At least four anti-Israel agitators were hauled out of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing by Capitol police while Secretary of State Antony Blinken testified about his department’s budget on Tuesday. 

While Blinken began his opening statement, a man stood up shouting the name of a 6-year-old boy reportedly killed in Gaza. 

“Blinken, you will be remembered as the Butcher of Gaza,” the man yelled as officers pulled him out of the hearing room. “You will be remembered for murdering innocent Palestinians.” 

As other protesters started to speak up, Chairman Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., instructed an officer to remove the individual.

BIDEN SLAMS ICC’S ‘OUTRAGEOUS’ REQUEST FOR NETANYAHU ARREST WARRANT

Cardin warned that anyone who was speaking would be removed, but that did not deter an elderly woman who repeatedly shouted, “Stop the genocide,” while being escorted out by police. 

Blinken began his prepared statement again, when a woman suddenly rushed toward his table shouting, “Blinken is a war criminal. He is a war criminal. The blood of 40,000 people is on his hands.” 

“The blood of 40,000 Palestinians is on his hands,” she continued as Capitol police officers physically pulled her from the room. “He is a war criminal. He is a war criminal. Blinken is a war criminal.” 

A fourth person, another female protester, was then removed while shouting, “Blinken, you are funding a genocide in Gaza. There have been seven mass graves outside of hospitals.”

 “This is sick. This is deranged. You are a war criminal. Shame on you,” she yelled. 

Blinken is advocating before Congress for President Biden’s more than $60 billion budget request for the State Department and the Agency for International Development. Blinken is testifying before the Democrat-controlled Senate first, before the full Foreign Relations Committee, and later Tuesday, before the Appropriations subcommittee.

An anti-Israel agitator is hauled out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (CSPAN)

On Wednesday, the secretary of state is scheduled to return to the Capitol to testify before the Republican-controlled House Foreign Affairs Committee and an appropriations subcommittee. 

STATE DEPT DENIES IRAN’S RARE REQUEST FOR US ASSISTANCE AFTER DEADLY HELICOPTER CRASH: ‘LOGISTICAL REASONS’

Police remove an anti-Israel agitator who interrupted Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s testimony. (CSPAN)

During Blinken’s testimony, Cardin, joined by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., John Fetterman, D-Penn., Jim Risch, R-Idaho, Katie Britt, R-Ala., and John Thune, R-S.D., released a statement condemning the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s decision to pursue arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister. ICC prosecutor Karim Khan also accused three Hamas leaders of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 

“These actions by the ICC jeopardize efforts to bring about sustainable peace in the Middle East. It puts at risk sensitive negotiations to bring home hostages, including Americans, and surge humanitarian assistance,” the bipartisan group of senators wrote. “The application for arrest warrants also draws a false equivalence between Israel with its longstanding commitment to the rule of law, and Hamas’ theocratic, autocratic, and unaccountable rule over Gaza. To state the obvious: Israel is a functioning democracy, while Hamas is a terrorist organization.” 

Blinken told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Biden administration would be willing to work with Congress to respond to the ICC’s decision to pursue arrest warrants against Israeli leaders. 

“The extremely wrongheaded decision by the ICC prosecutor yesterday, the shameful equivalence implied between Hamas and the leadership of Israel. I think that only complicates the prospects for getting such an agreement,” Blinken said, referencing cease-fire talks. “We’ll continue to forge ahead to to do that. But that that decision, as you said, on so many levels, is totally wrong headed. And we’ll be happy to work with Congress, with this committee on an appropriate response.” 

The Biden and Trump campaigns agreed to two presidential debates last week. Who among us can contain our excitement?

Well, it depends on what you mean by “us.” In my corner of the professional world — pundits, commentators, political junkies — there was much rejoicing. Watching the Sunday shows, you could be forgiven for thinking church bells must have rung out to celebrate the news across the nation, as if some medieval queen had given birth to a male heir. The debates are happening! The debates are happening! Huzzah!

Meanwhile, among normal people, that sound you didn’t hear was the great mass of humanity shrugging. A smaller segment of the population likely let out an involuntary groan of the sort you make when you find out you got a middle seat on an airplane.

I don’t have polling to back this up, but I suspect most Americans would regard the prospect of Donald Trump and Joe Biden yelling at each other like two old men squabbling over the check at a Denny’s with resigned exhaustion. Ugh, really? We’re doing this again?

Now, I understand why journalists and junkies are excited. For starters, presidential debates inflate the egos of journalists, giving them ample opportunity to talk grandly about the fourth estate’s important role in democracy. They’re also great for ratings: The first, thoroughly awful 2020 debate was watched by 73 million people.

The drama of politicians offering unscripted — though often rehearsed — answers to complicated questions has a Super Bowl-like quality for political nerds. That listening to either of the current presumptive nominees talk is like watching a race car driver behind the wheel of a vehicle without brakes just adds to the excitement. The prospect of a spectacular crash always has a certain dark appeal, and in a Trump-Biden matchup, crashes are assured.

Lost amid the hoopla over the latest debate agreement is the fact that pretty much all presidential debates are tiresome and counterproductive spectacles.

The arguments for debates are often somewhat tautological. We supposedly need to have presidential debates because we’ve always had presidential debates. But this isn’t true.

The first presidential debates, between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, were in 1960 (when Biden and Trump were, respectively, 17 and 14 years old). All anyone remembers about the Kennedy-Nixon debates is the first one, which Nixon lost, according to lore, because he was without makeup, unshaven and sweaty. Again, according to lore, people who listened to the debate on radio thought Nixon won, while people who watched it on television were so impressed by Kennedy’s suave style and good looks that they thought he won. Nixon, who was underweight and exhausted during his first appearance, got some rest and good makeup and won the next two debates, which nobody remembers.

In other words, the lesson from the beginning was that style was more important than substance. It has ever been thus.

We think, partly because we are told as much over and over again, that televised debates convey important information to voters. But television makes certain information seem more important than it is, often subliminally. For instance, in most presidential elections, the taller candidate wins. Does height in some way correlate with superior policies?

There’s a reason FDR hid his wheelchair from public view. But while I have no end of substantive criticisms of Franklin D. Roosevelt, his having had polio is not among them.

Obviously, television presence is part of modern presidents’ job description. But televised presidential debates magnify that qualification beyond all reason. Yes, yes, presidents need to be good communicators. But at no point during their actual presidencies are they ever expected to bicker with a political foe for 90 minutes in front of millions of people.

The political skills we are testing for are not the political skills the job requires. The candidate who forcefully, confidently or amusingly lies is often rewarded by debates, while the candidate who tells the truth awkwardly, hesitantly or with appropriate complexity is often penalized.

The debate “highlight” reels the networks routinely run are full of one-liners, gaffes and falsehoods often treated as true by sympathetic journalists. But I’ve never seen a really thoughtful explanation of the national debt or another serious problem celebrated as a great moment in debate history.

The prospect of a Biden-Trump rematch is especially deserving of an “Ugh, really?” But the truth is that all presidential debates deserve the same.

@JonahDispatch

Judge Juan Merchan could rule Tuesday morning on Trump defense attorneys’ motion to dismiss the case against the former president altogether after the prosecution rested its case following days of testimony from its star witness, Michael Cohen.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records 34 times to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic performer, in the lead-up to the 2016 election to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump in 2006. 

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and maintains his innocence.

TRUMP SLAMS NY COURT SYSTEM, BOASTS HE’S GOING ‘TO WIN’ EMPIRE STATE

After Michael Cohen’s fourth day of testimony was complete, the prosecution rested its case, and Trump defense attorneys called two of their own witnesses. 

At the end of court for the day, Trump defense attorney Todd Blanche asked for an immediate order of dismissal, saying there is “no evidence” that the filings or business records at the center of the case were false, that there are “absolutely no false business filings.” 

Blanche said there is no dispute that Cohen acted as a personal attorney for Trump in 2017 and that there is no evidence or intent by Trump to mislead, hide or falsify business records.

Donald Trump and Michael Cohen (Getty Images)

Blanche said there would be records of intent to defraud, if they existed, and that there were no other crimes being covered up. He said there was no evidence of anyone thinking of a campaign finance charge when the payment was made to Stormy Daniels or when Cohen and then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg developed the repayment plan.

Blanche said Trump paid Cohen a $35,000 “monthly retainer,” which is what the records state, and said there is no evidence from any witness to prove any criminal intent.

Reflecting on the prosecution’s case, Blanche pointed to the alleged “catch and kill” strategy used to prevent a “demonstrably false” story a Trump Tower doorman had about Trump from being published.

“How on Earth is keeping a false story from voters criminal?” Blanche asked, adding it was “not a catch and kill and certainly not a criminal catch and kill.”

