Politics
Video: Biden Announces Gun Control Measures and A.T.F. Nominee
President Biden unveiled new restrictions to curb the unfold of “ghost weapons” throughout an occasion to announce his nomination of Steven M. Dettelbach, a former federal prosecutor, to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Politics
What Candidates in Tight House Races Are Saying About Abortion
Josh Riley, the Democratic challenger running for Congress in New York’s 19th District, has a clear message on abortion: “I believe that women’s health care decisions are women’s health care decisions and that politicians should stay the hell out of it.”
And his Republican opponent, the incumbent Representative Marc Molinaro, is saying nearly the same thing: “I believe health care decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, not Washington.”
Across the country’s most competitive House races, Republicans have spent months trying to redefine themselves on abortion, going so far as to borrow language that would not feel out of place at a rally of Vice President Kamala Harris. Many Republicans who until recently backed federal abortion restrictions are now saying the issue should be left to the states.
At least a half-dozen Republican candidates have put out direct-to-camera ads declaring their opposition to a federal abortion ban. Instead, they say, they support exceptions to existing state laws and back protections for reproductive health care, such as I.V.F.
Democrats have raised the possibility of a nationwide abortion ban should Republicans win in November, and they are framing the campaign as another referendum on the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade. They are hoping to continue their run of electoral successes since the 2022 decision to win back control of the House.
Any new federal legislation on abortion would have to pass both the House and the Senate and be signed by the president to become law. But whichever party emerges with a majority in the House will have the ability to dictate the legislative agenda, including whether measures to restrict or expand abortion access have the chance to pass.
Republicans in California and New York in particular, who are running in swing districts in blue states that favor abortion rights, have felt the most pressure to address the issue directly. “If we don’t talk about the issue, we become whatever the Democrats say we are,” said Will Reinert, the press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee.
To better understand how abortion is playing a role in these campaigns, The New York Times surveyed candidates from both parties in the most competitive House races about their support for federal limits on abortion. The Times also looked at voting records, issues listed on campaign websites, debate and media coverage, and endorsements from major abortion rights and anti-abortion groups.
The Times survey showed that while Republicans are notably focused on what they will not do on abortion at the federal level, their Democratic opponents are talking about what they will do to protect abortion rights. Nearly all the Democratic candidates said they supported restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade, which would allow access to abortion until fetal viability, or around 24 weeks, in every state.
In attack ads, Democrats are pointing to their opponents’ voting records or past statements as evidence of extremism — despite what they may be saying now.
Click on any video in the grid to play it.
Josh Riley campaign
Democrat, N.Y. 19
Will Rollins campaign Democrat, Calif. 41
Democratic candidates highlight Republicans’ records on abortion in campaign videos
More broadly, abortion rights groups said Republicans are misleading voters by claiming they do not support an outright abortion “ban,” when they might support a federal “limit” or “standard,” such as the 15-week proposal put forward by Senator Lindsey Graham in 2022.
“They are playing around with the semantics; they are clearly testing out different framing and messaging in an attempt to try and deceive voters because they realize how politically unpopular their policy stances are,” said Jessica Arons, a director of policy and government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union.
Republicans in the Times survey almost universally declined to answer questions about gestational limits. Only one, Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, said he supported a specific federal limit, in the third trimester.
“I do not support a federal abortion ban. The Dobbs decision decided this was an issue left to the states and that’s where I believe policy on the issue should be decided.”
David Valadao Republican, Calif. 22 “At the federal level, I would only support legislation to outlaw late-term abortion, with protections for the three exceptions. Otherwise, states must vote on this issue.”
Don Bacon Republican, Neb. 2
“I am pro-life, believe abortion stops a beating heart, and oppose taxpayer funded abortion. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has returned this issue to the states, I will not vote for a national abortion ban.”
Gabe Evans Republican, Colo. 8
What Republican candidates are saying about abortion
The Republican shift away from publicly supporting a federal ban follows the lead of former President Donald J. Trump, who has changed his own language on the issue after seeing the electoral backlash to the Dobbs decision.
As recently as 2021, a majority of House Republicans — including seven incumbents in this year’s tossup races — co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act, a bill that would have amounted to a nationwide abortion ban. This year, Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania’s 10th District was the only incumbent in a competitive race to stay on as a co-sponsor.
