Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Trump and stay out of prison. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Trump and stay out of prison. Sort by date Show all posts

Friday, August 18, 2023

Donald Trump is running for president to stay out of the slammer, and he likely already is thinking of ways to trample democracy and become "president for life"

Donald Trump and China's Xi Jinping
 

Donald Trump is seeking the presidency in 2024 because he wants to stay out of prison -- not only in the near term, but for the rest of his life. And he can only do that by remaining president as long as he wants, and if he is elected in '24, that means Trump intends to stay in office for the rest of his life.

That stunning scenario -- some might call it sickening, and I would be among them -- comes from an opinion piece by Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic (TNR). Is Tomasky off his rocker? I don't think so. Trump, it appears, has two primary talents:  (1) Taking actions and saying things that benefit one person, himself; and (2) Playing a large chunk of the American public -- in this case, people who would support him with their votes -- for fools.

In Tomasky's view, most people who dream big enough to become president want to serve the public good -- at least a little bit. But not Trump; he just wants to keep his double-wide ass out of jail. Even our first president thought about his place in history, but it's unlikely such high-minded thoughts have entered Trump's mind. He just wants to save his own double-wide ass, and becoming "president for life" would do the trick. Under the headline "Donald Trump Is Running to Stay Out of Prison. Say It, Democrats! Every president has thought about how history would judge him. Forty-five has more immediate concerns." Tomasky writes:

As we watch indictments of Donald Trump pile up, I am reminded that presidents all think about their place in history. George Washington did—he was careful, for example, not to do certain things that would carry the whiff of monarchical ambition. He eschewed a third term that he could easily have won because he knew that he was setting the precedent for all who would follow him.

Viewed in this light, Trump’s run to return to the White House might be seen as his attempt at vindication after a narrow defeat in 2020. Although in Trump’s case, one might put it less loftily: Trump, ever the emotional 5-year-old, is livid that Joey’s Marky Sparky Blast Pad Rocket is bigger and cooler than his and the kids like Joey better. So he’s running to right that grievous historical wrong.

Yeah, he wants to be president. He wants to corrupt and destroy democracy, bask in the radioactive glow of his sycophants’ blubbery praise over his perfect phone calls to Putin, start the mother of all culture wars, and all that. But mostly: He wants to stay out of prison.

Trump's own words in a recent town hall with Fox News' Sean Hannity show he is thinking long term -- and not in a way designed to benefit you or me. Writes Tomasky:

And in fact, these aren’t really different reasons. As in a cheap tapestry that unravels if you pull on one thread, everything here is connected. For example: Part of Trump’s plan to destroy democracy is no doubt to figure out a way to make himself president for life. Did you notice Trump’s praise for Xi Jinping in his recent sit-down with Sean Hannity? “Think of President Xi. Central casting, brilliant guy. You know, when I say he’s brilliant, everyone says, ‘Oh that’s terrible.’ Well, he runs 1.4 billion people with an iron fist. Smart, brilliant, everything perfect.

Many Americans probably have no idea how scary that quote should really sound. But Tomasky clues them in:

It’s worth mentioning as an aside that about a month ago, the New Zealand–based Human Rights Measurement Initiative found China to be the worst country in the world with respect to its own citizens’ rights. When you’ve topped North Korea, you’ve really made it. That Trump calls this “perfect” is another hint at what he has in mind for his restoration, and if that quote doesn’t terrify you, you’re sleepwalking.

But the main point is this: His admiration for Xi obviously is built around the fact that Xi has eliminated dissent and cleared the decks to run China forever. We should take a moment to revisit how he did this. Back in 2018, the National People’s Congress, or NPC, voted to end the two-term limit for presidents. The vote was 2,958–2 (with three abstaining). Then, this March, the NPC endorsed Xi’s third term. That vote was 2,952–0. I wonder where those five went between the first vote and the second.

Why would Trump want to be president for life? He's shown little, if any, interest in governing -- you know, doing the stuff that comes with being leader of the free world. And we have four years' worth of evidence that he is bad at the job. But, Tomasky submits, there is one BIG reason Trump wants to be president in an ongoing fashion -- in perpetuity, you might say:

What are the advantages of being president for life? Free housing, free travel, endless opportunities to grift your gullible followers, all the Thousand Island dressing you could dream of. But the biggest perk of all? No one can throw your corrupt ass in jail. At least not now, not how our laws are written and have been interpreted.

As we know, it is official Justice Department policy that sitting presidents can’t be prosecuted. So for Trump, being president for the next four years would in essence wipe these indictments off the books. As for criminal trials that started before he was sworn in on January 20, 2025, should he win? Easy peasy. He can pardon himself. Come on. You think he wouldn’t do it? You think he couldn’t count on the right-wing media to endorse it as no big whoop and look at those stupid fulminating libtards, along with a chorus of right-wing, Leonard Leo–anointed constitutional “scholars” to explain why it’s all fine?

That's the scariest part of this whole scenario. Is there anyone with the chutzpah, the stones, the bravado to keep Trump from running roughshod over the American democracy? (Attorney General Merrick Garland? Don't make me laugh. The FBI's Christopher Wray? Stop it, you're causing me to blow milk out of my nose.)

Speaking of the attorney general -- and we are talking about one Trump would appoint -- that position likely is a central part of his plan. Writes Tomasky:

Of course all that would happen. And Trump would make sure he had an attorney general who would agree with him on every point. In fact, my bet today for who will be Donald Trump’s attorney general if he wins? Donald Trump. Yes. Think about it. It makes so much sense that it almost worries me that my brain is even able to go there.

And beyond 2029: Why stop at four years? Why risk it? Get the Constitution suspended, and get in there for life. Then you can break all the laws you want forever.

In sum: The time to get Trump is now. Aileen Cannon has evidently figured out that she’s only in her early 40s and is going to be around long after Trump is gone and had better worry at least a little about her post-Trump reputation and has scheduled the classified documents trial for next May (37 counts). He’s also sweating the Stormy Daniels hush-money case, which is going to trial next March (34 counts). Of course, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has 13 counts in Georgia. And the number of counts in Jack Smith's January 6 incitement case is uncertain.

Tomasky has advice -- for Democrats and the country:

The law will do what the law does. But in terms of politics, the Democrats have to keep all this front and center and just repeat over and over again that Trump has four places he might be living two years hence: Mar-a-Lago, the White House, a federal prison, or (a bit of a long shot, but not impossible) a Russian dacha along the Black Sea just south of lovely Gelendzhik. He’s running for president to stay out of the slammer. That’s about as lofty as this gangster’s historical aspirations get.

Wednesday, November 15, 2023

An Alabama online journalist predicted Trump did not plan to leave White House after 2020 loss, and today's top political story proves that prediction was on target

Jenna Ellis
 

You might expect a story about the 2020 presidential election to break out of Washington, D.C., or New York City. But a story about Donald Trump's post-election plans in 2020 originated in, of all places, Alabama. For that, we can thank Donald Watkins, a longtime Alabama attorney who has become a leading voice in online investigative journalism. For good measure, Watkins' story about Trump's plans after his defeat at the ballot box in 2020 dovetails with perhaps the biggest political story in today's news cycle.

Watkins explains in a post under the headline "Jenna Ellis Confirms Our Sept. 2020 Report: Trump Planned to Stay in White House if He Lost Election": 

On September 27, 2020, we were the only news organization to report that Donald Trump did not plan to leave office if he lost the November 3, 2020, presidential election. In my article, “The Plan is Set: Trump’s Not Leaving Office,” we explained why.

This week, it was revealed that Jenna Ellis, a former Trump lawyer and co-defendant in the Georgia election RICO case, told state prosecutors that Trump was not going to leave the White House, despite the fact that he had lost the election and nearly all of his subsequent election challenges had failed. Trump had decided to stay in power by any and all means necessary.

Watkins has a history of making accurate predictions about Trump. He writes:

On August 2, 2015, I became the first American journalist to publicly predict Trump's 2016 election victory.  My prediction was made a mere three weeks after Trump announced his candidacy. This prediction became true in November 2016.

On March 20, 2020, I predicted Trump's defeat in 2020, which was caused by Trump's mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic.  This prediction became true in November 2020. There was never any "outcome-determinative" election fraud, as claimed by Trump.

On July 11, 2023, I predicted that Donald Trump would become the GOP presidential nominee in 2024, and that he will win the presidency. This prediction is on track to becoming true, despite Trump’s four indictments and 91 criminal charges.

Trump's election victory in 2024, coupled with the power of the U.S. presidency, will keep him from going to prison

I am a friend and admirer of Donald Watkins -- and I think he's one of the smartest people I have ever come across, especially on the subjects of law and history. But I pray to God he is wrong about Trump winning the presidency and managing to stay out of prison. We have four painful years of evidence that Trump is a horrible president -- and a second term is likely to be far worse than the first. Trump has neither the intellect nor the temperament to be president; in fact, I think he has zero interest in doing the work required of a president. I agree with Watkins that Trump only wants a return to the White House as a means of helping him stay out of prison. I see no sign that he has any interest in serving the public; he only wants what is good for him, which is standard behavior for a malignant narcissist and a sociopath -- and Trump probably is both, a combination of psychological disturbances that can be very dangerous to others, not to mention an entire country.  

To be clear, I believe evidence is overwhelming that Trump has committed crimes that merit prison time. Holding him criminally accountable would be best for our country -- and it might even do Trump some good. But if he somehow manages to avoid prison -- perhaps by dropping out of the race or becoming somehow disqualified or unable to serve-- I'm fine with that. The main goal, in my view, is that he never again comes close to the Oval Office. We were lucky to survive the first four years of a Trump White House. I'm not at all sure our country and our democracy (as we know it) can survive a second Trump term.

For one thing, Trump has made it clear that a second term would be all about revenge -- against those he believes have wronged him  and somehow offend his sensibilities, even if he has to go outside the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law to achieve it. Focusing full-time on retribution suggests Trump has no intention of providing any kind of presidential leadership -- and it's not clear that he even is capable of providing any. But our country might not be able to handle four more years of having an oversized donut hole in the White House.

What does Donald Watkins see in the future for Trump? Watkins foresees a relatively rosy future for Trump, which means a likely train wreck for our country. Writes Watkins:

So that we are clear, I do not support Donald Trump or Joe Biden for president in 2024.  Both men are deeply flawed.

Trump’s flaws are described for 73 pages (59 to 132) in a Form S-4 that was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2023, by a publicly traded company that seeks to acquire Trump’s financially distressed Truth Social digital media company. The flaws documented on Donald Trump in the Form S-4 are precisely defined, factual in nature, and plain awful.

National polls by credible media organizations confirm that the American public has lost confidence in Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.  I have, too. In my view, Joe Biden is the weakest American president since Herbert Hoover.  Plus, Biden is old, feeble, and senile. That's the cold, hard, truth.

Barring divine intervention from God, Donald Trump will become the next president of the United States. Trump will go down in history as the 45th and 47th President of the United States.

I admire Watkins' history of making accurate predictions about Trump, but I pray he is off target on the key points raised here.

Watkins' own words sum up the difference between the two likely candidates for the American presidency in 2024. Trump, Watkins states, accurately, is "plain awful."  

I agree that Biden, at 80 (the same age he will be on election day), is old. But Trump, at 77, is not far behind him, and he will be 78 on election day. Ronald Reagan was 77 at the end of his second term, and conservatives did not seem to have a problem with that.

I disagree that Biden has been a weak president. He inherited a country that was weakened by the coronavirus pandemic, which Watkins acknowledges Trump mishandled. Biden also inherited an economy that was cratering, again, a "gift" from Trump, and he has it back on solid footing -- with low unemployment, high wages and job growth, consumer spending on an upswing, with signs that inflation if coming down.

As for Biden being feeble and senile, I've yet to read about any medical document or diagnosis that confirms that. And Biden certainly appears to be more physically fit than Trump.

Trump has made no secret that he is marching the United States toward authoritarian rule -- quaint notions like due process, equal protection, the rule of law, and civil rights be damned. Watkins spells out the stark reality:

After he assumes office in January of 2025, Trump is will likely mete out severe political punishment to: (a) participants in the January 6th Congressional Committee hearings, (b) DOJ criminal prosecution team members, (c) New York state criminal prosecution team members, and (d) Georgia criminal prosecution team members. Trump's ruthlessness in this regard will match that of his presidential role models -- Russian President Vladimir Putin, China President Xi Pinping, and North Korea's Kim Jong Un.

Trump will likely pardon all of the defendants who were convicted of crimes arising from their organization of and participation in the January 6th insurrection.

Finally, Donald Trump’s margin of victory over Biden will be the greatest landslide since Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale in 1984.

I agree with Watkins that the 2024 presidential election should end in an landslide. But the winner should be Joe Biden, with Trump, again, the loser. If Americans want to find out what life is like under a dictatorship, Donald Trump is hell-bent on helping them find out. If Americans cherish the country we've had for most of our lifetimes, Joe Biden will be the runaway winner. It's really as simple as that. 

Monday, May 20, 2024

Donald Trump openly talks about having a sitting president, Joe Biden, executed; What does federal law say about that, and could Trump be held accountable?

Donald Trump speaks at NRA convention (Getty)

During a speech Saturday night at a National Rifle Association convention in Dallas, TX, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump talked about having his opponent, President Joe Biden, executed (see here and here). You read that correctly. The top-line candidate for one of our two major political parties openly talked about having his opponent, a sitting president, executed.

Trump is receiving plenty of criticism in political and media circles, but does this call for more than that? First of all, Trump is dancing awfully close to criminal territory. Consider 18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the President. It reads:

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20.

Has Trump committed a crime here? As a layperson who has not studied this area of the law, I'm probably not the one to say. An  attorney with extensive experience in federal criminal law likely would need to examine a transcript of the speech to make a proper determination. The first sentence of this section emphasizes threats made via the U.S. mails, so I'm guessing Trump would be OK under Section 871.

We should note, however, that the second sentence under paragraph (a) of Sec. 871 includes this language: "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." That appears to include any such threat against the president -- one that does not involve the mail, the kind Trump made on Saturday night.

Federallawyers/com, the website for the Spodek Law Firm in New York City, focuses on an expansive view of the statute, so let's see what they have to say:

A post at the firm's blog asks this question: Are Threats Against the President a Federal Crime? Here is their answer:

The short answer is yes, threats against the President of the United States or anyone in the presidential line of succession are illegal under federal law 18 U.S. Code § 871. This law makes it a felony to knowingly and willfully make “any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.”

So if you make a credible threat to harm or kill the sitting U.S. President, even as a joke or political statement, you could end up facing serious criminal charges. Let’s break down the details:

(1) What Counts as an Illegal Threat?

Answer:

For a statement to be considered an illegal threat under 18 U.S. Code § 871, it must meet three criteria:

  1. The statement must be a “true threat,” meaning it’s intentional and expresses a genuine intent to inflict harm.
  2. The threat must target the current President or anyone next in the line of succession, like the Vice President.
  3. The person making the threat must know that it’s illegal. In other words, you can’t accidentally threaten the President and end up in legal trouble.

The law is intended to prevent people from making credible and concerning threats against America’s elected leaders. It’s not meant to punish political dissent or hyperbole. For example, saying “I wish someone would punch the President” or “The President deserves to die” would generally be protected free speech under the First Amendment. But directly threatening to kill or harm the President yourself could get you arrested.

There’s often a fine line between an illegal threat and permissible political speech. Context matters a lot. In the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States, the defendant said he would shoot President Lyndon B. Johnson if given a gun. But because he made the comment during a political rally as an 18-year-old, the Court ruled it was just “political hyperbole” instead of a true threat.

(2) What Are the Penalties for Threatening the President?

Answer: 

Under 18 U.S. Code § 871, threatening the President is a Class E felony. The maximum sentence is 5 years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, 3 years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

In practice, sentences tend to depend on the specific nature of the threat and the defendant’s criminal history. First-time offenders often get probation or less than a year behind bars. But repeat offenders or those who make unusually disturbing threats sometimes face years in prison.

