In January 2025, Donald Trump may be sworn into office as the 47th President of the United States.

Despite his ongoing legal troubles, plenty of national polling shows the former president being either tied or leading President Joe Biden,

A second term for Biden could mean either more of the same or a flurry of new progressive policies, if Democrats gain control of both chambers of Congress.

Another Trump term, on the other hand, would likely entail a radical reversal from not just the previous four years, but even from Trump’s first term in office.

That becomes clear after examining the former president’s campaign proposals, reading his April interview with TIME, reviewing reporting from The New York Times, and perusing proposals made by the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.

Some of these proposals may depend on Republicans gaining control of both the House and Senate, a likely possibility — though not guaranteed — if Trump wins the presidency.

While not exhaustive, here’s just some of what to expect in a second Trump administration.

Radically reshaping the federal bureaucracy

Perhaps the most unorthodox — and to some, frightening — aspects of Trump’s planning for a second term involve restructuring the executive branch in a manner that would drastically increase presidential power.

That includes exercising more direct control over the hundreds of thousands of civilian servants who populate federal agencies — many of whom are apolitical, and often remain in their jobs across presidential administrations.

Trump has  pledged to bring back “Schedule F,” a classification for civil servants that was created — but never used — in October 2020. Biden later rescinded it after taking office. That classification was designed to skirt the typical job protections afforded to career civil servants.

Trump’s plans also include bringing independent agencies — such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission — under direct presidential control, a departure from decades of precedent. That could also include the Federal Reserve, the country’s central banking system, though that’s less clear.

Lastly, he has pledged to bring back “impoundment,” in which the executive branch refuses to spend money provided by Congress. That’s been illegal since 1974, but Trump is pledging to challenge it.

One of the hallmarks of Trump’s first term was that he was significantly constrained, both by his advisors and aspects of the federal bureaucracy. Taken together, these proposals show how that could change.

A murky stance on abortion

In April, Trump declared that he believed abortion should be decided at the state level, seemingly rejecting the idea of enacting nationwide restrictions on the procedure.

“The states are going to say. It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not,” Trump told TIME. “It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.”

But that doesn’t fully address the complexity of the issue — and it’s unclear how far other Republicans may go.

In an April interview with TIME, Trump refused to say whether he would veto abortion restrictions passed by a Republican-controlled Congress, insisting there “will never be that chance because it won’t happen.”

He has also refused to state his position on whether mifepristone — a medication that enabled an estimated  63% of abortions in the US in 2023 — should remain legal.

Some of his allies have called for the enforcement of a 19th-century law called the Comstock Act that could be used to outlaw the mailing of the pill, a move that would affect women in a variety of states.

The potential of mass deportations and ending some birthright citizenship

Trump is expected to take a far more harsh approach toward illegal immigration and border security if elected — including pledging to carry out a massive deportation operation that could include the use of the National Guard.

That could include new detention camps, according to Stephen Miller, the architect of much of Trump’s immigration policy.

Miller told The New York Times that a second Trump administration would build “vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers” on “open land in Texas near the border.”

Trump has also pledged to end so-called “birthright citizenship” for the children of people who entered the country illegally and are not citizens. But it could be tricky.

The US Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Trump has pledged to sign an executive order making clear that those children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States — a move likely to be challenged in court.

Retribution against political opponents

Trump has pledged to appoint a special prosecutor to go after the Biden family, arguing that it’s only fair given that he has faced criminal charges across a variety of jurisdictions for his “hush money” payments, his mishandling of classified documents, and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

It’s part of a broader effort by Trump and his allies to curtail the independence of the Department of Justice, the nation’s top law enforcement agency. Since the Nixon era, there have been strong norms around keeping the department at arm’s length from the president, but some argue that shouldn’t be the case — and that the present-day norms are a facade anyway.

Pardoning January 6 rioters

Trump has also promised to issue pardons for those who’ve faced federal convictions in connection to the January 6 assault on the US Capitol.

He has described jailed or imprisoned rioters as “hostages” and “political prisoners” and his campaign rallies have at times begun with a version of the national anthem sung by January 6 defendants.

In a recent interview with TIME, he said that he would not pardon those who were “evil and bad,” but claimed that many of the rioters were “ushered in” by Capitol Police.

Tariffs on all imported goods

If re-elected, the former president has proposed many protectionist policies, including universal 10% tariffs on all imported goods.

“I call it a ring around the country,” Trump told TIME.

Experts have warned that such a policy would simply increase consumer costs  while doing little to boost domestic manufacturing and jobs.

He has also pledged to work with Congress to pass a bill enacting “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from other countries: For example, if China were to enact a 100% tariff on products from the US, the US would enact a 100% tariffs on Chinese-made goods in return.

Less willingness to protect allies abroad

Trump’s positioning on the present-day wars has been somewhat murky — he’s  not as opposed to Ukraine aid as much of his party, and he’s been far more willing to criticize Israel’s war in Gaza.

“I think that Israel has done one thing very badly: public relations,” Trump told TIME, blaming Israel in part for the lack of progress on a two-state solution

But if there’s been one consistent throughline of the former president’s foreign policy thinking, it’s a suspicion of long-standing arrangements designed to underpin the global world order.

Perhaps the most significant change Trump wants to see is a “reevaluation” of the purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an alliance between the US and Europe that dates back to the Cold War. Trump has long argued that the US is spending too much to defend the continent.

Trump has also argued that much of the existing foreign policy establishment in Washington, DC needs to be overhauled, deriding officials at the State Department and Pentagon as “warmongers” and members of the “deep state.”

Tax policy

As president, Trump and the Republican-led Congress passed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a significant overhaul of the tax code that included cuts to individual and estate taxes and a significant lowering of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.