NY V TRUMP: MICHAEL COHEN ADMITS TO STEALING TENS OF THOUSANDS FROM FORMER PRESIDENT’S BUSINESS

“There is no way the court should let this case go to the jury with Mr. Cohen’s testimony,” Blanche said, adding that Cohen has lied under oath in the past and during the current criminal trial in Merchan’s courtroom. 

Merchan asked Blanche if he should “find Mr. Cohen not credible by a matter of law,” to which Blanche said “yes.”

“So, you want me to take it out of the jury’s hands?” Merchan asked, with Blanche responding that Cohen’s entire testimony should not be considered by the jury. 

Merchan told Blanche that if Cohen’s “lies” were “irrefutable,” then he would be able to convince the jury of that.

Michael Cohen is cross-examined by defense lawyer Todd Blanche during former President Trump’s criminal trial in New York City on May 16, 2024, as shown in this courtroom sketch. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)

The prosecution then argued that under the New York state falsifying business records statute, anyone “causing” the falsified records can be punished.

“As a matter of law, it is sufficient, more than sufficient, that the defendant set in motion the sequence of events leading to the falsification of business records,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued.

Merchan said he would reserve a ruling on whether to dismiss the case before the jury can deliberate.

Before the afternoon development, Trump defense attorneys on Monday continued to cross-examine Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and self-described “fixer,” who testified that he stole $30,000 from the Trump Organization.

Cohen said the move was “almost like self-help” because he was “angry” about his bonus being reduced.

Cohen testified that he was supposed to pay the $30,000 he withdrew from the bank to a tech company, Red Finch, in addition to $20,000 he had already paid them. Instead, he failed to make the payment, collected the $30,000 for himself, and led the Trump Organization to believe he had paid the total.

Prosecutors then briefly questioned Cohen on redirect, where he said that he had “more than 20” conversations with Trump about Stormy Daniels in 2016 and that Trump “no doubt” had signed off on the hush money payment for Daniels. 

NY V TRUMP: MICHAEL COHEN TESTIFIES HE’S CONSIDERING CONGRESSIONAL RUN

Cohen has testified that he personally made the $130,000 payment to Daniels using a home equity line of credit in an effort to conceal the payment from his wife. Cohen said he did this because Trump told him to “handle it” and prevent a negative story from coming out ahead of the 2016 election.

Cohen testified that he was “reimbursed $420,000” for the $130,000 he paid to Daniels. Cohen said Weisselberg suggested he “gross up” the payments and that Trump knew the details of that reimbursement. 

Last week, the prosecution presented Cohen with 11 checks totaling $420,000. Cohen confirmed that they were all received and deposited. The checks had a description of “retainer,” which Cohen said was false.

But Monday, the prosecution rested its case against the former president.

Trump defense attorneys called two witnesses: paralegal Daniel Sitko and a former legal adviser to Michael Cohen, Robert Costello. 

Sitko testified that Cohen and Costello had 75 phone calls in which Cohen told Costello that Trump knew nothing about the payment to Stormy Daniels. 

This courtroom sketch shows presiding Judge Juan Merchan during former President Trump’s criminal trial in New York City on May 14, 2024. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)

Costello took the stand and testified that Cohen told him “numerous times” that Trump knew nothing of the payments, recalling Cohen telling him: “I swear to God, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump.”

Cohen, earlier in the day, recalled that he told numerous people that Trump knew nothing about the payment.

COHEN’S BOMBSHELL ADMISSION COULD LEAD TO HUNG JURY, IF NOT ACQUITTAL: EXPERT

But during his testimony, Costello clashed with Merchan. Costello audibly and visibly responded with disapproval to Merchan sustaining multiple objections from the prosecution concerning his testimony about Cohen. 

“I’m sorry?” Merchan said to Costello after one reaction before clearing the courtroom.

“I want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom,” Merchan said after the jury left. “You don’t say strike it, because I’m the only one who can strike it.”

Merchan directed Costello, a former federal prosecutor, not to respond, roll his eyes or react in any way to his rulings.

Before the jury returned to the courtroom, Costello looked at Merchan, prompting the judge to ask, “Are you staring me down?” 

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger was leading the cross-examination of Costello. She said she had approximately 45 minutes left for questioning.

The defense said they won’t call any other witnesses, signaling that Trump won’t take the stand in his own defense.

Closing arguments are currently set for next Tuesday.