The Conversation -- February 7, 2024
Annie Karni of the New York Times: "Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a bill to pair tens of billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine and Israel with stringent border security measures, thwarting a compromise they had demanded in the latest setback to the emergency national security spending package. But Democrats quickly moved to salvage the aid, with Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, pivoting to advance a stand-alone foreign aid bill stripped of the immigration deal. A vote on that alternative was expected later on Wednesday." This is the pinned item in a liveblog. ~~~
Karni: "The Senate is now taking one of two procedural votes that it needs to get through before it takes up Chuck Schumer's Plan B -- a foreign aid package without the border security measures that Republicans negotiated and then voted against."
Annie Karni of the New York Times: "Senate Democrats are planning to make a last-ditch effort on Wednesday to salvage an aid bill for Ukraine and Israel, with Republicans expected to kill a version of the package that includes stringent border security measures that they had demanded be included. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, has told his Democratic colleagues that after a critical test vote set for early Wednesday afternoon, in which Republicans are expected to block the border and Ukraine package, he plans to quickly force a vote on a stand-alone bill that would send tens of billions of dollars in funding to Kyiv and Israel." An NBC News story is here.
Joseph Harvey of the Huffington Post: "MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell was flabbergasted by a detail in a new court filing from special counsel Jack Smith in the classified documents case against Donald Trump and two co-defendants. According to the Friday filing, an attorney for Carlos De Oliveira, a co-defendant and maintenance supervisor at Mar-a-Lago, said he was unable to review CCTV footage the prosecution had obtained from the Trump Organization and provided during discovery because he did not own or have access to a laptop or desktop computer. De Oliveira's attorney said he had been attempting to review the entirety of the government's discovery documents on a handheld tablet, the filing stated. To resolve the issue, the government offered to loan the attorney a laptop, and 'hand-delivered a computer to him,' according to the filing. The prosecution said it has since offered assistance to the attorney, 'providing tips and examples, and offering to set up calls,' whenever he has flagged technical issues.' The unprofessionalism and incompetence of the Trump team of lawyers continues to amaze,' O'Donnell said Monday...." ~~~
~~~ Marie: I don't own a tablet, but I'm pretty sure you can review documents on one. Maybe this is a ploy to get De Oliveira off in an appeal based on incompetence of counsel. It could work!
Garcia Gets the Better of Miss Margie. Ed Mazza of the Huffington Post: "... during a hearing on crime..., [Rep. Marjorie Taylor] Greene ... went on a lengthy rant on everything from crime in the nation's capital to gun rights to Donald Trump to Black Lives Matter and beyond.... Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) ... pointed out what he found 'ironic' about Greene talking about crime in Washington, D.C. 'She literally supported an insurrection and attack on the Capitol,' Garcia said. He said Greene 'coddled' the insurrectionists when she visited them last year in jail, where she offered them handshakes and pats on the back and said they were 'political prisoners.... They actually tried to overthrow our government,' Garcia reminded her. That caused Greene ― who last month called Hunter Biden a 'coward' for leaving a hearing when she was speaking about him ― to walk out of the hearing."
Hecho en Mexico. Anna Swanson & Simon Romero of the New York Times: "New data released on Wednesday showed that Mexico outpaced China to become America's top source of official imports for the first time in 20 years -- a significant shift that highlights how increased tensions between Washington and Beijing are altering trade flows. The United States' trade deficit with China narrowed significantly last year, with goods imports from the country dropping 20 percent to $427.2 billion, the data shows. American consumers and businesses turned to Mexico, Europe, South Korea, India, Canada and Vietnam for auto parts, shoes, toys and raw materials.... Economists say the relative decrease in trade with China is clearly linked to the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration and then maintained by the Biden administration." ~~~
~~~ Marie: So how about this? Trump's radical China tariffs improved U.S. trade with Mexico. This, in turn, means there are more jobs in Mexico, so immigration to the U.S. from Central and South America may decrease by the increase in the number of jobs these would-be U.S. immigrants can get in Mexico. So in one fell swoop, Trump has not only cut trade with China but also solved the border crisis. The guy is a stable genius.
You Do Not Have a Constitutional Right to Spit Your Germs & Viruses at Others. Mike Catalini of the AP: "A federal appeals court shot down claims Monday that New Jersey residents' refusal to wear face masks at school board meetings during the COVID-19 outbreak constituted protected speech under the First Amendment. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in two related cases stemming from lawsuits against officials in Freehold and Cranford, New Jersey. The suits revolved around claims that the plaintiffs were retaliated against by school boards because they refused to wear masks during public meetings. In one of the suits, the court sent the case back to a lower court for consideration. In the other, it said the plaintiff failed to show she was retaliated against." MB: But, but how can speech be free if you're forced to speak through a device that muffles speech?
~~~~~~~~~~
Marie: Sorry, my Internet service has been out all night & early morning. It just came back, so I'll be posting late today (assuming I don't lose my connection again). Update: I posted new links till about 9:00 am ET, so if you checked in before that, you might want to scan the page to see what wasn't there the first time you checked.
Dan Mangan of CNBC: "Neither President Joe Biden nor anyone else is expected to be criminally charged in an investigation into how classified documents ended up in Biden's Delaware home and a private office, NBC News reported Tuesday. A senior law enforcement official told NBC that a report on that probe by Department of Justice special counsel Robert Hur will be made public in the coming days. Hur has spent more than a year investigating how classified government documents came to be sent to Biden's home in Wilmington and to a Washington, D.C., office he had maintained before becoming president in January 2021." MB: So unfa-a-a-air to Trump.
Peter Baker & Catie Edmondson of the New York Times: "President Biden took the border fight directly to ... Donald J. Trump on Tuesday, blaming his predecessor and putative challenger for torpedoing a bipartisan immigration agreement out of crass politics at the expense of national security. Weighing in forcefully after months of largely staying out of the fray, Mr. Biden called on congressional Republicans to 'show some spine' and stand up to Mr. Trump. But he effectively acknowledged that the deal negotiated over several months was doomed and vowed to make it a campaign issue against the opposition. 'All indications are this bill won't even move forward to the Senate floor,' Mr. Biden said in a speech televised from the White House. 'Why? A simple reason. Donald Trump. Because Donald Trump thinks this is bad for him politically.' The president said that Mr. Trump would 'rather weaponize this issue than actually solve it' and has leaned on Republicans to block it. 'It looks like they're caving,' he added." The Hill's report (also linked yesterday) is here. ~~~
~~~ Joe gives 'em hell: ~~~
~~~ Here's a transcript of President Biden's remarks, via the White House. ~~~
~~~ Alexander Bolton of the Hill: "Senate Republicans, under heavy pressure from former President Trump, will block a procedural motion to begin debate on a bipartisan border security deal this week, leaving funding for the war in Ukraine in limbo for the foreseeable future. A failure to advance the border security deal this week would signal the legislation is unlikely to pass the Senate without major changes. And any revisions to asylum and border security reforms negotiated with the White House and Senate Democrats could scuttle the whole deal.... Asked Tuesday morning if any Senate Republicans will vote to proceed to the bill, [Senate Minority Whip John] Thune [R-S.D.] said it's 'unlikely' because members of his conference want more time to study the complicated package. 'I think it's unlikely because I just think our members are still -- they want more time to evaluate it,' he said.... He said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) decision to schedule a vote Wednesday to allow the bill to proceed is 'rushing it.'" (Also linked yesterday.)
Republicans' Day of Dysfunction & Defeat
Yesterday was a very bad day for Trump and the Party of Trump:
Catie Edmondson of the New York Times: "Republicans in Congress suffered a humiliating series of setbacks on Tuesday on critical elements of their agenda, turning the Capitol into a den of dysfunction that has left several major issues, including U.S. military aid to Ukraine and Israel, in limbo amid political feuding.... The events that unfolded on Capitol Hill on Tuesday offered a vivid portrait of congressional disarray instigated by Republicans, who are bent on opposing President Biden at every turn but lack a large enough majority or the unity to work their will.... In a dramatic denouement, Democrats brought out Representative Al Green of Texas, still in a hospital gown from having undergone emergency surgery, to vote against the bill [to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas] after he had missed previous votes. That deadlocked the tally, dooming the impeachment effort, which required a simple majority to pass. [Speaker Mike Johnson] left the Capitol without addressing what appeared to be a calamitous miscalculation on the impeachment vote."
** Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Karoun Demirjian of the New York Times: "The United States House of Representatives rejected impeachment charges against Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, on Tuesday after a small group of Republicans broke with their party and refused to support what amounted to a partisan indictment of President Biden's immigration policies. The 216-214 dealt a stunning defeat to Speaker Mike Johnson, who had expressed confidence that he had the votes to charge Mr. Mayorkas with high crimes and misdemeanors for failing to lock down the United States border with Mexico amid a migrant surge, a move that Republicans have been promising for more than a year. In an extraordinary scene on the House floor, Republican leaders held the vote open for several minutes as they scrambled to corral the necessary votes to approve the charges, as Democrats jeered and yelled 'Order!' and the tally hovered at a tie. In the end, three Republican defections -- by Representatives Ken Buck of Colorado, Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, and Tom McClintock of California -- were enough to sink the measure." This is the pinned item in a liveblog. MB: Looks as if the Johnson will bring up the Mayorkas impeachment for a vote again Wednesday.~~~
Update. Catie Edmondson: "Raj Shah, a spokesman for Speaker Johnson, says 'House Republicans fully intend to bring articles of impeachment against Secretary Mayorkas back to the floor when we have the votes for passage.' Assuming no one changes their vote, Republicans would be able to win a slim majority once Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 Republican, returns to Washington. He has been recovering from treatment for multiple myeloma and away from the Capitol for the past few weeks." (Also linked yesterday.)
~~~ CNN's liveblog of the impeachment vote is here. (Also linked yesterday.) An AP story is here.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Manu Raju, et al., of CNN: "The House on Tuesday failed to pass a standalone package for $17.6 billion in Israel aid amid opposition from both Republicans and Democratic leaders. Because of resistance among members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, House Speaker Mike Johnson had been forced to bring up the bill under a procedure that requires two-thirds majority of the House to approve it. That means he needed the support of a sizable number of Democrats to get behind it, and failed to cross that threshold." MB: Apparently Johnson will try again on this one, too. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ "Clown Car Crashes into a Wall." Scott Lemieux in LG&$: "Congressional Republicans are refusing to do anything about the 'crisis' at the border because they don't actually care about the substance of the issue, as opposed to using it as a race-baiting political weapon. It is amazing, however, that House Republicans can't even whip the votes to do empty partisan symbolism over the issue[.]"
The Trials of Trump and the Trump Gang
For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution. -- Federal Appeals Court, in a unanimous decision, released Tuesday
Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role -- the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes -- thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of the Congress.
At bottom, former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. - Ibid. ~~~
~~~ ** Adam Feuer & Charlie Savage of the New York Times: "A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected ... Donald J. Trump's claim that he was immune to charges of plotting to subvert the results of the 2020 election, ruling that he must go to trial on a criminal indictment accusing him of seeking to overturn his loss to President Biden. The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed Mr. Trump a significant defeat, but was unlikely to be the final word on his claims of executive immunity. Mr. Trump is expected to continue his appeal to the Supreme Court -- possibly with an intermediate request to the full appeals court. Still, the panel's 57-page ruling signaled an important moment in American jurisprudence, answering a question that had never been addressed by an appeals court: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office?... The panel said ... that the underlying case, which was put on hold by the trial judge in December, would remain suspended if Mr. Trump appealed its decision to the Supreme Court by Monday, Feb. 12." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Marie: IOW, Trump cannot further delay his trial by appealing the three-judge panel's ruling to the full (en banc) D.C. Appeals court. According to Lisa Rubin of MSNBC, Trump can still appeal to the full appeals court, but the three judges' decision sends the case back to the trial judge as of next Tuesday, so motions and other court business can proceed. Update: Andrew Weissmann agrees with what I wrote: that Trump cannot take the intermediary step of asking for an en banc review by the appeals court; he must go directly to the Supremes -- and he has only a week to do so. ~~~
~~~ The ABC News report is here. And here is the ruling, via the Court. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Marie: At bottom, it is ludicrous to even submit that the framers would have drawn up a Constitution rendering the head of the new government above the law when they had recently fought a bloody revolution to extricate the colonies from arbitrary laws imposed by a "Tyrant" king "who repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
~~~ Marie, Ctd: Two things struck me about the ruling, which I haven't heard anyone else mention (though surely others have). (1) The judges strongly implied that Trump was guilty when they wrote, "Former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government." We've all seen or read enough of the evidence to know that Trump did what he is alleged to have done. (2) The judges on the panel were all women, One White, one Black, on Asian. Misogynist Trump must be livid that three women -- including two of color -- have made a mockery of his assertion he is above the law. ~~~
~~~ Charlie Savage of the New York Times: "... in an opinion on Tuesday eviscerating [Trump's] assertion [that he was immune from criminal prosecution in perpetuity], three federal appeals court judges portrayed his position as not only wrong on the law but also repellent.... The 57-page opinion was issued on behalf of all three members of a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They included two Democratic appointees and, significantly, Judge Karen L. Henderson, a Republican appointee who had sided with Mr. Trump in several earlier legal disputes. The ruling systematically weighed and forcefully rejected each of Mr. Trump's arguments for why the case against him should be dismissed on immunity grounds. The resounding skepticism raised the question of whether the Supreme Court -- to which Mr. Trump is widely expected to appeal -- will decide there is any need for it to take up the case." ~~~
~~ Aaron Blake of the Washington Post with some takeaways from the decision: "1. The decision was full-throated[.]... In repeatedly knocking down [Trump's] claims to immunity, they served notice that it wasn't a particularly close call.... They said there was 'no functional justification' for finding Trump immune.... 2. It used Trump's and his lawyers' own words against him[.]... They noted that Trump's own impeachment lawyers granted that he could still be criminally charged even if acquitted by the Senate. One of those lawyers said the criminal courts were actually the more appropriate venue, given that Trump was a former president at that point.... 3. It hamstrings Trump's efforts to delay[.]... They put their ruling on hold only until Monday, and it would remain on hold only if Trump appeals to the Supreme Court.... 4. It has implications for a second Trump term[.]... They gestured at the idea that a president could even use this immunity to cling to power by breaking the law."
~~~ Marie: And another thing. Clarence Thomas, husband of insurrectionist Ginni -- who even attended the rally at the Ellipse -- would be obligated to recuse himself from any vote on how the Supremes address Trump's appeal, IF the Supremes were bound by any meaningful code of ethics. But it isn't and he won't. ~~~
~~~ (Update. Tobi Raji of the Washington Post looks at the matter of a Thomas recusal, but in relation to the Fourteen Amendment case, which the Supreme Court will hear Thursday. One thing she found: "... the court did not indicate when it took the Colorado ballot case that Thomas, or any justice, would sit out -- which means it is almost certain that all will participate.")
~~~ Khalada Rahman of Newsweek, republished by MSN: "Donald Trump has claimed that every president will be 'immediately indicted' by the opposing party after leaving office if they are not granted immunity.... 'IF IMMUNITY IS NOT GRANTED TO A PRESIDENT, EVERY PRESIDENT THAT LEAVES OFFICE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY INDICTED BY THE OPPOSING PARTY,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Monday night. 'WITHOUT COMPLETE IMMUNITY, A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROPERLY FUNCTION!'" MB: No, Donald, only a corrupt DOJ would automatically and "immediately" indict a former president without cause. I wonder if the Appeals Court gave Trump's attorneys a heads-up yesterday that their ruling was coming Tuesday, because Trumpaloony certainly seemed exercised Monday night. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Marie: If this is true, how come it's never happened in the roughly 225 years of our little experiment in democracy? This sounds more like a promise that if the courts don't give Trump absolute immunity and if he is re-elected, he will make sure Joe Biden is "IMMEDIATELY INDICTED BY THE OPPOSING PARTY."
Luke Broadwater of the New York Times: "More than 60 Republicans -- led by Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida and Representative Elise Stefanik of New York -- said on Tuesday that they had signed onto a resolution declaring that [Donald] Trump 'did not engage in insurrection.'... The measure aims to influence courts and state election officials who are weighing whether Mr. Trump is eligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment's ban on insurrectionists.... Senator J.D. Vance, Republican of Ohio, is introducing a companion measure in the Senate.... Michael Fanone, a former District of Columbia police officer who was badly injured in the mob violence of Jan. 6..., [wrote in a statement,] '... no piece of paper signed by a group of spineless extremists will ever change the facts about that dark day.... The insurrection was violent, it was deadly and it will happen again if we do not expunge the MAGA ideology that stoked the flames of insurrection in the first place.'" The Hill's story is here. ~~~
~~~ Marie: This little resolution on a revolution appears to me to do two things not stated by the instigators: (1) Cover their asses, because most of them were implicated in the insurrection (in fact, some asked Trump for pardons, which he did not grant). (2) Provide Trump with a list of "loyal" members of Congress (and, implicitly "disloyal" members).
Keven Breuninger of CNBC: "The New York judge set to deliver a verdict in the civil business fraud trial of Donald Trump has ordered attorneys in the case to give him details about possible perjury by former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg. Judge Arthur Engoron, in an email to the attorneys made public Tuesday, said that if Weisselberg had lied in one aspect of his testimony, the judge might disregard anything Weisselberg has said on the witness stand or to investigators. Engoron flagged a New York Times report last week that said Weisselberg is negotiating a deal with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office that would require him to plead guilty to perjury. That report, which cited people with knowledge of the matter, said that Weisselberg would have to admit that he lied during his testimony at Trump's fraud trial in Manhattan Supreme Court. Weisselberg, 76, would also have to say he lied under oath during an interview with the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, the Times reported." (Also linked yesterday.) The New York Times story is here.
Colin Kalmbacher of Law & Crime: "Former U.S. Department of Justice attorney Jeffrey Clark lost a bid to delay attorney disciplinary hearings over his efforts to help Donald Trump overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, an appellate court in Washington, D.C., ruled Tuesday morning. The D.C. Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed ethics charges against Clark in July 2022. Those proceedings have been paused for several months as the result of various appeals. Clark motioned to have the case against him removed to a federal court in October 2022. A federal judge denied that request in June 2023 in an opinion finding federal courts have no jurisdiction over attorney licensing disputes."
Matthew Chapman of the Raw Story: "A political fundraising committee tied to ... Donald Trump has diverted $2.3 million to pay the legal bills of former first daughter Ivanka Trump, reported Business Insider on Tuesday. 'The group, called Save America PAC, spent a combined $2.3 million in 2023 for two law firms that represented Ivanka Trump, his eldest daughter, according to a Business Insider review of Federal Election Commission records,' reported Jacob Sherman. 'The PAC spent an additional $5.3 million on the law firm Robert & Robert, which represented his three eldest children -- Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, and Donald Trump, Jr. -- as well as the Trump Organization in an array of lawsuits that have no apparent relation to Trump's campaign to retake the presidency in the 2024 election.'"
Johnny Diaz of the New York Times: "A security officer who had worked as a contractor for the State Department was arrested on federal charges on Tuesday in connection with his participation in the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the authorities said. The employee, Kevin Michael Alstrup, was arrested in Washington on charges of entering and remaining in a restricted building; disorderly and disruptive conduct; and picketing or parading in the Capitol building, according to an arrest warrant that was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia." The NBC News story is here.
Presidential Race + RNC
Nevada Primary. Alex Seitz-Wald of NBC News: "President Joe Biden easily won Nevada's Democratic presidential primary Tuesday night, NBC News projects.... Rep. Dean Phillips, the Minnesota Democrat running a long-shot primary challenge against Biden, entered the race too late to get on the ballot in Nevada, meaning self-help author Marianne Williamson was Biden's best-known challenger in Tuesday's contest. Biden is on track to win the vast majority of the vote, with Williamson finishing far behind him, just as she did in the two previous contests, in New Hampshire and South Carolina." ~~~
~~~ Nevada Primary. Haley Loses to None-of-the-Above. Kellen Browning of the New York Times: "Nikki Haley was outvoted in Nevada's Republican presidential primary by a 'None of These Candidates' option on the ballot on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, an embarrassment in a contest in which she faced no direct competition. The primary, which awards no delegates, had seemed like a foregone conclusion, as ... Donald J. Trump chose not to take part. On Thursday, he will instead participate in party-run caucuses where all of the state's 26 delegates will be awarded, a choice by Nevada Republicans that complicated the process and rendered the primary basically irrelevant. As the top vote-getter after 'None of These Candidates,' Ms. Haley is still expected to be declared the victor, according to the secretary of state's office, which pointed to a state election law that says 'only votes cast for the named candidates shall be counted' when determining the result.... Supporters of Mr. Trump in Nevada, including Gov. Joe Lombardo, had advocated selecting 'None of These Candidates' on the primary ballot as a protest vote against Ms. Haley."
Maggie Haberman, et al., of the New York Times: "The chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, has told ... Donald J. Trump she is planning to step down shortly after the South Carolina primary on Feb. 24, according to two people familiar with the plans. Mr. Trump is then likely to promote the chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, Michael Whatley, as her replacement, according to several people.... Under the arcana of the committee's rules, however, Mr. Trump cannot simply install someone. A new election must take place, and Mr. Whatley could face internal party dissent. Ms. McDaniel has faced months of pressure, a campaign from Trump-allied forces to unseat her and growing dissatisfaction and anxiety in the Trump camp about the strained finances of the R.N.C.... Mr. Trump likes Mr. Whatley for one overwhelming reason...: He is 'a stop the steal guy,' as one of the people described him. He endorses Mr. Trump's false claims about mass voter fraud and Mr. Trump believes he did a good job delivering North Carolina, a 2020 swing state, to him." Politico's story is here.
Maxine Joselow of the Washington Post: "The Environmental Protection Agency is strengthening limits on fine particulate matter, one of the nation's most widespread deadly air pollutants, prompting praise from public health experts and backlash from business groups. The stricter standards could prevent thousands of premature deaths, particularly in communities of color where people have breathed unhealthy air for decades. While business groups don't dispute these enormous health benefits, they argue that the standards could cause major economic upheaval by erasing manufacturing jobs across the country. The rule illustrates the challenges facing the Biden administration as it balances two priorities: Reducing pollution in overburdened communities and reviving U.S. manufacturing."
Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: "When ... Donald J. Trump, in his final hours in the White House in early 2021, commuted a 10-year drug smuggling sentence being served by a New Yorker named Jonathan Braun, he made no mention of Mr. Braun's many other legal problems. Months earlier, the Federal Trade Commission and the New York State attorney general had filed suits against Mr. Braun saying he swindled and intimidated borrowers who had taken money from a network of predatory lenders he ran, charging usurious interest rates and making violent threats. On Tuesday, a federal judge in New York imposed $20 million in fines on Mr. Braun after finding him liable for the accusations made by the trade commission. Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Federal District Court in Manhattan excoriated Mr. Braun in the ruling, depicting him as a hardened, craven man who 'gleefully, with little remorse,' boasted about his illegal conduct and treated it as a 'laughing matter' as he threatened the business owners he gouged." (Also linked yesterday.)
Annals of "Journalism," Ha Ha Ha. Anton Troianovski, et al., of the New York Times: "Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host, has interviewed President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, the Kremlin said on Wednesday, a sign that the Russian leader is seeking to make a direct appeal to American conservatives as U.S. aid to Ukraine hangs in the balance.... Mr. Carlson has been in Moscow for several days, according to Russian state media, which has delivered a blow-by-blow account of his visit.... 'We're here to interview the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin,' Mr. Carlson said in a video apparently shot from a high-rise building in central Moscow and posted to the social media network X. 'We'll be doing that soon.'... In promoting the expected interview, Mr. Carlson falsely asserted that he was alone among Western media figures in trying to interview Mr. Putin." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Well, now, I might have to take back all the nasty things I've said about TuKKKer. It takes guts to even enter a high-rise in Moscow, much less publicize one's whereabouts. Luckily for our hero, he has managed to avert an assisted leap from the window. So far.
~~~~~~~~~~
Michigan. Ed White of the AP: "A Michigan jury convicted a school shooter's mother of involuntary manslaughter Tuesday in a first-of-its-kind trial to determine whether she had any responsibility in the deaths of four students in 2021. Prosecutors say Jennifer Crumbley was grossly negligent when she failed to tell Oxford High School that the family had guns, including a 9 mm handgun that her son, Ethan Crumbley, used at a shooting range on the weekend before the Nov. 30, 2021, attack." (Also linked yesterday.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Israel/Palestine, et al. The Washington Post's live updates of developments Wednesday in the Israel/Hamas war are here: "Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, on a visit to discuss a possible deal to release the Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza in return for an extended pause in fighting. Hamas officials confirmed on Wednesday that the group's latest response to a cease-fire proposal included hostage releases in three phrases, an initial 45-day pause in fighting and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.... Blinken said he would discuss Hamas's response with top Israeli officials on Wednesday, on his fifth visit to the region since the war in Gaza began.... Hamas floated the response to a broad framework negotiated among the United States, Qatar and Egypt, with participation by Israel. Blinken said there was 'a lot of work to be done,' while Qatar's prime minister said Hamas's response to the proposal was generally positive. Netanyahu has adamantly refused to consider a permanent cease-fire."
Share Article