Much of those cuts, aside from the corporate tax cut, are set to expire in 2025. According to Bloomberg, Trump wants to extend those cuts in a second term.

More vaguely, Trump has also proposed taxing private university endowments to fund a new federally-operated university called the “American Academy.”

Social Security and Medicare

It remains unclear whether Trump would seek cuts to Social Security and Medicare in a second term — he’s historically said a variety of contradictory things on the matter.

In March, Trump said in a CNBC interview that there’s “a lot you can do in terms of entitlements in terms of cutting,” seemingly suggesting that he would pursue cuts to entitlement programs. His campaign later backtracked on those remarks, saying he simply wanted to “get rid of waste and fraud.”

Democrats have been eager to highlight the possibility of Republican-led cuts to the programs, which primarily benefit older Americans, while Republicans have often insisted that they are not interested in making changes to those programs.

During the final year of Trump’s presidency, his White House  released a budget for Fiscal Year 2021 that included some cuts to Social Security benefits, though the document never became law.

Related videos

Source: Businessinsider.com, Author: Bryan Metzger

The post What Donald Trump might do if he wins a second term in 2024 appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.

In essence, it’s a declaration of war on the federal government—a vow to transform its size and scope and make it more beholden to Trump’s whims and worldview.

The former president’s statements, policy blueprints laid out by top officials in his first administration and interviews with allies show that Trump is poised to double down in a second term on executive orders that faltered, or those he was blocked from carrying out the first time around.

Trump seeks to sweep away civil service protections that have been in place for more than 140 years. He has said he’d make “every executive branch employee fireable by the president of the United States” at will. Even though more than 85 percent of federal employees already work outside the DC area, Trump says he would “drain the swamp” and move as many as 100,000 positions out of Washington. His plans would eliminate or dismantle entire departments.

A close look at his prior, fitful efforts shows how, in another term, Trump’s initiatives could debilitate large swaths of the federal government.

While Trump’s plans are embraced by his supporters, policy experts warn that they would hollow out and politicize the federal workforce, force out many of the most experienced and knowledgeable employees, and open the door to corruption and a spoils system of political patronage.

Take Trump’s statement on his campaign website: “I will immediately reissue my 2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats. And I will wield that power very aggressively.”

That executive order reclassified many civil service workers, whose jobs are nonpartisan and protected, as political appointees who could be fired at will. At the time, more than four dozen officials from ten Republican and Democratic presidential administrations, including some who served under Trump, condemned the order. In a joint letter, they warned it would  “cause long-term damage to one of the key institutions of our government.”

In the end, Trump’s order had little impact because he issued it in the final months of his term, and President Joe Biden rescinded it as soon as he took office.

But if, as promised, Trump were to change thousands of civil service jobs into politically appointed positions at the start of a second term, huge numbers of federal workers could face being fired unless they put loyalty to Trump ahead of serving the public interest, warn policy experts.

Donald Moynihan, a professor and the McCourt Chair at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public policy, focuses his research on ways to improve how government works. CNN

‘An army of suck-ups’

“It’s a real threat to democracy,” Donald Moynihan, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University, told CNN. “This is something every citizen should be deeply aware of and worried about because it threatens their fundamental rights.”

Moynihan said making vast numbers of jobs subject to appointment based on political affiliation would amount to “absolutely the biggest change in the American public sector” since a merit-based civil service was created in 1883.

One of the architects of that plan for a Trump second term said as much in a video last year for the Heritage Foundation. “It’s going to be groundbreaking,” said Russell Vought, who served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump. He declined interview requests from CNN. But in the video, he spoke at length about the plan to crush what he called “the woke and the weaponized bureaucracy.” Vought discussed dismantling or remaking the Department of Justice, the FBI and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others.

Vought focused on a plan he drafted to reissue Trump’s 2020 executive order, known as Schedule F. It would reclassify as political appointees any federal workers deemed to have influence on policy. Reissuing Schedule F is part of a roadmap, known as Project 2025, drafted for a second Trump term by scores of conservative groups and published by the Heritage Foundation.

Vought argues the civil service change is necessary because the federal government “makes every decision on the basis of climate change extremism and on the basis of woke militancy where you’re effectively trying to divide the country into oppressors and the oppressed.”

A Trump campaign spokesperson pointed CNN to a pair of campaign statements from late last year in part responding to reporters’ questions about the 900-plus-page Project 2025 document. The campaign said, “None of these groups or individuals speak for President Trump or his campaign… Policy recommendations from external allies are just that – recommendations.” However, the Project 2025 recommendations largely follow what Trump has outlined in broad strokes in his campaign speeches – for example, his plans to reissue his 2020 executive order “on Day One.”

Ostensibly, a reissued Schedule F would affect only policy-making positions. But documents obtained by the National Treasury Employees Union and shared with CNN show that when Vought ran OMB under Trump, his list of positions to be reclassified under Schedule F included administrative assistants, office managers, IT workers and many other less senior positions.

NTEU President Doreen Greenwald told reporters at the union’s annual legislative conference that it estimated more than 50,000 workers would have been affected across all federal agencies. She said the OMB documents “stretched the definition of confidential or policy positions to the point of absurdity.”

Trump’s comments about wanting to be able to fire at will all executive-branch employees suggest the numbers in a second term would be far greater.

Moynihan, at Georgetown, said US policies already grant the president “many more political appointees than most other rich countries” allow – about 4,000 positions.

“Almost all Western democracies have a professional civil service that does not answer to whatever political party happens to be in power, but is immune from those sorts of partisan wranglings,” said Kenneth Baer, who served as a senior OMB official under President Barack Obama. “They bring… a technical expertise, a sense of long history and perspective to the work that the government needs to do.” Making thousands of additional positions subject to political change risks losing that expertise, while bringing in “people who are getting jobs just because they did some favor to the party, or the president was elected. And so, there’s a risk of corruption.”

