Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: Could the guilty verdict cost Donald Trump the election? Sure it could

Published

on

Opinion: Could the guilty verdict cost Donald Trump the election? Sure it could

How much will Donald Trump’s conviction in the New York hush money case matter come November?

The obvious answer is that nobody knows. Still, I suspect the verdict will matter, just not in ways that are easy or even possible to predict.

A lot of the instant reaction revolves around polls. We talk about polls not because they are so important but because we lack much else to go on. Like the proverbial drunk who looks under the streetlamp for his lost keys because the light is much better there, we look at polls because they at least illuminate something, even if it’s not very much.

The smattering of surveys conducted since Thursday’s verdict show that slightly more than half of Americans think the jury was correct. A CBS poll found that the verdict changed very few minds, though a small number had more negative views of Trump. None of that is surprising given that attitudes about the trial have tracked attitudes about Trump.

Now, if the judge throws Trump in jail for an extended term — which seems both unlikely and indefensible, given the nature of the crime — it’s possible that attitudes will swing more in Trump’s favor. But if it’s just for a day, attitudes probably won’t change so much as intensify.

Advertisement

If the opinions indicated by the latest polling hold constant for the roughly 150 days to Nov. 5, one could plausibly argue that the verdict will cost Trump the election. The consensus among experts across the partisan spectrum is that this election will be decided by a tiny number of votes in a handful of states, so movement of even a couple of percentage points away from Trump could be decisive.

But opinions don’t hold constant, at least not among the kind of voters who will decide the election.

Until recently, Trump was enjoying higher favorability ratings than at any time during his presidency. A mixture of nostalgia for the pre-COVID Trump-era economy and dissatisfaction with President Biden has been better for Trump than anything he actually did as president.

No one knows what will happen over the next five months, but it’s not unreasonable to assume that the verdict will shrink in importance for everybody over time.

But given the closeness of the race and the voters who will decide it, that doesn’t mean it won’t have lasting consequences.

Advertisement

Many Trump boosters responded to the verdict with declarations such as “Trump just won the election.” This wish-casting stems from the belief that outrage over the verdict will cause more voters to rally around Trump. So far, however, the evidence points to the opposite.

It’s true that Republican outrage over the verdict has motivated Trump’s supporters in much the same way as the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. The result has been a windfall of donations to the Trump campaign, including from crucial first-time donors. Given Trump’s fund-raising difficulties compared with Biden, that could matter.

But one analytical error that Trump world consistently makes is the idea that attitudes about him inside the MAGA bubble extend to voters outside it. Trump’s biggest fans believe they represent America generally, which is one reason they still believe America couldn’t have voted to oust him in 2020.

We don’t know how the verdict will change the behavior of not just the voters but also the candidates. If Biden overplays Trump’s status as a “felon,” it could underscore the view that he lacks any persuasive arguments for his reelection on the merits. It could also bolster the unfounded charge that Biden orchestrated the prosecution to his benefit.

Meanwhile, if Trump listens to his biggest fans and indulges his own sense of grievance — not a particularly big “if” — he could end up making the election a referendum on him, and the chaos he brings, rather than a referendum on Biden.

Advertisement

I don’t think this case ever should have been brought, but I also think it’s crazy to say it represents “the end of the country as we know it,” as Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance insisted. Indeed, it’s remarkable to see so many people who once claimed that the trial didn’t matter to voters suddenly insisting that voters will care so much about its outcome.

Voters will care about all sorts of things. And the odds are good that, to the extent Trump’s conviction matters at all, it ratifies the opinions most Americans already held.