Two Republican incumbents who now say they oppose a national ban — Representatives Ken Calvert and David Valadao in California — voted in favor of a 20-week ban that passed the House in 2017. Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, an Iowa Republican, co-sponsored a 15-week ban on abortion in 2022. She did not respond to questions about whether she still supports it.
Other Republicans described themselves as personally “pro-life” but said they accepted the abortion laws in place in their states. Rob Bresnahan Jr., a challenger in Pennsylvania’s 8th District, said he supported the state’s current law, which allows abortion until 24 weeks.
Democrats, when they were not attacking Republicans, leaned into language about personal freedom, with many in the survey saying the government should not be involved in medical decisions.
Another common refrain was that the decision to have an abortion should be “between a woman and her doctor.” Two Democrats used similar language rather than explicitly calling for federal abortion protections.
“Abortion is health care. This is not a place for government interference. I trust every person I know and love, and any New Mexican to make that decision for themselves.”
Gabe Vasquez Democrat, N.M. 2
“I have always believed that this decision should be left between a woman, her doctor and within her own faith.” Rudy Salas Democrat, Calif. 22
“I believe the decisions a woman makes for her body and her family are deeply personal and politicians have no place telling her what she can and cannot do.”
Tony Vargas Democrat, Neb. 2
What Democratic candidates are saying about abortion
By appearing to moderate their stance on abortion, candidates have risked losing the backing of prominent advocacy groups. Only three Republicans in the tossup races received an endorsement from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and seven received one from National Right to Life.
Two major abortion rights groups, by contrast, endorsed nearly all the Democratic candidates. Planned Parenthood — whose political action fund is pouring $40 million into the campaign — endorsed all but six candidates, while Reproductive Freedom for All endorsed all but four.
Anderson
Va. 7
Bacon* Neb. 2
Buckhout
N.C. 1
Begich
Alaska At-Large Ciscomani*
Ariz. 6
Miller-Meeks*
Iowa 1
Nunn* Iowa 3
Perry*
Pa. 10
Schweikert*
Ariz. 1 Altman
N.J. 7
Baccam
Iowa 3 Bohannan
Iowa 1
Bynum
Ore. 5
Caraveo* Colo. 8
Cartwright*
Pa. 8
Davis*
N.C. 1 Engel
Ariz. 6
Gillen
N.Y. 4
Endorsements from major anti-abortion groups
Candidate
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America
National Right to Life
Endorsements from major abortion rights groups
Candidate
Planned Parenthood
Repro. Freedom for All
Representative Jared Golden, the Democratic incumbent in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District — an area Mr. Trump won by six points in 2020 — did not get Planned Parenthood’s endorsement this year. He said the reason was his vote for the 2024 defense policy bill, which included an amendment blocking reimbursement for abortion travel costs for service members.
Mr. Golden said he was not concerned about the lack of support from the group, pointing instead to his co-sponsorship of the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill to restore the protections of Roe.
“I’m quite confident that voters in Maine know where I stand,” he said.
Compare statements from House candidates on abortion policy
The New York Times asked candidates and their campaigns about support for a federal minimum standard on abortion. Statements have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Mary Peltola* No response to survey. “Roe v. Wade set a precedent that was the law of the land for 50 years. She believes that standard was the right one — furthermore we know the importance of having strong exceptions for rape, incest, life of mother and health of mother throughout.” |
Nick Begich No response to survey. “While I strongly support efforts that defend the rights of those not yet born, the courts have made it clear, abortion is a state issue and not an issue for the federal government to decide.” |
Amish Shah No response to survey. “As a doctor, I understand that these personal decisions should be made by women and their physicians. That’s why we need to codify Roe v. Wade and give women across the country the right to control their own bodies and health care.” |
David Schweikert* No response to survey. “It’s pretty clear that it belongs to the states,” via Business Insider. |
Kirsten Engel No response to survey. “Protecting women’s reproductive freedoms at the federal level will be one of my top priorities when elected to Congress. Women had those protections for over 50 years when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, and that is what I will advocate for us to return to.” |
Juan Ciscomani* No response to survey. “I’m pro-life, I reject the extremes, and I trust women. I’m against a federal ban on abortion. I’m for timetables and exceptions, including for rape, incest and the life of the mother,” via campaign site. |
Adam Gray No response to survey. “What I support and will vote for is restoring Roe v. Wade into federal law so that women regain the federal rights they had for generations.” |
John Duarte* No response to survey. “Congressman Duarte opposes federal abortion restrictions.” |
