Compared to the other three criminal cases facing Donald Trump, the Stormy Daniels hush-money case, which begins today in NY, could be more substantive than the American public has been led to believe

Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels (Getty)

 

Based on media coverage, Donald Trump's hush-money case in New York -- the one involving former porn actress Stormy Daniels -- has been a virtual afterthought compared to attention heaped on the other three pending criminal cases against the former president and presumptive Republican nominee in the 2024 race against Democratic incumbent Joe Biden.

But Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin says the public should not be lulled into a sense of complacency about the hush-money matter, which is scheduled to begin this morning in New York City. And the case's importance goes beyond the historic aspect of Trump being the first former president to stand trial on criminal charges. The case itself, Rubin writes, carries more weight and substance than many Americans have been led to believe. 

Rubin explains in an op-ed piece under the headline "Don’t overlook these five aspects of Trump’s N.Y. trial." She writes:

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed the first criminal case ever against a former president. Despite criticism that the case was small potatoes, the case is more substantial and more likely to lead to conviction and jail time than coverage has suggested. The 34-count business falsification case may be the only case against former president Donald Trump to reach a verdict before the November election. As a result, it may well shake up the presidential race. Here are five things to keep in mind as the trial begins today.

(1) The same key facts were considered in Trump’s first impeachment.

Trump’s first impeachment seems like ancient history. But House impeachment investigators interviewed Hope Hicks and Michael Cohen, and delved into the facts concerning payment to women to silence them before the 2016 election. The hush money scheme was grist for impeachment because procuring office by corrupt means can be a sufficient basis for impeachment.

While impeachment ultimately focused solely on the Ukraine “perfect call,” obtaining office by corrupt means is central to Bragg’s case. When Trump allegedly falsified documents to disguise the hush money, he violated New York law, Bragg will argue. (“The core is not money for sex,” he told WNYC’s Brian Lehrer. “We would say it’s about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election and then lying in New York business records to cover it up.”)

A conviction would impose accountability for the scheme that helped put Trump in the White House. That would be a key affirmation of the rule of law.

(2) Yes, if convicted his punishment might include jail time.

Norman Eisen, former counsel to House impeachment managers (who investigated the hush money scheme as described above), in an analysis and compendium of trial materials, “Trying Trump: A Guide to His First Election Interference Criminal Trial,” employs a unique argument to conclude that “Trump’s case presents legally cognizable aggravating factors that make a sentence of incarceration not only possible but likely, and there are many examples of first-time offenders charged with this offense getting jail time.” Eisen explains how he reached that conclusion:

New York State aggregate case data suggest that approximately one in ten cases in which the most serious charge at arraignment is falsifying business records in the first degree (and in which the court ultimately imposes a sentence) results in a sentence of imprisonment. Our analysis of the raw data available from New York State shows that between November 2020 and March 20, 2024, there were 457 cases with a final disposition in which the most serious charge at arraignment was falsifying business records in the first degree. Fifty-five of these cases — or approximately 12 percent of the total — resulted in a prison sentence.

Comparing cases in which first-time offenders were sentenced to incarceration for falsifying business records in commission of campaign finance violations, he concludes incarceration would not be unusual punishment in this case. Since the judge in determining punishment would consider the number of other pending criminal cases against Trump and Trump’s behavior (e.g., threatening court personnel, flouting gag orders), he could well sentence Trump to some time behind bars.

(3) Tump’s counsel blew it on a possible immunity defense.

No matter the result, the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity in the Jan. 6 case cannot help Trump in New York for two reasons. First, the hush money scheme was set up before the election, although payments continued into his presidency. And second, Trump’s attorney dropped his appeal from a ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein that the case could not be removed and was not preempted by federal law because “evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely a personal item of the President — a coverup of an embarrassing event.” Trump’s counsel let stand Hellerstein’s ruling that “money paid to an adult-film star is not related to a President’s official acts."

Having failed to keep the issue alive, even a very favorable ruling from the Supreme Court would not allow Trump to re-raise the argument. That’s precisely what New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan held last week in rejecting Trump’s last-minute gambit to delay the trial.

(4) Trump’s behavior could risk a contempt of court ruling — or worse.

Many Americans express frustration that Trump’s attacks on the courts’ legitimacy and on judicial personnel and their families have not been adequately punished. That may change.

Merchan issued an order on March 26 prohibiting Trump from making public statements about witnesses, counsel other than Bragg or their families, court staff, and jurors. Within days, Trump attacked Merchan’s daughter, leading the judge to expand the order.

However, out-of-court statements may not constitute the highest risk of Trump landing in contempt. He must sit in court day after day as former associates (such as Cohen) testify against him and prosecutors accuse him of mounting a coverup to win election. Few Trump-watchers think he has the self-control to remain quiet. What then?

The judge could set a series of escalating fines. (Judge Arthur Engoron in the New York civil case twice fined Trump for violating a gag order barring certain public statements; Trump soon stopped.) Theoretically, Merchan could also detain him, even briefly, in the holding cell behind the courtroom used for defendants not out on bail.

Trump’s true comeuppance: His behavior could adversely affect the judge’s sentencing decision and the jury’s decision on guilt. After all, they will have to decide if Trump is the sort of person to flout the law.

(5) Trump won’t have the ‘deep state’ to blame. And voters may cheer a conviction.

Trump continually plays the victim of persecution and election interference by an alleged “deep state.” (If anything, he is using trials and screeds about them to help win election.) But he’s wrong — and not only because he gets treated no worse, and perhaps better, than any criminal defendant.

Ordinary New York grand jurors indicted him, and run-of-the-mill trial jurors will determine guilt. As Karen Friedman Agnifilo, a veteran of the Manhattan DA’s office, reminds us, “This jury isn’t going to be forced down his throat. He will have chosen the people in this jury.” With 10 peremptory challenges (to eliminate a juror for virtually any reason) Trump will face his jury’s verdict.

Trump shouldn’t count on engendering sympathy for a conviction. Polling from Research Collaborative on the four Trump trials found, “Three-quarters of voters believe that if found guilty, Trump should serve time in prison, including 97% of Democrats, 80% of independents, and 49% of Republicans.” Another poll from Politico showed, “By a more than 2-1 margin, respondents said that a conviction would make them less likely to support Trump (32 percent) as opposed to more likely (13 percent).” In other words, voters may view a conviction and even incarceration as Trump getting his just deserts. No wonder Trump seems increasingly desperate to avoid trial.

Twelve Manhattan jurors (and one brave judge) strike a victory for justice as Donald Trump is found guilty on all 34 counts in historic New York hush-money trial

Donald Trump Guilty on all counts (Getty)

Most stories written about Donald Trump in recent years, use these two words -- "former president" -- to help describe him. After yesterday's verdict in Trump's New York hush-money case, two more words -- "convicted felon" -- will almost certainly be used to describe him in future published works.Until Trump came along, Americans had no experience with a former president facing criminal charges, much less being convicted on all 34 felony counts against him. Many of us probably never dreamed that such a thing could happen, until the Republican Party decided to jump in bed with Trump, long known as a glorified con man and grifter, Now, thanks to 12 brave jurors (and one brave judge) the whole sleazy house of cards has fallen down around both the party and its sketchy candidate.

Americans undoubtedly have many questions about this unprecedented turn of events. And Trump's situation, of course, is complicated by the fact he is both a "former president" and a "wannabe future president," running against Democratic incumbent Joe Biden in the 2024 election, set for Nov. 5. With that in mind, the No. 1 question across the country today likely is: "What happens now?"

Rolling Stone (RS) magazine has done a top-notch job of answering that question, and addressing related issues. The original RS piece is under the headline "Donald Trump is Now a Convicted Felon." That version of the story is behind a paywall and probably is not accessible to many of our readers. But a free version is available at Yahoo! under the headline "Trump Has Been Convicted in His Hush-Money Case. Now What?" Answers to many of the questions percolating in American minds can be found there. Let's take a look. Reporters Ryan Bort and Asawin Suebsaeng write:

A jury on Thursday found Donald Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records stemming from a payment to keep adult film actress Stormy Daniels quiet about an alleged affair before the 2016 election. Such a verdict is unprecedented, just as it was unprecedented when the former president first stood criminal trial in April, and just as it was unprecedented last spring when Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged him with falsifying business records.

The indictment from Bragg was the first of four that have been leveled against Trump, and almost certainly the only one that will head to trial before the election. It would also be unprecedented, of course, for a major-party nominee for the nation’s highest office to be a convicted felon. There’s a good chance this will in fact be the case this year, and that you might have a few questions about what it means for the election and beyond.

Can Trump still run for president?

Yes. The only requirements to run for president are being 35 or older, being a natural-born citizen, and being a resident of the United States for 14 years. The nation’s founders did not stipulate that Americans convicted of felonies related to paying a porn star to keep quiet about an alleged affair cannot run for president.

Can Trump vote for president?

Probably. Trump is registered to vote in Florida, and convicted felons can only vote in Florida after they’ve completed their sentence — which could mean serving time or simply paying a fine. Trump is unlikely to have completed his sentence by election time for a variety of reasons.

Trump wasn’t convicted in Florida, though, and Florida honors the voting eligibility laws of the state where the conviction occurs. New York only prohibits felons from voting when they are incarcerated, so unless Trump is behind bars on election day — which is unlikely — he’ll probably be able to vote for himself in the Sunshine State.

Will Trump go to prison?

Maybe down the road, but it’s unlikely Trump will wind up behind bars as a result of a guilty conviction in his hush-money case. Yes, he is now a convicted felon, but they’re lower-level felonies and Trump has no previous criminal convictions, which means probation and/or a fine might be the more likely punishment.

Nevertheless, it’s up to Judge Juan Merchan — who has already threatened to jail Trump for violating his gag order — and each of the 34 charges carries a maximum four-year prison sentence and $5,000 fine. It may be unusual for a conviction on these charges alone of someone with a clear record to result in prison time, but nothing about this case is usual.

It might be a while before punishment is meted out, however, as the former president’s legal team — which argues he could never receive a fair trial in New York City and that the prosecution was politically driven — is standing at the ready to rush into the appeals process, which could be lengthy.

For now, however, sentencing has been set for July 11, days before the Republican National Convention kicks off in Milwaukee.

But what if he does go to prison?

Just as there’s nothing in the rule book stating that a dog can’t play basketball, there’s nothing in the Constitution saying someone in prison can’t be elected president.

Trump might not have much recourse if he loses in November, but if he wins there are a number of ways he could leverage the federal government to keep himself out of prison. The Justice Department cases would be easy; he could just tell his hand-picked attorney general to toss them. The state cases are more difficult — as Rolling Stone reported last week, he’s currently lobbying Congress to pass a law that would protect the president from non-federal prosecution.

Is Trump planning to take revenge?

Trump has long teased that he will weaponize the Justice Department against his political enemies if he wins back the White House, and Rolling Stone reported last year that his team has already trained its crosshairs on Bragg. Their sights have continued to focus on the Manhattan district attorney as the case has progressed.

“Mark my word: Alvin Bragg, [prosecutor] Matthew Colangelo, and many others will face criminal prosecution,” Mike Davis, a lawyer and Trump ally, posted to X, formerly Twitter, in early May. (Members of Trump’s inner sanctum have frequently discussed Davis as a top contender for senior roles, including at the Justice Department, in a possible second Trump administration.)

Davis’ words reflect a pervasive desire among the MAGA and GOP elite to go after those responsible for Trump’s legal woes, with an array of attorneys and other Republicans close to Trump drawing up preliminary plans for different ways that the Justice Department could investigate or charge Bragg and other prosecutors who’ve brought cases against the ex-president, numerous sources tell Rolling Stone. Since last year, lawyers and others with Trump’s ear have privately briefed him — sometimes during parties at his club and estate — on these retributive legal ideas, with Trump at times offering enthusiastic praise in response, sources add. In some instances, Trump has solicited more ideas. These discussions have continued well into 2024.

Among the ideas batted about by MAGA’s legal brain trust, at times when Trump himself has been in the room, include the Justice Department deploying federal statutes, including Section 242 and Section 241 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, to investigate or prosecute Bragg for allegedly violating Trump’s constitutional and civil rights.

Another popular idea in the upper echelons of Trumpland is for the Justice Department to criminally charge Bragg and other prosecutors for so-called “election interference.” This would exploit a different part of the criminal code that prohibits officials from using their “authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of president.”

In April 2023, Trump, in front of a cheering crowd, gave another reason when he publicly called for the district attorney to be prosecuted, claiming Bragg “illegally leaked massive amounts” of grand-jury information.

But when confronted with this in a Time magazine interview this year, Trump tried to say he never called for Bragg’s prosecution, even though Trump did so on camera and in front of an audience.

How will Trump respond publicly?

The same way he’s been responding to the trial itself, by alleging that the case is part of a political conspiracy orchestrated by President Joe Biden to hurt Trump’s chances of defeating him in November. Trump has already been fundraising aggressively off his indictments — including by splashing his mugshot in Georgia across merchandise — and he will continue to do so if he is convicted in New York.

Advisers and allies close to Trump are convinced that the Manhattan jury pool won’t be kind to Trump, and many of the former president’s aides, lawyers, and political collaborators have long viewed a conviction as a foregone conclusion. They have been preparing accordingly.

Namely, his 2024 campaign has prebaked an aggressive fundraising blitz that will give him ample opportunity to scream “WITCH HUNT,” “ELECTION INTERFERENCE,” and all of the other tag lines he’s used to paint himself as a victim.

Newly released memos from Robert Mueller probe point to Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions being part of a conspiracy to obtain stolen Democratic emails

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump

This past Saturday might prove to be one of the most historic days in many of our lifetimes. It started with a lot of folks, including yours truly, figuring that keeping track of the Georgia vs. Florida college-football game would be the big news item of the day. It ended with revelations -- seemingly coming out of the blue -- that could bring down a president.

Many of us had forgotten, or perhaps never knew, that BuzzFeed News and CNN had filed lawsuits to force release of background materials from Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation. The U.S. Department of Justice chose Saturday to make the first release, with BuzzFeed filing its first dispatch at 11:08 CT. The memos point to officials with the 2016 Trump campaign -- including Donald Trump himself and former U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) -- seeking to conspire with WikiLeaks and Russia to obtain emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee. From CNN's report:

President Donald Trump and other top 2016 Trump campaign officials repeatedly privately discussed how the campaign could get access to stolen Democratic emails WikiLeaks had in 2016, according to newly released interview notes from Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation.

CNN sued the Justice Department for access to Mueller's witness interview notes, and this weekend's release marks the first publicly available behind-the-scenes look at Mueller's investigative work outside of court proceedings and the report itself. Per a judge's order, the Justice Department will continue to release new tranches of the Mueller investigative notes monthly to CNN and Buzzfeed News, which also sued for them.

A retelling of events from former Trump deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates, who served alongside campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is the fullest detail revealed by the Justice Department yet on discussions within the Trump campaign as it pursued damaging information about its Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. The documents were stolen by the Russians, the American intelligence community has found.

"Flynn had the most Russia contacts of anyone on the campaign and was in the best position to ask for the emails if they were out there," the investigators also wrote about Gates' interview.

Gates described in an interview with Mueller investigators last year how several close advisers to Trump, Trump's family members and Trump himself considered how to get the stolen documents and pushed the effort, according to investigators' summary. "Gates said Donald Trump Jr. would ask where the emails were in family meetings. Michael Flynn, [Jared] Kushner, [Paul] Manafort, [Redacted] [Corey] Lewandowski, Jeff Sessions, and Sam Clovis expressed interest in obtaining the emails as well. Gates said the priority focuses of the Trump campaign opposition research team were Clinton's emails and contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Flynn, [Redacted] [Jeff] Sessions, Kushner, and [Donald] Trump Jr. were all focused on opposition topics," Gates told investigators, according to the interview summary.

Here are key takeaways from the BuzzFeed team, headed by senior investigative reporter Jason Leopold:

Paul Manafort was pushing the unfounded conspiracy theory — now part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump — that Ukraine hacked the Democratic National Committee's emails as early as 2016.

The president’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, "had to keep Trump out of the messaging related to Russia” in preparation for his testimony to Congress under oath and that the false testimony was "not his idea."

Top Trump campaign aide Rick Gates said the campaign was “very happy” when a foreign government helped release the hacked DNC emails.

These are some of the revelations that BuzzFeed News pried loose after pursuing five separate Freedom of Information Act lawsuits for all the subpoenas and search warrants that then–special counsel Robert Mueller’s team executed, as well as all the emails, memos, letters, talking points, legal opinions, and interview transcripts it generated.

In response to a court order, the Justice Department released the first installment of documents: hundreds of pages of summaries of FBI interviews with witnesses, available here for the first time. Another installment will be released every month for at least the next eight years.

The documents revealed Saturday, known as “302 reports,” are summaries of interviews with former White House official and Trump campaign manager Stephen Bannon, Cohen, Gates, and more. They are some of the most important and highly sought-after documents from Mueller’s investigation. They reveal what key players in the campaign told FBI agents about Russia, Trump, the email hack during the 2016 presidential campaign, and Trump's associates’ handling of the special counsel’s investigation.

Mueller’s 448-page report last March was the most hotly anticipated prosecutorial document in a generation, laying out the evidence of Russia's interference in the 2016 election and the Trump administration’s efforts to obstruct the inquiry. The report, however, reflected only a small fraction of the billions of primary-source documents that the government claims Mueller’s team may have amassed over the course of its two-year investigation.

Those documents are a crucial national legacy, a key to understanding this important chapter in American history. But the public has not been allowed to see any of them. Until now.

It appears no news outlet has been able to fully analyze the voluminous documents, and they are heavily redacted, so the full story of what they reveal still is in the making. But one of the first summaries came from Bill Palmer, of the Palmer Report, with the headline: "Proof emerges that Donald Trump criminally conspired to try to obtain stolen DNC emails from Russia." From Palmer:

It turns out BuzzFeed isn’t the only one who’s managed to get its hands on memos from the Robert Mueller investigation today. Even as BuzzFeed is exposing that the Republican National Committee was at least indirectly conspiring with WikiLeaks on the release of stolen DNC emails, CNN is revealing that Donald Trump himself was directly in on the plot to illegally obtain the stolen emails.

Trump 2016 Deputy Campaign Chairman Rick Gates testified to Mueller that he heard Donald Trump say “get the emails” to his team. Michael Flynn responded that he could try to obtain the emails from his Russian intel sources, and Trump did nothing to discourage this offer. Knowingly receiving stolen goods is a felony, so this proves that Donald Trump criminally conspired to obtain the stolen DNC emails. Worse, Trump entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain the emails from Russia.

We all saw Trump stand there on the debate stage and publicly ask Russia to obtain and release Hillary Clinton’s emails – but he’s since tried to play this off as a joke. Now it turns out Trump really was trying to criminally conspire with Russia behind the scenes to obtain stolen emails during the 2016 election cycle.

