By a quirk of fate, two of the most troublesome threats to the ex-President’s political viability and business legend unfolded almost simultaneously Thursday in two cities he once dominated. And he responded the way he always does, by going on the attack.
Back in Washington, meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi named those who will serve on a select committee on the January 6 US Capitol insurrection, which was incited by Trump in a bid to overturn his election defeat. In a poke in the eye to the former President, they include one of his mortal enemies, Wyoming’s Rep. Liz Cheney, one of the few Republicans to speak truth to his abuses of power surrounding last year’s election.
No recent former President has faced the kind of threat to his legacy, reputation and potentially even his fortune now being encountered by Trump. And the ferocity of his defense — faithful to his mantra of never giving an inch to his adversaries — suggests he plans to respond with the kind of all-consuming assault on America’s psyche that unfolded during his presidency.
The line from Trump world is that the former President is being targeted not for what he did but for who he is, a construct that has carried him through the Russia probe, two impeachments and numerous other political, personal and business scrapes.
“If the name of the company was something else, I don’t think these charges would have been brought,” said Alan Futerfas, an attorney for the Trump Organization.
The Trump Organization legal team largely avoided a point-by-point rebuttal of 15 grand jury counts alleging that Weisselberg — the organization’s chief financial officer — evaded taxes on $1.7 million in income and falsified documents in a 15-year scheme. The indictment said the activity allegedly involved other unnamed executives in a firm in which the Trump family itself holds all the top roles. Weisselberg and the Trump Organization both pleaded not guilty. The former President was not personally charged.
Another Trump organization attorney, Susan Necheles, was even more aggressive than Futerfas in alleging a corrupt political conspiracy against Trump.
“We will win this case, but this case should have never been brought,” Necheles told reporters outside the courtroom. “This is a political prosecution.”
Earlier, prosecutor Carey Dunne anticipated the counterattack that the case was rooted in partisan distaste for the former President.
“Politics has no role in the grand jury chamber, and I can assure your honor that it played no role here,” Dunne told the judge, according to a transcript of his remarks released by the Manhattan district attorney’s office.
McCarthy plays politics card over January 6 probe
Back in Washington, the nature of the turmoil surrounding Trump was political and not legal.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who has repudiated his earlier criticism of Trump over the mob attack on the Capitol by “Make American Great Again” supporters, insisted the real issue was malfeasance by Democrats.
“I regret the politics of Nancy Pelosi. For six months she played politics with this,” said the California Republican, who crushed a plan for an independent bipartisan commission on the attack co-written by one of his own GOP lawmakers.
There is an argument that Pelosi waited too long to agree to a compromise with Republican Rep. John Katko of New York on the makeup of a bipartisan panel. And there are obvious political upsides for Democrats in continuing to investigate Trump’s abuses of power, with midterm elections ahead.
But at the same time, the failure of the independent commission deprived the country of the kind of catharsis and historic marker that such panels have provided at moments of national tragedy, so there is a case to be made that a reckoning — over and above probes by regular congressional committees — was due. It is not all about politics.
The witch hunt defense
The complaint that any attempt to subject Trump to legal accountability is politically motivated is not a new refrain. Every time the former President is accused of wrongdoing, he and his acolytes rarely rebut the charges with any level of seriousness or specificity. And Trump himself never takes responsibility for his actions, but instead seeks to flood the zone with partisan confusion and misinformation.
When the Justice Department and the FBI, for instance, became suspicious about multiple contacts between Russia, a hostile foreign power meddling in the US election, and his 2016 campaign aides, Trump claimed he was the victim of a massive “witch hunt.” In his first impeachment, his Republican attack dogs complained about a politicized process while sidestepping allegations that he had tried to get Ukraine to launch an investigation into then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. Trump’s second impeachment — after the most flagrant attack on the peaceful transfer of power in US history — was branded by Senate Republicans as a political plot to persecute an ex-President by anti-Trump zealots as he settled into private life.
And even Trump’s denials that he actually lost the last election are part of a sweeping and false narrative — rejected by multiple courts — that there was a vast Democratic Party conspiracy to deprive him of a second term in office.
“They used Covid in order to rig the election and in order to steal the election,” Trump said in a rally in Ohio last Saturday night.
Trump knows what he is doing. He built his political appeal on the idea that he was a spokesman for millions of Americans who had been rejected by the cozy elite club — just as the brazen billionaire was often mocked by Manhattan high society. This canny understanding of the politics of victimization helped a real estate tycoon from one of the most liberal cities in America, who flew in a personal airliner, bond with millions of working-class voters in the American heartland. Paradoxically, a new set of controversies might embolden Trump and help him refresh his appeal to his base, as he seeks to play the kingmaker in the midterm elections and teases another presidential run in 2024.
His frequent message to his supporters might be paraphrased as: They are not coming after me — they are coming after you. Or as the former President put it in a statement soon after Weisselberg left court, “Do people see the Radical Left prosecutors, and what they are trying to do to 75M +++ Voters and Patriots, for what it is?”
Politics don’t work in court
Although the Trump Organization’s legal team insisted that Weisselberg was being used by the former President’s enemies, the detailed indictment against him will require a staunch and formal legal defense. Political soundbites generally do not stand up in court — as the multiple rejected cases brought by Trump’s campaign legal team alleging election fraud in November demonstrate.
The Trump Organization’s lawyers did tip their hand as to one aspect of that defense, namely an argument that it is unprecedented to prosecute a tax case such as this as a criminal rather than a civil matter. Some legal experts said the practice is somewhat unusual given that this prosecution centers on rent-free apartments, car leases, school fees and other fringe benefits.
But Harry Litman, a former deputy assistant attorney general, told CNN’s Poppy Harlow that given the prominence of Weisselberg in the firm and the allegations of a scheme to defraud, the approach was in line with precedent. “This is spin and talking points that they prepared before, I think, they saw the indictment,” Litman said.
Two big questions were left unanswered by Thursday’s indictment.
The first is whether the robust indictment against Weisselberg may be designed to get him to cooperate with prosecutors in return for lesser charges — and potentially to testify against Trump family members. Weisselberg has so far refused to do so.
The second question is whether the unsealed indictment represents the full extent of the two-year investigations against Trump and his company or whether there is more to come for the ex-President.
Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen, who himself went to jail after pleading guilty to campaign finance and tax charges, said he could have scripted the “witch hunt” defense in advance.
“There is nothing that happened at the Trump Organization that did not go to Donald,” Cohen told CNN’s Alisyn Camerota.
“Whether it was the purchasing of paperclips or the payment of Allen Weisselberg’s grandchildren’s tuition. Every single thing went on Donald’s desk for signature.”
NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.
In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”
At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.
“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.
She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.
“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.
“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”
Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.
Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