Kenneth Baer (second from right), a senior advisor at the Office of Management and Budget, meets in the Oval Office with President Barack Obama, OMB Director Peter Orszag and others on Dec. 21, 2009. Pete Souza/The White House

Robert Shea (left), then associate director of the Office of Management and Budget, and his wife Eva Shea (right), meet with President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush at the White House on Dec. 21, 2009. Tina Hager/The White House

Such concerns cross the political aisle. Robert Shea, a senior OMB official under George W. Bush, called himself a hugely conservative, loyal Republican. But hiring people based on personal political loyalties would produce “an army of suck-ups,” he said.

“It would change the nature of the federal bureaucracy,” to remove protections from senior civil servants, he said. “This would mean that if you told your boss that what he or she was proposing was illegal, impractical, [or] unwise that they could brand you disloyal and terminate you.”

Biden has moved to block such a move. On April 4, the Office of Personnel Management, which in effect is the human resources department for the federal government, adopted new rules meant to bar career civil service workers from being reclassified as political appointees or other types of at-will workers.

The new rules would not fully block reclassifying workers in a second Trump term. But they would create “speed bumps,” said Baer. “To repeal the regulation, there would have to be a lengthy period of proposed rulemaking, 90 days of comment,” and other steps that would have to be followed. “And then probably the litigation, after that.”

In Grand Junction, Colorado, supporters of then-candidate Donald Trump wave at his plane after a 2016 campaign rally. In 2019, President Trump moved the headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management to that city, leading 87 percent of affected employees to resign or retire rather than move from Washington, DC. George Frey/Getty Images

“Places filled with patriots”

While assailing “faceless bureaucrats,” Trump also has said he would move federal agencies from “the Washington Swamp… to places filled with patriots who love America.”

But when he tried such moves before, the effect was to drain know-how, talent and experience from those agencies. That’s what happened in 2019 when Trump moved the headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management to Grand Junction, Colorado, and two agencies within the Department of Agriculture to Kansas City.

The vast bulk of (headquarters) employees left the agencies,” said Max Stier, president and chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan group that promotes serving in government. It led to the loss of “expertise that had been built up over decades,” he said. “It destroyed the agencies.”

A 2021 investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that the BLM move pushed out hundreds of the bureau’s most experienced employees, and sharply reduced diversity, with more than half of black employees in DC opting to quit or retire rather than move to Colorado. The GAO also concluded that the USDA’s decision to move its Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) to Kansas City was “not fully consistent with an evidence-based approach.”

The two USDA agencies do statistical research and analysis. The ERS focuses on areas including the well-being of farms, the effects of federal farm policies, food security and safety issues, the impacts of trade policies and global competition. NIFA funds programs to help American agriculture compete globally, protect food safety and promote nutrition, among other areas.

Verna Daniels had worked for the USDA for 32 years, most of them as an information specialist at the Economic Research Service, when she and her colleagues found out their agency was being relocated in October 2019.

“I really enjoyed my job. I worked extremely hard. I never missed a deadline,” Daniels said. She said the announcement left her in shock. “Everybody was afraid, and it was happening so fast… We were given three months to relocate to wherever it was or vacate the premises.” She quit rather than uproot her whole family. “It was heart-wrenching.”

The Trump administration said moving the USDA agencies would bring researchers closer to “stakeholders”– that is, farmers. Catherine Greene, an agricultural economist with 35 years at the USDA’s Economic Research Service, called the idea ridiculous. “Every state that surrounds Washington, DC, has farming… I grew up on a hundred-year-old farm in southwestern Virginia.”

We’ve all dedicated our lives to looking at farming in America, to looking at food systems in America,” Greene said. “I think the goal was to uproot the agency in such a way that most people would have to move on, and most people did. It was highly predictable.”

The other relocated research agency, the National Institute for Food and Agriculture, had 394 employees at the beginning of the Trump administration, said Tom Bewick, acting vice president of the union local for NIFA. Trump imposed a hiring moratorium that left positions unfilled as people moved or retired. By the time the relocation to Kansas City was announced, NIFA was down to 270 employees. “Once it was announced they would move us, we were losing 10 to 20 people a week,” Bewick explained. “We had less than 70 people make the move.” Five years on, he said, “We still are not the same agency, and we’ll never be the same agency we were.”

The USDA said the move to Kansas City would save taxpayers $300 million over 15 years. But the GAO said that analysis didn’t account for the loss of experience and institutional knowledge, the cost of training new workers, reduced productivity and the disruption caused by the move. Including such costs, the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association estimated the move actually cost taxpayers between $83 million and $182 million.

Greene, at the Economic Research Service, retired rather than move. After Biden took office, the BLM and the two USDA agencies moved their headquarters back to Washington, but also kept open their offices in Grand Junction and Kansas City, respectively. Greene said she worries for federal workers who might face the same choice in a second Trump term. “They mean business,” she said. “They spent four years practicing, and they are ready to rock and roll.”

To Stier, at the Partnership for Public Service, there is a huge gap between the perception and the reality of the role that the civil service plays across the country. “We’ve been doing polling on trust in government, and when you tag on the words, government ‘in Washington, DC,’ the trust numbers crater,” he said.

Former President Donald Trump, seen here on April 25, 2024, at his criminal trial in New York City, has said in a second term he wants to get rid of civil service protections and make more federal employee “fireable by the President of the United States.” Jeenah Moon/Pool/AFP/Getty Images

Using the government to go after enemies

On the campaign trail, Trump has regularly claimed, without evidence, that Biden and the Department of Justice are stage-managing various prosecutions of him – including state-level indictments in New York over falsifying business records and in Georgia, on charges of election subversion. Trump has used that false claim to say it would justify him using the Justice Department to target his political enemies. He’s said that in a second term he’d appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Biden. He told Univision last year he could have others indicted if they challenged him politically.

Trump tried to use the Department of Justice in this fashion during his previous term, repeatedly telling aides he wanted prosecutors to indict political foes such as Hillary Clinton or former appointees he’d fired, such as former FBI Director James Comey. He also pushed then-Attorney General Bill Barr to falsely claim the 2020 election was corrupt, which Barr refused to do.

In that term, some senior officials at the White House and the Justice Department pushed back against pursuing baseless prosecutions. Their resistance followed a tradition holding that the Justice Department should largely operate independently, with the president setting broad policies but not intervening in specific criminal prosecutions.

But in a second term, Trump could upend that tradition with the help of acolytes such as Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice official who faces disbursement in DC and criminal charges in Georgia for trying to help overturn the 2020 election results. As Trump tried to hang onto the White House in his final weeks in office, he pushed to make Clark his acting attorney general, stopping only after senior Justice Department leaders threatened to resign en masse if he did so.

Last year, Clark published an essay titled “The U.S. Justice Department Is Not Independent” for the Center for Renewing America, a conservative nonprofit founded by Russell Vought. Clark also helped draft portions of the Project 2025 blueprint for a second Trump term, including outlining the use of the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement, as first reported by the Washington Post.

Trump also has talked about bringing to heel other parts of the federal government.

“We will clean out all of the corrupt actors in our National Security and Intelligence apparatus, and there are plenty of them,” Trump said in a video last year. “The departments and agencies that have been weaponized will be completely overhauled so that faceless bureaucrats will never again be able to target and persecute conservatives, Christians, or the left’s political enemies.”

Project 2025’s blueprint evisions dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI; disarming the Environmental Protection Agency by loosening or eliminating emissions and climate-change regulations; eliminating the Departments of Education and Commerce in their entirety; and eliminating the independence of various commissions, including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.

The project includes a personnel database for potential hires in a second Trump administration. Trump’s campaign managers have not committed the former president to following the Project 2025 plans, should he win the White House. But given the active involvement of Trump officials in the project, from Vought and Clark to former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, senior adviser Stephen Miller, Peter Navarro and many others, critics say it offers a worrisome roadmap to a second Trump term.

“Now they really understand how to use power, and want to use it to serve, not just Republican partisans, but Donald Trump,” said Baer.

On the campaign trail, Trump leaves little doubt about what he’ll try to do.

“We will put unelected bureaucrats back in their place,” Trump told his supporters at one rally last fall. “The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within.”

Source: CNN

The post What Trump’s war on the ‘Deep State’ could mean: ‘An army of suck-ups’ appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.

Pecker confirms he thought there was small chance McDougal’s story could be true

Bove is moving on to former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s agreement now.

Pecker confirms that when an amended agreement was signed giving AMI exclusivity rights in perpetuity, Pecker still thought there was a small chance it could be true.

Bove asks, “You could not walk away from that possibility” that it was true, “however small it might be?” Pecker agrees.

Bove is emphasizing that McDougal’s main interest was that she didn’t want her story published. Pecker agrees.

Trump attorney Emil Bove is attempting to use deals American Media Inc. made with other celebrities to undermine the prosecution’s argument and normalize the conduct, according to Adam Kaufman, a former executive assistant district attorney at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office.

“We’re not talking about illicit payments or a cover up. We’re just talking about the relationship and the defense is doing a good job of normalizing it,” Kaufman told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

He wasn’t President Trump,” prosecution objects to defense referring to Trump as president in 2016

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has objected repeatedly when Bove has referred to Donald Trump as President Trump as he discusses events about 2016.

“He wasn’t President Trump,” Steinglass said.

The judge sustained the objection.

Trump did not react at all during this back and forth. He is leaned back in his chair, his head cocked to look at Pecker, as he’s answering questions.

Pecker agrees story from Trump Tower doorman, if true, could have been one of the tabloid’s “biggest” ever

Defense attorney Emil Bove asks ex-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker whether a story from Dino Sajudin, a Trump Tower doorman who was selling information about Donald Trump allegedly fathering a son, could have been “the biggest National Enquirer article ever.”

Pecker agrees that it could have been.

Bove then asks, “So if this story was true you were going to run it right.”

Pecker answers, “Uh, yes.”

Pecker recounts phone call with Trump about former Playboy model

Ex-National Enquirer boss David Pecker has been asked to recount a phone call with Donald Trump in which Trump asked about former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who alleged she had an affair with the former president.

In June 2016, Pecker left a company meeting when he was informed by his assistant that he got a call from Trump.

On the call, Trump said, “I spoke to Michael (Cohen) and I want to talk to you about Karen McDougal,” Pecker testifies.

Trump attorney Emil Bove asks if the former publisher recalls telling Trump, “She doesn’t want her story published.”

“Yes, I remember saying that,” Pecker said.

Pecker hesitated at times in the testimony, appearing to lose his train of thought, and explained after one long pause that he “just wanted to make sure” he remembered.

Pecker describes when Trump told him not to buy stories because that “always gets out”

Pecker is recounting his previous testimony, where Pecker says that Trump told him he did not buy stories because that “always gets out.”

Bove is showing Pecker the agreement with McDougal

Bove is now showing Pecker the AMI agreement with former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

Bove confirms with Pecker that while he testified on direct examination that the promised articles and cover photo provisions were meant to “hide” the actual intention of the agreement to suppress her story, AMI was still on the hook for following through on the legitimate work product.

Ex-tabloid boss says Michael Cohen asked him to send paparazzi to his meeting with Mark Cuban

In summer 2016, then-Trump attorney Michael Cohen told National Enquirer publisher David Pecker he was looking to work with business mogul Mark Cuban, Pecker testified.

Cohen asked Pecker to send paparazzi to a meeting the attorney had with Cuban, Pecker says.

Defense attorney Emil Bove pushes Pecker to agree that photographing such a meeting would “put a little pressure” on Trump by elevating Cohen. Pecker says Cohen never told him that, but he agrees that it would have been a consequence.

Remember: Cohen’s testimony is expected to play a key role in the hush money criminal case, and prosecutors has warned the jury that the defense will “go to great lengths to get you to reject his testimony” by highlighting his past wrongdoing.

Pecker stands by previous testimony that Trump thanked him for handling potentially damaging stories

Defense attorney Emil Bove is asking about Pecker’s testimony that Trump thanked him for handling the situation surrounding potentially damaging stories from former Playboy model Karen McDougal and a Trump tower doorman.

Bove asks Pecker of the testimony, “Was that a mistake?”

“No,” Pecker says, furrowing his brow.

“You believe that President Trump said that to you, as you sit here right now?”

Pecker said, “Yes I do.”

Specifically, Bove asks Pecker about his testimony yesterday, when the ex-tabloid boss said Trump thanked him for the door man story.

“Was that another mistake?” Bove challenges Pecker
Pecker responds, “No.”

What we’re covering here

• Ex-tabloid boss testifies: Former President Donald Trump’s criminal hush money trial continues with the cross-examination of David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer. The court is taking a short break.
• What he’s said so far: Pecker, the prosecution’s first witness, testified about the deal he helped broker with adult film star Stormy Daniels, which is at the center of the case, and the tabloid’s efforts to suppress stories that could have harmed Trump’s 2016 campaign. Prosecutors accuse Trump of taking part in an illegal conspiracy to undermine the election’s integrity, which included Daniels’ payment.
• Gag order decision looms: The judge said he will consider four additional Trump gag order violations alleged by the prosecution. He is yet to rule on the others.
• Trump’s legal issues: Trump is the first former president in US history to face criminal charges. Catch up on all four of his ongoing criminal cases.

Source: CNN, Author: CNN’s Kara Scannell, Lauren Del Valle and Jeremy Herb in the courthouse

The post Trump lawyer cross-examines former tabloid publisher appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.

For most people, sitting in court at their own criminal trial would represent a defining moment of their life.

But Donald Trump’s return to his hush money trial Thursday does not even represent the most critical courtroom drama of his day.

The ex-president’s attention is certain to stray from what he has repeatedly complained is a “freezing” court in New York to the neoclassical splendor of the US Supreme Court. Justices will be hearing oral arguments in his sweeping immunity case that could have profound implications for his legal fate and poses never-before-resolved questions about the powers of the presidency.

The double court date will represent yet another unfathomable twist in the saga of the presumptive Republican nominee who is again stretching America’s judicial and constitutional systems to their limits as he runs to reclaim the White House.

Trump has left no doubt he’d much rather be on the grander stage in Washington, watching Supreme Court justices — three of whom he appointed — debate his claim that, as an ex-president, he cannot be prosecuted for any actions that he took in office. Trump the showman would surely relish holding a photo-op on the court steps below an ornate marble facade that reads “Equal Justice Under Law.” It would be a far more colorful spectacle for a presidential campaign that has morphed with his legal defenses than the increasingly repetitive press gaggles he holds in the dingy corridor outside the Manhattan courtroom hearing his first criminal trial. But Trump has no choice but to listen to more testimony in New York from former tabloid publisher David Pecker, a key witness for prosecutors who allege the ex-president tried to mislead 2016 general election voters by covering up an affair that he denies.

Trump blames Judge Juan Merchan for dashing his hopes of being at the Supreme Court Thursday. The New York judge reminded Trump’s attorney that their client is a criminal defendant and must therefore attend his trial, prompting the ex-president to immediately weaponize his ruling for his political persecution narrative. In an interview with Fox News Digital, Trump accused Merchan of considering himself “above the Supreme Court” in preventing him from going to hear “some of the great legal scholars” argue his case.

Trump is playing to more than one jury

While Trump’s destiny in the New York case will be decided according to the evidence by 12 of his peers, he is playing to a much wider jury — the general electorate ahead of his clash with President Joe Biden in November. Millions of Trump voters have long been skeptical of efforts to call him to account for his personal, business and political behavior and are a receptive audience to his false claims he’s a political dissident being persecuted as part of a Biden plot. Trump is also using his on-camera appearances to boost his campaign finance operation. He has already raised $5.6 million online during the first week of his criminal trial, a source familiar with the figure told CNN on Wednesday.

The case is potentially historic in its daring reach for power and serves as a metaphor for a former and possible future president who recognizes no limits on his authority or constitutional constraints. But Trump’s team also adopted the long-shot claim that he enjoys absolute presidential immunity as a way to delay his federal election interference trial. The hope is to push that trial past an election that could restore to Trump the presidential powers that may allow him to derail federal prosecutions against him.

But despite the stalling tactics, Wednesday brought another reminder of the ex-president’s scheme to overturn the 2020 election. A grand jury in Arizona indicted Boris Epshteyn, one of the ex-president’s closest advisers; former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows; and Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani, among others, over election subversion schemes, according to a source familiar with the investigation. The details in the indictment suggest the ex-president is an unindicted co-conspirator. Also on Wednesday, an investigator testified that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Michigan fake electors probe, along with Giuliani and others.

Merchan poised to deliver gag order ruling

Thursday is not the first time Trump has had vital business at the same time in courtrooms in different cities — a reflection of the depth of his legal quagmire and the way in which his criminal liability is entangled with his bid to win a second term.

Trump’s current trial — in which he pleads not guilty to misleading voters in the 2016 election through falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to an adult film star – may lack the constitutional high stakes of the Supreme Court drama. But Trump and prosecutors are still bracing for a significant moment. Merchan is considering his move after prosecutors claimed the ex-president had repeatedly and deliberately violated a gag order designed to protect jurors, court staff, witnesses and even members of the judge’s own family in the high-profile case.

In a tense hearing on Tuesday, Merchan warned Trump’s lawyers that they were losing credibility with the court after they struggled to prove that the ex-president had no intention of trampling over the order in his social media posts, reposts and public comments about several key witnesses, including his former lawyer Michael Cohen.

Merchan could rule at any time. His deliberations coincided with another apparent violation of the gag order on Tuesday when Trump targeted Cohen in an interview that was conducted before that day’s hearing on the gag order. “Michael Cohen is a convicted liar and he’s got no credibility whatsoever,” Trump told WPVI Philadelphia.

It’s inconceivable that other defendants would receive so much latitude in attacking the court, witnesses and jury selection. But Merchan is in a tricky position, since any action he does take could play into Trump’s narrative of persecution. Prosecutors have asked the judge to fine Trump $1,000 for each of at least 10 alleged infringements of the gag order. But $10,000 is unlikely to be much of a deterrent for someone of Trump’s wealth. If the judge were to use another potential sanction — a custodial sentence — he’d risk providing more material for Trump’s claims he’s being unfairly treated to stop him from winning back the White House. At the same time, however, if Merchan loses control of his courtroom and the case, the interests of justice could be prejudiced.

When testimony resumes in the case, David Pecker – the former CEO of American Media, which then-owned the National Enquirer – will be back on the stand. Prosecutors are using Pecker, who is compelled to tell everything he knows under an immunity agreement, to lift the lid on a “catch and kill” scheme to squelch unflattering stories about Trump before the 2016 election. Pecker is expected to testify about his role in orchestrating two nondisclosure agreements for negative stories about Trump. Pecker’s AMI paid Karen McDougal – who was alleging an affair with Trump in the months before the 2016 election (which he denies) – $150,000 for the rights to her story.

CNN reporters in the courtroom said Trump was deeply engaged at times during Pecker’s earlier testimony. But for Thursday morning, at least, he may be more fixated on the case he won’t be able to hear in real time – as the conservative Supreme Court majority he mostly built considers his immunity claim.

Source: CNN, Analysis by Stephen Collinson

The post Trump can’t be in two places at once in double courtroom drama appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.

Prosecutors and Trump’s attorneys delivered opening statements and the first witness – a former National Enquirer publisher – was called Monday in the historic and unprecedented criminal trial of a former president.

Each side got their first chance to lay out a theory of the case for jurors. Prosecutors told jurors that the reimbursement of hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels was part of a larger conspiracy to influence the 2016 presidential election by hiding damaging information about Trump.

The former president’s attorneys responded by telling the jury that Trump was innocent and not involved in the creation of the 34 business records he’s charged with falsifying. They also pointedly added that there’s “nothing wrong with trying to influence an election.”

Trump continued to rail against the case as he entered and left the courtroom. On Tuesday, before the trial resumes, Judge Juan Merchan is holding a hearing on the district attorney’s motion to sanction Trump for violating the judge’s gag order barring discussion of witnesses.

Here are the key takeaways from Monday:

Prosecutors: Trump schemed ‘to corrupt the 2016 presidential election’

The district attorney’s office framed the case for jurors as illegal payments to try to influence illicitly influence the 2016 election that Trump then tried to illegally cover up by falsifying business records.

“The defendant Donald Trump orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election,” said prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told jurors. “Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again.”

Colangelo walked the jury through Trump’s efforts, along with Cohen and former American Media Inc., chief David Pecker, to keep damaging information from coming to light during the 2016 election.

During his opening statement, Colangelo also addressed questions about Cohen’s veracity as a witness, both because it’s a key part of the prosecution’s case and also to get ahead of criticism from Trump’s lawyers. But he told the jurors to remember that whatever issues they might have with Cohen’s credibility, to remember that what he’s saying is backed up by other witnesses and documents in the case.

“Tune out the noise,” Colangelo said.

Defense: Donald Trump is innocent

Defense attorney Todd Blanche began his opening statement with a simple assertion: “Donald Trump is innocent.”

Blanche told the jury that the story isn’t as simple as prosecutors laid out and argued that Trump was not involved with any of the business records he’s accused of falsifying beyond signing the checks.

“President Trump had nothing to do, had nothing to do with the invoice, with the check being generated, or with the entry on the ledger,” he said.

Blanche didn’t dispute the paper trail existed, but he argued to the jury there was nothing illegal about signing non-disclosure agreements – or with trying to influence an election.

“I have a spoiler alert: There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy,” he added.

Blanche also began his efforts to discredit Cohen’s testimony, which will be a significant factor in the ultimate outcome of the case. Blanche said that Cohen has an “obsession with getting President Trump” and noted that even last night he was still posting on social media about Trump.

“His entire financial livelihood depends on President Trump’s destruction,” Blanche said. “You cannot make a serious decision about President Trump relying on the words of Michael Cohen.”

At the end of his statement, Blanche asked the jurors to use “common sense” and said he was confident they would find a not guilty verdict.

“You told all of us, you told the court, you told me, you will put aside whatever views you have of President Trump,” Blanche said as he ended his opening statement.

