Pelosi calls on Netanyahu to resign, condemns him as ‘obstacle’ to peace
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an “obstacle” to peace and called on him to resign this week. Pelosi made the comments in an interview recorded Monday with Irish broadcaster RTE’s Six One News. She argued that Netanyahu’s response to the Oct. 7 terrorist attack by Hamas has been “terrible.” “We recognize Israel’s right to protect itself. We reject the policy and the practice of Netanyahu — terrible. What could be worse than what he has done in response?” she said. “He should resign. He’s ultimately responsible,” she added. “I don’t know whether he’s afraid of peace, incapable of peace, or just doesn’t want peace. But he has been an obstacle to the two-state solution,” she added. SENATE APPROVES $95B AID PACKAGE FOR UKRAINE AND ISRAEL, TIKTOK DIVESTMENT, AWAITS BIDEN’S SIGNATURE Pelosi’s statement comes more than a month after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for new elections in Israel, claiming Netanyahu’s government no longer represented the best interests of the Israeli people. In what was billed as a major speech on a two-state solution, Schumer said on the Senate floor on Thursday that Netanyahu was one of four obstacles to peace. He argued that “Prime Minister Netanyahu has lost his way by allowing his political survival to take the precedence over the best interests of Israel.” According to Schumer, the highest ranking Jewish politician in the U.S., Israeli elections are “the only way to allow for a healthy and open decision-making process about the future of Israel.” He added that he believed a majority of Israelis also recognize a need for change in their government. HOUSE GOP BLAME GAME ERUPTS AFTER JOHNSON FORCES THROUGH $95B UKRAINE, ISRAEL AID PLAN Schumer’s comments were met with a deluge of criticism from Republicans and allies of Israel who argued the U.S. should not interfere in the country’s elections. Despite criticism from top Democrats and some Republicans, Congress approved a $26 billion military aid package for Israel this week. Both Schumer and Pelosi voted in favor of the package, which also grants support to Taiwan and Ukraine.
Who is Sam Pitroda, Congress leader whose remarks on inheritance tax trigger row?
PM Modi attacked Congress on Sam Pitroda’s remarks, saying the party’s dangerous intentions are coming out in the open.
SCOTUS to hear arguments in Biden’s lawsuit ‘subverting states’ rights’ on abortion
The Supreme Court is set to consider a second abortion case on Wednesday, this time dealing with claims by a Republican-led state that the Biden administration is attempting to wield a 40-year-old federal law as an “abortion mandate.” On the heels of a debate over the Federal Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of an abortion pill, the high court will consider whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts the state of Idaho’s newly enacted Defense of Life Act – which makes it a crime for any medical provider to perform an abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. The Justice Department argued that the state’s law does not go far enough to allow abortions in more medical emergency circumstances. However, proponents of the state law say that the administration’s lawsuit against Idaho is attempting to use a federal statute as an “abortion mandate” to benefit the president ahead of the 2024 elections. WHY TRUMP IS DEFERRING TO THE STATES, AFTER WEIGHING AN ABORTION BAN AT 15 WEEKS “Construing EMTALA as a federal abortion mandate raises grave questions under the major questions doctrine that affect both Congress and this Court,” Idaho argued in legal filings. In an interview with Fox News Digital, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said, “The Supreme Court made it clear that it’s up to the states to decide what our laws should be and that it’s not for the federal government.” “But Joe Biden and his administration decided to come straight and sue us in federal courts. We are excited to go before the Supreme Court to show that the state should be deciding these issues and not the federal government,” he said. The DOJ said in its response to the high court that while Idaho’s law makes it a felony for a doctor to terminate a pregnancy unless doing so is “necessary” to prevent the patient’s “death,” that exception is “narrower” than EMTALA, which by its terms “protects patients not only from imminent death but also from emergencies that seriously threaten their health.” However, Idaho accused the administration of “construing the spare phrase” in the federal law “as a blank slate to be filled with the Executive Branch’s preferred abortion policy collides with multiple statutory provisions guaranteeing emergency medical care for a pregnant woman and her unborn child.” “It’s clear that the administration is just manipulating EMTALA and that both laws should be able to coexist,” John Bursch, senior litigator at civil rights firm Alliance Defending Freedom and co-counsel in the case, told Fox News Digital in an interview. “If a woman’s life is in danger, Idaho’s Defense of Life Act makes it clear that the women should be treated and helped. Because in that instance, when the mom’s life is in danger, it’s not an abortion in Idaho or any of the other 49 states,” he said. But the White House says that the 21 states enforcing abortion bans are causing “chaos and confusion.” “These extreme state laws have caused chaos and confusion, and women are being denied the essential care they need. But these dangerous state laws do not change the responsibility that health care providers have to their patients in emergencies covered by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act,” White House spokesperson Kelly Scully told Fox News Digital. “The