The Trump thread: All things Donald

[Athos_131]

Trump cannot block his critics on Twitter, federal appeals court rules

Trump cannot block his critics from the Twitter feed he regularly uses to communicate with the public, a federal appeals court said Tuesday, in a case with implications for how elected officials nationwide interact with constituents on social media.

The decision from the New York-based appeals court upholds an earlier ruling that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked individual users who were critical of the president or his policies.

Public officials who take to social media for official government business, the court said Tuesday, are prohibited from excluding people “from an otherwise open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees,” wrote Judge Barrington D. Parker in the unanimous decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

“In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”

Trump’s Twitter habits through his @realDonaldTrump account were central to the case brought by seven people blocked after posting disapproving comments in 2017.

The First Amendment prevents the government from blocking or excluding views it disagrees with in what is known as “viewpoint discrimination.” The Supreme Court has not directly addressed how the law applies to expanding digital spaces for public debate, and the case involving the president’s account — with more than 61 million followers — was a high-profile legal test.

Elected officials throughout the country are also learning to navigate how those principles apply to their social media accounts. The ruling from the New York-based appeals court echoed an earlier decision from the Richmond-based appeals court involving the Facebook page of a Virginia politician.

In the president’s case, attorneys from the Knight Institute at Columbia University, representing the blocked users, said Trump’s Twitter account is an extension of the presidency that is routinely used by Trump to announce government nominations, defend his polices and promote his legislative agenda. The comment section is no different from a traditional town hall meeting, they said, and citizens must be allowed to respond directly to government officials and engage in public policy debates.

“Public officials’ social media accounts are now among the most significant forums for discussion of government policy,” Knight Institute Executive Director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement after the ruling.

“This decision will ensure that people aren’t excluded from these forums simply because of their viewpoints. It will help ensure the integrity and vitality of digital spaces that are increasingly important to our democracy.”

Justice Department lawyers defending the president said in court that @realDonaldTrump is a personal account on a privately owned digital platform and that Trump may block followers he “does not wish to hear.” The president’s lawyers drew parallels to the physical properties Trump and other presidents owned before taking office. A president’s residence — or social media account — does not become government property when the president conducts government business there.

The president had unblocked the seven people behind the initial lawsuit while the case was pending on appeal.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco said in a statement Tuesday, “We are disappointed with the court’s decision and are exploring possible next steps.”

“As we argued, President Trump’s decision to block users from his personal Twitter account does not violate the First Amendment,” Laco said.

The court’s decision Tuesday addressed only the interactive spaces on Twitter for replies and comments, and applies to accounts used to conduct official business.

“Since he took office, the President has consistently used the Account as an important tool of governance and executive outreach,” Barrington wrote in the 29-page opinion, joined by Judges Peter W. Hall and Christopher F. Droney.

“Because the President, as we have seen, acts in an official capacity when he tweets, we conclude that he acts in the same capacity when he blocks those who disagree with him,” Barrington wrote.

The judges did not decide whether elected officials violate the Constitution when they block users from “wholly private accounts.” The ruling also did not address whether private social media companies like Twitter are bound by the First Amendment when “policing” their platforms.

The judges did, however, acknowledge the role social media plays in modern public policy discussion.

“The irony in all of this is that we write at a time in the history of this nation when the conduct of our government and its officials is subject to wide-open, robust debate. This debate encompasses an extraordinarily broad range of ideas and viewpoints and generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen,” Barrington wrote. “This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing.”

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Federal judge rejects Trump administration’s bid to swap out lawyers for Census case on citizenship question

A federal judge in New York on Tuesday denied a bid from the Justice Department to replace the team of lawyers on the census citizenship question case, writing that its request to do so was “patently deficient.”

The department had earlier this week announced its intention to swap out the legal team on the case — without saying exactly why. A person familiar with the matter said the decision was driven in part by frustration among at least some of the career lawyers who had been assigned to the case about how it was being handled, though the department wanted to replace those in both career and political positions.

But U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the formal, legal bid to do so.

“Defendants provide no reasons, let alone ‘satisfactory reasons,’ for the substitution of counsel,” Furman wrote. He also noted that a filing in the case was due from the department in just three days, and that the department had previously pushed for the matter to be moved along quickly.

“If anything, that urgency — and the need for efficient judicial proceedings — has only grown since that time,” Furman wrote.

Furman said the department could refile its request, if it gave “satisfactory reasons” for the attorneys’ withdrawal and promise that the attorneys who had worked the case previously would be available upon request. The judge also asked the department to “file an affidavit providing unequivocal assurances that the substitution of counsel will not delay further litigation of this case (or any future related case).”

Furman did allow two attorneys, who had previously left the Justice Department, to be removed.

The judge’s decision was latest development in the continuing effort by the Trump administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.

In a ruling late last month, the Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration’s plan to add the question, saying the government had provided a “contrived” reason for wanting the citizenship information.

The Justice and Commerce departments then effectively conceded defeat — but Trump soon ordered the lawyers to do an about-face and come up with ways to keep the fight alive.

Furman’s move could force the Justice Department to expose more of its messy, internal debates over the Census case. Those attorneys who object to the handling of it might proceed without signing briefs, serving up a regular, public reminder of how fraught the case has become internally. The department might also choose to lay out more detailed reasons for wanting the attorneys off in a subsequent request.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the judge’s decision.

*laugh*

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Epstein is in jail. But Trump continues to make a mockery of justice.

Too often in America, poor people (especially poor black people) go to prison for crimes they didn’t commit, while rich people (especially rich white people) don’t go to prison even for crimes they have committed.

The Central Park Five — four young African Americans and one young Latino — spent years in prison for the rape of a white jogger in 1989, which DNA evidence later proved they did not commit. At the time of the crime, Donald Trump even called for them to receive the death penalty.

Contrast that with the handling of a more recent case of alleged rape in suburban Monmouth County, N.J. A 16-year-old boy was accused of filming himself having sex with an intoxicated 16-year-old girl who was slurring her speech and stumbling. Prosecutors said he then circulated a video clip to his friends, texting them, “when your first time having sex was rape.” Yet, a family court judge refused a request from prosecutors to charge the defendant as an adult with aggravated sexual assault because “this young man comes from a good family,” he attended “an excellent school,” and was “clearly a candidate for not just college but probably for a good college.” (An appeals court overruled Judge James Troiano’s decision last month.)

Given such pervasive disparities, it is deeply satisfying to see rich, powerful men such as Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and, now, Jeffrey Epstein be called to account for their alleged crimes against women. Epstein’s indictment Monday on charges of sexual trafficking of minors was particularly welcome, given the way the billionaire slithered out of an earlier case in Miami in 2008. In a report last year, the Miami Herald identified at least 60 girls, some as young as 13, that Epstein had preyed on dating back to 2001. Yet, by assembling a high-powered, politically connected legal team that included Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth W. Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, Epstein was able to negotiate a generous plea deal with Alexander Acosta — then the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, now the labor secretary — that allowed him to serve about a year in a Palm Beach, Fla., jail while leaving that facility six days a week, 12 hours a day for “work release.”

Epstein was protected not just by his enormous wealth, but also by all of his connections with powerful individuals — such as former president Bill Clinton, the current Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., and Britain’s Prince Andrew. Epstein’s friends now claim to barely know him, but it was a different story in the past. Back in 2002, Trump said, “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

Trump himself had an avowed interest in young women: He once reportedly bragged about barging into a dressing room to ogle naked Miss Teen USA contestants. Were Trump and the others aware that Epstein was allegedly molesting underage girls? They have strenuously denied the accusation. If they are lying, Epstein’s enablers in both parties deserve a public reckoning, even if no criminal charges can be filed against them.

But let’s get real. Whatever Trump’s connections with Epstein, the president has been accused of so much criminal conduct that failure to bring him to justice undermines the message of “equal justice under the law” sent by Epstein’s long-overdue indictment.

Sixteen women have accused Trump of some form of sexual assault. Trump has denied the allegations, but their charges are given credence by Trump’s own boast that, as a “star,” he is entitled to grab women by their private parts. The most serious accusation came out just last month: E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. The president claims that Carroll is “totally lying” and is “not my type,” but she told two friends about the alleged attack at the time, and they have come forward to corroborate her account. As George Conway noted in The Post, Carroll’s story “actually rests upon a significantly stronger foundation” than that of Juanita Broaddrick, whose claims of having been raped by Bill Clinton are widely believed on the right. Yet, just a few weeks after Carroll made her explosive allegations, they have fizzled out. There has been no official investigation (that we know of) and no consequences for Trump. His approval rating has actually gone up!

The president has also suffered, to date, no real repercussions for the damning conclusions in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s blockbuster report — even though, according to more than 1,000 former federal prosecutors, there is sufficient evidence against the president to bring “multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.” Nor has Trump been held to account for allegedly conspiring with his lawyer Michael Cohen to violate federal campaign-finance laws — crimes for which Cohen is now serving prison time. More recently, Trump has acted in flagrant contempt of congressional subpoenas. Now, he is even flouting a Supreme Court ruling that would keep a question about citizenship off the 2020 Census form.

Congress won’t move to impeach Trump when 59 percent of the public opposes such a move — and federal prosecutors can’t indict a sitting president according to the president’s own Justice Department. The way things are going, Trump may very well win reelection. As long as Trump sits in the White House, unindicted and unimpeached, justice in America will remain a chimera.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump barred Jeffrey Epstein from Mar-a-Lago over sex assault: court docs

Jeffrey Epstein turned Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago into another of his hunting grounds for young girls, leading Trump to bar him from the Florida resort, court papers claim.

“Trump allegedly banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted a girl at the club,” according to the papers, filed in the Sunshine State as part of an ongoing legal battle between Epstein and Bradley Edwards, who represented many of Epstein’s underage accusers in civil suits against him.

The filing is dated April 2011, well before Trump ascended to the presidency.

The same filing also cites an underage Jane Doe’s allegation that Epstein’s girlfriend-turned-pal Ghislane Maxwell recruited her at Mar-a-Lago to be the couple’s “sex slave.”

Trump has previously praised Epstein as a “terrific guy” and, according to the filing, Epstein once welcomed Trump aboard his private plane, hosted him in his Palm Beach home and had 14 phone numbers for Trump in a computer directory.

But the president on Tuesday distanced himself from the freshly arrested, convicted pedophile.

“I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him,” Trump told reporters at the White House of Epstein during an appearance with Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. “I had a falling out a long time ago, I’d say maybe 15 years.

“I was not a fan of his, that I can tell you.”

Messages left for Edwards, as well as Epstein’s criminal lawyer, Reid Weingarten, were not immediately returned.

Look like Trump got his playbook from Joe Paterno, don't call the cops when a sex crime is committed.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

The big question Acosta failed to answer

Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta defended the controversial 2008 plea deal he cut with financier Jeffrey Epstein in a lengthy news conference Wednesday. He spent much of it casting his decision as a choice. The choice, according to Acosta, was between (1) a plea deal that would put Epstein behind bars and (2) either state charges that were insufficient or a federal prosecution that might fail.

“He needed to go to jail,” Acosta said in defending the decision to cut a deal, “and that was the focus.”

But what if that’s a false choice?

There are many questions emanating from the Epstein plea deal Acosta agreed to as a U.S. attorney in Miami, now that Epstein has been indicted on a charge of child trafficking. Epstein only had to register as a sex offender and wound up going to jail for just 13 months — a much shorter sentence than the one he faces today.

Chief among them is this one: Why did that decision have to be made right then and there? If the evidence wasn’t there yet to be confident in a large-scale federal case, why not investigate further and hopefully uncover what federal prosecutors in New York revealed on Monday?

As we’ve found out in recent days, there was clearly more evidence there to discover. The new indictment involves conduct that allegedly took place between 2002 and 2005 — years before the plea deal — and spanned Epstein’s homes in New York and Palm Beach, Fla. But the deal Acosta cut with Epstein included a non-prosecution agreement that effectively ended the investigation. The non-prosecution agreement was included in the deal even though, as we found out last year in a newly revealed FBI document, the FBI was still interviewing potential witnesses and victims “from across the United States” at the time.

NBC News’s Peter Alexander asked Acosta that question — why not just keep investigating? — but Acosta didn’t fully answer it. He instead emphasized that it only shut down the investigation in the Southern District of Florida and that the victims who were known at the time were allowed to pursue civil litigation.

“That does not mean that the investigation had to end nationwide,” Acosta said, adding: “And as we saw in New York, investigations have proceeded in other districts.”

As we’ve seen, though, it would be more than a decade before another office would discover enough evidence to confidently indict Epstein. It’s logical to ask how much sooner that could have come about if the investigation in Florida hadn’t been forced to a conclusion.

That’s a huge what-if, and such decisions are undoubtedly very difficult. Acosta was patient and accommodating to reporters on Wednesday. He answered many questions about the matter over the course of nearly an hour. He was quick to point to affidavits from a career prosecutor and an FBI agent who worked on the case effectively vouching for him. He shrugged off questions about his political future, saying his appearance was more about setting the record straight when it came to a tough decision.

But the deal that was cut is one thing; the timing of it was another. And by casting himself and federal prosecutors as coming to the rescue of a flawed and inadequate state prosecution by cutting a deal with Epstein, he’s not accounting for the full range of options.

He’d do better to offer a more substantial answer to Alexander’s question.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Jeffrey Epstein Was a ‘Terrific Guy,’ Donald Trump Once Said. Now He’s ‘Not a Fan.’

It was supposed to be an exclusive party at Mar-a-Lago, Donald J. Trump’s members-only club in Palm Beach, Fla. But other than the two dozen or so women flown in to provide the entertainment, the only guests were Mr. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.

The year was 1992 and the event was a “calendar girl” competition, something that George Houraney, a Florida-based businessman who ran American Dream Enterprise, had organized at Mr. Trump’s request.

“I arranged to have some contestants fly in,” Mr. Houraney recalled in an interview on Monday. “At the very first party, I said, ‘Who’s coming tonight? I have 28 girls coming.’ It was him and Epstein.”

Mr. Houraney, who had just partnered with Mr. Trump to host events at his casinos, said he was surprised. “I said, ‘Donald, this is supposed to be a party with V.I.P.s. You’re telling me it’s you and Epstein?’”

In fact, that was the case, an indication of a yearslong friendship between the president and Mr. Epstein that some say ended only after a failed business arrangement between them. The full nature of their eventual falling out is not clear.

But through a mutual appreciation of wealth and women, and years of occupying adjacent real estate in Palm Beach and on Page Six, the lives of the two men routinely intersected for decades — until the connection turned from a status symbol into a liability, and Mr. Trump made sure to publicize the fact that he had barred his onetime friend from his clubs.

“In those days, if you didn’t know Trump and you didn’t know Epstein, you were a nobody,” said Alan Dershowitz, the longtime Harvard University Law School professor who later served on Mr. Epstein’s defense team when he was charged with unlawful sex with minors in 2006.

Before Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty to the charges, and was mainly known as a reclusive, sweat-shirt-sporting billionaire who liked the company of young women, Mr. Trump spoke enthusiastically about their relationship.

“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,” Mr. Trump told New York magazine in 2002. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

He also dismissed Mr. Houraney’s warning about his friend’s conduct.

“I said, ‘Look, Donald, I know Jeff really well, I can’t have him going after younger girls,’” Mr. Houraney remembers. “He said, ‘Look I’m putting my name on this. I wouldn’t put my name on it and have a scandal.’”

Mr. Houraney said he “pretty much had to ban Jeff from my events — Trump didn’t care about that.”

Shortly before the 2016 presidential election, Mr. Houraney accused Mr. Trump himself of inappropriate behavior toward his girlfriend and business partner, Jill Harth, during their business dealings.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

But speaking Tuesday to reporters in the Oval Office, the president distanced himself from Mr. Epstein, noting that he “knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him.” But Mr. Trump added: “I had a falling out with him. I haven’t spoken to him in 15 years. I was not a fan of his, that I can tell you.”

Mr. Epstein, who was charged on Monday in Manhattan with sex trafficking, is better known as a longtime friend of former President Bill Clinton’s than as a close associate of Mr. Trump’s. In fact, the relationship with Mr. Trump turned so toxic that Mr. Epstein at one point told friends that he blamed Mr. Trump for his legal problems with the Palm Beach County police.

But while Mr. Trump has dismissed the relationship, Mr. Epstein, since the election, has played it up, claiming to people that he was the one who introduced Mr. Trump to his third wife, Melania Trump, though neither of the Trumps has ever mentioned Mr. Epstein playing a role in their meeting. Mrs. Trump has said that her future husband simply asked for her phone number at a party at the Kit Kat Club during Fashion Week in

Mr. Epstein was never a dues-paying member of the Mar-a-Lago club, according to an official at the Trump Organization. But as a guest of a guest, he was treated like a close friend by the club’s owner and self-appointed headwaiter, Mr. Trump.

The two were photographed together there in the 1990s and early 2000s, Mr. Trump always in a tie, Mr. Epstein always without. And in Manhattan, they attended many of the same dinner parties, like the one that Mr. Epstein hosted for Prince Andrew, where the guest list also included Ron Perelman and Mort Zuckerman, among others.

But longtime Trump associates played down their closeness, saying that was simply how Mr. Trump treated any guest at his club — checking on their steaks, bragging about his meatloaf, scanning the room for a better table so guests felt like they were getting special treatment.

Since Mr. Trump’s decision to enter the presidential race in 2015, his aides and allies have been eager to minimize any connection to Mr. Epstein, knowing that Mr. Epstein’s relationship with Mr. Clinton would be investigated at a time Hillary Clinton was likely to be his opponent.

Roger J. Stone Jr., the former Trump adviser, wrote in his book “The Clintons’ War on Women,” which was published during the campaign, that Mr. Trump “turned down many invitations to Epstein’s hedonistic private island and his Palm Beach home.” Once when Mr. Trump visited Mr. Epstein at his Palm Beach home, Mr. Stone wrote about the scene of underage girls he witnessed there.

“The swimming pool was filled with beautiful young girls,” Mr. Trump later told a Mar-a-Lago member, according to Mr. Stone. “‘How nice,’ I thought, ‘he let the neighborhood kids use his pool.’”

Sam Nunberg, a former campaign aide to Mr. Trump, said he raised concerns about the candidate’s involvement with Mr. Epstein before Mr. Trump officially began his presidential campaign. But Mr. Trump assured Mr. Nunberg that he had barred Mr. Epstein from entering his clubs after Mr. Epstein had tried to recruit a woman who worked at Mar-a-Lago.

“Trump said, ‘I kicked him out of the clubs when this stuff became public, and I made sure NBC knew,’” Mr. Nunberg recalled.

Mr. Trump appeared fully aware of what a liability his onetime Palm Beach pal had become.

Mr. Nunberg said that in early 2015, he was beckoned into Mr. Trump’s office at Trump Tower in Manhattan, along with Corey Lewandowski, then his campaign manager, and Michael D. Cohen, then Mr. Trump’s private lawyer, after David J. Pecker of The National Enquirer had just left the building.

Mr. Trump showed the two men a copy of a new issue of The Enquirer that had yet to hit the stands, with pictures of Mr. Epstein’s private island. Mr. Trump was gleeful about Mr. Epstein’s connection to the Clintons and hinted there would be more to come.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump retreats on adding citizenship question to 2020 Census

President Trump on Thursday backed down from his controversial push to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, effectively conceding defeat in a battle he had revived just last week and promised to continue despite a recent string of legal defeats.

Trump announced that he instead plans to order every federal agency to give records to the Commerce Department that detail the numbers of citizens and noncitizens in the United States.

“I’m proud to be a citizen, you’re proud to be a citizen,” Trump said at the late afternoon event in the White House Rose Garden. “The only people that are not proud to be citizens are the ones who are fighting us all the way about the word ‘citizen.’ ”

The announcement marked the end of a 19-month push by the administration to ask about citizenship status on the decennial survey, which opponents decried as an effort to systematically undercount Latinos and scare immigrant communities from participating in a survey that helps determine congressional districts and the disbursement of some federal funds.

It also followed days of confusion and mixed signals from the administration over how it would proceed following a Supreme Court ruling late last month that the government could not include the question on the census without a solid justification. The court found the administration’s original rationale for the addition “contrived.”

In the wake of that ruling, the Commerce Department announced last week that it would drop the issue because it needed to begin printing the survey. But a furious Trump reversed that decision the next day, saying that he was not giving up on asking about citizenship.

“We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question,” he tweeted July 3.

On Thursday, however, Trump scrapped that plan and said he would instead instruct agencies to provide Commerce with the records — calling that process “far more accurate.”

But the political tensions over Trump’s push to collect citizenship data and concerns he may have already scared immigrant communities from fully participating in the census are likely to continue even if they are reduced for now.

Earlier Thursday, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said the Democratic-led chamber will vote Tuesday to hold Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress for not complying with subpoenas related to the administration’s decision to include the citizenship question.

The White House has asserted executive privilege over the information. House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), whose panel oversees the census, said the president’s announcement would not alter the planned vote.

“The President just admitted what his Administration has been denying for two years — that he wants citizenship data in order to gerrymander legislative districts in partisan and discriminatory ways. This never had anything to do with helping to enforce the Voting Rights Act. That was a sham, and now the entire country can see that.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she is “jubilant” about Trump’s retreat.

“If he had tried to defy the Supreme Court, that would have been a constitutional crisis,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “So for the basis of the census and the citizenship question, I’m glad it’s gone. For the basis of the country, I’m glad that he was advised to see the light.”

Barr, who stood alongside Trump and Ross in the Rose Garden, defended the administration’s plan to add the question, but said the effort had to be abandoned because a protracted legal fight would impede the administration’s ability to conduct the 2020 survey.

“We’re not going to jeopardize our ability to carry out the census,” Barr said. “So as a practical matter, the Supreme Court’s decision closed all paths,” adding that it was a “logistical” impediment, not a legal one.

Barr argued that the data is needed regardless of how it is collected, citing congressional apportionment purposes as an example — although the attorney general’s assertion is disputed by experts who note that apportionment is based on the number of “persons” in the United States, not citizens.

Gone unmentioned in the Rose Garden announcement Thursday was the administration’s initial rationale for seeking to add the citizenship question to the census: that the data was needed for the Justice Department to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

While Trump portrayed his executive order on data collection as a new proposal, it is similar to the very approach that the Census Bureau recommended after Ross said he was exploring adding a citizenship question to the form.

In a January 2018 memo to Ross, the bureau’s chief scientist, John Abowd, predicted that adding a citizenship question to the form would result in “major potential quality and cost disruptions” to the 2020 survey, whereas using administrative records would have no impact.

Administrative data comes from existing records collected and maintained by government agencies such as the Social Security Administration. Ross announced in March 2018 that he had decided to use such data along with adding a citizenship question, setting off a year and a half of legal and political battles.

The use of administrative data could provide an accurate determination of citizenship status down to the block level, according to the Census Bureau. That information could not be used to determine the number of congressional seats in each state, but it could be used by states to determine how districts are drawn, and some in the administration have suggested the data could be used to help in immigration enforcement.

Another potential issue with pushing for a citizenship question on the decennial census is that the question, which exists on the bureau’s smaller American Community Survey, has a history of being answered inaccurately when the results are compared with existing administrative data. On that survey, which goes to about 3 million households a year, roughly one-third of noncitizens report that they are citizens, according to Abowd’s memo to Ross.

As news of the president’s planned announcement circulated, critics of the question expressed relief but said the government’s lengthy and highly publicized determination to get it onto the survey will itself likely depress the response rate.

The president’s decision “tells me that he has created chaos for 18 months and put the census in jeopardy only to fall on the original recommendation of the Census Bureau,” said Terri Ann Lowenthal, a former staff director of the House census oversight subcommittee. “While I’m pleased that he’s standing down in his push to add the question, at this point his actions will have been reckless and will still have consequences for people’s participation in the census.”

Advocacy groups that had been challenging the administration’s push to include the citizenship question on the 2020 Census promised to closely scrutinize the administration’s plan for collecting citizenship data once it is detailed publicly.

“Trump may claim victory today, but this is nothing short of a total, humiliating defeat for him and his administration,” said Dale Ho, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project, who argued the census case at the Supreme Court.

Trump’s abrupt reversal last week caused days of chaos and confusion for the pending legal challenges.

This week, the Justice Department sought to replace the team of lawyers assigned to the effort, after at least some career attorneys on the case grew frustrated with the Trump administration’s sudden shift in position, according to a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an internal matter. Two federal judges have since denied that bid.

The Justice Department will “promptly inform the courts that the government will not include a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census,” according to spokeswoman Kerri Kupec. That could end the ongoing litigation — though the decision would ultimately be up to federal judges handling each of the cases.

Trump’s announcement came as litigation is pending in Maryland over whether the government intended to discriminate against minorities when it added the question. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in that case said they would not stop work on it until they receive written confirmation that the government will not add the question to the 2020 Census, particularly after the government’s about-face earlier this month.

“Given the events of the last two weeks, we need an ironclad commitment from DOJ, and an enforceable order from the court. Then the case can be dismissed,” said Denise Hulett, an attorney who represents the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a plaintiff in the case.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Alex Acosta resigns as labor secretary, the latest Trump official to leave amid scandal

Labor Secretary Alex Acosta’s resignation Friday amid the mushrooming Jeffrey Epstein investigation made him the latest in a growing list of President Trump’s Cabinet to depart under a cloud of scandal, plunging an administration that has struggled with record turnover into further upheaval.

Trump announced Acosta’s departure in a morning appearance together on the South Lawn, telling reporters that his labor secretary had chosen to step down a day after defending himself in a contentious news conference over his role as a U.S. attorney a decade ago in a deal with Epstein that allowed the financier to plead guilty to lesser offenses in a sex-crimes case involving underage girls.

The president expressed regret over Acosta’s decision, calling him a “great labor secretary” and saying he had reassured the secretary that “you don’t have to do this.”

“It was him, not me,” Trump said, though behind the scenes he had grown uncertain about Acosta’s future, according to administration aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter.

The sole Hispanic member of Trump’s Cabinet said the intense media focus on his role in Epstein’s case had threatened to become a distraction that would undermine his work for the administration. Trump has sought to promote robust job growth and record low unemployment in his appeal to workers and organized labor as he ramps up his reelection campaign.

But Trump, who as a private businessman had socialized with Epstein in the early 2000s, has come under renewed scrutiny for his ties to the disgraced financier and faced fresh questions over his decision to hire Acosta. Trump has said he had a falling out with Epstein and cut off their relationship 15 years ago.

“I don’t think it is right and fair for this administration’s labor department to have Epstein as the focus rather than the incredible economy we have today,” said Acosta, whose resignation will take effect in a week. “It would be selfish for me to stay in the position and continue talking about a case that is 12 years old.”

Trump said that Patrick Pizzella, the deputy secretary of labor, will become acting secretary of the department.

Acosta’s rapid downfall closed a 2 1/2 year-tenure that began only after Trump’s first choice for Labor Secretary, fast food mogul Andrew Puzder, withdrew from consideration amid questions from Senate Democrats over potential conflicts of interest and his policy positions.

In all, 13 Cabinet members named by Trump have departed over 30 months, not counting those who served in an acting capacity, and several others left under ethics scandals, including Tom Price at Health and Human Services, David Shulkin at Veterans Affairs, Scott Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency and Ryan Zinke at Interior.

Ronny L. Jackson, whom Trump nominated to replace Shulkin, had his name pulled by the White House after allegations of mismanagement during his time as the White House physician. And last month, Patrick Shanahan dropped out of contention to become the permanent Defense Secretary after revelations over his marriage and family background.

Several others, including Jeff Sessions at Justice, Jim Mattis at the Pentagon, Kirstjen Nielsen at Homeland Security and James B. Comey at the FBI, have been forced out amid increasing acrimony in their personal relationships with Trump or the president’s frustration with their performances.

It is a dismal record for a president who boasted of hiring only “the best people.”

Trump has struggled to keep up with the frequent vacancies, and he has moved in several cases to allow acting secretaries, who do not require Senate confirmation, to handle the duties, raising questions of accountability from congressional Democrats and good governance groups.

Still, Acosta’s departure seemed almost inevitable, coming amid mounting calls for his resignation on Capitol Hill.

“Given the serious questions about his handling of the Epstein case and his failure to take responsibility for his conduct, Mr. Acosta was no longer entitled to public confidence,” Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.), chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, said in a statement. “The Epstein case is an extraordinary example of the ordinary ways in which money and power often determine who prevails in our criminal justice system. We must have a national conversation about the deep inequities that this case represents.”

The 2008 plea deal in Florida came that Acosta was involved in came under renewed scrutiny in light of Epstein’s indictment Monday on more child sex trafficking charges in New York.

Eleven years ago, Epstein, 66, had signed a non-prosecution agreement with federal authorities and pleaded guilty in state court in 2008 to felony solicitation of underage girls.

During his 13-month sentence in a Palm Beach, Fla., jail, Epstein was allowed to work out of his office six days a week. As U.S. attorney, Acosta approved the deal. A federal judge this year ruled that prosecutors violated the rights of victims by failing to notify them of an agreement not to bring federal charges.

At a news conference Wednesday, Acosta defended his role, stating that a state’s attorney in Palm Beach County was preparing to allow Epstein to plead to a single charge of solicitation that did not make a reference to the age of the female minor. That deal would have carried no jail time and would not have required Epstein to register as a sex offender.

“We wanted to see Epstein go to jail,” Acosta said. “He needed to go to jail.”

The former state’s attorney for Palm Beach County at the time of the Epstein plea deal released a statement disputing Acosta’s account following the news conference.

“I can emphatically state that Mr. Acosta’s recollection of this matter is completely wrong,” said Barry E. Krischer, who added that Acosta could have moved forward with a 53-page indictment that his office had drafted.

House Democrats called on Acosta to appear at a hearing on the matter in two weeks.

After Acosta’s news conference, the reaction inside the White House was mixed, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly.

Some aides thought Acosta had adequately explained his handling of the Epstein case, and had “won” by not further harming himself, the official said. But others had been expecting a more animated performance and found Acosta’s time before the cameras disappointing, saying he had failed to mount a full-throated defense of himself.

Trump expressed skepticism at Acosta’s performance and began asking senior aides what he should do about him, according to two White House officials, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly.

Acosta was disliked by acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who told others he was ineffective at implementing the administration’s deregulation agenda, the officials said.

But Trump did not originally want to be seen as cutting ties with him over a decade-old episode, even as some of his longest advisers believed Acosta’s departure was inevitable given the cascade of sustained news coverage and the facts of the case.

A Republican strategist frequently in touch with the White House said lawyers in the White House Counsel’s Office viewed the 2008 plea deal as seriously flawed and did not expect the controversy to fade.

The strategist, who was not authorized to speak for the White House and who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the local prosecutor’s comments contradicting Acosta were also “pretty awful.”

Trump told reporters he thought Acosta had “explained” the plea deal during his news conference.

“He made a deal that people were happy with, and 12 years later they weren’t happy with it,” Trump said. “You’ll have to figure that out.”

Spencer Kuvin, a Florida-based attorney who represented the 14-year-old girl who first reported Epstein to police, called Acosta’s resignation a step toward accountability.

“It is fantastic news that finally the people who were involved in this awful sweetheart deal for a pedophile are being held to account for their failures,” Kuvin said.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Rep. Green files articles of impeachment against Trump despite pushback from Democratic leaders

Rep. Al Green filed articles of impeachment against President Trump on Tuesday night, triggering a contentious vote in the coming days to confront an issue that has bitterly divided the Democratic Party.

The Texas congressman, who notified Democratic leaders of his decision on Tuesday, said the House must impeach Trump for racist remarks suggesting four minority congresswoman “go back” to their ancestral countries as well as other comments made in the past. The four Democrats — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) — are all citizens; three were born in the United States.

“Donald John Trump has, by his statements, brought the high office of the President of the United States in contempt, ridicule, disgrace and disrepute, has sown discord among the people of the United States, has demonstrated that he is unfit to be President, and has betrayed his trust as President of the United States to the manifest injury of the people of the United States, and has committed a high misdemeanor in office,” Green read from his resolution on the House floor Tuesday night.

Green’s move will force House Democrats to deal with the issue in the near term because of the privileged nature of the resolution. Under House rules, Democratic leadership can decide to try to table the impeachment articles, effectively killing them for now and risk criticism from the party’s liberal base; refer them to the House Judiciary Committee for possible consideration; or allow the vote to proceed.

If leaders do nothing, Green can force a vote on the impeachment articles in two legislative days.

The move comes as more than 80 members of the House have called for launching an impeachment inquiry. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has resisted, however, encouraging her chairmen to keep investigating the president for potential abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

The matter is likely to divide the caucus, which has grappled for months with the question of what to do about Trump. Even impeachment proponents seemed divided about whether it is wise to force the issue now.  House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said he would support an immediate move to impeach the president, even voting against Democratic leaders should they try to refer the matter to committee to sideline the debate.

“In all probability, I’d vote against it, because I’m prepared to vote,” he said of the possibility of leadership moving to table or refer the resolution to committee. “My district wants me to vote for the immediate impeachment of Donald Trump.”

 But others, such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a strong impeachment backer, hesitated.

“We’re trying to keep the caucus together as we respond to the most lawless administration of our lifetimes,” Raskin said. “I'm enough of a political pragmatist to believe that you call votes when you think you can win them, not when you think you can lose them.”

Certain to be wary are moderates and lawmakers from districts that Trump won in 2016 who have long feared blowback for such a vote. Rep. Stephanie Murphy (Fla.), who leads the conservative Blue Dog Democrats, said, “I don’t think that we have completed the process or the investigations that we need to, to take that step at this time.” Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.), a freshman from a swing district, said he would vote against the resolution.

“I don’t think we’re there yet. I don’t think it’s healthy,” he said of Green’s effort.

Leadership, including Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Cheri Bustos (Ill.), was resigned to the likelihood that they could not stop the vote, even if they wanted to.

“I can’t control what another member does, so it looks like that’s going to happen and we’re just going to have to deal with that,” Bustos said.

Leadership officials said Pelosi probably would refer the articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee or table them, though her office has not weighed in on the matter. Some Democratic aides, however, worry that Pelosi could struggle to find the votes to refer to the panel because it would take a majority of her caucus. Republicans, according to a senior GOP leadership aide, are probably will not help deliver those votes.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

Some have questioned the timing of Green’s move. The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to receive testimony from former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III next Wednesday, perhaps the most high-profile hearing in decades. Impeachment proponents hoped Mueller would spark new supporters, but they’re not sure Trump’s racist tweets will have the same effect.

Leadership, meanwhile, advanced a resolution condemning Trump’s attacks on their colleagues, alleviating some of the pressure that party leaders were under to respond to the president’s sharp words about the four congresswomen. House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a close Pelosi ally, tried to keep the focus on the former, which was slated to pass Tuesday night.

“Look, this is an important vote we’re going to have today,” he said. “This is the first time that I can recall that we’re actually . . . condemning the president for his words, which were racist, and it’s disgusting,” he said. “This is not normal. This is so divisive.”

Rep. Cedric Richardson (D-La.) said that if Green forces the matter, “I’m going to vote for it.” But Richardson wondered whether it was “the most strategic thing right now without a game plan.”

“I just don’t think that impeachment is going to happen before Mueller testifies, before we gain more evidence and all those other things,” he said.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump’s racist comments can be used against him in court as judges cite them to block policies

President Trump’s latest racist remarks, like many of his comments before them, can and will be used against him in court.

And if his losing record on immigration cases is any guide, they will be used effectively.

In conjunction with other factors, they could help persuade judges to block policies he claims are crucial to his agenda, particularly on immigration, on the grounds of racial or ethnic animus.

That’s been the pattern ever since Trump took office.

His words — about Mexican immigrants as “criminals, drug dealers” and “rapists,” Nigerians going back “to their huts,” Haitians all having AIDS, or of too many migrants from “shithole countries” — have helped stall much of Trump’s immigration crackdown.

It hasn’t been any particular comment that has made the difference in court but rather the accumulation of them.

The latest tweets, saying that four Democratic members of the House, all citizens and women of color, should “go back” to “the crime infested places from which they came,” just builds on the others.

Smart lawyers combine the cumulative record with more mundane administrative law complaints, turning relatively routine cases into more serious Equal Protection Clause controversies. That gives judges greater license to probe the motives of the government.

The comments directed at Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) could, for example, figure into challenges to Trump’s new asylum restrictions, suggested Sejal Zota, an immigration rights lawyer at Just Futures Law based in Durham, N.C., who helped block the administration’s efforts to end “temporary protected status” (TPS) for Haitians.

“I don’t think these comments are enough in and of themselves, but they can be helpful to help establish a long record of xenophobia and bigotry towards people of color and people he perceives as immigrants, which is important when you can connect the dots to his changes in immigration law,” she said. “In our TPS case, you could see the pretext based on statements by other officials involved in the process.”

The earliest example of the pattern came at the outset of the Trump administration, when courts across the country blocked implementation of the president’s travel ban, citing, among other things, anti-Muslim remarks by Trump and others around him.

In judicial circles, some such as Judge Derrick K. Watson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii viewed Trump’s comments as evidence of the real reason for travel restrictions — religious animus rather than national security.

The travel ban decisions forced the administration to rewrite Trump’s order three times. The Supreme Court, reviewing the third version of the ban, ultimately approved it on June 26, 2018, roughly six months after Trump’s initial executive order.

The latest example came June 24, when Judge George J. Hazel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland decided to take another look at the administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, in light of new evidence suggesting that the motive might have been to “shift political power in favor of white voters and away from Hispanic voters.”

He suggested that such a motive was supported by “the Trump campaign, with the backdrop of many statements and tweets demonstrating discriminatory animus,” a theory he had rejected before the new information came to light.

Although the administration dropped the census proposal on July 11 after a defeat at the Supreme Court, Hazel has not formally closed the case before him, according to court records.

In between the travel ban and the census came four rulings blocking Trump’s attempt to eliminate Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the program that shields from deportation young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, each citing disparaging anti-immigrant remarks by the president.

In addition, three separate decisions citing Trump’s “shithole countries” comments helped block a plan by the administration to end temporary protected status for migrants from countries affected by natural or man-made disasters.

The administration’s action, still being appealed, would have jeopardized the legal presence in the United States of some 300,000 people from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua and Sudan.

#Resist

[_priapism]

Alex Acosta resigns as labor secretary, the latest Trump official to leave amid scandal

[Athos_131]

Alex Acosta resigns as labor secretary, the latest Trump official to leave amid scandal

So he's following in the footsteps of John Kelly?

#Resist

[Athos_131]

House to vote to hold Barr, Ross in contempt over 2020 Census citizenship question

The House is set to vote Wednesday to hold Attorney General William P. Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in criminal contempt for failing to provide documents related to the Trump administration’s efforts to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 Census, further escalating tensions between Democrats and the White House over congressional oversight.

After a string of legal defeats, President Trump last week abruptly retreated from his efforts to add the question to the census, announcing that he will instead order federal agencies to provide the Commerce Department with records on the numbers of citizens and noncitizens in the country.

But lawmakers continue to demand answers about the motivations behind the administration’s 19-month effort to ask about citizenship status on the decennial survey. In May, new evidence emerged suggesting that the question was crafted specifically to give an electoral advantage to Republicans and whites. The Trump administration has said it needs the information to better enforce the Voting Rights Act.

In an interview Wednesday morning on Fox Business Network, Ross dismissed the planned vote in the House as “just more political theater” and defended his department’s response to the House Oversight Committee’s inquiry.

“We produced to the committee over 14,000 pages of documents,” Ross said. “What’s an issue here is about a dozen documents, roughly 15 pages, all of which the courts didn’t find necessary to make their conclusion.”

The impact of a contempt vote would be largely symbolic. Those found in criminal contempt are normally referred to the Justice Department for prosecution; in this instance, the Justice Department would not prosecute itself.

In April, the Oversight Committee authorized its chairman, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), to issue subpoenas for a deposition of John Gore, principal deputy assistant attorney general, and to Barr and Ross for documents related to the 2020 Census decision. But the Justice Department said it would not comply with the subpoena for Gore to testify about the question, and the administration has vowed to stonewall all House subpoenas.

Ross maintained Wednesday that the administration will push ahead on gathering citizenship data through other means.

“Well, I think it’s just gamesmanship on their part,” he said of the continued opposition by Democrats. “They know we’re going to come much closer to the answer than we ever have before, because with the president’s executive order, we’re having much better access to federal documents than we ever had before.”

Trump’s order came after the Supreme Court ruled that the administration cannot move forward on adding the question without providing a solid justification for its plan.

During Wednesday’s floor debate, Republicans echoed Ross’s claim that Democrats’ holding of the vote was merely a political show.

“We may be in July, but it’s Groundhog Day all over again,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said. Pointing to the contempt vote, a potential impeachment vote and Tuesday’s resolution condemning Trump’s tweets about four minority Democratic congresswomen, McCarthy said Democrats are consumed with passing measures “attacking Trump” while voters are more concerned with kitchen-table issues.

Rep. Carol Miller (R-W.Va.) defended the administration’s efforts to inquire about citizenship, contending that asking such a question is “standard operating procedure” in other countries, including Canada and Australia.

“Knowing who is in our country should not be controversial,” Miller said, accusing Democrats of having “blurred fact and fiction on this issue.”

Some Democrats responded by arguing that the administration’s efforts were part of a broader pattern of seeking to dilute the power of minority voters. Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) said the push for the citizenship question was “disturbing” because “it’s in a context of voter suppression that’s all across America.”

“Asking the citizenship question on the census is part and parcel of that scheme to discourage minority voting in America, to frighten immigrant communities,” Connolly said.

Others, such as Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), said the battle was about congressional oversight of the executive branch, noting that the Trump administration had “already lost” the policy battle in the courts.

“They lost because their justification was ‘contrived,’ according to Chief Justice Roberts,” Raskin said, adding: “This is about congressional power.”

Wednesday’s vote is only the latest attempt by House Democrats to force the administration to submit to congressional oversight. Last month, the House voted to seek court enforcement of subpoenas for Barr and former White House counsel Donald McGahn.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Video shows Trump partying with Jeffrey Epstein at Mar-a-Lago in 1992

Donald Trump is seen partying at his Mar-a-Lago Club with financier Jeffrey Epstein in a November 1992 tape aired Wednesday by NBC News that shows the now-president dancing with cheerleaders, patting a woman on her backside, and appearing to point out other women to him.

Trump’s relationship with Epstein has come under renewed scrutiny since federal prosecutors brought new sex trafficking charges against him earlier this month, a development that led to the resignation of Labor Secretary Alex Acosta. Acosta negotiated a plea deal with Epstein in an earlier case that also involved allegations of abuse of dozens of young girls at his Manhattan and Palm Beach, Fla., homes.

While Trump and Epstein were known to have socialized in Palm Beach, where Trump’s club is located, the president has sought to downplay the extent of their relationship and said he had a falling out with the financier and cut off their relationship 15 years ago.

In the days leading up to Acosta’s resignation, Trump repeatedly said he was “not a fan” of Epstein.

The video, in which Trump is 46, was shot more than a decade before Epstein pleaded guilty to felony prostitution charges in Florida.

NBC News said the footage was shot for Faith Daniels’s talk show, “A Closer Look,” as part of a profile of the newly divorced Trump’s lifestyle. The network identified the women surrounding Trump at his club as cheerleaders for the Buffalo Bills, who were in town for a game against the Miami Dolphins.

Trump is shown dancing with the women as music blares and pulling one of them closer to him and then patting her on her rear end.

Later in the video, Trump is shown greeting Epstein and two other new arrivals at the party, telling them, “C’mon, go inside.”

Trump later appears to be pointing out women to Epstein, as he stands beside him. Though his comments are not audible, NBC News said Trump appears to be saying, “Look at her, back there. … She’s hot.”

At another point, Trump whispers something inaudible in Epstein’s ear, and he doubles over in laughter.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the video.

In a 2002 article on Epstein in New York magazine, Trump was quoted calling him a “terrific guy.”

“He’s a lot of fun to be with,” Trump said. “It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Meanwhile in, "Individual-1 Committed Federal Crimes Ville,"

Trump spoke repeatedly with Cohen, aides amid scramble to pay Stormy Daniels, court documents show

Newly unsealed court documents show that then-candidate Donald Trump communicated repeatedly with his lawyer Michael Cohen amid the election year scramble to keep quiet allegations that Trump previously had an affair with an adult-film actress.

The documents were released Thursday at the direction of a federal judge in New York, who disclosed a day before that an investigation into suspected campaign finance violations had ended. Trump and those close to him long said they were unaware that Cohen had bought the women’s silence, but phone calls and text messages documented by the FBI suggest they were closely involved.

The new details about the investigation are unlikely to have legal consequences for the president or those close to him because the hush-money investigation has concluded. However, the documents could further erode their credibility.

Prosecutors submitted a search warrant from 2018, with newly unredacted sections describing the FBI’s investigation into payments Cohen arranged to two women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump: the porn star Stormy Daniels and a former Playboy model, Karen McDougal.

Cohen, who is serving a three-year sentence in a prison north of New York City, pleaded guilty last year to arranging the payments. He also pleaded guilty to violating tax laws, lying to a bank and lying to Congress in statements that concealed the full nature of his efforts to launch a Trump Tower real estate development in Moscow — conversations that continued well into the Republican presidential primary campaign.

From prison, Cohen issued a statement saying: “I and members of The Trump Organization were directed by Mr. Trump to handle the Stormy Daniels matter; including making the hush money payment.” He said the investigation ending without charges for those at Trump’s business “should be of great concern to the American people and investigated by Congress and The Department of Justice.”

The president’s current lawyer, Jay Sekulow, offered a terse comment: “Case closed.”

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said the documents show “Donald Trump was intimately involved in devising and executing a corrupt scheme to prevent his affair with Stormy Daniels from being revealed in the final weeks of the 2016 election.”

In a letter to U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III, prosecutors said the government has “effectively concluded its investigations of (1) who, besides Michael Cohen, was involved in and may be criminally liable for the two campaign finance violations to which Cohen pled guilty; and (2) whether certain individuals (redacted) made false statements, gave false testimony or otherwise obstructed justice in connection with this investigation.”

A person familiar with the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss details of the investigation, declined to identify who was once under investigation but said that person was not Trump or any of his family members.

The unsealed portion of the search warrants offers new details about the scramble inside Trump’s inner circle to keep quiet any allegations about Trump and Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

“Cohen exchanged a series of calls, text messages, and emails with Keith Davidson, who was then Clifford’s attorney,” as well as officials at the National Enquirer, the supermarket tabloid whose boss, David Pecker, is close to Trump, according to the affidavit of an FBI agent, who added: “Based on the timing of these calls, and the content of the text messages, I believe that at least some of these communications concerned the need to prevent Clifford from going public.”

The Trump campaign was particularly concerned about the accusation because The Washington Post revealed on Oct. 7, 2016, that Trump was caught on an “Access Hollywood” recording referring to women in vulgar terms.