@JonahDispatch

Advertisement

Politics

Lawmaker Sues Trump to Remove Name From Kennedy Center

Published

on

Lawmaker Sues Trump to Remove Name From Kennedy Center

Case 1:25-cv-04480 Document 1 Filed 12/22/25

Page 1 of 18

JOYCE BEATTY,¹

V.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Plaintiff,

DONALD J. TRUMP, RICHARD GRENELL, JENNIFER FISCHER, SERGIO GOR, JOHN FALCONETTI, BRIAN D. BALLARD, MARIA BARTIROMO, PAMELA BONDI, MARY HELEN BOWERS, HANNAH F. BUCHAN, ROBERT CASTELLANI, ELAINE CHAO, PAMELLA ROLAND DEVOS, PATRICIA DUGGAN, EMILIA MAY FANJUL, LYNETTE FRIESS, PAMELA GROSS, LEE GREENWOOD, KATE ADAMSON HASELWOOD, LAURA INGRAHAM, MICHELE KESSLER, DANA KRAFT, MINDY LEVINE, LYNDA LOMANGINO, BARBARA LONG, ALLISON LUTNICK, DOUGLAS MANCHESTER, CATHERINE B. REYNOLDS, DENISE SAUL, DAN SCAVINO, CHERI SUMMERALL, USHA VANCE, SUSIE WILES, ANDREA WYNN, PAOLO ZAMPOLLI, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., MARCO RUBIO, LINDA MCMAHON, MIKE JOHNSON, SAM GRAVES, JULIA LETLOW, MIKE MCCAUL, JOHN THUNE, SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, SUSAN COLLINS, TRUSTEES OF THE JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS, JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS,

Defendants.

No. 25-CV-

1 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1), the Plaintiff’s residential address is being filed under seal with the Court in a separate Notice of Filing.

Continue Reading

Politics

20% of NYC mayor-elect Mamdani transition appointees have anti-Zionist ties: ADL

Published

on

20% of NYC mayor-elect Mamdani transition appointees have anti-Zionist ties: ADL

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

At least 20 percent of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s administrative appointees are connected to groups characterized as anti-Zionist, according to a Monday report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

The report found that more than 80 individuals among Mamdani’s 400-plus transition and administrative appointees either have ties to such groups or a “documented history of making anti-Israel statements.” 

The organization said Mamdani’s Transition Committee appointees have been linked to groups including Students for Justice in Palestine, a pro-Palestinian college activism network; Jewish Voice for Peace, an American Jewish anti-Zionist organization; and Within Our Lifetime, a New York City-based anti-Zionist group “known for leading protests outside synagogues.”

For example, the ADL said at least four appointees have ties to Louis Farrakhan, the antisemitic leader of the Nation of Islam. One appointee, Jacques Léandre, was cited for reportedly attending a conference at which Farrakhan denounced “the Jews and their power.”

Advertisement

ADL CHIEF WARNS NYC MAYOR-ELECT ZOHRAN MAMDANI POSES A ‘CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER’ TO JEWISH COMMUNITY

Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani speaks to members of the media at Flushing Meadows Corona Park in the Queens borough of New York on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025. (Adam Gray/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Several other appointees were also cited for statements that appear to support or justify violence against Israel and the Oct. 7 attacks. According to the ADL, Kazi Fouzia posted on Facebook hours after the attacks that “Resistance are [sic] Justified when people are occupied” with video footage from an anti-Israel protest happening that day in Manhattan.

The report continued to identify other appointees who publicly expressed hostility toward Zionism. 

Examples included Fahd Ahmed, who stated “Zionism is racism”; Ruha Benjamin, who signed a statement calling Israel “ideologically founded on Jewish supremacy”; Lisa Ohta, who referred to “Zionism’s genocidal ideology”; and Mohammed Karim Chowdhury, who shared a post claiming “Zionists are worse than … Nazis,” ADL reported.

Advertisement

MAMDANI’S FATHER SAYS COLUMBIA ‘TARGETED’ ANTI-ISRAEL STUDENTS WITH ANTISEMITISM CRACKDOWN

A protester waves a Palestinian flag during a protest on college campuses in Washington, D.C., on March 23, 2025.  (ANDREW THOMAS/Middle Eeast Images/AFP via Getty Images)

The organization also identified Zakiyah Shaakir-Ansari, who was cited for allegedly posting a photo of herself at an encampment in front of a banner displaying an inverted red triangle, a symbol associated with Hamas, alongside the text “LONG LIVE THE RESISTANCE.”

The report also states that at least 12 appointees publicly expressed support for anti-Israel campus encampments during the spring of 2024, with at least five attending the protests in person. The ADL highlighted Gianpaolo Baiocchi, who was reportedly arrested at the NYU encampment and later asserted that no hate speech was present. The ADL disputes that claim, citing flyers distributed at the encampment that called for “Death to Israeli Real Estate” and “Death to America.”