Biden-Harris Administration has long been clear that federal law requires hospitals to offer health and life-saving care to patients in an emergency. The Administration remains focused on working with doctors, hospitals, and patients to make these federal requirements clear while the Department of Justice defends that understanding in the Supreme Court. No woman should be denied the care she needs,” she said. The Center for Reproductive Rights also filed a lawsuit in September 2023, calling Idaho’s abortion ban “a six-week ban that has ‘vigilante’-style civil liability provisions. The Center filed the suit on behalf of seven plaintiffs: four women who were denied medically necessary abortion care in their home state, two Idaho physicians who provide obstetrical care, and a professional membership organization consisting of Idaho physicians, medical residents and medical students. PRO-LIFE CONSERVATIVES ARE ‘DISAPPOINTED’ IN TRUMP’S NEW ABORTION POLICY, BUT STICK BY HIM: ‘ONLY ONE OPTION’ EMTALA is a federal statute signed by then-President Reagan in 1986 after earning bipartisan congressional support, designed to prevent hospitals from turning away indigent patients who are in critical need of medical care and offer the same “stabilizing” care they would to a patient who could pay or is covered by insurance. After the Dobbs decision in 2022, which overturned Roe v. Wade and left states to decide their own abortion limitations, Bursch said the Biden administration, for the first time in the law’s history, used it to impose an “abortion mandate.” A district court sided with DOJ and ordered a preliminary injunction of the state’s law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision, which Idaho then appealed to the Supreme Court. Oral arguments are set for April 24. “What the Biden administration wants to do is take this law and turn it into an abortion enclave in emergency rooms,” Bursch said. “And to the point where even if a patient came in, and they said that they were in critical condition because of a mental health problem, like depression, or anxiety, that would give doctors a carte blanche ability to ignore laws like Idaho’s and take the life of the innocent child, and EMTALA doesn’t say anything like that.” REPUBLICANS LARGELY QUIET AS DEMOCRATS HAMMER SCOTUS ABORTION PILL CHALLENGE Bursch added that what he believes is “so ironic” is that following the Dobbs decision, President Biden himself said that he disagreed with the decision, but that he understood that states operating through the democratic process would get to decide what abortion laws would control each state. “And it was only a matter of weeks later that he changed course and said, ‘oh no, the federal government is just going to impose this new requirement by reinterpreting
HELP chairman Bernie Sanders avoids agreeing to campus antisemitism hearings
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., wouldn’t commit Tuesday to holding hearings on college antisemitism as tensions escalate across the country with anti-Israel demonstrations persisting at elite universities. “We are concerned about bigotry of all kinds, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure we eliminate all forms of bigotry in America, including antisemitism,” Sanders, chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), told Fox News Digital. Asked a second time whether the committee would be willing to hold hearings on displays of campus antisemitism, such as the Gaza solidarity encampment at Columbia University, which has led the school to make classes virtual and a rabbi recommending Jewish students return home, Sanders would not say. GOP LAWMAKERS DEMAND BIDEN ADMIN PROSECUTE ‘PRO-TERRORIST MOBS,’ HOLD SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE The Vermont senator was urged Monday to hold hearings on the subject by his Republican counterpart on the committee. HELP ranking member Bill Cassidy, R-La., said in a statement, “Chair Sanders and the Senate HELP Committee need to hold a hearing and conduct oversight of this eroding situation. “There are no grounds for a nuanced response to the sickening calls of violence against Jewish students,” Cassidy added. “The antisemitic scenes unfolding at Columbia University and college campuses across the country is bigotry manifested in violence and threats of violence. This should be responded to by expelling all perpetrators. There should be zero tolerance.” BIDEN ADMIN NOTES ‘URGENT’ CONCERN OVER ISRAEL IN GAZA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT The demonstration at Columbia University began last week, and since its start, 23 of the top 50 universities, as ranked by U.S. News and World Report, have been home to active anti-Israel protests. In response to the demonstrations, 27 Republican senators signed a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, demanding they prosecute anyone perpetrating violence or threatening Jewish students, revoke visas of non-citizens who are “promoting terrorism” and hold school administrators accountable. DEMOCRATS JOIN REPUBLICANS IN CONDEMNING ANTISEMITISM AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY The departments of Justice and Education declined to comment to Fox News Digital. Cardona addressed the various demonstrations, posting on X that “Antisemitic hate on college campuses is unacceptable.” “I am deeply concerned by what is happening at Columbia University. In November 2023, our Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation of Columbia involving Title VI,” he added. Cassidy previously asked Sanders to hold hearings on antisemitic incidents one month after the Hamas terrorist attack on civilians that sparked the war between the group and Israel. Sanders’ office did not respond to a request for further comment.
Sen. Lee rails against spending ‘money we don’t have’ as Senate passes foreign aid bill: ‘It’s cowardice’
Utah Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican, criticized the Senate’s passage of the foreign aid package Tuesday night, calling it “wrong,” “shameful” and a “sad day for America” for spending money the government does not have to fund another country’s war. The $95 billion package includes $61 billion to support Ukraine’s war against Russia, $26 billion for Israel and humanitarian aid amid the Jewish State’s war against Hamas and nearly $8 billion for the Indo-Pacific and Taiwan. It would also force TikTok’s China-based parent company ByteDance to sell the platform or face a ban in the U.S. The Senate passed the legislation by a 79 to 18 vote, and it now heads to President Biden, who said he will sign it on Wednesday. Lee made a series of posts on social media Tuesday night calling out the Republican Party for siding with Democrats to pass the measure, taking particular issue with the aid for Ukraine, saying lawmakers are “spending money that doesn’t belong to them.” SENATE APPROVES $95B AID PACKAGE FOR UKRAINE AND ISRAEL, TIKTOK DIVESTMENT, AWAITS BIDEN’S SIGNATURE “Americans are about to be made nearly $100 billion poorer,” Lee said Tuesday night on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “Not to secure our own borders. But to secure the borders of other countries. Republicans—spurred by Republican leadership in both chambers—gladly advanced the Democrats’ agenda. Neglecting our own. This is shameful.” In a video attached to the post, Lee said this was a “sad day for America.” In another video, he said Republicans “can do better” than to accept GOP lawmakers in Washington who “act like Democrats.” “It is time to expect more, it is time to expect freedom,” he wrote. “They think they’re Churchill,” Lee said in another post. “They’re congratulating themselves for spending money that doesn’t belong to them—money we don’t have and will have to borrow and print. Spending other people’s money to fight someone else’s war—against their will—isn’t heroic. It’s cowardice.” HOUSE GOP BLAME GAME ERUPTS AFTER JOHNSON FORCES THROUGH $95B UKRAINE, ISRAEL AID PLAN Several lawmakers sought votes on their respective amendments, including Lee, who proposed an amendment to require repayment of the foreign aid to Ukraine. Lee wrote on X: “We need bold colors in the GOP. We lose with pastels.” “It doesn’t end well for any political party whose elected officials repeatedly display contempt for the party’s most faithful voters,” he wrote. “Dems don’t do this to their base. Dems fight for their base, not against it.” Citing past comments from former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, Lee said foreign aid “often involves taking money from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries.” “I’m sure Americans will sleep better tonight knowing that a few rich people in Ukraine are about to get a lot richer,” Lee added. Lee went on to say that the bill is not “heroic” or “brave.” “It’s wrong,” he said. In response to Biden’s statement commending the passage of the bill, the Republican senator said the measure will lead to more Ukrainian deaths. “Mr. President, I believe that this bill will prolong a bloody conflict and cost more Ukrainians their lives, even as their cause is righteous,” Lee wrote. “I also believe that you do want to end the killing. Can we work to establish a negotiated peace in Ukraine?”
‘PM Modi scared of…’: Rahul Gandhi calls party manifesto ‘revolutionary’, backs redistribution of wealth
Rahul Gandhi alleged that the Centre transferred crores of rupees to a few billionaires and said that the Congress manifesto talks about returning a small amount of that money to the people who are at the bottom pyramid of income and wealth distribution.
Johnson faces uphill climb to win back GOP rebels before November; here’s what they want
Conservative critics of Speaker Mike Johnson’s leadership are warning that he has an uphill climb to winning back their support in time for House Republicans’ leadership elections at the end of this year. “He’s gonna have a tough time based on past history, because I would submit he’s failed on just about everything other than initiating [the Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas] impeachment effort,” House Freedom Caucus Chairman Bob Good, R-Va., told Fox News Digital. Johnson was elected speaker in October in a strongly unanimous House GOP vote, with Republicans hungry for unity after three weeks of turmoil following ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s ouster. The Louisiana Republican now finds himself in a similar situation to his predecessor, with a small but vocal group of lawmakers on his right flank calling for his immediate removal, through a process known as motion to vacate, for working along bipartisan lines on critical legislation. The push is being made by Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.; Thomas Massie, R-Ky.; and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz. TENSIONS ERUPT ON HOUSE FLOOR AS CONSERVATIVES CONFRONT JOHNSON ON $95B FOREIGN AID PLAN The vast majority of House Republicans have refused to take up that fight again, but Republicans angry over what they see as Johnson’s failure to deliver on conservative priorities like border security and cutting federal spending signal he has miles of ground to recover before they back him a second time. “Whoever wants to be in any leadership position for the Republican House of Representatives should we be blessed to be given the majority again, which is going to take a c— ton of hard work between now and November, is going to have to demonstrate not only the policy direction they want to, but the track record and willingness to stand up and fight for it. And, so far, we have not delivered what we need to deliver,” said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas. ‘DEFINITION OF INSANITY’: FRUSTRATED HOUSE REPUBLICANS BLAST GOP REBELS’ THREAT TO OUST JOHNSON Good was one of eight House Republicans who voted with Democrats to oust McCarthy last year. He distanced himself from calls to immediately remove Johnson last week, citing the much slimmer House majority Johnson is operating with. But Good suggested he wanted to see new leadership races in November after the election. He told Fox News Digital Monday his support for Johnson would hinge on his handling of fiscal year 2025 appropriations, the deadline for which is Sept. 30. “He could truly fight for Republican policy initiatives. He could truly fight to cut our spending. He could fight to ensure that we do not fund the government unless it reflects Republican priorities,” Good said. “He has sort of one more big crack at the bat. I hope he’ll take that opportunity.” Johnson and Congressional appropriators are headed into that fight with their hands relatively tied by the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the deal to raise the debt limit struck by McCarthy and President Biden last year, which also set certain terms on shaping fiscal year 2025 funding priorities. A spokesperson for Johnson told Fox News Digital, “Speaker Johnson is committed to governing – not his political ambitions. He will continue to advance conservative priorities and demonstrate how we’ll grow our majority in November.” Party leadership races are normally held behind closed doors in the weeks after an election. If Republicans keep the House, Johnson would traditionally only need a majority vote there to then prevail as speaker on the House floor, with fellow Republicans expected to get in line even if they didn’t support him initially. But the 15 rounds McCarthy went through last year, repeatedly blocked by GOP dissent, show that Johnson may need to guarantee unanimous support behind closed doors even if he manages to keep Republicans in power. HOUSE REPUBLICANS BLAST ‘CRY WOLF’ CONSERVATIVES WHO TANKED FISA RENEWAL BILL “Moving forward, I would ask Mike Johnson if being speaker is something he wants to continue. If he is, I would have an all inclusive list of issues where he would agree/not agree to actually make happen as speaker BEFORE I would commit,” Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said via text message. Norman and Good were two of the original McCarthy holdouts “Based on his past performance, I doubt he would agree to take the hard negotiation stance that I would need to see. However, due to my respect that I have for Mike as a person, I would start with the questions as listed,” Norman said. Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., who voted to oust McCarthy in October, said he was “open to discussion” about supporting Johnson, but he needed to see “a clear plan for fiscal responsibility” and border security. Roy, however, was less optimistic House Republicans would see wins in the end-of-year spending fight. “There will not be, in my opinion, under this leadership, and in this environment, at this time, the ability to move or ration bills before Election Day that are going to drive the policy that needs to be driven,” the Texas Republican said. Johnson’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
White House visitor logs contradict Biden spokesman’s vow to ban DC official who praised notorious antisemite
FIRST ON FOX: A Washington, D.C., official has visited the White House twice since a spokesperson for President Biden said she wouldn’t be invited back after she praised noted antisemite Louis Farrakhan, Fox News Digital has learned. Cora Masters Barry, who was appointed CEO of the city’s Recreation Wish List Committee, delivered remarks in mid-2022 praising Farrakhan as a “friend” and “member of the family,” adding, “I love you more than words will ever say.” Shortly after her comments, White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates condemned Farrakhan and said Barry would not ever be invited back to the White House. FETTERMAN REJECTS HARRIS SUGGESTION THAT ISRAEL COULD FACE CONSEQUENCES FOR RAFAH INVASION: ‘HARD DISAGREE’ “The president has unequivocally condemned Louis Farrakhan and the hate he represents for decades and co-sponsored bipartisan legislation doing so,” Bates told Fox News Digital. “He also denounces any praise of Louis Farrakhan or his repugnant, antisemitic values, including in this case.” However, according to a Fox News Digital review of visitor logs, Barry returned to the White House in June 2023 and again in December 2023. The first visit, on June 13, 2023, appears to have been for a Juneteenth concert on the White House South Lawn, where Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris both delivered remarks. The purpose of her second visit, on Dec. 14, 2023, remains unclear, though it appears she attended an evening reception alongside hundreds of other invitees. The White House and Barry didn’t respond to requests for comment. ISRAEL LAUDS CONGRESS’ BLOW TO UN AGENCY WITH ALLEGED HAMAS TIES AS INVESTIGATIONS CONTINUE Washington, D.C.Mayor Muriel Bowser appointed Barry to her current position, saying in 2021 that she was “grateful for women” like Barry. Bowser notably stood by Barry after City Council Chairman Phil Mendelson moved to block her from serving on the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities. Overall, Barry, who donated $500 each to Biden’s presidential campaign and the Biden Victory Fund, according to federal filings, has visited the White House at least six times since Biden took office. Barry previously received criticism for her comments attacking white women and compared supporters of former President Trump to the Ku Klux Klan. Her praise for Farrakhan, who leads the Nation of Islam religious group, was uttered during a private event in October 2022 honoring her late husband, former Washington, D.C., Mayor Marion Barry. Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam have been heavily criticized by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which was founded to stop the defamation of Jewish people, and by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The ADL has called Farrakhan “one of the most prominent antisemites,” and SPLC has classified the Nation of Islam as a hate group. The White House has repeatedly reaffirmed that the president has disavowed Farrakhan, though the most recent public example appears to be a Senate floor speech Biden delivered four decades ago, in 1984. The Nation of Islam didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Trump v US: SCOTUS likely to determine presidents get ‘some amount’ of immunity, experts say
The Supreme Court is set to consider arguably the highest-profile cases of the term Thursday to determine whether former President Trump can claim presidential immunity against criminal charges brought by the Biden Justice Department. Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought charges against Trump following his investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and Trump’s alleged plot to overturn the 2020 election result, argued in briefs submitted to the high court that “presidents are not above the law.” Trump’s legal team conversely argued, “A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President…[t]he threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial decisions, taking away the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the Presidency.” Legal experts told Fox News Digital that while all nine justices might be skeptical of Trump’s sweeping immunity claims, they are likely to give guidance on where presidential immunity from criminal prosecution ends for actions taken while in the Oval Office – which could have a profound impact in the criminal cases against the former president. SUPREME COURT PREPARES TO DEBATE TRUMP IMMUNITY CLAIM IN ELECTION INTERFERENCE CASE Jonathan Turley, a practicing criminal defense attorney and professor at George Washington University, told Fox News Digital the case is “surrounded by rather steep constitutional cliffs.” “This case may be rather maddening for the justices because it is surrounded by rather steep constitutional cliffs. If the court goes one way, a president has little protection in carrying out the duties of his office. If they turned the other way, he has a little accountability for the most serious criminal acts,” Turley said. “This is a court that tends to be incremental. They tend not to favor sweeping rulings,” he said. The Justice Department argued in lower court that a president has virtually no immunity when he leaves office, and the lower court agreed. Turley says the justices “could reject the lower court decision and send it back for a more nuanced approach on constitutional immunity.” “The justices may find that presidents do require immunity, even with regard to some criminal acts,” Turley said, adding that “any remand would work significantly in the former president’s favor on a tactical level.” Turley explained that if the case were to be remanded back down to Judge Tanya Chutkan in the D.C. District Court, that process would make a trial before the November election “even less likely.” “There are both constitutional and tactical aspects to the ruling, but I think these justices are likely to approach this argument with an eye toward balancing these interests, and if that’s the case, they could well come up with a different approach than the lower court or the former president,” Turley said. LEGAL EXPERTS SAY JACK SMITH’S RUNWAY TO TRY TRUMP BEFORE 2024 ELECTION ‘JUST GOT A LOT SHORTER’ The thrust of Trump’s legal argument is that Supreme Court precedent says absolute immunity from civil liability exists for a former president for his official acts, and that the same immunity should apply to a criminal context. “There’s a real likelihood that the Supreme Court will give some concrete guidance on the exact amount of protection a president is entitled to,” Jim Trusty, former legal counsel for Trump and a former federal prosecutor, told Fox News Digital. “There are still likely to be factual issues that the lower courts will then have to decide as to where President Trump’s actions fit within this continuum of protected or unprotected conduct,” he explained. John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both the George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations, gave a similar view. “The chances of the Supreme Court giving the office of the president some amount of level of immunity are pretty good,” Shu told Fox News Digital. But Shu also said “there’s also a decent chance that whatever immunity the court carves out, it may not encompass Trump’s alleged acts.” RED STATE AGS BLAST SPECIAL COUNSEL PUSH FOR SCOTUS TO RUSH TRUMP CASE: ‘PARTISAN INTERESTS’ “They won’t be making purely legal arguments, but political power arguments as well, and they’ll have to get at least five Supreme Court justices to agree with them,” Shu said. Trusty said the questions put to each of the parties in Thursday’s oral arguments “could be pretty transparent as to each justice’s view of immunity.” So far, Shu observed, Trump’s attorneys have argued that the president has absolute immunity, even after he leaves office, for any and all acts. “I don’t think the court will go that far,” Shu said. Similarly, Trusty said he expects the court to “give very little credit to the notion of absolutely unlimited immunity, as President Trump’s lawyers have argued.” “But I do think there is a strong possibility that the court confirms the notion that immunity protects the president and that their ruling could set in motion the eventual dismissal of the Jan. 6, Mar-a-Lago and Georgia cases,” he said. The Supreme Court will hear the case, Trump v. United States, on Thursday at 10 a.m. The Justice Department declined to comment. Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement, “Without immunity for official acts, there can be no Presidency. No President in American history has faced prosecution for his official acts — until now.” “Allowing political opponents to prosecute the President once he leaves office will distort the President’s most important decisions. Even during his Presidency, his enemies will blackmail and extort him with threats of lawless criminal charges and imprisonment once his term ends. The Framers of our Constitution wisely created a system that prevented this endless, destructive cycle of recrimination for 234 years,” he continued. “The Supreme Court should uphold Presidential immunity and put an end to Jack Smith’s deranged, unconstitutional witch hunt against President Trump, once and for all,” he said.
David Pecker calmly links Trump, Michael Cohen to suppressing stories, pushing fake news
David Pecker, who ran the National Enquirer empire, confirmed under oath yesterday that he had used catch-and-kill payments to help Donald Trump’s campaign – and his text messages didn’t help the former president either. In his second day of testimony, the former Trump pal calmly described forking over cash in two such instances: one for a story that turned out to be flatly untrue, and one to buy the silence of former Playboy playmate Karen McDougal, who alleges a 10-month affair that Trump denies. Time ran out before they got to Stormy Daniels, whose account of a one-night sexual encounter with Trump – which he also denies – is at the heart of the case, at least if it can be tied to falsified business records. Under questioning by Manhattan Assistant D.A. Josh Steinglass, Pecker said he even viewed it as his duty to the campaign to help keep damaging Trump stories out of other publications. PROSECUTORS REVEAL ‘ANOTHER CRIME’ AT HEART OF FORMER PRESIDENT’S CHARGES In his second day of testimony at the hush money trial, Pecker said former Trump fixer Michael Cohen invited him to the candidate’s June 2015 launch, part of an effort to show how close he was to Trump and his team. (My personal favorites: He pitched a magazine called Trump Style, and Trump would leak him the ratings for “The Apprentice,” which the Enquirer would publish.) In August 2015, in a meeting with Trump and Cohen, Pecker says he was asked: “What can I do, and what my magazines could do, to help the campaign.” His response: “I would run or publish positive stories about Mr. Trump, and negative stories about his opponents.” Cohen said he could have such stories killed even if they were slated to run in another publication, Pecker testified. The positive stories were easy: “Donald Trump: Healthiest Individual Ever Elected!” But Cohen would call, ask for a negative story on, say, Ted Cruz, send the information, “and we’d embellish it from there.” Which led to “Ted Cruz Sex Scandal: 5 Secret Mistresses” – total fake news. (And who can forget the bogus Enquirer story purporting to tie Cruz’s dad to the JFK assassination?) Or there would be a request for a hit piece on Ben Carson: “Bungling Surgeon Ben Carson Left Sponge in Patient’s Brain.” TRUMP SLAMS ‘UNCONSTITUTIONAL’ GAG ORDER AS TRIAL WRAPS FOR DAY: ‘ALL BIDEN’ One factor that could play out in Trump’s favor – or with a lone juror holdout – is that both Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal were negotiating to sell their stories in the final stretch of the campaign, when the candidate would be at his most vulnerable. Pecker described paying $30,000 to a former Trump building doorman for his story about the candidate having fathered an out-of-wedlock baby. But an Enquirer found the story to be utterly untrue. Interestingly, had it been substantiated, Pecker said he would have run it – after the election. With McDougal, who was supposedly negotiating with ABC, Pecker had Enquirer editor-in-chief Dylan Howard investigate and he found her account credible. Cohen constantly called for updates, and Trump was concerned enough to call Pecker himself. Pecker said they should buy and suppress her story. Trump was opposed, saying when you do that, it always comes out and you look even worse. But Pecker insisted. So the Enquirer arranged a $150,000 payment that was for McDougal to write a fitness column for another magazine in parent company America Media’s stable–and stay quiet about Trump, he testified. Now none of this has to do with the heart of the legal case, which is about falsifying business records to hide the reimbursements to Cohen. But that is pretty boring stuff. What prosecutors were trying to do is tell a story, with Pecker–who is testifying under a previous grant of immunity–more believable than the disbarred, later jailed Cohen, whose credibility will come under fierce attack. LAW PROFESSOR ROASTS MANHATTAN DA’S CASE AGAINST TRUMP IN NY TIMES GUEST ESSAY Next up, Pecker will tell the Stormy Daniels story tomorrow, with no trial proceedings today. And, presumably, eventually get to his falling out with Trump. Earlier, Judge Juan Marchan heard from both sides on whether Trump had violated his gag order by attacking other witnesses–namely Cohen and Stormy–and wound up excoriating the former president’s lawyer. Prosecutors said Trump had violated the gag order 10 times, and proposed a fine of a thousand bucks per incident. So the entire argument was about $10,000 – which even in his cash-strapped state, is a rounding error for Trump. The former president’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, said there was “absolutely no willful violation of a gag order” and that his client was allowed to respond to attacks by Cohen and Daniels. Blanche had a weak hand to play, and Merchan kept pressing him for specific comments by Cohen and Daniels. The judge grew exasperated, raising his voice at one point: “I keep asking you over and over to give me an answer and I’m not getting an answer.” It was “silly,” Merchan said, to assume the gag order was somehow waived because Trump had been attacked. Finally, the judge scolded Blanche: “You’re losing all credibility with the court. You’ve presented nothing.” Judge Merchan didn’t make a decision yesterday, but it’s crystal clear what he intends to do.