The following day, Cohen received a call from Trump’s spokeswoman at the time, Hope Hicks.

“Sixteen seconds into the call, Trump joined the call, and the call continued for over four minutes,” according to the document.

When Hicks testified before the House Judiciary Committee last month, she said she was “never present” at a time when Cohen and Trump discussed Daniels. She also said she “had no knowledge of Stormy Daniels” during the campaign other than that she had heard Daniels’s name mentioned as possibly “shopping stories around.”

Asked by congressional investigators why she made statements during the campaign that the president had no relationship with Daniels, she replied, “I was relaying information from the reporter to the different parties involved, primarily Michael and Mr. Trump, and that was the response that was dictated to me. I didn’t ask about the nature of the relationships.”

The House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Hicks lied to Congress, according to an official with knowledge of matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions. The official said lawmakers may probe the hush-money issue more closely in light of the new details. A lawyer for Hicks declined to comment.

The Cohen-Trump-Hicks call was followed by calls that evening among Cohen, National Enquirer executives and Hicks.

“At 8:03 p.m., about three minutes after ending his call with Pecker, Cohen called Trump, and they spoke for nearly eight minutes,” the affidavit states.

For days, Cohen negotiated with Daniels’s lawyer to craft a settlement that would buy her silence, according to the court documents. It ended up taking weeks to finalize, with Cohen creating a limited liability company to make the payment.

At one point, Cohen called Trump immediately after a phone call with Daniels’s lawyer, but the two apparently did not connect, according to the affidavit.

Shortly before noon on Oct. 28, 2016, “Cohen spoke to Trump for approximately five minutes. Beginning at 1:21 p.m., Cohen attempted a series of phone calls” to Daniels’s lawyer, Pecker and others.

Cohen arranged a $130,000 payment to Daniels, and on Nov. 1, 2016, the day she received her money, Cohen tried to call Trump but was unsuccessful. According to the affidavit, he then called a number belonging to Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager at the time.

They did not connect, but later that evening, “Cohen received a return call from Conway, which lasted for approximately six minutes,” according to the affidavit.

Conway is now a senior White House adviser. A White House spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In November 2016, the Trump team braced for an expected story in the Wall Street Journal describing how the National Enquirer had shielded Trump from allegations by McDougal, the former Playboy model, that she and Trump once had an affair. The report indicated the tabloid had paid McDougal to bury her story — a practice referred to as “catch and kill.”

In a Nov. 4 text to Dylan Howard, a National Enquirer executive, Cohen wrote: “He’s pissed.” The FBI agent wrote in the affidavit: “I believe Cohen was referring to Trump when he stated ‘he’s pissed.’ ”

Just before the Journal story posted online, phone records show Cohen spoke to Hicks and Howard, at one point apparently speaking to both at the same time using separate phones. Twenty minutes before the story was published, Cohen texted Pecker, “The boss just tried calling you. Are you free?”

After the story was published, Cohen and Hicks exchanged messages about its probable effect. “So far I see only 6 stories. Getting little to no traction,” Cohen wrote to her.

“Same. Keep Praying!! It’s working!” she responded.

When the Journal reported in January 2018 that Cohen had arranged for Daniels to be paid in the days before the election, Cohen first falsely claimed that he had made the payment on his own without consulting with Trump. Four days before the search warrants were executed, Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he had been unaware of the payments.

Cohen later acknowledged that they were arranged at Trump’s direction. During congressional testimony in February, Cohen released copies of checks he received to reimburse him for the payment, including a check signed by Trump while he was serving as president. Cohen told Congress that he had lied to the public and to first lady Melania Trump about the Daniels matter. Trump, he said, had assured him in an Oval Office meeting in February that he would take care of Cohen’s debt related to Daniels.

“I am going to jail in part because of my decision to help Mr. Trump hide that payment from the American people before they voted a few days later,” he said.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump’s denial of knowing about the Stormy Daniels payment suffers another blow

President Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen is in jail today, having pleaded guilty last year to violating a number of federal laws. Among them were two violations of federal campaign finance law, pegged to Cohen’s efforts shortly before the 2016 presidential election to pay off two women who would otherwise have gone public with allegations of affairs with candidate Donald Trump.

Trump and his team have consistently tried to distance themselves from those payments and the suggestion of illegality that stems from Cohen’s pleas. By now, all sides agree that the women — former Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult-film actress Stormy Daniels — received the money and that Cohen was central to their doing so, but Trump himself has repeatedly denied having known about the payments in advance.

On Thursday, a judge ordered the unsealing of subpoenas issued before a federal raid on Cohen’s home and apartment in April 2018. Those documents include a number of new details about how Cohen worked to keep the two alleged affairs under wraps — and how Trump’s team appears to have been more involved than we knew.

It’s worth remembering the timeline here. The alleged McDougal affair came to light a few days before the election, but Trump was fairly insulated from the fallout. McDougal was paid to keep quiet not by Trump or Cohen but, instead, by American Media Inc., then the publisher of the National Enquirer and other magazines. McDougal signed a deal to give ownership of any stories about affairs with married men to AMI in exchange for a column in an AMI publication and some cash, among other things.

That Cohen was involved in the McDougal payment appears to have come to light after the subpoenas were issued — thanks, in part, to the discovery during the resulting searches of an agreement for Trump’s team to repay AMI for the cost of the deal. AMI and its CEO David Pecker subsequently admitted to working with the campaign on that deal in exchange for not facing criminal prosecution. The proposed repayment by Trump to AMI reportedly never happened in part because AMI’s attorneys warned that it would expose the company to charges, but that was only after Cohen and Trump were recorded in early September 2016 discussing how that repayment would work.

The subpoenas document the early November Wall Street Journal article that brought the McDougal-AMI deal to light. Cohen was apparently at the center of coordinating a response between AMI and the Trump campaign (to which he was indirectly attached). Before the article was published, Cohen sent AMI’s Dylan Howard (at the time the company’s editorial director) a set of questions the paper had sent the Trump Organization and also spoke with then-campaign spokesman Hope Hicks a number of times on the phone. When the story came out and got limited traction, Cohen and Hicks exchanged celebratory text messages.

The more interesting flurry of activity revealed in the subpoenas centers not on McDougal but on the payment to Daniels. After the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape on Oct. 7, 2016, in which Trump is heard describing how he gropes women, a representative of Daniels — attorney Keith Davidson — contacted AMI about an alleged affair she had had with Trump. AMI and Pecker had met with Trump campaign officials the previous year and offered to help bury similar stories. We later learned that they reached out to Cohen in this case.

The subpoena delineates a number of points of contact between Cohen, AMI and Trump — 11 calls over the course of less than two hours on Oct. 8, 2016.

Hicks called Cohen, looping Trump. Hicks then called Cohen back. Cohen called Pecker, then called him again. Howard called Cohen. Cohen called Hicks. Pecker called Cohen. Cohen called Trump. Howard called Cohen, then called him again. More than half-an-hour of calls, including an eight-minute call with the candidate.

After that last call, Howard texted Cohen: “Keith will do it. Let’s reconvene tomorrow.” Cohen texted back at 3:30 a.m.: “Thank you.” A bit later he provided information about an LLC he had formed — though not the one he ultimately used to pay Daniels using money transferred from a home equity line of credit.

“Based on the timing of these calls, and the content of the text messages and emails," the subpoena reads, "I believe that at least some of these communications concerned the need to prevent [Daniels] from going public, particularly in the wake of the ‘Access Hollywood’ story.”

The payment wasn’t immediate, though, and the subpoenas (and later charging documents) detail the push by Cohen to get the payment finalized. It ultimately came through shortly before the election, with Davidson texting Cohen on Oct. 28, 2016, to tell him that notarized documents finalizing the agreement would arrive the following Tuesday — a week before the election.

In fact, the number of calls with Hicks is a particularly interesting detail in the subpoenas. Cohen spoke with her three times on Oct. 8, including after having heard from both Pecker and Howard and once, before those calls, when Trump was also on the line. The subpoena notes that this was unusual, that it was apparently “the first call Cohen had received or made to Hicks in at least multiple weeks.” He also contacted Hicks late Oct. 28, speaking with her for three minutes after he’d received confirmation that the Daniels situation was settled.