Tabloid publisher in alleged ‘catch and kill’ scheme testifies first

Prosecutors called former AMI CEO David Pecker as the first witness in their case against Trump. He testified for less than 30 minutes Monday morning before the trial adjourned for the day. He’s expected to continue testifying Tuesday.

Calling Pecker a co-conspirator during his opening statement, Colangelo teed up the former tabloid publisher as a key player in Trump’s “catch and kill” scheme to control the public narrative about him ahead of the 2016 election.

Prosecutors allege that an August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower with Pecker and Cohen sparked the conspiracy that ultimately led to the criminal charges against Trump. They claim Pecker agreed to act as the “eyes and ears of the campaign” gathering information from tabloid sources.

The scheme, the prosecutor said, was three-pronged: AMI would publish flattering stories about Trump, publish hit stories on Trump’s political opponents and kill negative stories that could harm Trump’s campaign. The “catch and kill” practice was at the “core” of the conspiracy, Colangelo told the jury.

Pecker is expected to later testify about the scheme and his role in orchestrating two nondisclosure agreements for negative stories about Trump. Pecker’s AMI paid Karen McDougal – who was alleging an affair with Trump in the months before the 2016 election – $150,000 for the rights to her story. (Trump has denied the affairs.)

As Pecker stepped down from the jury box, he smiled and said “hi” to Trump’s table.

Trump was thinking about the $175 million bond hearing down the street

As opening statements got underway in criminal court, other lawyers for Trump were in a courtroom a block away arguing over the legitimacy of the $175 million bond Trump posted to appeal the judgment in his civil fraud trial, where the former president was found liable for fraudulently inflating his asset values to obtain better loan terms.

Trump, who could not attend the civil hearing because he’s required to attend each day of the criminal trial, railed against Attorney General Letitia James on his way in and out of the courtroom Monday.

At the hearing, Trump’s attorneys came to an agreement with the New York attorney general’s office on the terms of that $175 million bond. James’ team had previously challenged the bond, questioning the financial wherewithal of the underwriter, Knight Specialty Insurance Company.

Trump’s attorneys representing him in the civil matter later stopped by the criminal trial and spoke to cameras in the hallway outside the courtroom where Trump sat at the defense table.

“He should not have two teams of lawyers here today,” Alina Habba said. “He should not even be here today, because he did nothing wrong. It is an epitome of a witch hunt.”

Gag order hearing will lead off court on Tuesday

Before the trial resumes Tuesday, Merchan is holding a hearing on allegations that Trump violated the judge’s gag order barring discussion of witnesses.

The district attorney’s office asked the judge to fine Trump $1,000 for each of several gag order violations leading up to and since the trial started. In addition to the fines, prosecutors want the judge to remind Trump he could be imprisoned if he continues to disobey the judge’s order.

“We think that it is important for the court to remind Mr. Trump that he is a criminal defendant,” prosecutor Chris Conroy said last week. “And like all criminal defendants he’s subject to court supervision.”

Trump’s lawyers have argued that his social media posts do not actually violate the gag order. Trump attorney Emil Bove argued last week that Cohen had been attacking Trump in “connection to the campaign” and Trump’s responses were related to the campaign.

Trump spoke about Cohen while addressing the cameras after court ended Monday. “The things he got in trouble for were things that had nothing to do with me. He got in trouble. He went to jail. This has nothing to do with me,” Trump said.

The jury has been instructed to arrive at 11 a.m. ET to begin the second day of the trial. Merchan said if arguments over the gag order were not finished by then, they would finish another time.

Court is only in session until 2 p.m. ET on Tuesday because of the Passover holiday.

Source: CNN, Author: Jeremy Herb, Lauren del Valle , Kara Scannell, CNN

The post Takeaways from the Trump hush money trial: Opening statements and the first witness appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.

In the intricate tapestry of American politics, few issues are as divisive and emotionally charged as abortion. With each twist and turn, the debate intensifies, weaving its way through the corridors of power and the hearts of the people. Against this backdrop, former President Donald Trump’s proclamation to leave abortion regulation to the states sent shockwaves rippling through the nation, igniting a fierce battle over states’ rights, women’s autonomy, and the sanctity of life.

The announcement came during a press conference held at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s palatial estate in Palm Beach, Florida. Flanked by advisors and fervent supporters, the former president stood before a sea of reporters, his demeanor confident and his words deliberate.

“It is time to return the issue of abortion to where it rightfully belongs: the states,” Trump declared, his voice resonating with authority. “Each state should have the autonomy to decide its own stance on this deeply personal and morally complex issue. Washington should not dictate morality; it should be left to the people and their elected representatives.”

The statement immediately ignited a firestorm of controversy, with reactions pouring in from all corners of the political spectrum. Conservative allies lauded Trump’s commitment to federalism and states’ rights, praising his efforts to roll back what they saw as federal overreach in matters of moral significance. Meanwhile, liberal opponents condemned the move as a blatant attack on women’s reproductive rights, warning of dire consequences for access to healthcare and bodily autonomy.

As the debate raged on, the implications of Trump’s proclamation became increasingly clear, thrusting state governments into the spotlight and placing them squarely at the center of the abortion debate. In states across the country, lawmakers grappled with the weighty responsibility of crafting legislation that reflected the values and beliefs of their constituents.

In conservative-leaning states, where anti-abortion sentiment ran deep, legislators wasted no time in enacting stringent restrictions on abortion access, drawing inspiration from model legislation crafted by pro-life organizations. Restrictions on late-term abortions, mandatory waiting periods, and stringent clinic regulations became the norm, much to the dismay of pro-choice advocates who saw their hard-fought rights eroded before their eyes.