This FOIA treasure trove of Mueller memos comes even as House Democrats are fighting in court to obtain the full unredacted Mueller report so it can be used in the impeachment process against Donald Trump. While it’s shocking and outrageous that Mueller uncovered proof of Trump’s guilt and it never saw the light of day until now, the timing nonetheless works well for the impeachment process.

Palmer notes that the newly released documents raise questions about Mueller's handling of the investigation. From a post titled "What was Robert Mueller DOING?"

Thanks to newly granted FOIA requests on the part of CNN and BuzzFeed, we’re getting a look . . . at the first batch of internal memos from the Robert Mueller probe. These stunning memos reveal that Donald Trump, his campaign, and the Republican National Committee were conspiring with Russia and WikiLeaks on a level far deeper than anyone knew.

For instance, it turns out Donald Trump instructed his team to obtain the stolen DNC emails, and Michael Flynn then told Trump that he would use his Russian intel contacts to try to obtain them. The Republican National Committee also had advance knowledge of when WikiLeaks was going to release new batches of stolen DNC emails.

These are the kinds of felonies that send people to prison for a very long time. Robert Mueller had all of this information dating back to when Rick Gates cut his plea deal in February of 2018 – and yet nothing came of it. This was long before Bill Barr came on the scene. We don’t know if Mueller put prosecutions in motion that were later shut down by Barr, or if those prosecutions are still underway, or if Mueller just didn’t do anything.

We do know that Robert Mueller apparently ended up including all of this damning evidence in his final report, which he expected would make its way to Congress. By that time Barr was in charge, and he redacted the most incriminating parts of the report. Now it’s finally starting to come out, and it should play a key role in impeachment. But now more than ever, we deserve answers on why Mueller was sitting on a goldmine of information that could have sent Donald Trump and dozens of other people to prison forever, and nothing came of it. Did Mueller simply fail us, or was Mueller’s work sabotaged on a criminal level?

Will Bunch, of the Philadelphia Inquirer, had questions similar to the one Bill Palmer raised. From Bunch's column published yesterday:

There is no doubt that the knobs of gaslighting were switched to “high” when new Attorney General William Barr — also known as Trump’s Roy Cohn — arrived at the Justice Department in February. Under Barr’s thumb, Mueller appeared newly pressed to quickly wrap things up. The end of his investigation came with a weeks-long delay before his actual report — a vacuum that was filled with Barr’s Trump-serving four-page memo with his own conclusions that there was no obstruction of justice and no collusion with Russia. Barr even staged a press conference hours ahead of the actual report with misleading spin on what was in it.

In the end — as the memos dropped on Saturday reveal — the Mueller report was not the definitive word on what happened with Trump, Russia and the tainted 2016 election. Rather, it was a series of not-always-great prosecutorial decisions about what to leave in and what to leave out, and what conclusions to make of it all — reached by an iconic-but-fading prosecutor no longer on top of his game, under relentless pressure from a justice apparatus that has been politicized and warped by the president and his Cohn-like hatchet man.

What’s telling is that Mueller’s impotent testimony before Congress came just one day before Trump’s extortionist phone call with Ukraine’s Zelensky — suggesting the presidential beatdown on the Mueller probe had inspired the delusion that he was now untouchable. The next few months on Capitol Hill will prove whether Trump was actually right — and if he was right, you can kiss goodbye to the United States of America.

Interestingly, the new Mueller info came just a day after an interview in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed to confound expectations that she plans to limit the Trump impeachment probe to Ukraine and nothing more.

“What we’re talking about now is taking us into a whole other class of objection to what the president has done. And there may be other — there were 11 obstruction of justice provisions in the Mueller report. Perhaps some of them will be part of this,” Pelosi told Bloomberg Television. “But again, that will be part of the inquiry, to see where we go.”

This is a tough call, because every day that Donald Trump remains in the Oval Office is a danger to America and the world. But it’s increasingly clear that the speediest narrow impeachment — one confined solely to his Ukraine dealings while ignoring the naked corruption of obstructing the Mueller probe and his efforts to become president through lawbreaking, either through stolen emails or hush money, and then use his office to line his own pockets — would be a terrible mistake.

That’s because — as noted earlier — the real scandal of Trump’s presidency is his amoral and narcissistic willingness to do any and all things that are terrible for the country but are good for his own personal power and ambition. The symptoms of that corrupt disease played out on a global canvas from Kyiv to Trump’s golf resort in Scotland to the corridors of the Justice Department. If we don’t make it clear that no president is above the law — all of the laws, including obstruction of justice and the Emoluments Clause — then we will only be setting the stage for a future president who will be even more dangerous than Donald Trump.

Here is a link to the full DOJ document, obtained via the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Mary Trump sees similarities in the way her uncle, Donald, and Russia's Vladimir Putin view events that they see as not worthy of their time or attention

Mary Trump (right) draws a record-setting audience on The Rachel Maddow Show

 

Mary L. Trump -- psychologist, author, and outspoken critic of her uncle Donald's efforts to reclaim the presidency --  draws parallels between Donald Trump's view of his hush-money  trial in New York  and Vladimir Putin's similar approach to events he sees as not worthy of his interest. She also explains the importance of the hush-money matter, examines the volatile relationship developing between Donald and Judge Juan Mercan, takes an amusing  look at media coverage of the trial, and provides background on the jurors, mostly regular folks, who will help decide the fate of a former president in a historic proceeding.

For good measure, Mary Trump has become a hit on network television, with a record-breaking appearance on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show in July 2020. 

At her widely read Substack page ("The Good in us"), Mary Trump writes under the headline "The Judge Blasts Donald: Five surprises and insights from Day Two":

Donald’s courtroom drama continues. Unprecedented jury selection, and a judge’s stern warning! Dive into the details about seven jurors who hold Donald’s fate and the judge’s unyielding stance against disruptions. Read On! 👇

Become a Supporting Subscriber Now

In yesterday’s piece, I covered what is going through Donald’s mind. Today, I’d like to discuss an important point about how the trial is being covered:

Amid the media frenzy and Donald’s theatrics both inside and outside of the courtroom, I worry that we’re losing sight of the gravity of the crimes for which he’s being charged. It doesn’t help, of course, that the case is being billed as a “hush money” case when there are more important things at stake. It’s crucial to make every effort not to let the spectacle overshadow the seriousness of the proceedings.

At the same time, we all deserve to revel in a little schadenfreude.

Growing up in the Trump family, I had a front-row seat to Donald’s actions and their consequences to other people. Yet it’s only now, in a drab New York City courtroom, that it feels like he’s the one facing the consequences.

