Politics
Column: Without cameras in the courtroom, Trump has already won a major victory in hush money trial
If a former president nods off in a courtroom and no cameras are around to see it, did it really happen?
The case of the People of the State of New York vs. Donald J. Trump got underway Monday, and while the fate of the forthcoming election — and perhaps democracy itself — may teeter on the outcome, the public is locked out of witnessing a seismic moment in American history.
Video and audio feeds are banned from the courtroom, leaving folks to rely on the written and spoken word of reporters covering the trial. It’s up to them to tell us if the former president scowled and guffawed like a fearless strongman or fell asleep in his chair like a disaffected juvenile delinquent.
Any entertainment value aside, the lack of live or recorded feeds may mean that Trump won a huge victory before the first witness even took the stand.
The first criminal trial of a former U.S. president could have been the moment when the cameras didn’t embrace Trump the Showman, where his customary angry rhetoric and bluster were muted by the dictates of a controlled courtroom, allowing the public to see what happens when a bully is stripped of his power and platform.
But without the advantage of watching the proceedings on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube or live news outlets, the impact feels lost in translation. It’s one thing to witness the former president’s impetuous behavior firsthand; it’s another to read or hear about it in media accounts filed from the courtroom: His eyes were “closing for extended periods” during jury selection last week. He huffed and puffed during admonishments from the judge. He glared at the jurors who were chosen to serve.
The lack of courtroom filming is a dream come true for misinformation agents. Bad actors thrive in the fertile playground of media mistrust, and millions are more than willing to embrace curated narratives — no matter how absurd — as long as it allows us to believe what we want to believe. And when so many still believe that the 2020 election was stolen, how do you get people to trust the court reporting from a trial without video and audio? It’s going to be a challenge.
The opposite could also be true: Without the advantage of playing directly to the cameras, Trump’s magic hold on his base may be diminished. Much of the appeal around the former president is that he’s a winner who never folds to systems he deems corrupt, be it the media, the courts, the election process, etc.. He’s tried to grab the spotlight via cameras in the hallway outside the courtroom, using the space as a de facto podium to remark on the proceedings as he enters and leaves. But perhaps not hearing him rage in the courtroom will soften his appeal among followers.
It’s hard to say how this trial will play out in the court of public opinion because there’s been no test case. President Nixon, who resigned on the brink of impeachment, was never indicted for a crime, and the last “trial of the century” was a monolithic event largely because it was televised. The People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, also known as the O.J. Simpson trial, certainly wouldn’t have been the premier spectacle of a generation if not for the blow-by-blow live broadcast from Los Angeles to the rest of the world.
What’s happening behind the closed doors of Justice Juan M. Merchan’s courtroom is arguably more important to the immediate future and health of the republic, but New York courts do not generally allow video in their courtrooms. It’s refreshing to know there are still standards that haven’t been pulverized under the Trump rule-wrecking machine. The Manhattan trial shows that sober lawmaking may still stand a chance against sordid spectacle. But the trial is just beginning.
Everything leading up to this moment in Trump’s wild, unprecedented domination of U.S. politics and news was made possible by his appearing on screen, no matter the medium. Trump the reality TV star convinced viewing audiences he was a successful business leader and decision-maker inside the scripted realm of “The Apprentice.” He played to the cameras leading up to the 2016 election, stealing the scene from candidates with actual experience in governing and lawmaking. He is a master at manipulating all news about him — good or bad — into fundraising and votes largely because he knows how to play to the spotlight.
Monday’s opening statements from the prosecution maintained “this case is about a criminal conspiracy and fraud,” in which “the defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election.” Manhattan Dist. Atty. Alvin L. Bragg and his team will argue that Trump paid off adult film actor Stormy Daniels as part of a larger scheme to suppress negative stories about him leading up to the 2016 election. A $130,000 hush money payment to Daniels was part of a conspiracy to silence her as she was shopping a story about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump. He is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
A Trump conviction still could be hugely damaging to his campaign for a second White House term, but that depends how many choose to believe the outcome without seeing the evidence unfold before their own eyes. The same stands true if he’s found not guilty.
One thing is clear: No one should be sleeping through this historic trial … least of all the defendant.
Politics
After Virginia Redistricting Map Is Tossed, Democrats Search Desperately for a Response
Democrats are struggling to respond to a major redistricting setback in Virginia, with some party leaders discussing an audacious and possibly far-fetched idea for trying to restore a congressional map voided by the court but showing little indication they have a clear plan.
During a private discussion on Saturday that included Democratic House members from Virginia and Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, the lawmakers vented anger at their defeat at the Virginia Supreme Court, spoke about a collective determination to flip two or three Republican-held seats under the existing map and discussed a bank-shot proposal to redraw the congressional lines anyway, according to three people who participated in the call and two others who were briefed on it.
They did not land on a specific course forward, and Mr. Jeffries and the other members of Congress agreed to consult with their lawyers about the most prudent way to proceed, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private talk.
The conversation reflected the desperation and fury that have gripped the party after the state Supreme Court struck down a favorable map that had been ratified by voters. The most dramatic idea they discussed — which would involve an unusual gambit to replace the entire state Supreme Court, with a goal of reinstating their gerrymandered map — drew mixed reactions on the call, said the people, and it was not clear that it would even be viable, or palatable to Gov. Abigail Spanberger and Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly.
After Democrats had fought Republicans to a rough draw last month in a nationwide gerrymandering war, a pair of recent court rulings quickly gave the G.O.P. the clear upper hand in the race to redraw maps ahead of the midterm elections. Facing stiff headwinds, including President Trump’s low approval ratings and high gas prices, Republicans are looking for every advantage they can find to defy the odds and hold on to their narrow majority.
Any plans to enact a new congressional map for this year’s midterm elections would require action in the next few days. In a court filing last month, Steven Koski, the commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections, said any changes to the maps after Tuesday, May 12, “will significantly increase the risk” of his agency being unable to properly prepare for the state’s scheduled Aug. 4 primary election.
A spokesman for Mr. Jeffries declined to comment.
Scott Surovell, the majority leader of the Virginia Senate, declined to comment on Saturday evening. Don Scott, the speaker of the state House of Delegates, said in an interview that he had not spoken to Mr. Jeffries or members of the congressional delegation about the multistep proposal that came up in the discussion.
One key to the plan would be having Democrats in Richmond lower the mandatory retirement age for state Supreme Court justices, an idea that began circulating among state lawmakers and members of Congress after a column proposing a version of the idea was published on Friday night in The Downballot, a progressive newsletter.
Ms. Spanberger would have to sign off on any legislation that lowered the judicial retirement age. She has not been briefed on the proposal, the people involved in the discussion or briefed on it said. Her spokeswoman, Libby Wiet, declined to comment.
The first step in the process, as discussed on the delegation’s call, would be to invoke a January ruling by a circuit court judge in Tazewell County, Va., that said the 2026 constitutional amendment effort to redraw the maps was invalid because county officials did not post notice of it at courthouses and other public locations three months before a general election.
Democrats would aim to use that ruling to seek to invalidate the earlier constitutional amendment that created the state’s independent redistricting commission by arguing that courthouses across the state did not post notice of it at the time. That would give the legislature the authority to enact a map of its choosing.
Ensuring the plan proceeds would involve the General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, lowering the mandatory retirement age for Virginia’s Supreme Court from 75 to 54, the age of the youngest current justice, or less. Virginia judges are appointed by the General Assembly, where Democrats hold majorities in both chambers and could then fill vacancies on the court with sympathetic Democratic lawyers.
Mandatory retirement ages are in place for judges in 32 states and Washington, D.C., according to a 2015 law review article from the Duke University Law School. The article said the most common retirement age set by states is 70.
In states such as Arizona, Georgia and Utah, Republican lawmakers have expanded state Supreme Courts in order to make them more conservative. But the Virginia proposal, which would get rid of all the sitting judges, would go considerably further.
Former Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, said a move to stack the Virginia Supreme Court would be “just a bridge too far” and could backfire on his party.
He said he understood that many Democrats felt that their party “needs to fight back and not just be victims of unparalleled aggression.” But, he added: “We do have to keep our credibility. We have to do things that pass the legitimacy test.”
Representative Suhas Subramanyam, a Democrat who represents Loudoun County, Va., said in an interview that he supported doing whatever was necessary to preserve the map voters approved in last month’s referendum — including replacing the state’s Supreme Court justices.
“Everyone has got to have a strong stomach right now; this is a complete disaster waiting to happen if people are timid,” said Mr. Subramanyam, who was on the Saturday call. “We have Republican states ignoring their constitutions and interrupting early voting and ignoring their Supreme Courts all together. We know based on that, Republicans would explore every single option possible to move this forward.”
On Friday, Democratic legislative leaders in Virginia signaled that they planned to appeal the state Supreme Court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. But some legal experts believe the state court ruling could be the final word on the matter, because it does not involve federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Jeffries has maintained throughout the redistricting battles over the last year that he would maintain all options for creating or preserving Democratic House districts and has said repeatedly that Democrats would employ “maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.”
In an interview on Friday night, before his Saturday meeting with Virginia lawmakers, Mr. Jeffries said he was “exploring how to unravel this decision.”
“It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment, and it’s unprecedented in American history as far as we can tell that an actual election has been overturned by a handful of unelected judges,” Mr. Jeffries said. “We’re not going to step back, we will continue to fight back.”
Tim Balk contributed reporting.
Politics
Trump-backed Board of Peace, Israel ‘will take action’ if Hamas remains out of compliance: Netanyahu advisor
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Michael Eisenberg, a top advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, says Israel and the newly-created Board of Peace will “take action” against Hamas if it does not comply with the peace terms it agreed to.
Eisenberg made the comments during an interview with Fox News on Sunday. He said Hamas is currently out of compliance with a wider peace agreement and is refusing to give up its weapons to “demilitarize” Gaza.
“I think all the options are on the table since Hamas is noncompliant with the 20-point plan, and they haven’t delivered their weapons like they were supposed to. And so we’ll have to wait and see. But like I said, this is incredibly well thought out. Give President Trump a tremendous amount of credit and his team of people credit. They’ve literally thought through every stage of this from beginning to end,” Eisenberg said.
“And by the way, and as President Trump said, there’s an easy way and a hard way. Everyone prefers the easy way, which is Hamas. With the help of the mediators delivers the weapons, but if they don’t, there’s a hard way too.,” he added.
TRUMP CONVENES FIRST ‘BOARD OF PEACE’ MEETING AS GAZA REBUILD HINGES ON HAMAS DISARMAMENT
President Donald Trump (L) greets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he arrives at the White House. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Eisenberg went on to say that Iran must also eventually give up control over Gaza under the 20-pont plan agreed to between the U.S., Israel and Hamas.
“Hamas is still there. But the 20-point plan says they cannot be there. They cannot be a part of government. They cannot bear arms. They have to become Swedish, basically, in order for them to stay in any role in Gaza. And so I suggest they do that sooner rather than later. And I think progress is slow. You can’t microwave a 30-year problem. It doesn’t work. Sociologists,” he said.
Eisenberg’s comments come amid multiple peace negotiations across the Middle East. Israel is hashing out an agreement to deal with Hezbollah in Lebanon and the U.S. is in talks with Iran.
WHAT ISRAEL WANTS FROM AN IRAN PEACE DEAL: NO ENRICHMENT, MISSILE LIMITS AND STRICT ENFORCEMENT
Netanyahu said last week that Israel and the United States remain in “full coordination” as negotiations continue.
“We share common objectives, and the most important objective is the removal of the enriched material from Iran, all the enriched material, and the dismantling of Iran’s enrichment capabilities,” Netanyahu said at the opening of a security cabinet meeting.
On the nuclear issue, former Israeli National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror said Israel’s position remains uncompromising.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Weaponized uranium must leave Iran,” Amidror said. “The Iranians must not be allowed to enrich uranium.”
Alongside the nuclear issue, Israeli analysts say Iran’s ballistic missile program has become equally central to Israel’s security concerns.
Politics
Big donors backed Harris in 2024. For 2028, they’re not so sure
WASHINGTON — As Kamala Harris eyes a possible 2028 presidential bid, there is little outward enthusiasm among her biggest 2024 backers to fund a repeat performance, adding to uncertainty about the former vice president’s prospects in what is sure to be a crowded primary field.
The Times reached out to more than two dozen top donors to the biggest pro-Harris super PAC in 2024. Several of them said they do not plan to support her should she choose to run, or declined to talk about her. Others did not respond.
“I don’t think it’s a helpful narrative [for 2028] to start with the 2024 hangover,” said one fundraiser for Harris’ 2024 campaign, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “There is an enormous appetite for new blood — something fresh, something that really represents the future, not the past.”
That narrative is poised to present Harris’ biggest challenge if she decides to run — particularly if it jeopardizes her ability to pull in crucial funding. Though few in the party want to criticize Harris, few appear inclined to endorse her, and conversations about her prospects often come down to one thing: Democrats’ anxiety about winning.
“She’s run, she’s lost, so the question’s going to be, is there somebody that gives Democratic voters more of a sense that they could win?” said Dick Harpootlian, a longtime South Carolina Democratic strategist. “That’s what all of us are looking for. We want to win in ‘28.”
The chatter among party elites appears at odds with recent polling in Harris’ favor, including in April’s Harvard Center for American Political Studies/Harris Poll, which showed Harris leading the Democratic field with support from 50% of Democrats.
The former vice president has also been met with enthusiasm from audiences in a series of recent speaking stops — including when she told a friendly crowd at a New York conference in April that she “might” run for president.
Harris remains undecided about whether to mount a run, according to a person familiar with her thinking, who said Friday she has been focused on boosting Democrats ahead of the midterm elections, meeting voters and delivering messages about the economy and affordability.
If she were to run, Harris would expect a crowded primary field to split donors and would be aware of the need to overcome the perception of skeptics, this person said — but noted that 2028 would afford a very different dynamic than the circumstances under which she took the nomination in 2024.
“There’s a bit of a ‘doth protest too much’ quality to some of these complaints about the idea of her running,” said the person close to her. “It may be a backhanded way of acknowledging that she’d be quite formidable if she decided to get in.”
Speculation about whether Harris would run again — and whether she should — has swirled since her truncated 2024 campaign ended in defeat to Donald Trump. Harris’ decision not to run for California governor in a wide-open race was broadly viewed as signaling presidential ambitions, and she reentered the public eye with the publication of a book about the 2024 campaign and an associated speaking tour.
Last month, Harris gave her strongest signal yet that she could seek the party’s nomination again, telling the Rev. Al Sharpton at a gathering of his civil rights organization in New York that she was “thinking about it.”
“I know what the job is and I know what it requires,” Harris said at the time.
Harris’ 2024 loss to Trump and failure to capture any battleground states — after entering the race late following President Biden’s exit — was bruising for Democrats. The defeat is lingering longer for some top donors than it did after Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump in 2016, making them extra wary, said one Democratic political consultant.
“Especially in the donor class, everyone feels burnt,” he said. “People just want to turn the page.”
The Times contacted top donors to Future Forward, the Democratic super PAC that spent the most to back Harris in the 2024 election. All the donors contacted gave at least $1 million and some acted as bundlers for the campaign, soliciting big checks from other donors in addition to their own contributions.
Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, who gave $1 million to Future Forward in 2024, said he hoped to support a different Californian.
“Gavin is the candidate who can motivate both the left and the center,” Hastings told The Times, referring to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
A bundler for both Harris and Biden said it comes down to who can give Democrats the best chance to succeed.
“I think it is too early to pick a favorite in the 2028 race, but Kamala Harris will not be my candidate,” this person said. “I don’t think she would appeal to a swing voter, and we need swing voters to win.”
Others, including a few party leaders, deflected questions by citing a focus on this year’s midterm elections. Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), who last year praised Newsom’s presidential prospects during a visit by the governor, said Tuesday that Democrats should be zeroed in on 2026.
“I’m not thinking about 2028, and if she were to call me I wouldn’t talk to her about it,” Clyburn told The Times when asked about Harris’ chances.
Enthusiasm for Harris and skepticism about her viability in 2028 aren’t mutually exclusive, said the former Harris fundraiser.
“A lot of people love her and also don’t think that she is the answer for 2028,” the fundraiser said.
The attitudes of the donor class and political elite may be at odds with those of regular Americans, particularly Black and working-class voters, the Democratic political consultant said. Few of the possible candidates have the potential to excite Black voters the way Harris does, he said.
If a candidate, whether Harris or someone else, makes a successful case that they can win, Black voters will be “strategic and optimistic enough” to rally around whoever it is, said Keneshia Grant, a Howard University political scientist.
But, she said, “I don’t think that they are going to take well to work by elites or the donor class to sideline Harris if there is no clear, reasonable, exciting, Obama-level, yes-we-can candidate instead of her.”
Harris speaks the Public Counsel Awards Dinner on April 29 in Beverly Hills.
(Frazer Harrison / Getty Images)
In recent weeks, Harris has spoken at a fundraiser in South Carolina, a party luncheon in Michigan and a dinner in Arkansas. On Thursday, she was in Nevada to rally Democrats ahead of the midterm primary.
She also joined other likely 2028 contenders at the Colorado Speaker Series in Denver and Sharpton’s conference, accepted an award from the nonprofit Public Counsel at a Los Angeles gala and addressed the National Women’s Law Center gala in Washington to a warm reception, as did Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
“She was inspiring, she was hopeful, she pushed back on Trump,” said Jay Parmley, head of the Democratic Party in South Carolina, where Harris spoke at a party-hosted fundraiser in Greenville on April 15.
South Carolina, a key primary state, could help unlock Harris’ path to the nomination. If Black voters there boosted her to a win, she could build early momentum.
But Parmley said he believed she would have to “get over” the hurdle of convincing voters that she can beat the GOP.
“I don’t think it’s a given she wins here without work,” Parmley said. “She’s going to have to really visit with voters and work just like everybody else.”
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos in Washington contributed to this report.
-
News19 minutes agoU.S. cruise passengers head to Nebraska for hantavirus monitoring
-
New York2 hours agoMaya Lin Connects Nature to a New Manhattan Skyscraper and Beyond
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoA chilly start to the week gives way to warmer weather in Metro Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA3 hours agoMother’s Day Gamethread: Giants vs. Pirates
-
Dallas, TX3 hours agoCaitlin Clark Responds to Dallas Wings Win Over Indiana Fever
-
Miami, FL3 hours agoJarvis Landry Doesn’t Hold Back on Dolphins Offseason
-
Boston, MA3 hours agoOle Miss softball to play Boston in NCAA tournament Lubbock Regional
-
Denver, CO3 hours agoNew video shows trespasser on Denver airport runway before deadly collision