(3) When Can You Go to Jail for Threatening the President?

Answer:

Most threats typically need to meet a certain threshold of credibility before prosecutors will file charges. Making an offhand drunken comment about wanting to punch the President or venting frustration online is unlikely to lead to arrest on its own. The threat has to seem concerning enough that authorities need to get involved. According to FindLaw, factors like:

  • Having the means and opportunity to carry out the threat
  • Making detailed plans for an attack
  • Stalking or confronting Secret Service agents
  • Sending threatening letters or packages

Could make prosecution more likely. Most defendants also tend to have a history of mental illness or prior run-ins with the law. But sometimes even fairly casual threats said in anger lead to charges if they catch the attention of the Secret Service.

(4) What Are Some Legal Defenses?

Answer: 

Fighting federal threat charges involves showing either that:

  1. The statement wasn’t really a “true threat” under the law
  2. The defendant struggled with mental illness or emotional distress when making the threat

To argue the statement wasn’t a true threat, the defense may claim it was just a joke, political rhetoric, or that the person didn’t actually intend to harm anyone. The context around the threat matters a lot here.

Defendants can also argue they struggled with mental health issues like schizophrenia or severe depression that impacted their judgment. If successful, this could lead to commitment to a psychiatric facility instead of prison. But mental illness alone is rarely enough to avoid conviction altogether.

(5) When Can the Secret Service Investigate Threats?

Answer:

The U.S. Secret Service is authorized to investigate any potential threats against the President, Vice President, President-elect and Vice President-elect. They have jurisdiction even if it’s unclear at first whether the threat violates federal law. According to the Department of Justice:

The United States Attorney must carefully consider the possible adverse effect before releasing information to the public concerning cases and matters involving threats against the President (18 U.S.C. § 871) as well as other Secret Service protectees (18 U.S.C. § 879). This exercise of caution should extend to secondary sources of press information as well (search warrants, affidavits, etc.), and the use of tools such as sealed affidavits should be considered.

        So the Secret Service often keeps threat investigations confidential to avoid inadvertently                     encouraging copycats or revealing too much about their protective methods. They may conduct         surveillance, obtain search warrants, or refer cases for federal prosecution if the threats seem                 credible enough to pose a safety risk.

(6) When Can You Go to Jail for Encouraging Violence Against Public Officials?

Answer:

In some cases, people face charges for encouraging others to attack public officials rather than making threats themselves. Federal law 18 U.S. Code § 373 prohibits trying to get someone to commit a violent federal crime. For example, posting “someone should shoot the President” online or sharing information to help others plan an assassination attempt.

Prosecutors would need to prove the person intended for another individual to commit murder or assault and took substantial steps to make it happen. But repeatedly calling for violence against elected leaders could potentially lead to arrest even without explicit threats.

(7) Recent Examples of Prosecutions for Threatening President Biden or Trump

Answer:

There has been an uptick in threat cases during recent administrations as political divisions widen. Some examples since 2016 include:

  • An Illinois man arrested in 2022 for allegedly threatening to kill President Biden and members of Congress.
  • A Florida man indicted in 2022 for making online death threats against Biden and sending disturbing letters.
  • An Ohio man prosecuted in 2018 for threatening to assassinate President Trump at a steakhouse.
  • A Washington man sentenced to prison in 2021 for making death threats against Trump on Facebook.

Defense lawyers accused some of these defendants of struggling with mental illness. But prosecutors say the threats still caused fear and disruption which justified charges. Several cases led to multi-year prison sentences even without evidence of actual attack plans.

(8) The Bottom Line

Threatening the President of the United States is very much illegal under federal law. Even jokes or offhand comments about harming America’s elected leaders can potentially lead to felony charges if deemed credible enough. The Secret Service and federal prosecutors tend to take these threats very seriously given the risks they could pose. So it’s wise to avoid making statements that could be interpreted as calling for violence against public officials, even if you don’t really intend to act on them.

What's my take on Trump's threatening statements against Biden, based on the insights of federallawyers.com?

* As often is the case in criminal law, a lot of discretion is left to federal investigators and prosecutors. My guess is they will let someone of Trump's fame, wealth, and power off the hook. But is that the way it should be handled? I don't think so, That suggests we have a two-tiered justice system that benefits the privileged -- and Trump already has received numerous breaks from courts -- especially the U.S. District Court in Florida (see here and here)and the U.S. Supreme Court (see here and here).

* This is not the first time Trump has threatened a public official. He has called for Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to be put to death for treason.

* This is not the first time Trump has used violent rhetoric. In fact, it has become a staple of his on the campaign trail. Consider this from an October 2023 post here at Legal Schnauzer:

In speeches, interviews and on social media in recent weeks, Trump:
  • Said former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley committed "treason" and suggested he be executed.
  • Labeled New York Attorney General Letitia James — who's suing Trump for fraudulently inflating his wealth and assets on financial records — a "racist" and "monster."
  • Said special counsel Jack Smith — who's prosecuting Trump in the Jan. 6 and classified-documents cases — is "deranged" and a "psycho" who "looks like a crackhead."
  • Posted online, "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!" — one day after swearing in federal court that he would not intimidate witnesses in the election interference case.
  • Mocked Paul Pelosi after he was brutally assaulted by a home intruder who was searching for his wife, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
  • Urged police to shoot shoplifters on sight.

* Consider Trump's audience. He encouraged the nation's largest gathering of gun nuts to consider the execution of our president. Did Trump intend for a member of the NRA or one of his MAGA supporters, who may or may not be of sound mind, to carry out his threat? Consider these words from federrallawyers.com (FLC).

(a) In some cases, people face charges for encouraging others to attack public officials rather than making threats themselves. Federal law 18 U.S. Code § 373 prohibits trying to get someone to commit a violent federal crime. For example, posting “someone should shoot the President” online or sharing information to help others plan an assassination attempt.

Prosecutors would need to prove the person intended for another individual to commit murder or assault and took substantial steps to make it happen. But repeatedly calling for violence against elected leaders could potentially lead to arrest even without explicit threats.

(b) Evidence is mounting that Trump might have a form of mental illness, with his recent inability to speak in coherent sentences at campaign rallies. From the FLC website:

Defense lawyers accused some of these defendants of struggling with mental illness. But prosecutors say the threats still caused fear and disruption which justified charges. Several cases led to multi-year prison sentences even without evidence of actual attack plans.

 * Could Trump be counting on someone from the NRA or MAGA to carry out his idea of executing Joe Biden? Could he be engaged with someone in formulating an attack plan? I wouldn't count it out, and federal authorities should not count it out, either. At the very least, Trump and his associates need to be investigated.

* A final thought: Who would stand to benefit the most from the death of Joe Biden? The answer almost certainly would be Donald Trump. Take Biden out of the picture, and the Democratic Party goes into disarray, allowing Trump to virtually waltz to the White House and likely stay out of prison, related to the four criminal cases pending against him. Is Donald Trump that evil? Who knows how evil this guy is? We would ask Jeffrey Epstein if he were still alive.

Monday, March 3, 2025

Trump ran Oval Office meeting like a mob boss, and Vance spewed one lie after another, so no wonder Zelensky was disinclined to act like a supplicant

 

Volodymyr Zalensky leaves the White House (NY Times)

Hardly anyone could have foreseen the eruption of rancor that marked Donald Trump's meeting last Friday with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. But no one should be surprised that the meeting went badly, according to an article at Axios. Under the headline ""Three strikes": Inside the Trump-Vance fury with Zelensky," Alex Isenstadt and Marc Caputo write:

Friday's Oval Office shouting match was shocking. But it wasn't too surprising to anyone close to President Trump or Vice President Vance.

  • Why it matters: Privately, Trump sees Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a pro-Biden, ungrateful lightweight destined to lose to Russia. And Trump advisers believe Zelensky sees Trump as a pro-Putin, delusional fool destined to make him lose to Russia.

To Trump's team, it was three strikes — and now officially out of favor — for Zelensky. In their eyes, Zelensky already had two strikes against him when he sat down with Trump and Vance.

  • That was the backdrop for a conversation that would become perhaps the most epic televised foreign policy row in history — an argument that rattled Europe and vividly illustrated a sharp turn in U.S. foreign policy toward Russia. 

It began with what Trump's team saw as Strike 3 against Zelensky: He disagreed publicly with Vance, who accused Zelensky of trying to "litigate" his case before the media.

  • Vance said Zelensky didn't show enough thanks to the U.S. for funding Ukraine's defense — or to Trump for trying to bring peace.
  • After a tense nine-minute exchange, it ended with Trump stopping the 50-minute meeting and essentially showing Zelensky the door.

Strike 2 came just before Friday's meeting, when Zelensky arrived at the White House without a suit or jacket, as requested. It was perceived by White House staffers as disrespectful.

  • Strike 1, as first reported by Axios, came Feb. 15, when Zelensky publicly trashed a proposed mineral rights deal with Ukraine that he privately had discussed the day before in Munich with Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Trump's speech at CPAC 2024 was packed with lies, indicating he knowingly deceives his MAGA crowds because he assumes they won't use critical thinking

Trump wraps up an intimate moment with the U.S. flag at CPAC
 

 Part One

Do you struggle to listen to a Donald Trump speech? I do, and it's been that way for several years. The problem starts, I think, when you recognize up front that Trump never will be considered to have a Winston Churchill-style intellect, so you set the bar low -- and he still manages to dig a hole underneath it. 

After reporting on his recent speech at the CPAC convention for conservative activists, I think I gained some insight into Trump's problem -- or maybe it was my problem. Even by Trump's standards, the CPAC 2024 speech was a real stinker, with little in the way of meaningful content to keep your attention. But then, I noticed a trend: Trump tends to give his worst speeches when his audience is what you might call "the hometown crowd" -- as it was at CPAC. On those occasions, Trump's oratory is not so much a speech but a string of slogans, mindlessly thrown against the wall to push the emotions, and the hot buttons, of MAGA devotees. No wonder I didn't get Trump's speeches; I wasn't a member of the club, so he wasn't speaking to me. I don't live "inside the tent," so he probably did not care that he failed to reach me.

My conclusion? Trump doesn't try to bring newcomers into the tent, so he probably doesn't care if someone like me zones out a few minutes after hearing him speak. His goal, it seems, is to fire up the base, and he probably is convinced that will carry him to victory in November. I'm not sure he's right about that, but I am sure he doesn't care what people like me think. If you aren't "loyal" to Trump right off the bat, then you aren't worth his attention. I'm not sure that is a smart way to run a campaign or a country -- especially when you are seeking to be president for all Americans. But Republicans have bought into the Trump Way, so that's what we are going to receive for the next eight months or so.

As for the CPAC 2024 speech, I wasn't the only one who found it lacking. CNN presented its own critique under the headline "Fact check: Trump delivers another lie-filled CPAC speech." How's that for getting to the point? Something tells me they didn't much care for the speech. Here are some specifics:

The Conservative Political Action Conference has been the venue for some of former President Donald Trump’s most dishonest speecheslengthy, lie-filled addresses in which he has regaled friendly crowds with many of his favorite false claims.

He stuck to tradition in his CPAC speech on Saturday, repeating more than a dozen previously debunked statements. (He also made some dubious new claims we’ll look into.) Here’s a fact check of 12 of his remarks.

(1) Trump and the invasion of Iraq

Trump repeated his years-old claim that he had warned the US not to launch an invasion of Iraq.

He said: “Remember I used to say a long time ago, ‘Don’t go into Iraq. Don’t do it!’ But I was only a civilian, so I didn’t get that much press. I said, ‘Don’t go into Iraq, but if you’re going to do it, keep the oil.’ Do you remember I used to say that all the time? Keep the oil. ‘Don’t do it, but keep the oil.’”

Facts First: Trump’s claim that he warned the US not to invade Iraq is false; the claim was debunked eight years ago. In reality, Trump did not publicly express opposition to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq before it occurred. In his 2000 book, “The America We Deserve,” Trump argued a military strike on Iraq might be necessary; when radio host Howard Stern asked Trump in September 2002 whether he is “for invading Iraq,” Trump responded, “Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly”; and Trump did not express a firm opinion about the looming war in a Fox interview in January 2003, saying that “either you attack or don’t attack” and that then-President George W. Bush “has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps.”

Trump began criticizing the war in 2003, after the invasion, and also said that year that American troops should not be withdrawn from Iraq. He emerged as an explicit opponent of the war in 2004. You can read more here about his shifting positions.

A CNN search in 2019 turned up no examples of Trump saying anything before the war about keeping Iraq’s oil. Trump’s White House did not respond at the time to our request to provide any such evidence.

(2) Trump and the Nord Stream 2 pipeline

Claiming that he was tough on Russia during his presidency, Trump brought up the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline project from Russia to Germany and claimed, as he has repeatedly before, that “I ended Nord Stream” and that “I stopped it, it was over.”

Facts FirstTrump’s claim is false. He did not “end” Nord Stream or render it “over.” While he did approve sanctions on companies working on the project, that move came nearly three years into his presidency, when the pipeline was already around 90% complete – and the state-owned Russian gas company behind the project said shortly after the sanctions that it would complete the pipeline itself. The company announced in December 2020 that construction was resuming. And with days left in Trump’s term in January 2021, Germany announced that it had renewed permission for construction in its waters.

The pipeline never began operations; Germany ended up halting the project as Russia was about to invade Ukraine in early 2022. The pipeline was damaged later that year in what has been described as a likely act of sabotage.

(3) The 2020 election

Trump returned to his frequent lies about the 2020 election, saying it was a “rigged election” and that “in 2020, they cheated like dogs.”

Facts First: These Trump claims are false. The election wasn’t rigged and Trump’s opponents didn’t cheat. Joe Biden won fair and square. There was a tiny amount of voter fraud that was nowhere near widespread enough to have changed the outcome in any state, let alone to have reversed Biden’s 306-232 victory in the Electoral College.

(4) Biden and Trump’s indictments

Trump said of Biden: “He indicted me.” He also decried supposed “Stalinist show trials carried out at Joe Biden's orders.”

Facts First: This claim is not supported by any evidence. Grand juries made up of ordinary citizens – in New York, Georgia, Florida and Washington, DC – approved the indictments in each of Trump’s criminal cases. There is no basis for the claim that Biden ordered Trump to be criminally charged or face civil trials.

Trump’s two federal indictments were brought by a special counsel, Jack Smith. Smith was appointed in November 2022 by Attorney General Merrick Garland, a Biden appointee, but that is not proof that Biden was involved in the prosecution effort, much less that Biden personally ordered the indictments; Garland has said he would resign if Biden ever asked him to take action against Trump but was sure that would never happen. And there is no sign that Biden has had any role in bringing charges against Trump in Manhattan or Fulton County, Georgia; those prosecutions have been led by elected local district attorneys. 

(5) Trump’s indictments vs. Al Capone’s indictments

Repeating one of his regular campaign claims, Trump said, “I’ve been indicted more than Alphonse Capone,” even though Capone was a notoriously vicious gangster.

Facts FirstTrump’s claim is false. Trump has been indicted four times. Capone was indicted at least six times, as A. Brad Schwartz, the co-author of a book on Capone, told CNN.

Also, Schwartz noted: “This isn’t a race, of course, but it may be worth noting that Capone is also way ahead in individual counts (the 1931 Prohibition indictment alone added up to 5,000 conspiracy charges).” Trump faces 91 total counts over his two federal indictments and two local indictments.

You can read more about Capone’s indictments here. 

(6) Trump and Minneapolis

Reviving a claim he began making in 2020, Trump said that he deployed the National Guard to Minneapolis in 2020 – over the opposition of the state’s Democratic governor – during the unrest that followed the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer.

“I’ll tell you what: If I didn’t bring in the National Guard – ’cause the governor didn’t want to do it, they’d never want to do it … I wish I didn’t wait six days – but if I didn’t bring in the National Guard, wouldn’t even have a city there. That city was going down,” Trump said.

Facts First: This is false – and a complete reversal of reality. Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, not Trump, was the one who deployed the Minnesota National Guard during the 2020 unrest; Walz first activated the Guard more than seven hours before Trump publicly threatened to deploy the Guard himself. Walz’s office told CNN in 2020 that the governor activated the Guard in response to requests from officials in Minneapolis and St. Paul – cities also run by Democrats.

Next: We will have CNN's fact-based analysis of Trump's CPAC speech on six additional issues (plus  a bonus issue) -- from "Trump and the border wall" to "Trump and electric cars." We invite you to stay tuned.

 

(7) Trump and the border wall

Touting the wall construction on the border with Mexico during his presidency, Trump said, “We built 571 miles of border wall.”

Facts FirstTrump’s “571 miles” claim is false, an even greater exaggeration than the inaccurate “561 miles” and “over 500 miles” claims he has made in the past. An official report by US Customs and Border Protection, written two days after Trump left office and subsequently obtained by CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez, said the total number built under Trump was 458 miles (including both wall built where no barriers had existed before and wall built to replace previous barriers). Trump has sometimes put the figure, more correctly, at “nearly 500 miles.”

(8) Trump and the word ‘caravans’

Speaking about immigration, Trump referred to migrant caravans – then repeated his common campaign claim that he had personally coined the phrase “caravans”: “That was another name I came up with. I come up with good names.”

Facts FirstTrump did not come up with the word “caravan,” either in general or to describe groups of migrants traveling together toward the US border during his presidency.

Trump first publicly used a variation of the word as president in a tweet on April 1, 2018 (he wrote, in a tweet about immigration, “’caravans’ coming”). But the word had been used by various others in the same context in the days and weeks prior, including in a BuzzFeed News feature article, two days prior to Trump’s tweet, that was headlined, “A Huge Caravan Of Central Americans Is Headed For The US, And No One In Mexico Dares To Stop Them.”

Merriam-Webster says the word caravan “came to English in the late 16th century, from the Italian caravana, which itself came from the Persian kārvān.”

(9) Trump and ISIS

Trump claimed, as he has on numerous previous occasions, that although he was told it would take “four years” to defeat the ISIS terror group, “I knocked it out in four weeks.”

Facts FirstTrump’s claim of having defeated ISIS in “four weeks” isn’t true; the ISIS “caliphate” was declared fully liberated more than two years into Trump’s presidency, in 2019. Even if Trump was starting the clock at the time of his visit to Iraq in late December 2018, as he suggested later in the speech, the liberation was proclaimed more than two and a half months later. In addition, Trump gave himself far too much credit for the defeat of the caliphate, as he has before, when he said, “I knocked it out” with no caveats or credit to anyone else: Kurdish forces did much of the ground fighting, and there was major progress against the caliphate under President Barack Obama in 2015 and 2016.

IHS Markit, an information company that studied the changing size of the caliphate, reported two days before Trump’s 2017 inauguration that the caliphate shrunk by 23% in 2016 after shrinking by 14% in 2015. “The Islamic State suffered unprecedented territorial losses in 2016, including key areas vital for the group’s governance project,” an analyst there said in a statement at the time. 

(10) Electric cars

Trump deployed his familiar criticism of Biden on environmental policy, saying, “All- electric cars. The all-electric mandate. Everybody has to have an electric car.”

Facts FirstTrump’s claim is false. Biden has not mandated that “everybody has to have an electric car,” though his administration has made an aggressive push to try to get automakers and consumers to move toward electric vehicles.

The Biden administration has proposed ambitious new tailpipe emissions regulations for automakersoffered tax credits to people who buy certain electric vehiclesinvested in new electric vehicle charging stations and ordered federal entities to purchase electric vehicles, among other policies promoting the adoption of these vehicles. But there is no Biden requirement that “everybody” has to drive an electric vehicle.

Depending on how automakers were to respond, the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed new tailpipe rules could, if adopted, require electric vehicles to make up two-thirds of new cars sold in the US by 2032. 

(11)The trade deficit

Returning to his criticism of US trade agreements with various countries, Trump said, “And then you wonder why we have a $2 trillion deficit. If you look at it now, it’s gotten to a level that nobody can even believe; it’s so bad under Biden.”

Facts First: Trump’s “$2 trillion” claim is false, a massive exaggeration. The US has never had a $2 trillion annual trade deficit and does not have one under Biden. The overall deficit, which includes trade in both goods and services, was about $773 billion in 2023, down from a record high of about $951 billion in 2022.

(12) China’s oil purchases from Iran

Trump repeated a story about China and Iran that has become a staple of his campaign speeches. He claimed that, as president, he had threatened that he would cut off all US business with China if China bought even “one barrel of oil from Iran.”

He continued: “And President Xi – I told him this – said, ‘All right, well, we won’t do it. We won’t do it.’ They didn’t buy. By the way, they’re buying billions and billion worth of oil right now. But China didn’t buy.”

Facts FirstTrump’s claim that China “didn’t buy” oil from Iran is false. China’s oil imports from Iran did briefly plummet under Trump in 2019, the year the Trump administration made a concerted effort to deter such purchases, but they never stopped – and then they rose sharply again while Trump was still president. “The claim is untrue because Chinese crude imports from Iran haven’t stopped at all,” Matt Smith, lead oil analyst for the Americas at Kpler, a market intelligence firm, said in November.

China’s official statistics recorded no purchases of Iranian crude in Trump’s last partial month in office, January 2021, and also none in most of Biden’s first year in office. But that doesn’t mean China’s imports actually ceased; industry experts say it is widely known that China has used a variety of tactics to mask its continued imports from Iran. Smith said Iranian crude is often listed in Chinese data as being from Malaysia; ships may travel from Iran with their transponders switched off and then turn them on when they are near Malaysia, Smith said, or transfer the Iranian oil to other ships.

Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, said in a November email: “China significantly reduced its imports from Iran from around 800,000 barrels per day in 2018 to 100,000 in late 2019. But by the time Trump left office, they were back to upwards to 600(000)-700,000 barrels.”

Here is a bonus critique from CNN:

(13) Trump declares himself a ‘political dissident’ at CPAC, capping a conference catered to conspiracies 

Former President Donald Trump declared himself a “proud political dissident” on Saturday, telling a conservative gathering that his re-election would be “liberation day” for his supporters and “judgment day” for his political enemies.

The striking choice of words, delivered in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, comes just days after Trump likened his legal plight to Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny, the leading dissident of Russian President Vladimir Putin before he died this month in a state prison. Saturday’s remarks represented an undeniable escalation of that rhetoric.

“In many ways, we’re living in hell right now, because the fact is, Joe Biden is a threat to democracy,” Trump told a standing-room-only CPAC audience. “I stand before you today, not only as your past and hopefully future president but as a proud political dissident. I am a dissident.” 

The comments capped a four-day gathering heavily influenced by the most conspiratorial elements of Trump’s movement. Inside CPAC – taking place in Maryland, across the Potomac River from the site of Trump’s failed and unconstitutional attempts to hold on to power – the former president is the rightful current president, mail-in voting is rife with fraud, and a revisionist retelling of the bloody January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol is accepted as fact.

A year after telling CPAC, “I am your retribution” – the early seeds for his campaign of retaliation that has dominated his stump speeches since launching his third White House bid – Trump on Saturday shared a new definition of political vengeance that stopped short of punishing his opponents.

“Your liberty will be our ultimate reward, and the unprecedented success of the United States of America will be my ultimate and absolute revenge,” he said. “That’s what I want. Success will be our revenge.” 

Others speaking at CPAC, though, remained committed to a more exacting fight.

“If the regime is going to change the rules so Trump can be prosecuted, (former President Barack) Obama must be prosecuted,” said Tom Fitton, president of the right-wing legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, evoking chants of “Lock him up” from the audience.

As Trump addressed CPAC, voters in South Carolina headed to the polls for the Republican presidential primary. There, the former president defeated the state’s former governor, Nikki Haley, who says she is committed to challenging Trump through Super Tuesday.

Haley, though, went unmentioned during Trump’s remarks in Maryland – an animated 90-minute speech in which he shared stories of flying on Air Force One and mimicked President Joe Biden’s mannerisms.

Instead, Trump’s address set the stage for the general election and his likely rematch with Biden.

In a speech cloaked in dark imagery, Trump predicted a dystopian America under a second Biden term, suggesting the nation will be beset by “constant blackouts” and “rampant inflation,” accompanied by spikes in illegal border crossings and foreign policy decisions that he said will lead to “World War III.”

“If crooked Joe Biden and his thugs win in 2024, the worst is yet to come. Our country will go and sink to levels that were unimaginable,” he said. “These are the stakes of this election. Our country is being destroyed, and the only thing standing between you and its obliteration is me.”

A vote for him, he said, is a “ticket back to freedom.”

Biden’s campaign in a press release called Trump’s remarks “bizarre” and said Trump and Republicans are the ones who want to pull back freedoms.

“Donald Trump is a loser: under his presidency America lost more jobs than any president in modern history, women in more than 20 states have lost the freedom to make their own health care decisions because Trump overturned Roe, and the MAGA wing of the Republican Party lost their damn minds putting Trump’s quest for power over our democracy,” Biden campaign spokesman Ammar Moussa said.

What are the key takeaways from CNN's analysis of Trump's speech. Two points jump out at me:

(1) In No. 4 above, CNN shows that the central contention of Trump's standard campaign speech -- that Joe Biden had him indicted -- is a lie. In clear and direct language, CNN knocks that tall tale out of the ballpark:

 This claim is not supported by any evidence. Grand juries made up of ordinary citizens – in New York, Georgia, Florida and Washington, DC – approved the indictments in each of Trump’s criminal cases. There is no basis for the claim that Biden ordered Trump to be criminally charged or face civil trials.  

CNN's retort suggests two things: (a) Trump has no clue how our legal system works; or (b) he is pulling a con game, a hoax, on his most ardent followers -- probably because he knows he can get away with it. I suspect bot of those are correct, which means the MAGA crowd is being duped -- but many of them have not figured it out yet. 

(2) In No. 3 above, Trump drags out his tired claim that the 2020 election was "rigged" and the Biden side "cheated like dogs." CNN bats that one down easily:

The election wasn’t rigged and Trump’s opponents didn’t cheat. Joe Biden won fair and square. There was a tiny amount of voter fraud that was nowhere near widespread enough to have changed the outcome in any state, let alone to have reversed Biden’s 306-232 victory in the Electoral College.

CNN has done a huge public service by showing in straightforward language that Trump's two central grievances -- that Biden had him indicted, and the 2020 election was rigged against him -- are false.

That leaves this message for the MAGA crowd: Your "Orange Idol" is lying to you, playing you for fools. Let's hope you come to recognize that soon.