Rudy Salas No response to survey. “I have always believed that this decision should be left between a woman, her doctor and within her own faith. Women should have the freedom to choose what happens with their own bodies and to determine their own health care.” |
David Valadao* No response to survey. “I do not support a federal abortion ban. The Dobbs decision decided this was an issue left to the states and that’s where I believe policy on the issue should be decided.” |
George Whitesides No response to survey. “I strongly support a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions, and if elected to Congress, I will vote to codify Roe v. Wade to ensure reproductive freedom for all Americans.” |
Mike Garcia* No response to survey. “I oppose a national abortion ban — California’s law on abortion stays the law — and I support exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.” |
Will Rollins No response to survey. “I support a federal minimum standard for abortion. In Congress, I will advocate for legislation that restores Roe v. Wade, which prohibits states from banning abortions before fetal viability. It’s critical that we protect a woman’s right to choose nationwide.” |
Ken Calvert* No response to survey. “Congressman Calvert does not support a federal abortion ban and supports the right of Californians to determine this for themselves.” |
Derek Tran No response to survey. “Derek Tran supports enshrining reproductive rights into law as California voters did through Proposition 1 in 2022.” |
Michelle Steel* No response to survey. “Michelle’s position has always been, and remains, that this issue is best left up to the states, and she does not support a national ban on abortion.” |
Yadira Caraveo* No response to survey. “Rep. Caraveo believes we need to codify Roe v. Wade. This was the law of the land for decades, and since the Dobbs decision, the lives of far too many women have been at risk.” |
Gabe Evans No response to survey. “I am pro-life, believe abortion stops a beating heart, and oppose taxpayer-funded abortion. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has returned this issue to the states, I will not vote for a national abortion ban.” |
Christina Bohannan No response to survey. “On Day 1 in Congress, I will work to codify Roe v. Wade and ensure women in Iowa and across the country once again have the freedom to make their own health care decisions.” |
Mariannette Miller-Meeks* No response to survey. “The congresswoman has been clear that she is pro-life with the exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother.” |
Lanon Baccam No response to survey. “It’s more important than ever to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade, and that’s why I’ll support the Women’s Health Protection Act in Congress. I believe women’s health care decisions should be between her and her doctor — not politicians.” |
Zach Nunn* No response to survey. “He is pro-life, but has voted for exceptions. He opposes a national abortion ban.” |
Jared Golden* No response to survey. “I’m a cosponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, to restore Roe, and I would vote for it if it came to the floor again.” |
Austin Theriault No response to survey. “Austin opposes and will vote against a national abortion ban.” |
Curtis Hertel No response to survey. “When Roe was overturned and abortion rights came under attack in our state, I worked across the aisle to get rid of the 1931 abortion ban and fought to enshrine abortion rights in Michigan’s constitution. I’m running to make Roe the law of the land and protect reproductive freedom.” |
Tom Barrett No response to survey. “Tom does not support a federal ban. He has consistently argued this is a decision for the states and while he disagrees with Prop. 3, Michigan voters have made that decision.” |
Kristen McDonald Rivet No response to survey. “After Roe was overturned, I protected abortion rights in Michigan by helping to repeal our state’s 1931 ban without exceptions for rape or incest. In Congress, I’ll fight for a federal law restoring the Roe standard across America.” |
Paul Junge No response to survey. “I would never and have never supported a national abortion ban.” |
Tony Vargas No response to survey. “I believe the decisions a woman makes for her body, and her family, are deeply personal and politicians have no place telling her what she can and cannot do. In Congress, I’ll vote to codify the protections earned from the Roe v. Wade decision into federal law.” |
Don Bacon* No response to survey. “I support the Nebraska law that puts a reasonable three-month restriction on abortions with exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. At the federal level, I would only support legislation to outlaw late-term abortion, with protections for the three exceptions. Otherwise, states must vote on this issue.” |
Gabe Vasquez* No response to survey. “Abortion is health care. This is not a place for government interference. I trust every person I know and love, and any New Mexican, to make that decision for themselves.” |
Yvette Herrell No response to survey. “Yvette has been clear that since the Dobbs decision returned abortion policy to the states, she does not support a federal ban.” |
Sue Altman No response to survey. “Sue will work to protect access to contraception, reproductive choice, and women’s health,” via campaign site. |
Thomas Kean Jr.* No response to survey. “Tom is opposed to a national abortion ban. He has voted to protect access to mifepristone and believes any legislation should be left to the voters of each state to advocate for their positions to their legislatures.” |
Mondaire Jones No response to survey. “We must enshrine protections for abortion into federal law.” |
Mike Lawler* No response to survey. “He does not and never will support a national abortion ban.” |
Josh Riley No response to survey. “I believe that women’s health care decisions are women’s health care decisions and that politicians should stay the hell out of it. In Congress, I will codify the right to abortion as it existed under Roe v. Wade into law.” |
Marc Molinaro* No response to survey. “I believe health care decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, not Washington. I kept my promise to reject a national abortion ban — keeping New York’s laws in place.” |
Laura Gillen No response to survey. “The standard should be the same as it was the day before the disastrous Dobbs decision. It worked for a half a century, and we should return to it.” |
Anthony D’Esposito* No response to survey. “Congressman D’Esposito does not support a nationwide abortion ban and believes legislating on abortion should fall under the purview of state governments.” |
Don Davis* No response to survey. “Congress must take action and codify Roe v. Wade. He firmly believes that a woman’s health decisions should remain private between her and her doctor,” via campaign site. |
Laurie Buckhout No response to survey. “As the only candidate to be endorsed by the pro-life SBA (Susan B. Anthony) List, I believe every life is precious and would vote to preserve life, including the mother’s,” via The Perquimans Weekly. |
Emilia Sykes* No response to survey. “Congresswoman Sykes has a strong record of supporting the protections provided under Roe that give women across the country the right to make decisions about what is best for their bodies.” |
Kevin Coughlin No response to survey. “Issues related to abortion are best left to the states, and there should be no federal ban.” |
Janelle Bynum No response to survey. “Rep. Bynum supports codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law so that women across the country can have those rights back. This is a decision that should be kept between a woman and her doctors.” |
Lori Chavez-DeRemer* No response to survey. “The congresswoman doesn’t support any federal standard limiting Oregonians’ access to abortion.” |
Susan Wild* No response to survey. “I have always believed that private medical decisions, including whether or not to receive abortion care, should be made by a woman, her doctor, her partner and her faith if she so chooses.” |
Ryan Mackenzie No response to survey. “He’s opposed to a national abortion ban; he supports exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.” |
Matt Cartwright* No response to survey. “I strongly support the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would restore Roe’s protections into federal law. We should trust women with their health care decisions, not politicians.” |
Rob Bresnahan Jr. No response to survey. “Rob Bresnahan does not support a national abortion ban and does support the current Pennsylvania protections of 24 weeks and exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. ” |
Janelle Stelson No response to survey. “I think these most intimate health care decisions should be made by women and their doctors … If elected, I will put those decisions back in the hands of women, where they belong.” |
Scott Perry* No response to survey. “Scott Perry believes firmly in the sanctity of Life — period. He makes exceptions for circumstances that involve rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother,” via campaign site. |
Eugene Vindman No response to survey. “In Congress, I will fight to make sure that the rights of women and girls in Virginia are never dependent on politicians in Richmond or Washington by voting to restore the protections of Roe nationwide.” |
Derrick Anderson No response to survey. “Derrick opposes and would vote against a national abortion ban.” |
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez* No response to survey. “Marie is an original co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act and supports codifying the abortion protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law, as well as ensuring women have continued access to contraception and I.V.F.” |
Joe Kent No response to survey. “Following the Supreme Court decision that made abortion a state issue, Joe Kent opposes any new federal legislation on the issue.” |
Methodology
The New York Times survey asked candidates or their campaigns two questions: 1) Do you support any federal minimum standard on abortion? 2) If so, until how many weeks in pregnancy (i.e. 6 weeks, 15 weeks, viability, etc.)?
Those surveyed were major-party candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives whose races were rated “tossups” by the Cook Political Report at any point in October 2024. Alaska’s at-large congressional district includes four candidates and will be decided by ranked-choice voting; the two candidates who received the most votes in the primary were included in the survey. All but six candidates responded to emailed requests for comment. In these cases, position summaries were taken from campaign websites or from other public statements.
