Politics
Opinion: We can't count on the courts to hold Trump accountable before November. It's up to us
Well, my fellow Americans, it’s up to us to hold Donald Trump accountable at the ballot box. We can’t count on the courts before election day.
This was supposed to be the opening week of Trump’s Jan. 6 trial, the first ever of a former president facing criminal charges, for his unprecedented attempt to overturn a U.S. election and remain in power. A verdict could have come down well before November.
Opinion Columnist
Jackie Calmes
Jackie Calmes brings a critical eye to the national political scene. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.
But there is no trial today in Washington, thanks to the Republican-super-majority Supreme Court, one-third of whose members are Trump appointees. The court’s decision last week to spend months considering Trump’s spurious claim of absolute immunity from criminal charges will likely postpone the Jan. 6 trial so long that a verdict before Nov. 5 is nearly impossible.
Pundits who suggest otherwise underestimate Trump’s talent for forcing delays and the willingness of some judges and justices to accommodate him.
Whether there’s a preelection verdict obviously matters. Polls consistently show a significant number of voters would spurn the presumptive Republican presidential nominee if he’s a convicted felon, enough of them to swing a close election to President Biden. (Trump has, remember, already been found liable for financial fraud and for sexual assault and defamation in civil courts.)
Only the least significant of the four criminal trials Trump faces seems likely to start anytime soon. The New York state case, alleging that he falsified business records to cover up hush money paid to adult-film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election, is scheduled for March 25.
Meanwhile, the Georgia election-skullduggery case is up in the air as the judge considers whether Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis can keep trying it amid questions the Trump side raised about her conduct.
And most of us long ago gave up hope that rookie federal Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, would do anything other than what she’s done: indulge his stalling tactics in the Mar-a-Lago case, in which he’s charged with taking top-secret documents, lying about it and obstructing justice.
But it is the Jan. 6 case that is — was — the most crucial, preelection. Americans deserve to see whether a jury would find Trump guilty of conspiring to subvert the 2020 election before they vote on returning him to office in 2024.
Rarely has the saying “justice delayed is justice denied” seemed so apt. In this instance, the wrong will be done to us, the voters.
We can spread the blame around. Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland has been so consumed with erasing the stain of politicization that the Trump gang left at the Justice Department (a thankless task, as Republicans’ baseless yammering about its “weaponization” attests) that he dallied before naming special counsel Jack Smith to investigate Trump. Willis indeed has shown bad judgment. And Cannon appears to be auditioning for promotion to a higher court by a reelected Trump.
Smith, at least, moved with alacrity, along with the federal judge in the Jan. 6 case, Tanya Chutkan. But the Supreme Court has all but foiled their efforts.
The justices could have — should have — taken up Trump’s immunity claim in December. That month Chutkan rejected Trump’s argument for what she called “a lifelong ‘get out of jail free’ pass” and when Trump appealed, Smith urged the Supreme Court to cut out the middleman — the D.C. appeals court — and quickly decide the historic matter. It refused.
Then, after the appeals court panel unanimously ruled against Trump, the justices could have — should have — accepted its widely praised opinion as the final word. They didn’t.
Worse, in a case that’s more consequential to a presidential election’s outcome than any since Bush vs. Gore, one of the Supreme Court’s members, Clarence Thomas, has a clear conflict of interest, and he’s refusing to recuse himself. Thomas’ wife has been implicated in the pro-Trump machinations to overturn Biden’s victory.
A ruling from the justices could come as late as the end of June. They aren’t expected to support Trump’s immunity claim but they could send the case back to the appeals court, further postponing a trial. A verdict on Trump’s attempt to hold onto power is now “much more unlikely” before the election, conservative former appeals court Judge J. Michael Luttig told MSNBC.
That’s why the voters’ verdict is all the more critical. As Liz Cheney often says, Trump shouldn’t be allowed to get “anywhere near the Oval Office again.” If he does get reelected, he can scuttle the federal cases against him, and he’s vowed to pardon those already convicted for their actions on Jan. 6.
Dan Pfeiffer, the former Obama White House advisor, told readers of his newsletter on Thursday that Democrats “should make some chicken salad out of this chicken s—.” Call out the already unpopular Supreme Court, he argued, and hammer the argument that “Donald Trump is running for president for one reason and one reason only — to avoid accountability for crimes he committed.”
We should stop looking at calendars and calculating on fingers when Trump can be convicted in a courtroom. We’re the jury we’ve been waiting for.
And then, once Trump is defeated again, the trials can play out. And those other juries can finish the job of holding Citizen Trump accountable.
Politics
F.A.A. Temporarily Halts Launches of Musk’s Starship After Explosion
The urgent radio calls by the air traffic controllers at the Federal Aviation Administration office in Puerto Rico started to go out on Thursday evening as a SpaceX test flight exploded and debris began to rain toward the Caribbean.
Flights near Puerto Rico needed to avoid passing through the area — or risk being hit by falling chunks of the Starship, the newest and biggest of Elon Musk’s rockets.
“Space vehicle mishap,” an air traffic controller said over the F.A.A. radio system, as onlookers on islands below and even in some planes flying nearby saw bright streaks of light as parts of the spacecraft tumbled toward the ocean.
Added a second air traffic controller: “We have reports of debris outside of the protected areas so we’re currently going to have to hold you in this airspace.”
The mishap — the Starship spacecraft blew up as it was still climbing into space — led the F.A.A. on Friday to suspend any additional liftoffs by SpaceX’s Starship, the largest and most powerful rocket ever built.
The incident raises new questions about both the safety of the rapidly increasing number of commercial space launches, or at least the air traffic disruption being caused by them.
It also is the latest incident highlighting the conflicts that Elon Musk’s new role in the Trump administration will bring. He will have the remit to recommend changes, and potentially budget cuts, to government agencies including the F.A.A. That tension could hamper investigations like the one announced on Friday.
Mr. Musk, who is preparing to travel to Washington to participate in Mr. Trump’s inauguration, expressed confidence even as of Thursday night that SpaceX would resolve questions about the explosion quickly and restart test flights.
“Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month,” Mr. Musk wrote on his social media site, X.
Mr. Musk also made fun of the spectacle the explosion created, as the debris fell toward Turks and Caicos Islands. “Success is uncertain, but entertainment is guaranteed!” he wrote atop a video of the fiery debris falling toward earth.
The explosion happened after the Starship’s second stage — which is slated to carry cargo or even astronauts on their way to the moon during future missions — separated from the lower Super Heavy booster, and was flying at about 13,250 miles per hour, 90 miles above the Earth.
The Starship had already fired its own rockets to finish the trip into orbit, according to SpaceX’s ship tracking information, suggesting that at the time it blew up, it weighed somewhat more than 100 tons, which is the Starship’s approximate mass without fuel.
SpaceX and F.A.A. officials on Friday did not respond to questions submitted in writing and in interviews by The New York Times as to whether the explosion and falling debris may have represented a threat to any aircraft or people on the ground. It is unclear how much of the spacecraft might have burned up as it fell.
The agency did say there were no reports of injuries but is investigating reports of property damage on Turks and Caicos. It also said that several aircraft that were asked to hold in an area away from the falling debris ended up having to divert and return to other airports because of low fuel.
SpaceX, in a statement about this seventh Starship test flight, said that early data suggested that a fire had started in the rear section of the spacecraft, resulting in the explosion and the landing of debris in an area that SpaceX and the F.A.A. had already identified as liable to such hazards.
Closer to the South Texas launch site, at the edge of the Gulf of Mexico, all flights were already banned at the time of the launch. Starship was about 10 times higher than the altitude of commercial flights when it exploded, meaning there should have been time to warn any planes in the area to steer clear before any remaining debris approached.
SpaceX will be in charge of the mishap investigation, but it will be overseen by the F.A.A., which could allow it to resume test flights even before the investigation is complete, if SpaceX can document that the accident did not create a safety hazard.
Mr. Musk has previously expressed frustration at how long it takes the agency to approve Starship launch licenses. Now he will be a prominent member of the Trump administration, through his perch as a co-leader of an advisory group called the Department of Government Efficiency, with the power to evaluate federal spending and regulations.
“What this new administration might do is push this review to its conclusion faster,” said Todd Harrison, a former space industry executive at America Enterprise Institute.
He added that he expected some at F.A.A. might want to put new demands on SpaceX related to what time future Starship test flights launch, or broader restrictions on flights along more of the flight path.
Tim Farrar, a satellite industry consultant, said the incident showed the complications the United States is going to face as it ramps up space launches, both for the Pentagon as it builds out space warfighting capacity, and major commercial companies like SpaceX and Amazon that are building constellations with thousands of satellites to create global broadband internet access from orbit.
“How much can you realistically increase the tempo of these launches?” Mr. Farrar said.
There were 145 launches reaching orbit last year from the United States, compared with just 21 five years ago. An extraordinary 133 of those orbital launches were by SpaceX, which is now the world’s dominant space company, according to data collected by Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist who tracks launches globally.
Most of those SpaceX launches were by the Falcon 9 rocket, which is deploying Starlink communications satellites and Pentagon payloads and was not impacted by Friday’s F.A.A. order.
Blue Origin, the launch company created by Jeff Bezos, had its own rocket test on Thursday, reaching orbit for the first time with its spacecraft called New Glenn. But it launched from Cape Canaveral in Florida at 2:03 a.m., in part because there were fewer planes in the air then.
The surge in launch frequency, even before Thursday, has been generating complaints from airlines, including Qantas, the Australian-based carrier, which told reporters this month that it has had to delay several flights between Johannesburg and Sydney at the last minute because of debris from SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets.
“While we try to make any changes to our schedule in advance, the timing of recent launches have moved around at late notice which has meant we’ve had to delay some flights just prior to departure,” the Qantas executive said in a statement.
Hannah Walden, an Airlines for America spokeswoman, said the commercial airlines are tracking this issue closely.
“Safety is the top priority for U.S. airlines, and we are committed to ensuring the safety of all flights amidst the growing number of space launches,” she said in a statement. “We continuously collaborate and coordinate with the federal government and commercial space stakeholders to ensure the U.S. airspace remains safe for all users.”
Bill Nelson, the Biden-era National Aeronautics and Space Administration director, praised the test flight. The space agency has more than $4 billion worth of contracts with SpaceX to twice use Starship to land astronauts on the moon.
“Spaceflight is not easy,” he wrote Thursday night on Mr. Musk’s X platform. “It’s anything but routine. That’s why these tests are so important — each one bringing us closer on our path to the Moon and onward to Mars.”
Mark Walker contributed reporting.
Politics
Trump administration planning illegal immigrant arrests throughout US on ‘day one’
The incoming Trump administration is eyeing immigration arrests of illegal immigrants across the country as soon as day one, as top officials say they are ready to “take the handcuffs off” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration is planning a large-scale raid in Chicago on Tuesday, targeting those with criminal backgrounds in particular.
Incoming border czar Tom Homan was asked by Fox News’ Jesse Watters about the media reports of a “big raid” on Tuesday in Chicago, but Homan said ICE will be working across the country.
DEM SENATOR QUIZZES NOEM ON HOW SHE WILL WORK WITH HOMAN: ‘WHO IS IN CHARGE?’
“There’s going to be a big raid across the country. Chicago is just one of many places. We’ve got 24 field offices across the country. On Tuesday, ICE is finally going to go out and do their job. We’re going to take the handcuffs off ICE and let them go arrest criminal aliens, that’s what’s going to happen,” he said.