The prospect of Donald being forced to sit in a courtroom for eight weeks brings me a sense of relief. It’s good to know, in this one instance anyway, that he’s being treated like any other criminal defendant. This moment has been a long time coming. Here’s hoping there will be much more like this.

(1) Unraveling the threads: the New York case in focus

Courtroom theatrics and the media frenzy aside (there are literally alerts every morning letting us know when the motorcade leaves for and arrives at the courthouse), we should not lose sight of the gravity of the allegations against Donald.

Ron Filipowski, an American criminal-defense attorney, former federal prosecutor, and noted legal analyst on multiple social-media sites, offers a compelling perspective:

“If Stormy Daniels had come out and told what happened two weeks before the election, on the heels of the Access Hollywood tape instead of getting paid off by Trump, the 2016 outcome might have been different. That’s why this is an election-interference trial.”

The alleged payoff to Stormy Daniels was not just a personal matter (paying Stormy Daniels to keep their tryst secret from Melania would not have been illegal). Instead, the transaction was a way to conceal information from Americans and potentially influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

This case is not about Donald’s personal conduct; it’s about his attempt to undermine the democratic process.

(2) The judge blasts Donald and warns him not to intimidate jurors

On Tuesday, after defense counsel Todd Blanche questioned a potential juror about her social-media posts, Donald gestured and said something in her direction. Judge Juan Merchan issued a stern warning to Donald for his audible remarks.

After the woman left the room, Merchan addressed Donald’s lawyer: “While the juror was at a distance of 12 feet from your client, your client was audibly muttering something … I won’t tolerate that.”

It is good to know that, from the outset, the judge has been quick to stomp out Donald’s disruptions.

Also keep in mind that being in this situation, even after only two days, it is nearly intolerable for Donald to sit there quietly. As he continues to hear disparaging comments, as he continues to submit to somebody else’s authority, the pressure will build. In some ways, I think this experience might be worse for him than jail.

Here’s to eight more weeks … at least.

(3) Here is what we know about the the first group of jurors selected:

Juror 1 is a “man who lives in West Harlem and works in sales. He is married, likes to do ‘anything outdoorsy,’ and gets news from The New York Times, Fox News, and MSNBC.”

Juror 2 is “a woman who lives on the Upper East Side and works as an oncology nurse at Memorial Sloan Kettering. She is engaged and likes to spend time with family and friends and take her dog to the park. She gets news from CNN, The New York Times, Google, and Facebook.”

Juror 3 is “a young man who has lived in Chelsea for five years, works as an attorney in corporate law, and likes to hike and run. He gets news from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Google.”

Juror 4 is a “middle-aged man who lives on the Lower East Side and works in IT training and consulting. He is married with one child and two grandchildren. He said he has ‘no spare time.’ He gets news from the New York Daily News, The New York Times, Google, and X.”

Juror 5 is a “young woman who is a Harlem resident and works as a teacher. She lives with her boyfriend, loves writing, theater, and traveling. She gets news from Google and TikTok and listens to podcasts on relationships and pop culture.”

Juror 6 is “a young woman who lives in Chelsea and works as a software engineer. She gets news from The New York Times, Google, Facebook and TikTok.”

Juror 7 is another white-shoe lawyer. He lives on the Upper East Side and according to court transcripts, “enjoys spending time outdoors and with his children." He gets his news from The New York Times, New York Post, Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post.

While he has “supported some of Trump's policies as president” he’s disagreed with some. "I don't know the man and I don't have opinions about him personally," he said.

(4) Rachel Maddow humiliates Donald for falling asleep at his trial

During her coverage, Monday night, Rachel Maddow said, “The wheels of justice grind slowly. I did not think they would grind so slowly that they would rock the defendant apparently to sleep.” Maddow reminds us that even in the midst of serious events, there’s room for a little levity.

“I know it’s not the most important legal thing, but we are in the middle of a campaign and the age issue is the main thing the Trump campaign wants to use against his opponent — the whole “Sleepy Joe” thing,” she added. 

“This is the most historic thing that Donald Trump has ever done. No [one has left the Oval office and become] a criminal defendant, and on day one, the headlines coming out of it are that he appeared to doze off. I mean it’s insane … it’s also a reminder that however scary and somber and important this is, we are dealing with someone who is fundamentally buffoonish,” Maddow concluded.

Honorable mention to Chris Hayes who told his colleague, "If you call your opponent ‘Sleepy Joe,’ you have one job.” You know, to not fall asleep in public.

(5) The diplomacy of drowsiness

I was recently reminded of a headline from the 2022 Beijing Olympics and thought it might provide some context for Donald’s apparent fatigue. During the grand opening ceremony, a moment that was meant to be a celebration of global unity, Vladimir Putin seemed to doze off.

This happened just as athletes from Ukraine were marching into the stadium, and the camera panned to Putin who was slumped over in his chair. 

The moment was laden with irony, given the tense relations between Ukraine and Russia. Putin had already built a significant military presence at their shared border, and the threat of invasion was looming. 

Putin’s poorly-timed nap could be interpreted in several ways, but the most obvious interpretation is that Ukraine and its athletes are so beneath his notice that Putin doesn’t feel the need to be conscious in their presence. I see a parallel to Donald’s current situation that could land him in trouble with the judge and the jury once the trial gets under way.

Donald may be tired, he may be medicated, but regardless, what message does it send everybody else in the courtroom that he can’t be bothered to keep his eyes open? How will the engaged and attentive jury feel as they are forced to sit there entirely because of him while he dozes off?

He is absolutely aware of the seriousness of these proceedings, so one can only infer that he has such contempt for them, and the rest of the participants, that he'd rather sleep through it all.

The jury will only see how tired, pitiful, and arrogant he really is — and none of that is going to help him.

Conclusion: How we all wake up from the nightmare of “Sleepy Donald”

Even while trapped in a courtroom, Donald and his presidential campaign are dangerous for America. I refuse to be a silent or passive observer while Donald continues to undermine our democracy.

This is where the power of this newsletter comes into play. I’m committed to shining a light on important stories the corporate media overlooks or downplays , while bringing critical information to swing voters. 

The importance of covering these stories cannot be overstated, especially when the media seems incapable or too inept to do so.

Defending democracy is my full-time job, a mission I can more effectively accomplish with YOUR support. 

Will you join me?

Currently, I have 207,260 free subscribers. If just 5 percent choose to be supporting subscribers for the price of a small coffee, I can extend my reach to even more voters. 