Conversely, in progressive bastions where reproductive rights were fiercely defended, lawmakers moved swiftly to safeguard access to abortion services, enshrining protections in state law and allocating resources to ensure that clinics remained open and accessible to all who sought their services. But even in these states, the battle was far from over, as legal challenges and political maneuvering threatened to undermine the hard-won victories of the past.

As the states grappled with the complexities of regulating abortion within their borders, the nation watched with bated breath, keenly aware of the high stakes involved. With each new development, the divide between red and blue states deepened, reflecting the broader schism that defined American politics.

In the end, Trump’s call to leave abortion regulation to the states served as a potent reminder of the enduring complexities and moral ambiguities that surround the issue. As the debate rages on, the nation finds itself at a crossroads, torn between competing visions of morality, autonomy, and the role of government in shaping the most intimate aspects of people’s lives. And amidst the turmoil, one thing remains abundantly clear: the fight over abortion is far from over, and its repercussions will be felt for generations to come.

Related videos:

Abortion to the states???

CHRISTIAN FELLOWS Send your news, stories or articles to info@chrife.com.gh or via WhatsApp +233550144803

The post Trump says leave abortion to the states. That’s where it gets complicated appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.

It all began with a carefully orchestrated press conference held at Trump Tower in New York City. Reporters eagerly gathered, anticipation thick in the air as whispers of Trump’s impending announcement circulated. Cameras flashed as the former president strode confidently to the podium, his presence commanding attention.

Flanked by advisors and staunch supporters, Trump began his address, his words measured yet laden with conviction. With the weight of the nation’s gaze upon him, he declared his unequivocal stance on abortion, a stance that would reverberate across the political landscape.

“I stand before you today to affirm my unwavering support for the sanctity of life,” Trump proclaimed, his voice resolute. “Abortion is a grave injustice, a stain on the moral fabric of our society. It is time to take a stand, to defend the rights of the unborn and protect the most vulnerable among us.”

The declaration sent shockwaves through the crowd, eliciting cheers from anti-abortion advocates and fervent applause from his loyal base. But as the news spread, reactions poured in from all corners of the nation, each one a reflection of the deep-seated division that defined American society.

Conservative lawmakers hailed Trump’s statement as a courageous stand for life, praising his commitment to defending traditional values and religious principles. Meanwhile, liberal activists and women’s rights advocates condemned the former president’s stance, decrying it as an attack on women’s autonomy and reproductive freedom.

As the debate raged on, the nation found itself at a crossroads, torn between conflicting ideologies and irreconcilable differences. Protests erupted in cities across the country, with demonstrators on both sides of the issue taking to the streets to make their voices heard.

In the halls of Congress, lawmakers sparred fiercely over proposed legislation aimed at restricting or expanding access to abortion. Tensions ran high as debates grew increasingly heated, with politicians on opposite sides of the aisle digging in their heels, unwilling to compromise on their deeply held beliefs.

Amidst the chaos and discord, Trump remained steadfast in his conviction, doubling down on his commitment to the anti-abortion cause. His words galvanized his supporters, emboldening them to push for stricter regulations and legal challenges aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

But for every supporter rallied to his cause, there were countless others who viewed Trump’s stance as an affront to their rights and freedoms. The divide grew deeper, the rift widening with each passing day, as the nation grappled with the implications of his controversial position.

In the end, Trump’s latest stance on abortion served as a stark reminder of the deep-seated divisions that continue to plague American society. As the debate rages on, the nation remains bitterly divided, with no easy resolution in sight. And amidst the turmoil, one thing remains certain: the issue of abortion will continue to shape the political landscape for years to come, testing the very fabric of democracy and challenging the core values upon which the nation was founded.

CHRISTIAN FELLOWS Send your news, stories or articles to info@chrife.com.gh or via WhatsApp +233550144803

The post Trump’s Divisive Stand on Abortion appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.

Trump made the comments to reporters outside the White House, moments before he left for a trip to Michigan.  

“I want to get our country back to normal. … One of the other things I want to do is get the churches open,” he said. “The churches are not being treated with respect by a lot of the Democrat governors. I want to get our churches open. And we’re gonna take a very strong position on that very soon.” 

Asked about mosques, Trump responded, “Mosques, too – including mosques.”

Trump’s comments came the same week the Department of Justice sent a letter to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, telling him the state’s ban on in-person church services likely violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. Newsom is a Democrat.

“Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights,” the three-page letter said. 

It argued churches can apply social distancing and health rules just as well as businesses and factories that are allowed to be open can.

“Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other non-religious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest, absent the most compelling reasons,” the letter said.

In April, Attorney General William Barr wrote, “Even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers.”

The First Amendment reads, in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Source: christianheadlines.com, Author: Michael Foust

Send your news, stories or articles to info@chrife.com.gh or via Whatsapp +2332550144803

The post President Trump wants to get Churches open appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.

President Donald Trump praised the miracle-working power of prayer during his National Day of Prayer address in the White House Rose Garden.

“Prayer works miracles, and prayer saves lives,” Trump told the crowd

Trump opened his remarks with a prayer for Venezuela and invited the victims of the recent terrorist attack in San Diego to speak, as well as a woman who found Christ through a faith-based opioid addiction recovery center.

The guests all shared how prayer made an impact in their lives.

Trump thanked charismatic leaders including Paula White Cain as he praised the value of religious liberty.

“These United States will forever be strengthened by the goodness and the grace and the eternal glory of God,” Trump said.

Watch the video to see the full ceremony, including worship led by Jonathan Cain, remarks by Vice President Mike Pence, First Lady Melania Trump, Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein of the Chabad of Poway, among others.

Source: charismamag.com

The post ‘Prayer Works Miracles and Prayer Saves Lives’: Trump Addresses National Day of Prayer appeared first on Chrife.com.gh.