Note: Counts of candidate statements in the top graphic were taken from survey responses only.
Additional work by June Kim.
Politics
Democrat platform ActBlue subpoenaed by House committee amid concerns foreign donors exploited security flaws
House Republicans issued a subpoena this week to the Democratic fundraising platform, ActBlue, as part of an ongoing effort to obtain more information about certain questionable transactions and the platform’s process for vetting its donors.
In a letter to ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones, House Administration Committee Chair Bryan Steil, R-Wis., requested that the platform turn over more information about its process and policies for verifying donors before Nov. 6, the day after this year’s general election.
He said the subpoena is a bid to “safeguard our nation’s elections” and “close loopholes in our campaign finance system,” including contributions from donors whose identities were not as stringently vetted.
The request, sent just days ahead of the presidential election, comes as Republicans have expressed mounting concerns over ActBlue’s security policies and processes for vetting donors, which the platform has addressed in recent months with some policy changes.
VIRGINIA APPEALS TO SCOTUS TO REVERSE JUDGE’S RULING PUTTING POTENTIAL NONCITIZENS BACK ON VOTER ROLLS
Until recently, the platform did not require online donors to submit their credit card verification value (CVV) when donating online — prompting criticism from House Republicans, including Steil, who noted that the lack of verification could allow for “potentially fraudulent and illicit financial activity” by foreign donors.
“We cannot allow foreign actors to influence our elections through campaign financing. The Committee’s investigation uncovered that foreign actors might be taking advantage of ActBlue’s inadequate security protocols,” Steil said in his letter.
To date, there has been no evidence or records that such activity has taken place. Additionally, ActBlue, for its part, did begin requiring CVV numbers in August.
The subpoena request comes on the heels of a New York Post report this week that the Treasury Department has identified “hundreds of records of transactions” made on the app that were flagged by banks as potentially suspicious. The department is currently reviewing those records.
House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., said this week that his office is “working closely with Treasury” to obtain the materials “expeditiously.”
CHECK OUT THE LATEST FOX NEWS POWER RANKINGS IN THE 2024 ELECTION
Steil and the rest of the House Administration Committee are also working to obtain more information from ActBlue about donations collected in previous months.
On Wednesday, Steil sent a letter to the platform seeking information related to the platform’s donor verification policies and potential vulnerabilities.
He also introduced legislation in September seeking to require political committees and donor platforms such as ActBlue to adopt more stringent vetting processes.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The legislation would also prohibit the acceptance of contributions from prepaid gift cards, and adopt a bipartisan FEC recommendation to prohibit individuals from “knowingly aiding or abetting someone” who makes a contribution in the name of another person.
The legislation passed the committee by voice vote, and has not yet been brought to the floor for a full vote.
Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.
Politics
Column: Does freedom itself depend on the outcome of this election? Donald Trump's probably does
Donald Trump is at a pivotal point in his personal history. For him, the upshot of the election will be either a series of criminal prosecutions likely to result in incarceration or a few legal nuisances that he can largely or completely dismiss.
A victory for Kamala Harris next week would leave Trump with no new cards to play against the juggernaut of criminal cases already pending against him. We could expect turnover at the highest ranks of the Department of Justice, up to and including Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland. But the new leadership would be nearly certain to retain special counsel Jack Smith, who has earned high marks for his aggressive pursuit of Trump’s alleged federal crimes.
That would allow Smith to continue to pursue the two prosecutions he has brought against the former president: one for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election, culminating with the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol; the other for purloining government documents and obstructing the authorities’ efforts to recover them from his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago.
As a matter of sheer legal merit, the latter is the strongest of all the criminal cases against Trump. The evidence is overwhelming that Trump absconded with documents he had no right to possess as an ex-president and then engaged in a nearly two-year stonewalling of the federal government’s entirely legitimate efforts to get them back. His alleged obstruction included lying about the extent of his compliance with a federal subpoena and ordering his co-conspirators to hide documents that he knew the government wanted. And for all we know, his sloppy, selfish handling of sensitive information about national security may have put U.S. assets at grave risk.
What makes the case especially powerful is that anyone who engaged in similar conduct would undoubtedly face serious charges; indeed, the Justice Department routinely prosecutes people for mishandling a small fraction of the material Trump misappropriated. So no one can legitimately argue that he was singled out for political purposes or that the case pushes the legal envelope in any way.