Together, we can help save democracy. 👇

❤️ Become a Supporting Subscriber Now ❤️

Thank you to everybody who becomes a supporting subscriber. I can only do this because of YOUR help. – Mary

If you have any upgrade or tech issues, please see my support page. If you’re already a paid supporter, THANK YOU.

U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds dances around questions about Trump trial, making it look like he and the GOP are clueless about simple concepts of governance

Byron Donalds and Donald Trump (The Paradise Progressive)

A New York jury has begun deliberations in the hush-money case against former President Donald Trump, with a verdict possibly coming as soon as today.  Whether the outcome is "guilty" or "not guilty," it will make history because no former president ever has faced a criminal verdict; Trump is the one and only to have done so -- and we aren't even thinking of the three other cases that remain on his personal criminal docket.

Perhaps the historic nature of the occasion caused one Trump ally to become verklempt, making spectacularly bizarre statements -- or in one instance, developing an apparent case of lockjaw when asked a simple question related to the case. So what do we make of this oddball, who is inappropriately mouthy one moment and seemingly incapable of speaking the next.

We are talking about U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL), who is considered a legit contender to be Trump's running  mate. Donalds must want the gig pretty badly because common sense seems to have eluded his grasp lately. Of course, that could make Donalds a perfect fit to be VP for Trump, whose verbal meanderings of late have caused several psychologists to voice concern that he has a brain disorder, perhaps a form of dementia, with deterioration apparently accelerating.

If "talking out of your hat" is a requirement for serving in a possible second Trump administration, Donalds might be a perfect fit. Let's consider the first episode where Donalds' mouth and his brain seemed to have become disconnected. This is how The New Republic (TNR) reported on the incident (in a story dated 4/15/24) under the headline "GOP Rep. Desperately Begs New York to Acquit Trump in Hush Money Case; Representative Byron Donalds pleaded with potential jurors in Trump’s hush-money trial to vote “not guilty.” TNR's Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling writes:

The Republican Party is all in on Donald Trump, so much so that at least one representative is trying to sway his legal proceedings. Before the start of the Republican presidential pick’s first criminal trial, Representative Byron Donalds pleaded with the people of Manhattan to give his party leader a break.

“My plea is to the people of Manhattan that may sit on this trial: Please do the right thing for this country,” the Florida congressman told Newsmax. “Everybody’s allowed to have their political viewpoints, but the law is supposed to be blind and no respecter of persons. This is a trash case, there is no crime here, and if there is any potential for a verdict, they should vote not guilty.”

This statement presents several signs that Donalds' brain has turned to mush:

(1) He begs jurors to do "the right thing for this country," and in our justice system, that means a juror should take in all the material presented and render a verdict that is in line with the facts and the law."

(2) But Donalds doesn't want that in the Trump case. He says "the law is supposed to be blind and no respecter of persons," but he wants the law to be turned on its head in this case, in order to benefit the defendant, Donald Trump -- because Donalds desperately wants to serve as Trump's VP.

(3) Donalds hints that jurors should approach the case with an open mind, an unbiased, objective view. But Donalds clearly has his mind made up, declaring (with no evidence to support it) that this is a "trash case," and "there is no crime here." This is the voice of a self-serving individual  who has no idea what he is talking about. In fact, Donalds sounds like someone who has zero understanding of criminal law. Trump also has a tendency to mouth off about issues he does not understand, and that should be a concern for everyone who is considering casting a 2024 vote for Trump. (That reminds me of this question for potential Trump voters: On  what do you base your possible support for Trump? I would genuinely like to know because I don't see any quality he possesses that would make him fit to serve in any public office, much less the presidency. I also don't see anything in Byron Donalds' words that explains why HE supports Trump -- other than he wants to be vice president. If anyone would care to explain why they might vote for Trump, I would love to hear your thoughts. (I do have one request: Please don't tell me why you DON'T want to support Joe Biden or the Democratic Party. I'm interested in why you might -- or definitely will -- cast a vote FOR Donald Trump.)

Donalds is not the only member of the Republican Party to hold this mindset, indicating the GOP has become mostly a shameless band of bootlickers. Houghtaling writes:

Donalds’s appeal is indicative of a new wave of opinion within the conservative party—that is, a complete disregard for not just Trump’s 91 criminal charges but also their outcome. According to The Daily Beast, just one in 20 interviewed GOP lawmakers showed concern with the possibility that their nominee for the White House could be a convicted felon, instead referring to the proceedings as “frivolous.”

“You get an alleged conviction on BS charges in front of a judge that is not impartial and that’s supposed to sway my mind?” Donalds told The Beast. “Man, I’m bigger than that. I don’t worry about that kind of stupid stuff.”

Other lawmakers, such as Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, completely threw the judicial system under the bus, blaming Trump’s woes—which also include repercussions for bank fraud, sexual abuse, election interference, hoarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, and more—as the failures of another pillar of government.

“I’m very uncomfortable with the weaponized justice system,” Vance told the outlet. “I couldn’t care less what a weaponized justice system says. Ultimately, it’s not going to change my vote. I don’t think it’ll change most Americans’ votes.”

The only outlier was Utah Senator Mitt Romney, a longtime Trump critic who is leaving Congress at the end of his term. He told The Beast that the implications of having a convicted felon as president were “not good”— still, he didn’t believe that a conviction would “make any difference at all” to Trump voters.

“He will once again say, ‘This is all political,’” Romney told the outlet. “And they will dutifully follow.”

That appears to extend to many of Trump’s acolytes in Congress.

What about the second incident, where Donalds seemed to lose his ability to speak. TNR provides details under the headline "Potential Trump V.P. Dodges Simple Question on Dangerous Trump Lie; Byron Donalds refused to answer a question on the merits of Donald Trump’s latest conspiracy theory." Hafiz Rashid writes:

Representative Byron Donalds won’t answer a simple question on whether he thinks the FBI wanted to assassinate Donald Trump while searching his estate for classified documents.

The contender for vice president kept dodging CNN’s Abby Phillip Thursday night when she tried to get a straight answer out of him regarding the conspiracy theory.

“Congressman, I just want to note that you are not responding to a very simple question about a conspiracy theory that you voiced,” Phillip said, at times talking over Donalds. 

“What conspiracy theory?” Donalds replied, sounding clueless.

“That the FBI, by having on a document that they are authorized to use deadly force, was trying to harm or assassinate Donald Trump,” Phillip replied. “That is false. Will you acknowledge that?”

