NYC sends first bus of asylum-seekers to suburbs despite backlash

NEW YORK — The administration of New York City Mayor Eric Adams dispatched a bus of asylum-seekers to a town north of the city Thursday, marking the first time City Hall has successfully sent migrants to the suburbs as it deals with strains on its own social safety net.

On Thursday morning, a few dozen asylum-seekers were put on a coach bound for a hotel in Orange Lake, a hamlet with 10,000 residents about 70 miles north of the city in Orange County, according to City Hall.

“We are coordinating, explaining to our colleagues in the state that this is a statewide issue,” Adams said Thursday during an unrelated press briefing.

The moderate Democratic mayor drew a distinction between what the city is doing and the actions of Texas' Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who Adams has accused of sending busloads of migrants to the city without warning.

“We’re paying for [services]. We’re only taking volunteers. We are communicating with the officials up there on what we’re doing,” Adams said. “Some may not like it, but people can’t say we’re not communicating.”

Many of those colleagues, however, have found the city’s outreach lacking.

Republican Orange County Executive Steve Neuhaus said in an interview Thursday he spoke with Adams a day earlier and asked for more information about the migrants who would be arriving and the services that would be provided. Ultimately, he urged the mayor to delay the move.

“We've had some very heated conversations between the mayor and myself,” Neuhaus told POLITICO Thursday. “Nothing nasty, but I said, 'Look it, this can be a real security problem if you bring these folks up here and we have zero information.’”

The reaction from Rockland County has been overtly hostile. Rockland County Executive Ed Day, who is also a Republican, has deployed police in anticipation of arriving asylum-seekers and at one point threatened to grab Adams by the throat.

“His thoughts and how he responded to this really shows a lack of leadership — I thought he was the Texas governor the way he acted," Adams said of Day.

On Tuesday, a judge granted a temporary restraining order barring a Rockland County hotel from hosting asylum-seekers, something Adams said Thursday he would fight in court.

Against this tense backdrop, county executives from across the state are expected to have a call with Adams and Gov. Kathy Hochul later Thursday to discuss the city’s efforts to move migrants to other parts of the state.

“We're looking for some communication, coordination, clarification and good government partnerships,” said Mark Lavigne, spokesperson for the state Association of Counties. “This is a federal issue that is flowing downhill to the level of government that serves those most in need on the local level.”

The conversation is being driven by the situation in New York City. Adams said the city has run out of space to house arriving asylum-seekers after opening more than 120 emergency hotels and several larger Humanitarian Emergency Relief and Response Centers.

“I think it was Sunday, [New York City Emergency Management Commissioner Zachary Iscol] called me around 1 a.m. in the morning and said: We literally don’t have any more hotel space,” Adams said.

At the time, the city placed cots in a police facility gym. Going forward, it will be looking for more alternative settings to house large numbers of asylum-seekers in congregate settings including warehouses, a former military base in Brooklyn and the campus of a Queens psychiatric center.

With those situations in mind, Adams took the extraordinary step Wednesday of penning an executive order that suspends parts of the city’s right-to-shelter law, which drew immediate condemnation from the New York Civil Liberties Union. Under the new guidelines, for example, families with children could be housed in congregate settings instead of in a private room with a kitchen and bathroom. And while Adams called the decision to suspend parts of the law a difficult one, he argued it was born of necessity.

“When my son went to college in a dorm, he didn’t have his own kitchen and bathroom, and he still did a great job,” Adams said. “That's just not realistic: When you get [thousands of] people in your city, that you're going to find a place for kitchen and a bathroom.”

Since last year, more than 60,000 asylum-seekers have passed through the city, with nearly 38,000 currently in the administration's care, according to the latest numbers from City Hall. All told, officials expect the price tag for housing, shelter and other services to reach $4.3 billion by next summer.

Those numbers and the impending expiration of a border policy known as Title 42 have driven the mayor to pointedly criticize President Joe Biden over the White House’s handling of the crisis.

Yesterday, the mayor no longer appeared on a list of top Democratic surrogates supporting the president’s reelection campaign.

On Thursday, Adams said that he is a strong supporter of Biden’s campaign and the two are still close.

“Our relationship is a good one,” Adams said. “I think if you ask him, he’ll tell you: Eric is my guy.”

And he added that the president might want to keep some people around who can contradict him from time to time.

“You don’t want a friend who’s going to agree with you just to agree, you want a friend that’s going to be honest and candid,” Adams said. “I’ve made it clear, no matter what committee I’m on, there’s only one committee that means the most to me: the committee of the mayor of the City of New York.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/8uVo2Dc
via IFTTT

Read More

Comer releases Biden family probe update without showing link to president

House Republicans on Wednesday showed their cards on a sprawling investigation into the Biden family — sans a smoking gun that directly links President Joe Biden.

The rollout by Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and GOP members of his panel marks the biggest public swing that Republicans have taken since November in a probe they’ve put at the center of investigations they hope will help them both keep their majority in 2024 and win the White House.

But the highly anticipated press conference also raised fresh questions about their ability to ultimately capture their white whale: the president himself. And Comer's already faced plenty of doubt, including from some within his own party, that he can back up his promises to show Biden's connection to family business dealings.

No link has publicly emerged, and that didn't change at Wednesday's press conference.

Asked if he would ultimately be able to prove his central thesis, Comer sidestepped: “I don’t think anyone in America … would think that it’s just a coincidence that nine Biden family members have received money.”

“We believe that the president has been involved in this from the very beginning. Obviously, we’re going to continue to look,” he added, characterizing Wednesday's update as the “beginning stages” of his investigation.

Even as Republicans continue to rhetorically circle around Biden, much of the investigative effort they revealed on Wednesday centered around a network of businesses related to his family members and their associates.

A 30-plus-page memo from GOP Oversight staff, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO, focused on payments linked to Romania and China. According to the GOP memo based on bank records the committee has obtained, Biden family members, business associates or related companies received more than $10 million in total from companies run by foreign nationals.

The memo detailed payments to Biden family members and asserted that “it is not credible” that the president wasn’t aware of his family’s business efforts given the total size of the payments. It also did not show any way in which Biden’s decisions were influenced by those agreements or that he had direct knowledge of them.

And while Republicans have criticized the payments as questionable, they stopped short of calling any of the activity potentially illegal.

Comer outlined his next investigative steps on Wednesday, vowing that he would soon issue subpoenas to several more banks. He also hinted at subpoenaing Hunter Biden’s business associates, including a gallery that has been selling the First Son's artwork.

He’s also mulling a slate of potential legislation, including changes to ethics and financial disclosure legislation that would impact both presidents’ family members.

Congressional Democrats, the White House and their off-Hill allies push back that Comer is repackaging previous public reporting. They argue that the Kentucky Republican is cherry-picking from a swath of documents he has received as part of the investigation.

“Rep. Comer … has spent the last five months making wild predictions without proof, asking inane questions out loud and falling short every time — including today,” said Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Hunter Biden. “Today’s so-called ‘revelations’ are retread, repackaged misstatements of perfectly proper meetings and business by private citizens.”

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, added that “there’s a lot of innuendo and a lot of gossip taking place and much of it is recycled from prior claims.”

Democratic Oversight Committee staff circulated their own memo on Wednesday, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO, that accused Comer of misrepresenting suspicious activity reports — or SARs — that he has received from the Treasury Department. The records are submitted by banks to the Treasury but don’t necessarily indicate wrongdoing.

“None of the SARs allege, or even suggest, any potential misconduct by President Biden, and many of the SARs, including those on which Chairman Comer relies, are based on erroneous or unfounded claims,” the memo from Raskin’s staff says. (A GOP Oversight aide told POLITICO that the information in Republicans' memo is based not on the Treasury documents but on separate bank records they received from subpoenas.)

Comer’s press conference comes as he competes for the investigative spotlight on other Biden investigations.

Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), also a member of the Oversight Committee, released a new report Wednesday morning on his separate investigation into a 2020 letter from 51 former intelligence officials who warned that a New York Post story related to Hunter Biden could be the product of Russian disinformation. Jordan’s also gobbled up weeks of media attention over a high-profile standoff with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg over his investigation involving former President Donald Trump.

That's on top of the looming decision by Justice Department officials on whether to charge Hunter Biden as part of a yearslong tax- and gun-related case. That probe into Hunter Biden began in 2018 and initially centered on his finances, related to overseas business ties and consulting work. Investigators later shifted their focus to whether he failed to report all of his income and whether he lied on a form required for buying a gun.

But the larger sweep of the Biden family is where Comer’s piled a lot of his chips. It’s also the investigation that has earned him skepticism from some fellow Republicans and made the once under-the-radar GOP lawmaker a target of Democrats, the White House and outside groups.

Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), another member of the committee, credited Comer for handling the political crosswinds of his high-profile committee. Asked about his expectations for Wednesday, Armstrong caveated that lawmakers “don’t prosecute crimes” but said he believes Republicans will lay out “very clearly that the Biden family was influence peddling.”

“You’re not getting Jim Jordan lite. You’re getting a very different person,” Armstrong added of Comer. “He’s methodical. He’s smart. He trusts his staff. He trusts his members and he communicates well. Pretty good place to be when you’re dealing with a pretty fractious caucus.”

Comer has had to deal with a right flank pushing him to go further, faster. His committee is stacked with conservative firebrands including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and House Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.).

And while Comer has thanked Trump when he’s voiced support for the Kentucky Republican’s investigation, he’s also bristled when he gets questions about any talks with the former president — noting that he voted to certify Biden’s Electoral College win despite representing a deeply red district.

“I get asked … ‘What do you and Trump talk about?’ I haven’t talked to Trump,” Comer said in a recent interview. “I voted to certify the presidential election. … I don’t know why people think I’m on the phone with Donald Trump all the time.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/87APBl9
via IFTTT

Read More

House GOP leaders confront last-minute border bill drama

They still have to make changes to win over a coalition of holdouts, but they're confident it'll pass the chamber this week.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/gyHzKcJ
via IFTTT

Read More

Trump goes mainstream on CNN. The rest of the pack sucks wind.

When the lights flick on for Donald Trump’s town hall on CNN tonight, much of Washington will fixate on the clash between the former president and a network he's derided as “fake news.”

But what the prime-time event will lay bare is something far more consequential for the presidential primary: Trump is fast-forwarding toward a broader, general election media strategy, while some of his rivals are stuck in primary mode.

Long before the first nominating contests, Trump is already wooing the traditional press — inviting all three of the major TV networks and a phalanx of print and digital outlets to tag along with him to events on his Boeing 757, regaling reporters in mini-press conferences and courting Millennial audiences with YouTubers. All this, while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and much of the rest of the trailing pack hunkers down in conservative media, sidesteps interviews and freezes out beat reporters.

“He’s trying to win back everyone he can win back,” said Ron Gidwitz, a Republican fundraiser who served as Trump’s ambassador to Belgium but who questioned whether Trump has the “gravitas” necessary to be president again. “I think he believes he’s got the ability that if he can talk to people, he can persuade them.”

It's not without major risk. Trump's appearance on Wednesday night will come roughly 24 hours after a jury found him liable for sexual abuse against the writer E. Jean Carroll. He is expected to be pressed on that verdict, along with prior charges from Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg in a case involving payments to a porn actress. He is likely to face his first truly adversarial questioning on TV about his actions on Jan. 6.

But allies see the town hall as part of a larger play, designed for Trump to take on the image of the primary winner, not a mere candidate.

Trump’s embrace of mainstream media, after years spent bashing the press unrelentingly, may be a product of his unquenchable thirst to be at the center of the spotlight — a trait he’s exhibited since his days as a brash real estate tycoon dominating New York City’s tabloids in the 1980s. But it is also a sign of a more traditional political operation than was evident in his past campaigns. And it is a strategy that could have a major impact on the early stages of the primary, threatening to suck the oxygen from his more insulated and, in some cases, media-averse rivals.

“The difference is, Trump will do both Real America’s Voice and CNN interviews, and the campaign or PAC will highlight New York Times articles as well as Jack Posobiec tweets. We are dealing with the whole spectrum of media, whether liberal or very right wing,” said a Republican strategist working to elect Trump, who was granted anonymity to speak freely about his views of the campaign’s media plans. “I think there is a concerted effort to not isolate ourselves to conservative media and talk to all outlets because people still read those outlets. The New York Times has a huge readership. CNN has more viewers than Newsmax.”

Trump’s decision to exit the conservative media echo chamber is driven, in part, by the belief that the GOP's donor class doesn't actually reside there. While voters are familiarizing themselves with different candidates, the strategist said it’s important to make sure they are reaching donors who are reading the Wall Street Journal, not the Epoch Times.

Since the beginning of the year, Trump has brought all three of the major TV networks on his trips to rallies, and has gaggled with reporters from Politico, CNN, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, and Axios aboard his plane. Trump has sat for friendly interviews with Fox News and Nigel Farage. But he has also done pull-aside interviews with the Associated Press, local news outlets and conservative radio shows with a large listening audience. This spring, he started trying to court a younger millennial audience by inviting the Nelk Boys — a group of 20-something YouTube stars — to interview him at Mar-a-Lago.

He still tussles with the press. Earlier this year, Trump became frustrated with an NBC reporter’s line of questioning aboard his plane and he tossed aside the reporter’s phone, which was recording the group interview. And he has continued to make comments about different news outlets on his social media site Truth Social. But he has largely been welcoming of reporters from almost every outlet at this point in his campaign.

His chief rival, DeSantis, has taken an almost opposite approach, catering to media outlets that openly favor right-wing politicians. In March, the Florida governor sat for more than an hour with Piers Morgan in a wide-ranging interview that aired on a Fox affiliate and was previewed in the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post. He toured his hometown of Dunedin with Fox's Brian Kilmeade in March. And over the weekend he granted Newsmax an interview.

As governor, DeSantis’ team tightly controls press conferences to showcase supporters and minimizes dissent by limiting questions. And when DeSantis doesn’t like a reporter’s inquiry, it shows. He bristled during a recent overseas trip when a reporter questioned him on his trailing poll numbers, and he expressed annoyance during another interaction over his past comments on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

A DeSantis spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

In a typical primary, a message tailored to right-wing media would not be unexpected. Republican presidential candidates find themselves auditioning for the job amid an asymmetric media landscape in which “very few” news organizations are trusted by a majority of both Republicans and Democrats, according to an April YouGov survey released this week. Among Republicans, according to the survey, Fox News, Newsmax and One America News rank highest in trustworthiness.

The jettisoning of Tucker Carlson from Fox News has complicated that. The network has been attacked by conservatives for the move and has struggled with its ratings during that time slot.

But candidates like Nikki Haley — whom Carlson not only declined to invite onto his show, but has disparaged on air — now have a shot at getting booked during Fox’s 8 p.m. hour. That’s already happening for Sen. Tim Scott, who has now twice appeared on the show since Carlson’s departure two weeks ago, something that wasn’t occurring previously. Carlson on Tuesday announced he would be launching a new show on Twitter.

Like Trump, former Vice President Mike Pence has been doling out interviews to outlets across the ideological spectrum. Pence world occasionally blasts its press list with more favorable right-leaning clips, including a Washington Examiner interview by Salena Zito earlier this month, as well as an interview on The Brian Kilmeade Show. But his campaign also went to ABC’s David Muir for an exclusive sit down beforehand to talk about the events of Jan. 6.

Pence’s top communications aide, Devin O’Malley, is an admirer of the go-everywhere media strategy employed by Democratic operative Lis Smith when she worked for Pence’s fellow Hoosier Pete Buttigieg during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. O’Malley even mused about the possibility of putting the former vice president, an ardent fan of the NFL’s Indianapolis Colts, on ESPN’s ManningCast during Monday Night Football last fall. He has given interviews outside the right-wing echo-chamber, including his own CNN town hall last November, a podcast appearance with Democratic strategist David Axelrod and even sat down with The Dispatch, the never-Trump publication started by former staffers from the conservative Weekly Standard.

“I am still frustrated that I don’t think the public is seeing the Mike Pence that I know,” said Jim Atterholt, Pence’s former gubernatorial chief of staff who would later set up Pence’s legal defense fund during the Russia investigation. “I don’t think they’re seeing the guy with a great sense of humor— the self deprecating, the great encourager. I still think there’s a little bit of a hesitancy to show some leg, if you will, in the media and in his public appearances and in his speeches.”

Pence’s team still does occasionally have tiffs with reporters, including POLITICO. Marc Short, one of Pence’s top advisers, “puts reporters in the penalty box” from time to time, said a person close to Pence.

Similarly, Haley’s political team is known for attempting to box out reporters based on their coverage. Her media strategy this campaign has been to focus almost exclusively on conservative television hits and local early-state outlets, declining to give interviews to mainstream reporters since participating in a sit-down for the Today Show after her February campaign announcement.

Scott has spoken with a number of legacy outlets, from CBS to WMUR in Manchester, and NBC News and the Post and Courier in Charleston.

“We’re not going to hide him away, only putting him on certain shows or in extremely controlled interactions,” said a Scott adviser, authorized to speak anonymously to discuss campaign strategy. While conservative networks will be “first among equals,” the adviser said, Scott’s team realizes that “conservative eyeballs are found in a variety of places,” not just in front of Fox News and Newsmax.

Scott’s adviser declined to comment on the senator’s decision to stop giving hallway interviews at the Capitol, a new practice Hill reporters have observed in recent months.

Ramaswamy, meanwhile, may be the most ubiquitous of all GOP aspirants, leaning fully into a say-yes media strategy.

“One of my top competitors in this race says he won’t talk to NBC News because they’re not nice to him,” Ramaswamy said, referring to DeSantis. “Well, if you’re afraid of sitting across the table from Chuck Todd, then you’re not ready to represent America across the table from Xi Jinping.”

It’s just another example of many underscoring Trump’s challengers' difficulty in wrestling their share of the spotlight from him.

The 2024 media scrutiny will only ramp up in the coming months for all the declared candidates, and DeSantis and Pence have not yet announced a run. That means for now, Trump is able to dominate the conversation.

“They’re like a cat chasing a laser dot on the wall,” said Mike Madrid, the Republican strategist who was a co-founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, of the GOP field. “They’re not driving anything in the electorate, they’re trying to reflect it. And Donald Trump is the one holding the pen.”

Shia Kapos contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/XsOn9rJ
via IFTTT

Read More

E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer: Trump has 'no legitimate arguments' for appeal

E. Jean Carroll’s legal team says they're confident that any appeal from former President Donald Trump has “no legitimate argument” after a jury found him liable of sexually abusing and defaming the writer on Tuesday.

“I've rarely felt more confident about an appeal than I do about this one,” said Robbie Kaplan, Carroll’s lawyer, on NBC’s “Today” Wednesday morning. “They have no legitimate arguments for appeal.”

A federal jury in New York found that Trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll, who accused him of attacking her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s. After deliberating for three hours, the nine-person jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million.

Following the decision, Trump’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said the former president would appeal because “they rejected the rape claim and they always claimed this was a rape case, so it’s a little perplexing. But we move forward.”

Trump vented his frustration with the case in a dozen Truth Social posts, accusing the judge of bias, calling the case a “witch hunt trial” and denying knowing who Carroll is.

“I HAVE NO IDEA WHO THIS WOMAN, WHO MADE A FALSE AND TOTALLY FABRICATED ACCUSATION, IS. HOPEFULLY JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED ON APPEAL!” Trump wrote Wednesday morning.

Carroll told CNN on Wednesday morning that she shook Tacopina's hand after the trial and told the lawyer, “he did it and you know it.” Tacopina smiled but didn’t verbally respond, she said.

While Carroll testified that Trump raped her in a dressing room in 1996, the jury found that Carroll did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump had committed that crime.

When pressed on how she felt about the verdict on CNN, Carroll deferred comment to her lawyer. But when asked again, she provided some insight:

“Well, I just immediately say into my head, ‘Oh yes you did, oh yes you did.’ See, that's my response,” she said, referring to the rape accusation. Even though he wasn’t found guilty of rape, sexual abuse is a “very, very serious offense,” Kaplan added.

Kaplan said she expects Trump’s legal team to draw out the process but predicted the case will be settled within a year.

“The courts are already familiar with his strategy of delay, delay, delay, so I don’t think he’s going to be able to delay very much here,” Kaplan said on MSNBC Wednesday. “I’d expect tops six months to a year, maybe even sooner if we can get them to expedite.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/l9pMQFD
via IFTTT

Read More

A Stunning Result in Trump’s Sexual Assault Trial

Donald Trump’s one term in office produced several presidential firsts in our legal system. He was the first president to be impeached twice, the first president to have been charged with a crime, and now, the first president to be deemed liable for sexual assault by a jury of his peers.

On Tuesday afternoon, a jury in federal court in Manhattan rendered its verdict in a case brought late last year by the writer E. Jean Carroll, who alleged that Trump assaulted her in a dressing room in Bergdorf Goodman in the spring of 1996. The jury concluded within hours that Trump was liable on two civil claims brought by Carroll under New York law — one for battery, and another for defamation based on Trump’s denial of Carroll’s allegations in a post on Truth Social in October 2022. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million. (A separate defamation lawsuit brought in 2019 based on Trump’s denials of Carroll’s claims while in office technically remains pending, thanks to the Justice Department’s ill-advised decision to intervene on Trump’s behalf.)

Before we go further, it is important to recall at the outset the difference between the standards of proof in civil and criminal legal proceedings. In a civil case, the plaintiff typically has to establish that her claims are true under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, which essentially just means that it is more likely than not that the plaintiff’s allegations are true. In a criminal case, the government has to establish that the defendant committed the alleged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, a higher threshold. The centerpiece of Carroll’s case was an alleged crime — sexual assault — but the criminal statute of limitations had long lapsed, so Carroll brought a civil suit, which was resolved under a much more forgiving legal standard than the one that applies in an actual criminal case.

The verdict came, however, with an important qualification: The jury concluded that Carroll did not prove that Trump had raped her, as Carroll had alleged, but that Trump had nevertheless sexually abused her. A finding of rape would have required the jury to conclude that Trump had engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse with Carroll, but the jury apparently opted to conclude that something short of that — but nevertheless disturbing, illegal and sexually abusive — had happened.

Still, the jury’s verdict in Carroll’s favor is a stunning result, though for people who have been following the case closely, it was not particularly surprising. Carroll had very capable lawyers, who moved their case forward briskly and professionally and kept the pressure on Trump, who tried to dodge the case in pretty much every conceivable way. (Disclosure: I used to work with Carroll’s lead attorney, Roberta Kaplan, and remain friendly with her.)

At the trial, according to reporting from journalists who watched the proceedings, Carroll’s lawyers presented an efficient, well-constructed and coherent case — including testimony from Carroll herself, from two witnesses who spoke with Carroll shortly after her encounter with Trump, from a former Bergdorf Goodman employee who testified that the relevant area in the store at the time matched Carroll’s description, and from another employee of the store who testified that there were no security cameras in the area at the time.

Other witnesses for Carroll included Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, who testified that Trump had sexually assaulted them as well. In short, Carroll’s lawyers presented her account, they corroborated it with testimony from other witnesses close to Carroll or who had had their own encounters with Trump, and they addressed head on some of Trump’s lawyers’ dubious claims in defense, which included questioning why there was no video available of an assault that occurred more than 25 years ago.

For their part, Trump’s lawyers struggled to put up much of a defense. In the run-up to the trial, they made multiple long-shot efforts to get the trial adjourned, which the presiding judge — a long-serving, well-regarded judge in the district — repeatedly rejected. At trial, Trump’s lawyers vigorously cross-examined Carroll, though this clearly did not fully persuade the jurors, and Trump’s lawyers put on no witnesses of their own. Trump did not testify in his own defense, even though nothing prevented him from doing so if he had a compelling response to offer to Carroll’s claims. Instead, Carroll’s lawyers played excerpts from Trump’s deposition, which was a debacle that effectively made Trump a witness against himself.

Of course, Trump is not the only politician — he is not even the only president — to face allegations of sexual assault. Former President Bill Clinton, for instance, has also been accused of rape — a point that Trump has raised before in trying to deflect from the more voluminous and broader array of allegations against him. President Joe Biden has also been accused of sexual assault, though that claim faded from mainstream news coverage after questions emerged about the credibility of the accuser. (Both Clinton and Biden have denied the allegations against them.)

Needless to say, every allegation needs to be taken and judged on its own terms, but even if you hate Clinton or Biden, Trump’s case now exists in a distinct realm: The allegations by Carroll were subject to a legitimate and robust adversarial legal process; the case was overseen by a highly competent judge and litigated by competent attorneys on both sides; and the claims were adjudicated by a jury of Trump’s peers pursuant to the law.

It is true that Manhattanites strongly dislike Trump, but there is no indication at this time that the jury did anything less than listen to the evidence and to the judge’s instructions. During the trial, Trump’s lawyers sought to lay the groundwork for an appeal by complaining about alleged bias on the part of the judge, but the arguments raised so far do not appear to be particularly strong.

By itself, the verdict in Carroll’s case is a remarkable and ugly turn of events for Trump, but there are broader implications as well.

Most notably, the verdict serves as at least partial vindication for many other women who have lodged their own allegations against Trump. Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by dozens of women over the years. Carroll’s allegations were particularly shocking and horrifying, so the case served both as a referendum on Carroll’s specific case — albeit one that the jury resolved in somewhat mixed fashion — but also as a larger proxy battle over Trump’s mistreatment of women over the decades. Whether Trump likes it or not, the verdict lends further support to the credibility of all of those other allegations, which range in their substantive particulars but generally track Trump’s appalling comments on the Access Hollywood tape about how he can do pretty much whatever he wants to women, including assaulting them.

There is, however, little reason to believe that there will be a cascade of litigation following Carroll’s victory, but that appears to have just as much to do with legal constraints as anything else. The statutes of limitations for any other civil and criminal claims based on other alleged sexual misconduct by Trump have probably largely if not entirely lapsed, which is fortunate for the former president. Carroll’s suit, however, managed to emerge for at least two reasons — first, because Trump offered very specific and repeated denials of her allegations even after he left office, and second, because New York passed a law last year that revived civil claims based on sexual assault that would otherwise have been too old to bring in court. Under the circumstances, it is safe to assume that anyone else with a viable legal claim against Trump for comparable conduct would likely have brought it by now.

As a country, we also now have to grapple with the political implications of having a leading presidential contender who has been found liable for conduct as grotesque as sexual assault. Regardless of what one thinks of Trump’s fitness for the presidency, this is a qualitatively new development that could — or at least should — conceivably turn some voters away from him.

In the political arena, Trump might offer some version of his usual bluster to defend himself — perhaps that the judge was systematically biased against him, that Carroll’s lawyer is some sort of covert political operative working on behalf of the Democratic Party, or that he was for some reason or another unable to defend himself in court. None of this is true, though that has never stopped Trump before. Indeed, after the verdict, his presidential campaign claimed: “In jurisdictions wholly controlled by the Democratic Party our nation’s justice system is now compromised by extremist left-wing politics.”

Even before the verdict, there were assessments in the media of the political fallout — or lack thereof — from the case, but there is at least one important reason that the case did not attract more widespread or prominent coverage in the run-up to the trial: Carroll and her lawyers appear to have exercised extraordinary restraint in giving interviews or making public appearances in the months leading up to the trial, perhaps so as not to antagonize the judge, who was particularly concerned about ensuring that the case was decided based on the evidence in the courtroom rather than media coverage. Suffice to say that that may now change — both Carroll and Kaplan should now be free to give interviews if they like — now that the verdict is in.

Still, we should also be prepared for the distinct possibility that the verdict will not significantly shift voters’ preferences. This may be a dispiriting prospect, but so far, his supporters do not appear particularly concerned about his many legal problems, and many of them are likely to hang much on either Trump’s denials or the jury’s rejection of Carroll’s specific claim of rape, even though sexual assault without intercourse is awful enough on its own terms.

That political dynamic could always change, but at least one thing remains true. Trump, while often wrong, has always been right about something that the verdict on Tuesday confirmed once again. The former president is one of a kind — just not for the reason he might like.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/O4LVu7h
via IFTTT

Read More

Wagner still holds significant territory in Bakhmut, U.S. officials say

Forces affiliated with Wagner, Russia’s leading paramilitary organization, continue to hold the majority of territory in the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut and possess significant stockpiles of ammunition despite some losses, according to two senior U.S. officials.

In the last week, Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of Wagner, appeared in a slew of videos on social media threatening to withdraw his soldiers entirely from the city — where they have led the fighting for the Russians in recent months —in part because they did not have the necessary weapons and ammunition.

Instead, Prigozhin said, Chechen forces should take over. The Wagner boss later recanted that threat, saying in one video the Russian defense ministry had made assurances it would send additional resources to the frontline. “We’ll keep pushing for a few more days,” he said.

The statements sparked widespread speculation that Wagner fighters may soon leave Bakhmut altogether, potentially creating an opening for Ukrainian forces to advance. The complete departure of Wagner forces would likely change the trajectory of the war in the eastern part of the country as Russia and Ukraine have been locked in an intense battle inside the city for months and have lost thousands of soldiers.

On Wednesday, Ukrainian officials announced they had captured several of Wagner’s positions on the outskirts of the city. But U.S. officials said they have seen no evidence to suggest that Wagner is preparing for such a total retreat.

Prigozhin has long spoken out against the Russian defense ministry, claiming his soldiers were leading the fight on the ground and that Moscow is not doing enough to help in Bakhmut. U.S. officials said Prigozhin’s recent remarks about Bakhmut are not credible and were likely meant to elicit a reaction from inside Moscow’s defense apparatus — to force Moscow to send additional weapons.

Despite Prigozhion’s statements, Wagner continues to hold significant stockpiles of ammunition and maintains control of at least 85 percent of Bakhmut, the U.S. officials said. One of the officials said although Wagner forces appear intact in Bakhmut it is still possible that Chechen forces move into the city to help.

Both officials who spoke to POLITICO have been involved in recent administration conversations about Russia and Wagner’s activities in Ukraine and were granted anonymity to speak freely about current U.S. intelligence about the situation in Bakhmut.

“We aren’t going to comment on Mr. Prigozhin’s theatrics or on the political posturing that’s going on with him and Russia’s military leaders,” a spokesperson for the National Security Council said. “Mr. Prigozhin has treated his [W]agner soldiers like cannon-fodder, sacrificing their lives for small advances with no apparent strategic gain to try to achieve his political ends.”

Meanwhile, Kyiv and Moscow continue to exchange blows in Bakhmut. The fighting has for weeks stood at a standstill with neither side making any significant advances. On Wednesday, however, Ukrainian officials said forces had pushed back a Russian infantry brigade on the southwestern outskirts of the city.

A Ukrainian win in Bakhmut would hold a certain symbolic significance but western officials have advised Kyiv in recent months not to spend significant amounts of resources on the battle and to instead direct its weapons and fighters to the upcoming spring and summer offensives.

For now, though, Ukraine continues to hold its positions in the city, the officials said.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/ZaV0ISx
via IFTTT

Read More