Trump has nevertheless managed to elude justice in the case because of a series of partisan rulings by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who ultimately went so far as to order the case dismissed on the ground that Smith’s appointment lacked proper congressional authority. That ruling is now before the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which is likely to reverse it and could order Cannon’s recusal. And while a determined district court judge can find many ways to make charges disappear, Cannon would face even more scrutiny and have less recourse if her patron loses his bid to return to the White House.
The case, in short, should proceed to a conviction. And the likely sentence under federal guidelines (which the courts may depart from) looks to be almost 20 years.
If the documents case is the most open and shut against Trump, the Jan. 6 case is the most important in that it goes to the core of his iniquity as president. But Trump got another big lucky break here, not from the district court — Tanya Chutkan is a no-nonsense federal judge who has moved the case briskly — but from the U.S. Supreme Court. The conservative justices threw a monkey wrench into the case with their opinion granting broad presidential immunity from prosecution, working through the implications of which will take at least another year.
Still, when the dust settles, the evidence is more than strong enough to lead to conviction on the core charges that are likely to remain. And judging by the sentences imposed on the most culpable of the Jan. 6 ground soldiers, Trump would be looking at years in prison in this case too.
That leaves the two state cases against the former president. In New York, Trump is to be sentenced in less than a month for his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to the adult film actor Stormy Daniels. And in Georgia, a racketeering case stemming from the Jan. 6 plot is in a sort of deep freeze as the state courts try to sort out whether Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis and her office need to be recused for ethical reasons.
The future of the Georgia case is uncertain in any scenario. But if Trump loses the election, he will face sentencing in Manhattan. He is likely to serve little if any time in custody as a result, but he can probably count on a long term of probation, which itself entails a significant deprivation of liberty.
Finally, the possibility remains that Trump will surface as a defendant in other state cases involving conspiracies to overturn the election by appointing false electors. His involvement in those schemes is a matter of record.
Add all that together, and the bottom line is that Trump will be forced to endure one criminal trial after another and the possibility of prison sentences interrupted only for proceedings in other cases.
But what if Trump emerges as the victor next week? The difference for him alone would be astonishing. Regaining the White House would amount to a free pass for a presidency and post-presidency that have been nothing short of a crime spree.
First and foremost, as head of the executive branch, Trump could and would simply order the Department of Justice to drop the two ongoing federal cases. Indeed, Trump announced last week that he would fire the special counsel “within two seconds” of taking office and pointed to the Supreme Court’s immunity decision as ensuring his power to do so. That would bring all of Smith’s work to a grinding and permanent halt.
As for New York, even as president, Trump would have no official authority to order Manhattan Dist. Atty. Alvin Bragg to stand down. But he would probably argue in federal court that a state can’t pursue a criminal case against — much less incarcerate — a sitting president. And it’s likely that the Supreme Court would and should find such a principle implicit in the Constitution: The federal government could hardly function if the states had that power.
In that case, any sentence in New York, including a probationary one, would be served only after Trump is out of office, at which point this may be a very different country. For starters, Trump has signaled his intent to bring federal charges against Bragg.
Finally, a Trump presidency probably forecloses any possibility of his being included in any additional state prosecutions. Indeed, it might spell the end of those prosecutions altogether.
Trump’s entire campaign to regain the presidency can be seen as an outlandish gamble on evading accountability for a series of grave and manifest crimes. Should he win, he will take it as a popular verdict that he is above the law, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution. And as a practical matter, he will be right.
Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the “Talking San Diego” speaker series. @harrylitman
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
Alien Country (2024) – Movie Review
-
Technology7 days ago
OpenAI plans to release its next big AI model by December
-
Health6 days ago
New cervical cancer treatment approach could reduce risk of death by 40%, trial results show
-
Culture7 days ago
Top 45 MLB free agents for 2024-25 with contract predictions, team fits: Will Soto get $600M+?
-
Sports5 days ago
Freddie Freeman's walk-off grand slam gives Dodgers Game 1 World Series win vs. Yankees
-
News5 days ago
Sikh separatist, targeted once for assassination, says India still trying to kill him
-
Culture4 days ago
Freddie Freeman wallops his way into World Series history with walk-off slam that’ll float forever
-
Technology4 days ago
When a Facebook friend request turns into a hacker’s trap