“Can I be very clear with you?” Donalds asked, talking over Phillip, who tried in vain to get him to acknowledge the truth of the situation. “I’m not sure what Merrick Garland is trying to do these days, because it is clear that the Department of Justice is being weaponized against Donald Trump.” 

Phillip and Donalds argued throughout the rest of the interview, with Donalds spending more than three minutes trying to steer their discussion back to his assertion that the Justice Department is being weaponized, and Phillip trying to pin down the congressman on how there was no plot to kill Trump, as the former president claimed on a Truth Social post earlier this week.

A former president claiming his successor tried to kill him is unprecedented, according to The Washington Post. The FBI has already testified that it chose to search Mar-a-Lago on a day that Trump would not be there in order to prevent any conflict. The FBI and Merrick Garland each confirmed that standard procedure for searches includes a deadly-force policy, and that the same policy was used when President Biden’s homes were searched for classified documents.

Donalds and other Trump allies are seizing upon this conspiracy theory to distract from the recent news that more classified documents were found in Trump’s bedroom at Mar-a-Lago four months after the FBI’s initial search. Meanwhile, the actual case against Trump remains in limbo thanks to Trump appointee Judge Aileen Cannon’s indefinite stay.

Donald Trump's third indictment is "The Big One" because it serves as a reminder that a former president pushed our democracy to the edge of destruction

Donald Trump (New York Times)

 

Until Donald Trump came along, no former U.S. president ever had been charged with a  crime. After the release Tuesday of charges related to Trump's role in the Jan. 6 insurrection, the former president now has been indicted three times -- with the possibility of more to come. But that is not the reason many knowledgeable observers are calling Trump's third indictment "The Big One." So why has that term already come into common usage? Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), explains in an article at Salon, under the headline "Trump finally indicted for Jan. 6 plot: Here's why this is the big one; Trump has been criminally charged for attempting to stop the peaceful transfer of power." Bookbinder writes:

This is the big one. It is tempting to say that Tuesday's indictment is significant mainly because it is the third time Donald Trump has been indicted — an extraordinary record for a former leader. Some will instead argue that these three indictments are piling on by partisan prosecutors. These are precisely the wrong frames.

Here's why today's indictment is so important: This is the big one because Donald Trump has been criminally charged for attempting to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and the charges come from the very government he tried to take over by force.

Donald Trump committed the ultimate offense against our republican form of government when he attempted to keep himself in power after the American people voted him out, ultimately inciting a violent mob to attack the Capitol to facilitate this plan. Had he succeeded, it would have been effectively the end of our almost two-and-a-half-century experiment in democratic self-governance.

If that were not profound enough , consider this from Bookbinder:

Trump has thus far largely managed to escape real accountability for this historic crime, despite an impeachment and a devastating report and series of hearings from the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6 uprising. He is free and in charge of his businesses. More importantly, he remains the de facto leader of one of our major political parties and a likely presidential nominee, and he has made the false claim that he won the last election and the denial of the insurrection he incited a central tenet of his political movement. It is hard to contemplate a more significant offense, and this lack of accountability — indeed this celebration of his crime — is untenable.

Each of the indictments of Donald Trump is significant. His lies to cover up a hush-money scheme and his outrageous retention of dangerous classified documents — and obstruction of the subsequent investigation — all demonstrate his pursuit of his own power and whims with no regard for the law. But this one is different. 

If Donald Trump were to avoid real consequences for his schemes to keep himself in power, we would risk not only having the criminal attempt to overturn an election be forgotten or normalized, but actually having it become a part of our political identity and a template for future action by a significant segment of our population. We risk endorsing the destruction of our democracy in the near future.

Trump, of course, is yet to be found guilty of anything related to Tuesday's indictment. But the document is a major step forward in the process of holding a former president accountable -- and that is critically important for our democracy, Bookbinder writes:

Tuesday's indictment starts the process of pulling us back from the precipice. It makes clear that Trump's attempt to keep himself in power contrary to the decision of the American people was not a reflection of deeply held beliefs or the start of a political movement, but a criminal act, pure and simple. These charges strengthen the coming litigation to enforce the 14th Amendment's disqualification of Trump from any future office because he engaged in insurrection, one of the key ways of securing our democracy moving forward. And, if validated by a jury — a likely outcome, based on the evidence as we understand it — this indictment can lead to sentences that can help prevent Trump and his closest allies from engaging in future attacks on our democratic system precisely because of their past attacks on that system. 

Just as significantly, this is a strong case, charged in a way that will maximize its chance of success. From my experience as a federal corruption prosecutor, I know that juries are deeply skeptical of prosecutions of prominent people that seem like technical charges premised on paperwork and bureaucracy. They don't want to convict leaders even for clear violations of the law unless they see that the conduct involved is wrong, harmful and deserving of punishment.

The stakes are crystal clear in this current indictment. The charges filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith make clear that Trump is not being charged with minor election or paperwork offenses, but rather with a scheme to install himself as president in violation of the law and the votes of the American people and to overthrow our democracy — a scheme that resulted in at least seven deaths and countless injuries. There could be no more clearly justifiable indictment of a former president.

Challenges remain. A jury pool will surely include many Trump supporters who see the events of the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection through the distorted lens Trump has worked hard to create. They will be skeptical of the indictment and the motivations behind it. The indictment itself is a masterful attempt to push past the propaganda to demonstrate not just the facts, but the stakes. It will be incumbent upon Smith's team to make that case at trial in a way that is incontrovertible even for those who start out skeptical. That is a tall order, but I believe Smith can do it, and Tuesday's indictment was a crucial start.

Nothing could be more important for the future of America.

Trump says he'd consider restrictions on access to contraception, sparking a political firefight and putting his ignorance of the law and governance on full display

(Associated Press)

 

Donald Trump said in an interview yesterday with a Pittsburgh television station that, if elected president,  he would consider regulations that limit Americans' access to contraception. In fact, Trump was asked twice in the interview if he supported restrictions on contraception, and both times, he indicated he was "looking at" the issue and intended to release a comprehensive policy statement shortly. Trump backed away from the statement after the story started drawing widespread press coverage and harsh criticism from Democrats.

The controversy raises a number of questions about Trump and his campaign:

(1) Does the candidate spout off whatever extremist idea enters his cranium, while giving it little or no thought and not even consulting his advisers?

(2) Does the mishandling of this issue indicate a Trump second term likely would be even more chaotic than his first, with neither Trump nor his advisers able to communicate effectively with each other -- and with neither having any idea how to govern in an orderly, effective fashion?

(3) Do Trump and his team have any clue how complex a  matter such as contraception -- born from privacy rights based in longstanding civil-rights law -- can be?. A paragraph from the website of the Connecticut judicial branch provides clues about the complexity involved:

In 1965, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, ruling that a married couple has a right of privacy that cannot be infringed upon by a state law making it a crime to use contraceptives. While the right of privacy is not specifically guaranteed by the Constitution, the Griswold Court reasoned that it emanates from certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights. Griswold then paved the way for the Supreme Court's historic ruling in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court went on to hold that the right of privacy encompasses a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Griswold v. Connecticut served as an important precedent in the Roe v. Wade decision.

(4) When Trump was asked about possible restrictions on contraception, did he know anything about information in the above paragraph. Had he ever given it any thought before opening his mouth and blabbing about a subject on which he probably is ignorant?

(5) Did Trump reveal himself to be a hypocrite of epic proportions. During his hush-money trial in Manhattan, Stormy Daniels testified that Trump did not use a condom during their sexual encounter at a Lake Tahoe, NV, hotel. Yes, the man who wants to take away the right of women to access contraception had extramarital, unprotected sex with a porn star he barely knew -- no condom. What kind of hypocrisy does that reflect? What kind of dreadful judgment does that show? And some Americans think this guy should be "Leader of the Free World"" The mere thought should send shivers down the spines of every sentient being in the U.S.  

Given the string of incidents on the campaign trail in recent weeks, where Trump has struggled to string together a few simple sentences -- causing many political observers to wonder if he might have a brain disorder that has scrambled his cognitive ability -- Trump simply might not have understand the question and was not inclined to ask a question that might have provided him some clarity? Does this, and other elements of the contraception question, suggest Trump is unfit to serve as president?

Under the headline "Trump says he is open to restrictions on contraception before backing away from the statement," the Associated Press' (AP) Christine Fernando provides a blow-by-blow account of the controversy:

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he was open to supporting regulations on contraception and that his campaign would release a policy on the issue “very shortly,” comments that he later said were misinterpreted.

The comments, made during an interview with a Pittsburgh television station, suggested that a future Trump administration might consider imposing mandates or supporting state restrictions on such highly personal decisions as whether women can have access to birth control. During an interview with KDKA News, Trump was asked, “Do you support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception?”

“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly,” Trump responded, according to a video of the interview that was briefly posted online before it was supposed to air, then taken down.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee was pressed in a follow-up question if that meant he may want to support some restrictions on contraception.

“Things really do have a lot to do with the states, and some states are going to have different policy than others,” Trump responded, before repeating that he would be releasing “a very comprehensive policy” on the issue.

This is the first time Trump has suggested he would have a policy on contraception since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a national right to abortion two years ago, touching off political battles about aspects of reproductive rights, including contraception and in vitro fertilization.

The sections highlighted in blue above show that Trump was asked twice about possible restrictions on contraception, and neither time, did he say the subject would not be considered. AP's Fernando provides more details, showing how Trump's ineptitude -- and apparent ignorance on a subject of huge importance to millions of Americans -- caused an issue to blow up in his face, in a way that should be alarming and embarrassing to those who reside in Trump's orbit, giving his opponents a gift-wrapped opportunity to campaign on an issue that appears to present a no-win situation for Trump:

Responding later to media reports of his interview, Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social that he “has never and will never” advocate for restricting birth control and other contraceptives. Even so, the Biden campaign was quick to seize on the interview.

“Women across the country are already suffering from Donald Trump’s post-Roe nightmare, and if he wins a second term, it’s clear he wants to go even further by restricting access to birth control and emergency contraceptives,” Biden-Harris spokesperson Sarafina Chitika said in a statement.

Advocates on both sides of the abortion debate have long pressed Trump on the crucial question of whether he would allow women to access the abortion pill mifepristone via the mail. He has yet to make clear his views on the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law that has been revived by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the mailing of mifepristone and other abortion medications.

When asked during an April 12 interview with TIME magazine for his views on the Comstock Act and the mailing of abortion pills, the former president promised to make a statement on the issue in the next 14 days, saying “I feel very strongly about it. I actually think it’s a very important issue.”

During an April 27 follow-up interview, Trump said he would announce his stance “over the next week or two.” It’s now been three weeks since the interviews were published on April 30 and over five weeks since Trump told the magazine he would release a statement.

When asked by the Associated Press for an update on when the announcement would be made, campaign officials reiterated a statement that reaffirmed Trump’s strategy of deferring to individual states on abortion. They did not give an updated timeline for a policy statement on medication abortion.

The Trump and Biden campaigns jostled the rest of the day over the hornet's nest Trump threw into their midst:

“President Trump has long been consistent in supporting the rights of states to make decisions on abortion,” the statement said.

Biden campaign spokesperson Lauren Hitt said Trump’s allies have already “outlined exactly how they plan to eliminate abortion access nationwide with or without Congress.”

“We know Trump’s playbook because we’ve seen it,” she said in a statement. “Trump overturned Roe, brags about it constantly, and is proud of the horrific reality where women’s lives are at risk, doctors are threatened with jail time, and IVF and birth-control access are under attack.”

Trump has often relied on the tactic of promising an announcement on a major policy stance in “two weeks” but not delivering, including on issues such as minimum wage, tax policy and infrastructure. Abortion rights advocates and anti-abortion groups alike have expressed frustration with the delay.

“I imagine the events in New York City have been very distracting, but we are watching for an announcement,” said Kristi Hamrick, spokesperson for the anti-abortion group Students for Life, referring to the former president’s hush money trial.

Hamrick said the group has been speaking with Trump’s team about what can be done to restrict abortion at the federal level.

Mini Timmaraju, president of the abortion rights group Reproductive Freedom for All, pointed to the GOP’s Project 2025 playbook -- a blueprint for ways to reshape the federal government in the event of a Republican presidential win in 2024. The Comstock Act is not explicitly mentioned in the plan, but it calls for reversing FDA approval of mifepristone and restricting “mail order abortions.”

“Trump will say whatever he wants, but what really matters is what he did — and that’s to facilitate ending the constitutional right to abortion and set state abortion bans into motion,” she said.

At least 22 states require abortion medication to be delivered in person either by prohibiting mail delivery or requiring medication to be taken in a doctor’s office, though such laws have been temporarily blocked from going into effect in Kentucky, Montana, and Ohio amid legal battles, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.