A footnote in the subpoena indicates that Hicks told an FBI agent during an interview that she didn’t recall knowing about the Daniels allegations until early November. In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, she denied having been present for any conversation between Trump and Cohen about the allegations.

That seems unlikely given the call on Oct. 28. The extent to which Hicks’ responses to these questions rely on close parsing of the questions’ wording remains to be seen.

It’s impossible to believe, though, that Trump himself was unaware of the Daniels discussion on Oct. 8. He and Cohen spoke for eight minutes after Cohen had talked to representatives of AMI. The idea that the Daniels issue didn’t come up — particularly given that we know Cohen and Trump had discussed the other AMI-facilitated payment a month prior — defies believability.

Why Trump didn’t face federal charges for his role in these illegal payments is a question that remains unanswered. It’s possible that prosecutors didn’t think they could prove that he had the awareness of the law required to establish an illegal act. But the release of these subpoenas seems to demonstrate just how involved in the Daniels payment Trump and his team actually were.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

The five lowest points of Trump’s presidency (so far)

Donald Trump’s latest blatantly racist outburst — in which he told four ethnic minority congresswomen to “go back” to the countries they came from — was certainly a low point of his presidency.

But for the past 2½ years, there have been too many “low points” to count.

Trump’s rock-bottom moments come in many guises: the scandals, the criminal investigations, the corruption, the lies, the abuses of power, the misogyny, the bigotry and the relentless attacks on American principles, values and institutions. Overwhelmed, we often find ourselves chasing a despicable tweet only to abandon it when a shiny new scandal comes along a few hours later. In perpetual outrage, we lose sight of comparative magnitude, unable to distinguish the Monday morning embarrassments from the moments that will define Trump in history textbooks.

So, I set out to tackle a depressing task: ranking the five lowest points of the Trump presidency. These are specific moments — events or statements — not policies or patterns of behavior. They all occurred during his presidency, not the campaign (which rules out the “Access Hollywood” tape, mocking a disabled reporter, attacking a Gold Star family, calling to ban all Muslims from entering the country or labeling Mexican immigrants as rapists). There are nonetheless dozens of contenders that would define and disgrace past presidents — but don’t even register with Trump. Here’s my best shot at ranking the five lowest points of Trump’s time in office.

5. “Go back” to where you came from

Trump told minority congresswomen to go back to where they came from. Where they came from, with one exception, was America: Cincinnati, the Bronx and Detroit. But Trump revived one of the most well-worn racist statements in American history. There were no more winks or dog whistles. It was indefensible racism. It even prompted Republican holdouts who have, despite overwhelming evidence, resisted labeling Trump as a bigot, to finally conclude that he is a racist president.

4. Trump “fell in love” with Kim Jong Un

Trump’s absurd, over-the-top praise for dictators lurched into self-parody when he claimed that he “fell in love” with North Korea’s totalitarian dictator, Kim Jong Un, in September 2018. Kim’s regime runs a vast network of concentration camps, conducts campaigns of mass rape and reportedly executes people with antiaircraft guns for sport. The juxtaposition with Trump’s consistent ally-bashing behavior left no room for misinterpretation about Trump’s values, and how at odds they are with America’s founding principles.

3. Implying that Puerto Ricans were lazy as an estimated 2,975 Americans died

In the week after Hurricane Maria battered Puerto Rico, leaving millions without electricity or tap water, Trump tweeted 95 times. Fifteen tweets attacked black National Football League players. Just one was about Puerto Rico, in which Trump chastised the island for its “massive debt.” Then, on Sept. 30, while Puerto Ricans were dying and pleading for additional federal help, Trump responded by implying that they were lazy and wanted “everything to be done for them.” A later study showed that a significant number of the deaths were avoidable and came not from the storm but from an inadequate government response. Trump’s paper towels weren’t enough, it turned out.

2. The “very fine people” in Charlottesville

On Aug. 12, 2017, a man murdered Heather Heyer with his car. He was a neo-Nazi. She was protesting neo-Nazis. Three days later, Trump drew a false equivalence between the groups, insisting that there were “very fine people on both sides.” One of those sides was marching alongside Ku Klux Klan members, neo-Nazis and white supremacists. The other was protesting those hate groups. Trump tried to conflate the two, and in so doing, stained his presidency forever.

1. Implementing child separation — and lying about it

From April to June 2018, the Trump administration implemented a “zero tolerance” policy at the southern border that deliberately separated children and babies — some as young as 4 months old — from their parents. In the span of six weeks, 1,995 kids were torn away from their parents. Some will likely never be reunited. On June 16, 2018, Trump lied about the policy, saying it was “forced” by Democrats. Once his lie was exposed, on Oct. 13, 2018, Trump explicitly advocated his barbaric policy as a deterrent. Those low points sparked international outrage.

There are countless honorable mentions that nearly made the cut. Trump helped cover up Saudi Arabia’s murder of Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi and called the press the “enemy of the people” even after one of his supporters sent pipe bombs to journalists. He kowtowed to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki and fired FBI Director James B. Comey because of the Russia investigation. Trump mocked Christine Blasey Ford and dismissed E. Jean Carroll’s credible rape accusation by saying she wasn’t his "type.” He lied about illegal hush-money payments to his alleged mistress while pardoning a former sheriff who abused the law. And Trump endorsed violence against reporters when he praised a congressman as “my guy” because he assaulted a journalist.

It’s a horrifying list. But perhaps most horrifying is that all those low points happened in the first 2½ years of his presidency. There may yet be much more to come.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump criticized the U.S. for years. Now he wants people who do that to leave.

On Friday, President Trump was asked again about his racist remarks aimed at four minority congresswomen. He again doubled down.

“I’m unhappy with the fact that a congresswoman, in this case a different congresswoman, can call our country and our people ‘garbage,’ ” Trump said, falsely asserting that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called Americans “garbage.”

But with Trump, there’s always a tweet.

“If we don’t clean up OUR COUNTRY of the garbage soon, we are just going to do a death spiral!” Trump tweeted Sept. 17, 2013, one day after a government contractor killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard.

That Trump’s latest controversy again centers on a paradox — in this case, defending the right to criticize the United States, but only when it suits him — is not surprising. Indeed, much of Trump’s presidency is a paradox, and this week was no different.

Trump has spent years criticizing the United States, often praising foreign dictators and himself in the process, examples of which you can watch in the video above.

According to Trump, the United States has long had “stupid” leaders that the world “laughs” at. When Trump launched his presidential bid, he said the United States is “becoming a third-world country.” During his inauguration, Trump condemned the condition of the country, referring to it as “American carnage.”

Trump has also repeatedly questioned the idea of American exceptionalism.

“Other nations and other countries don’t want to hear about American exceptionalism,” Trump said on Fox News in September 2013. “They’re insulted by it, and that’s what [Russian President Vladimir] Putin was saying.”

In his book “Crippled America,” Trump wrote, “The idea of American Greatness, of our country as the leader of the free and unfree world, has vanished.”

Told in 2017 that Putin is a “killer,” Trump said, “You think our country’s so innocent?”

Trump’s hypocrisy has also spread to Republicans who previously warned that he would “destroy” the party.

Asked about Trump’s racist remarks this week, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said they were not racist.

“A Somali refugee embracing Trump would not have been asked to go back,” Graham said. “If you’re a racist, you want everybody from Somalia to go back.”

Graham later tweeted that accusations of racism “comes with the territory” of being a Republican president. (In 2015, Graham himself called Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.”)

Later on Friday, when Trump was asked for the 26th time this week whether he disavowed his racist remarks and supported the congresswomen’s First Amendment rights to criticize the United States, he pivoted instead to his own First Amendment rights.

“They have First Amendment rights, but that doesn’t mean I’m happy about [what they are] saying,” Trump said. “And again, we have First Amendment rights also. We can certainly feel what and say what we want.”

#Resist