Demonstrators raise a “Free Palestine” flag on Oct. 4, 2025. (Dan Gainor)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Mamdani, who takes office on Jan. 1, has previously and repeatedly emphasized that he stands against antisemitism. 

The ADL noted that many appointees did not raise concerns and emphasized that at least 25 individuals expressed support for the Jewish community, including Rabbi Joe Potasnik, Félix Matos Rodríguez, Wayne Ho, John King, and Jerry Goldfeder. However, the organization said it remains concerned about Mamdani’s team overall.

“Many of Mayor-elect Mamdani’s Transition Committee appointments are inconsistent with his campaign commitments to prioritize the safety of New York’s Jewish community,” the ADL wrote in the report.

Fox News Digital reached out to Mamdani for more comment.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

California, other states file suit to prevent shutdown of federal consumer agency

Published

on

California, other states file suit to prevent shutdown of federal consumer agency

California joined 20 other states and the District of Columbia on Monday in a lawsuit that seeks to prevent the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from being defunded and closed by the Trump administration.

The legal action filed in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Ore. by the Democratic attorneys general accuses Acting Director Russell Vought of trying to illegally withhold funds from the agency by unlawfully interpreting its funding statute. Also named as defendants are the agency itself and the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.

“For California, the CFPB has been an invaluable enforcement partner, working hand-in-hand with our office to protect pocketbooks and stop unfair business practices. But once again, the Trump administration is trying to weaken and ultimately dismantle the CFPB,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said, in a press conference to announce the 41-page legal action.

The agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the action, co-lead by Bonta and the attorneys general from Oregon, New York, New Jersey and Colorado.

Established by Congress in 2010 after the subprime mortgage abuses that gave rise to the financial crisis, the agency is funded by the Federal Reserve as a method of insulating it from political pressure.

Advertisement

The Dodd-Frank Act statute requires the agency’s director to petition for a reasonable amount of funding to carry out the CFPB’s duties from the “combined earnings” of the Federal Reserve System.

Prior to this year that was interpreted to mean the Federal Reserve’s gross revenue. But an opinion from the Department of Justice claims that should be interpreted to mean the Federal Reserve’s profits, of which it has none since it has been operating at a loss since 2022. The lawsuit alleges the interpretation is bogus.

“Defendant Russell T. Vought has worked tirelessly to terminate the CFPB’s operations by any means necessary — denying Plaintiffs access to CFPB resources to which they are statutorily entitled. In this action, Plaintiffs challenge Defendant Vought’s most recent effort to do so,” the federal lawsuit states.

The complaint alleges the agency will run out of cash by next month if the policy is not reversed. Bonta said he and other attorney generals have not decided whether they will seek a restraining order or temporary injunction to change the new funding policy.

Prior to the second Trump administraition, the CPFB boasted of returning nearly $21 billion to consumers nationwide through enforcement actions, including against Wells Fargo in San Francisco over a scandal involving the creation of accounts never sought by customers.

Advertisement

Other big cases have been brought against student loan servicer Navient for mishandling payments and other issues, as well as Toyota Motor Credit for charging higher interest rates to Black and Asian customers.

However, this year the agency has dropped notable cases. It terminated early a consent order reached with Citibank over allegations it discriminated against customers with Armenian surnames in Los Angeles County.

It also dropped a lawsuit against Zelle that accused Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and other banks of rushing the payments app into service, leading to $870 million in fraud-related losses by users. The app denied the allegations.

Monday’s lawsuit also notes that the agency is critical for states to carry out their own consumer protection mission and its closure would deprive them of their statutorily guaranteed access to a database run by the CFPB that tracks millions of consumer complaints, as well as to other data.

Vought was a chief architect of Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation blueprint to reduce the size and power of the federal bureaucracy during a second Trump admistration. In February, he ordered the agency to stop nearly all its work and has been seeking to drastically downsize it since.

Advertisement

The lawsuit filed Monday is the latest legal effort to keep the agency in business.

A lawsuit filed in February by National Treasury Employees Union and consumer groups accuses the Trump administration and Vought of attempting to unconstitutionally abolish the agency, created by an act of Congress.

“It is deflating, and it is unfortunate that Congress is not defending the power of the purse,” said Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser, during Monday’s press conference.

“At other times, Congress vigilantly safeguarded its authority, but because of political polarization and fear of criticizing this President, the Congress is not doing it,” he said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending