly right, Mr. Berman.