“What we’re telling ICE, you’re going to enforce the immigration law without apology. You’re going to concentrate on the worst first, public safety threats first, but no one is off the table. If they’re in the country illegally, they got a problem,” he said.
The administration has promised a mass deportation operation, as well as increased border security. Officials have said they intend to target those with criminal histories and convictions, but have also stressed that they will potentially arrest anyone in the U.S. illegally. There are currently more than 7 million individuals on ICE’s non-detained docket.
TRUMP DHS PICK NOEM PLEDGES TO END CONTROVERSIAL APP USED BY MIGRANTS ON ‘DAY ONE’
“The administration has been clear that we’re going to start arresting people on day one, and Chicago’s probably not going to be the only place that arrests are going to be made,” a source familiar told Fox News Digital.
The administration is expected to see significant pushback from “sanctuary” cities that refuse to allow state and local law enforcement to honor ICE detainers – requests that ICE be notified when illegal immigrants in custody are being released.
Some Democratic officials in Chicago, as well as Massachusetts and Arizona have said they will not co-operate with the administration.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF THE BORDER SECURITY CRISIS
But New York City Mayor Eric Adams has met with Homan about how they can work together on removing illegal immigrants who have been convicted of violent crimes.
DHS nominee Kristi Noem testified to Congress on Friday, and threw her support behind the mass deportation operation and increasing border security. She also said the administration will immediately end the use of the CBP One app, which currently allows migrants to be paroled into the U.S.
Politics
Supreme Court will decide if parents have a religious liberty right to reject LGBTQ+ lessons for their kids
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up a culture wars dispute and decide whether parents have a religious liberty right to have their children “opt out” of using school textbooks and lesson plans with LGBTQ+ themes.
The court voted to hear an appeal from a group of Muslim, Jewish and Christian parents in Montgomery County, Md., who objected to new storybooks for elementary school children that they said “celebrate gender transitioning, pride parades, and pronoun preferences with kids as young as three and four.”
At first, the school board reacted to the complaints by saying parents could have their children excused from the class when the new textbooks were being used or discussed.
But after seeing a “growing number of opt out requests,” the school district reversed course in 2023 and said no opt-outs would be granted “for any reason.”
The parents then sued in federal court, citing the 1st Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion.
They were represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. After failing to win a court order in favor of the parents, they urged the Supreme Court to hear the case and to give parents an “opt out” right for books that they say offend their religious beliefs.
They argued many of the new “inclusivity” books for students from kindergarten to fifth grade champion a progressive ideology about gender and sexuality.
They cited one book that told 3- and 4-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather.” Another book advocated a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, they said.
Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, welcomed the court’s intervention.
“Cramming down controversial gender ideology on three-year-olds without their parents’ permission is an affront to our nation’s traditions, parental rights, and basic human decency,” he said in a statement. “The court must make clear: parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality.”
Last month, the school district’s lawyers said there was no reason for the justices to take up the case.
“Every court of appeals that has considered the question has held that mere exposure to controversial issues in a public-school curriculum does not burden the free religious exercise of parents or students,” they said. “Parents who choose to send their children to public school are not deprived of their right to freely exercise their religion simply because their children are exposed to curricular materials the parents find offensive.”
The justices are likely to schedule the case of Mahmoud vs. Taylor for arguments in late April.
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta is highlighting a splintering global approach to online speech
-
Science7 days ago
Metro will offer free rides in L.A. through Sunday due to fires
-
Technology6 days ago
Amazon Prime will shut down its clothing try-on program
-
News1 week ago
Mapping the Damage From the Palisades Fire
-
News1 week ago
Mourners Defy Subfreezing Temperatures to Honor Jimmy Carter at the Capitol
-
Technology6 days ago
L’Oréal’s new skincare gadget told me I should try retinol
-
Technology3 days ago
Super Bowl LIX will stream for free on Tubi
-
Business4 days ago
Why TikTok Users Are Downloading ‘Red Note,’ the Chinese App