Connect with us

Politics

Column: Trump's hush-money criminal trial could be a cure for 'Trump amnesia'

Published

on

Column: Trump's hush-money criminal trial could be a cure for 'Trump amnesia'

Before Donald Trump’s hush-money trial in New York got underway, pundits predicted that the proceedings could be a media bonanza for the former president. During this year’s Republican primaries, they noted, Trump’s popularity rose every time he was indicted.

But so far, the trial, on charges that Trump covered up illicit payments to an adult filmmaker and actor to influence the 2016 election, hasn’t made him look like much of a hero.

Former President Trump sits in court during the second day of jury selection in his criminal hush-money trial in Manhattan criminal court.

(Christine Cornell / Associated Press)

Advertisement

He’s appeared to fall asleep in the courtroom more than once. He’s grumbled at potential jurors. He’s been reprimanded by the judge. He looks more like an desperately unhappy defendant than a potential commander in chief.

And it’s likely to get worse. Over the next six weeks, the trial may include testimony from Stormy Daniels, the porn performer with whom Trump allegedly had a one-night stand, and Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who accepted money to conceal another alleged affair.

The tawdry details will produce plenty of tabloid drama — but not the kind Trump reveled in when he was a young, publicity-hungry mogul. (Trump has denied having affairs with the women.)

More important, the trial might begin to cure voters of the affliction known as “Trump amnesia” — the tendency to forget all the reasons they voted against the presumptive Republican nominee in 2020.

Advertisement

Pollsters and campaign consultants who conduct focus groups, organized discussions with voters, say they run into it all the time.

Celinda Lake, one of President Biden’s pollsters, said she discovered the syndrome when she asked voters how they felt about Trump’s impending trial over the events surrounding the violent Jan. 6, 2021, invasion of the Capitol.

“What court case?” one of the voters asked.

“These were swing voters, and about half of them weren’t sure what we were talking about,” Lake recalled. “And I said, ‘Well, you know, the insurrection, and that he was the one who provoked it.’ They go: ‘Oh, yeah, I kind of forgot about that.’ ”

The reasons for the epidemic of memory loss aren’t mysterious. Trump left office more than three years ago — and for the last two years, voters have been focused on rising prices and mortgage rates, problems they blame on Biden.

Advertisement

When Trump left office in 2021 after his followers sacked the Capitol, the Gallup Poll logged his approval rating at a dismal 34%. By last year, with memories no longer so fresh, voters’ views had softened: 46% said they thought his presidency had been pretty good — a phenomenon some have called “Trump nostalgia.”

Donald Trump speaks with the media from behind barriers in a Manhattan criminal courthouse hallway.

Donald Trump speaks with the media Friday following jury selection in his hush-money criminal trial in Manhattan.

(Maansi Srivastava / Associated Press)

Trump has stoked that trend over the last three years by claiming ceaselessly that he produced “the greatest economy in the history of the world” (it wasn’t) with “no inflation” (also untrue).

Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans hope the trials could dent the former president’s support by changing the focus of news coverage, at least for a time, to his many misdeeds.

Advertisement

Trump is facing four different criminal prosecutions: separate federal and Georgia indictments accusing him of trying to undo the 2020 election, a federal indictment accusing him of illegally holding classified documents, and the New York hush-money case. It’s not certain that any of the other three will reach trial by the election.

If he is convicted in any of the four proceedings, polls suggest that a significant number of voters might well desert him.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll this month reported that 13% of voters who currently favor Trump say they won’t vote for him if he is convicted of a felony.

If even a fraction of those voters carry out their threat, the former president’s apparent lead over Biden could evaporate. In 2020, a vote shift of less than a percentage point in three close-run states would have changed the outcome in the electoral college.

It’s reasonable to ask whether a conviction in the New York case, which legal scholars consider the weakest of the indictments Trump faces, would affect voters’ behavior.

Advertisement

But polls have found that most voters believe the hush-money charges qualify as weighty crimes despite their tawdry origins. In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 64% of respondents said they consider the New York charges serious, including 40% of Republicans.

Not everyone is convinced.

“I think the Biden campaign is whistling past the graveyard on this,” said Whit Ayres, a veteran Republican pollster who is not working for Trump. “The issue is not whether voters remember Trump’s antics. The issue is that they are accurately remembering the economic differences between the two presidencies.”

All of which is true.

Chances are, the hush-money trial in New York isn’t going to swing the election by itself.

Advertisement

But if Trump is convicted of a felony — especially if he is also convicted in more than one of the four trials he faces — that could change enough votes to make a difference in an election that’s likely to be razor-close.

At the very least, the New York trial isn’t doing Trump any measurable good, despite his daily denunciations of the judge, the prosecutor and the gag order that doesn’t seem to be gagging him.

No wonder he looks so annoyed.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Published

on

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

new video loaded: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

transcript

transcript

Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

“Good evening. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.” “Well, thank you very much. We’re looking at the construction. Thank you.”

Advertisement
Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

By Nailah Morgan

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

Published

on

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

San Antonio has shut down its out-of-state abortion travel fund after a new Texas law that prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions and a lawsuit from the state challenging the city’s fund.

City Council members last year approved $100,000 for its Reproductive Justice Fund to support abortion-related travel, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue over allegations that the city was “transparently attempting to undermine and subvert Texas law and public policy.”

Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit on Friday after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.

WYOMING SUPREME COURT RULES LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION VIOLATE STATE CONSTITUTION

Advertisement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side. (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton said in a statement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”

But San Antonio’s city attorney argued that the city did nothing wrong and pushed back on Paxton’s claim that the state won the lawsuit.

“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas,” the San Antonio city attorney’s office said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he will continue opposing the use of public funds for abortion-related travel. (Justin Lane/Reuters)

Advertisement

Paxton’s lawsuit argued that the travel fund violates the gift clause of the Texas Constitution. The state’s 15th Court of Appeals sided with Paxton and granted a temporary injunction in June to block the city from disbursing the fund while the case moved forward.

Gov. Greg Abbott in August signed into law Senate Bill 33, which bans the use of public money to fund “logistical support” for abortion. The law also allows Texas residents to file a civil suit if they believe a city violated the law.

“The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly,” the city attorney’s office said in its statement. “After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law.”

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law in August that blocks cities from using public money to help cover travel or other costs related to abortion. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The broader Reproductive Justice Fund remains, but it is restricted to non-abortion services such as home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception and STI testing.

The city of Austin also shut down its abortion travel fund after the law was signed. Austin had allocated $400,000 to its Reproductive Healthcare Logistics Fund in 2024 to help women traveling to other states for an abortion with funding for travel, food and lodging.

Continue Reading

Politics

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

Published

on

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

“Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power.”

Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record that would probably have served him well had he decided to run in a state where Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

Advertisement

Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they would not run for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering, he said.

“I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again because of term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

Advertisement

California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

According to his political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s Legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

Advertisement

Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the state Assembly, and the couple have three children.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending