Former President Trump News/Discussion....

[DTravel]

A 19th Century Case That Holds a Lesson for the Trump Trials
Time

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...251a8de&ei=132

It was the political trial of the century.

An extremely popular, powerful, and populist politician faced criminal charges for corruption. Lawyers did his bidding and judges served at his pleasure. The rich knew he was for sale and the poor and working classes thought he was fighting for them. His downfall began when he supported a partisan riot, which saw 60 civilians and members of law enforcement killed; it was then that institutions began to fight back.

The politician in question was not Donald Trump. It was William “Boss" Tweed, and his conviction helped transform the American legal system, while providing the foundation that enabled New York City to boom. Today, Trump’s trials pose a similar challenge to the rule of law and American democracy itself. The legal system’s handling of Tweed provides the road map for successfully navigating the situation.

In the middle of the 19th century, a growing immigrant population and the use of patronage as a source of power and a wellspring of voter support enabled politicians like Tweed to rise to prominence. Tweed served one term in Congress in the early 1850s, but he discovered the real action was in city politics.

Tweed’s power came not from holding elected office but rather from his role on the government commissions that controlled the public works meant to serve the booming population. His position gave Tweed nearly unlimited control over government funds, employment, and even elections. One political cartoon had him proclaiming: “‘As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it?’”

Another cartoon depicted Tweed’s political organization as a tiger wearing the crown of the “republic” mauling a woman representing the “law.” The suggestion was that Tweed was as dangerous and corrupt as he was powerful. For observers at the time, Tweed’s control of judicial appointments — which made it difficult to check his corruption — offered further proof that he used his power to make a mockery of the rule of law.

And it was a nearly unbreakable cycle. Prospective judges paid Tweed to rig their elections, and then the graft they received while sitting on the bench fueled their re-election efforts. Justice was for sale to the highest bidder, it appeared, and those who could not afford the price often lost out.

Good-government advocates knew that if a small band of insiders could extract short-term profits from the economy through corruption and cronyism it might prevent New York City from achieving its goal of becoming a truly global city, one that would attract industry and immigrants, and provide a sustainable economy that lifted all boats. Prominent lawyer Samuel Tilden (who would later serve as New York’s governor), argued that it would be impossible for the city to remain as the center of “commerce and capital for this continent,” unless it had “an independent Bar and an honest judiciary.”

Some institutions and activists fought against the status quo. Muckraking journalists from the New York Times worked to expose Tweed’s corruption. The investigation uncovered overwhelming evidence that Tweed was siphoning millions from city tax coffers. Most famously, the Times revealed that Tweed’s allies handed out contracts to his cronies to decorate the “Tweed Courthouse” in all manner of wildly expensive finery, from lavish carpeting to elaborate fireplaces and a large and elegant skylight.

In 1871, the public pressure from the media, good government groups, and the legal profession to prosecute Tweed for corruption and what was then called forgery — that is, falsifying documents — became irresistible. Once he was indicted, some of the nation’s most well-known lawyers lined up both to prosecute and defend him, and the media breathlessly covered the criminal proceedings against him closely.

Recognizing the stakes, the legal system and the media embraced the rule of law, and rejected the corruption that had reigned for decades. The New York Times argued that Tweed’s prosecution offered a chance for New York City to rid itself of corruption, attract business and finance, and show new immigrants that America was a beacon for those fleeing despotism in other parts of the world.

Although Tweed’s first trial ended in a mistrial, prosecutors tried him again, the jury convicted him on multiple counts of corruption, and the political boss was carted off to jail. His influence had not fully waned, however, and the friends he maintained in high and low places enabled his escape from prison. Tweed absconded to Europe, but, probably because of his notoriety, he was recognized, arrested, and extradited to the U.S. He eventually died in prison in 1878.

Tweed’s conviction transformed the legal system, recommitting it to the rule of law. The removal of corrupt players from the government and the judiciary served as one of the accelerants of economic development that allowed New York to emerge as a modern global city.

Today, the legal system faces a similar challenge as Trump confronts four separate sets of criminal charges, in addition to civil litigation — even as the Republican Party prepares to nominate him again for president.

Thus far, in both the civil defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll, as well as the criminal hush money trial currently ongoing in New York City, the system has held, just like it did when confronting the Tweed prosecution. Justice Juan Merchan, the judge overseeing the latter trial, recently warned Trump that while he doesn’t want to put the former President in jail for repeatedly violating a gag order, he would to “protect the dignity of the justice system.” Generally speaking, the rule of law seems to be prevailing so far in the preliminary stages of the other three criminal proceedings against Trump, although Judge Aileen Cannon, presiding over the classified documents case, seems amenable to delays that will ensure the case does not go to trial before the November election.

But one crucial institution has sent signals that it may not have learned the lessons of the Tweed trial — the U.S. Supreme Court. First, in Trump v. Anderson, the justices weakened the effectiveness of the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment by finding that states like Colorado could not keep Trump of the general election ballot without action by Congress.

In the April oral arguments in two other cases, the Supreme Court sent ominous signals. In Fischer v. United States, which doesn’t directly involve Trump, the justices appear poised to defang a federal statute that covers the type of corrupt interference with the results of an election that the former President is accused of committing. This could affect one set of the federal charges against Trump.

In a second case, Trump v. United States, the fourth criminal trial pending against the former president, the justices could embrace some degree of immunity for Presidents against criminal charges, threatening the notion that no one is above the law. During oral argument in that case, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wondered if an incumbent lost “a very close, hotly contested election” and knew potential prosecution was "a real possibility” would it initiate “a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”

Of course, the case before the Court alleges that the former President tried to, in fact, destabilize the functioning of American democracy by preventing the peaceful transition of power. Still, most of the other conservative justices seemed to support some degree of immunity — despite Justice Elena Kagan reminding them that the Founders explicitly chose not to include such protection in the Constitution despite several state constitutions adopted at the time explicitly offering it.

The Court might fall into the trap that the legal system avoided during Tweed’s prosecution over a century ago. It could reject the principle that only neutral justice, and accountability for even the most powerful political figures, can provide the stability necessary for the U.S. to thrive politically and economically — and help it avoid kleptocracy, and even national demise.

John Adams once famously observed that the U.S. should be a nation of laws and not men, because only that can provide the foundation necessary for a fully functioning democracy. Today, providing evenhanded justice doesn't necessarily mean convicting Trump. But the Supreme Court cannot short circuit this process or provide special protections for Trump. Doing so would ignore the warnings of John Adams and the lesson of the “Boss” Tweed trial.

[Baxter49]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...-24/index.html
Trump trial live updates:
Defense has rested we are up to closing arguments.

Judge instructs jury on timing, saying best thing to do is adjourn for today and hear summations next Tuesday

Judge Juan Merchan is now instructing the jury on timing.

He says he expects the summations will take at least a day and he prefers not to break them up if possible.

There's no way to do this in a cohesive manner this week, Merchan says.

He says the best thing to do is adjourn now and hear summations on Tuesday.

"I've considered all the permutation … at the end of the day, I think the best thing that we can do is to adjourn now until next Tuesday. At that time you will hear summations from the attorneys. Probably Wendesday I’ll ask you to come in … hear jury charge and then I would expect that you will begin your deliberations hopefully at some point on Wednesday," Merchan says.

"It might be tempting to think now that both sides have rested you can kind of let up a bit, but in fact these instructions take on even greater significance," Merchan tells the jury of his instructions not to talk about or research the case.

He also asks them to think about if they can work late next Tuesday, since he's "not 100% sure we’re going to get both summations done by 4:30 (p.m. ET)."

As for today, defendant Trump with his legal team, and the prosecution work in the court with the judge to discuss instructions to the jury this afternoon without the jury present.
**************************
So 5/28 things pick up again with closing arguments, then judges instructions, which means likely 5/29 the jury gets the case.

[jillfan666]

Originally Posted by loadmaster011

Wait. Are you saying that those who are depicted in the post by FrankDobe are not dead? If you aren't OK but if you are is it you're position that are alive somewhere in exile? Is it because the trauma so great that the PTSD was not a causal effect of their deaths? As one with PTSD I can tell you that every night is sheer hell even many decades after the precipitating events.

Because if it is any of those things your comment has risen to one even more disrespectful, more insulting to both the families of the victims and moreover to the intellect of the American public, more truly despicable than any comment ever made by Trump and any of his chromosome-challenged supporters and beyond the limits of human decency I've seen tested on this forum.

Those men were not murdered on January 6th, January 2021. Claims that they were are demonstrably false. Period.

[Baxter49]

"Could Trump actually go to jail" and answers to more of your frequently asked questions

Analysis from CNN's Zachary B. Wolf

When CNN asked for your questions about former President Donald Trump’s first criminal trial for his role in hush money payments made before the 2016 election to women who said they had affairs with him, we got a flood of input.

Here are the answers to some of the questions:

Could Trump actually go to jail? I went to CNN’s chief legal analyst Laura Coates for the single, most-asked question.

Coates: If Trump were to be found guilty of all of the counts, he could theoretically be facing more than a decade in prison. The 34 felony counts are classified as Class E felonies in New York, the lowest level felony in the state.

The maximum penalty for each of those counts is four years. However, New York caps sentencing for this type of felony at 20 years. It is within the judge’s discretion to decide whether those sentences would run concurrently or consecutively. Because the crimes involve nonviolent offenses and Trump does not have a criminal record, the judge could also consider jailing him for a period that is but a fraction of the maximum penalty. Another possibility is that the judge could forego prison entirely and place him on probation.

If Trump were sent to prison, would he still have his presidential Secret Service protecting him in jail?

I reached out to the Secret Service to ask if they had planned for the potential that Trump could be imprisoned. Not surprisingly, I was told by a spokesman that this is “something we can not comment on at this time.” But note that as a matter of US law, former presidents and their spouses are afforded lifetime Secret Service protection unless they decline it.

Is a unanimous guilty verdict required for Trump to be convicted in this case, or could he be convicted by a majority of seven jurors voting "guilty"?

A unanimous vote is required for either conviction or acquittal. Anything short of a unanimous verdict would be a hung jury. The judge will try very hard to get the jury to reach a unanimous verdict. A hung jury might be perceived as a net win for Trump since prosecutors would have to ponder whether to try him again on the same charges and there’s little chance it would happen before Election Day.

[Baxter49]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ratic-primary/
Fani Willis and Scott McAfee won their primary elections in Georgia. Willis opponent worked for Trump. They have to win again in November.

As for the appeal hearing for Willis brought by Trump's legal team the court must now hear and rule on the question within two terms, or about six months. According to the court, cases docketed in the current term must be decided by Nov. 1 and motions to reconsider must be adjudicated by Nov. 18.

And then Trump can bring that to the state supreme court which could delay it even longer and if Willis loses with the judge Trump's new DA dismisses the case completely.
**********************************
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/polit...ump/index.html
Federal judge found ‘strong evidence’ of crimes before Trump was charged in classified documents case

Months before Donald Trump was indicted for mishandling classified documents, a federal judge said that investigators had “strong evidence” that the former president “intended” to hide classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort, according to newly released court documents.

Judge Beryl Howell cited, among other things, the discovery of additional classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago months after the FBI’s search of the property in the summer of 2022. The records included a “mostly empty” folder marked as “Classified Evening Summary” that was found in the former president’s bedroom, as well as four other documents with classification markings found in his post-presidential office at the resort.

“Notably, no excuse is provided as to how the former president could miss the classified-marked documents found in his own bedroom at Mar-a-Lago,” Howell wrote in March 2023.
*********************************
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ments-motions/

Unsealed motions in Trump’s Fla. case suggest new evidence of possible obstruction

The long-shot motions, which were strongly opposed by prosecutors, claim the indictment should be dismissed because of improper investigatory tactics.

A federal judge in Florida on Tuesday unsealed two motions that were filed months ago by Donald Trump in his classified documents case and that she has not yet ruled on — part of a backlog that could delay the case beyond November’s presidential election.

The long-shot motions claim the indictment should be dismissed because the government relied on improper investigatory tactics — an allegation that prosecutors working for special counsel Jack Smith dismissed as having no merit.

“This case has been investigated and prosecuted in full compliance with all applicable constitutional provisions, statutes, rules, regulations, and policies,” said the response from prosecutors, which was also unsealed Tuesday. “There has been no prosecutorial misconduct, and his motion should be denied.”

U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, who is overseeing the case, had scheduled the trial to begin on May 20. But earlier this month, she indefinitely postponed the trial, saying more time was needed to deal with pretrial motions and complicated issues involving presenting highly classified evidence to a jury.

She scheduled a number of hearings on motions to dismiss the case, including one Wednesday that focuses on filings by Trump’s two co-defendants. Legal experts say Cannon has let decisions on these dismissal requests and other motions pile up, delaying the trial, and that her decision to schedule the hearings suggests that she is at least entertaining requests that seem to be without legal merit.

Cannon has not scheduled a hearing so far on Trump’s motions that were unsealed Tuesday, and she is not required to hold a hearing before she rules on them.

Buried in the supporting documentation for one of the motions was a document that contained a new public revelation: Once Trump realized that security cameras at Mar-a-Lago could capture his employees moving classified government information that officials were attempting to retrieve, he allegedly ensured that they would avoid the cameras when moving boxes.
***********************
As for the 1/6 case good luck getting this SCOTUS to rule President's are not above the law, and Trump can go on trial in Washington and Florida before they kick out his conviction after years of appeals.

[DTravel]

New filings allege additional obstruction effort by Trump in classified docs case
ABC News

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...4170b8d9&ei=63

Special counsel Jack Smith appears to have suspected additional efforts by former President Donald Trump to obstruct the government's investigation of his handling of classified documents, a newly unsealed court filing revealed Tuesday.

The opinion was released as an exhibit in filings responding to Trump's efforts to have the case dismissed, ahead of two hearings Wednesday related to Trump aide Walt Nauta's efforts to dismiss the related charges against him.

Trump pleaded not guilty last June to 37 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information ranging from U.S. nuclear secrets to the nation's defense capabilities, and took steps to thwart the government's efforts to get the documents back. Nauta also pleaded not guilty to related charges.

In March of 2023, prosecutors pushed for a federal judge to compel testimony from one of Trump's attorneys, Evan Corcoran, by presenting a previously undisclosed theory of steps they believed Trump and his associates had taken to obstruct their investigation, alleging that after Trump was informed by his attorney of a government subpoena for video footage from his Mar-a-Lago club, he then instructed aides to return several boxes they had previously removed from a storage room in the club's basement -- without being caught on camera.

According to the newly unsealed opinion, D.C. District Judge Beryl Howell wrote that after Corcoran informed Trump of the subpoena for video footage on June 24, 2022, it set into motion a scramble by Nauta to change his travel plans and fly from Bedminster, New Jersey, to Palm Beach, Florida.

"The government urged that this scramble to Mar-a-Lago in the wake of the June 24, 2022 phone call reflects the former president's realization that the removal of the boxes from the storage room before [redacted] search was captured on camera -- and his attempts to ensure that any subsequent movement of the boxes back to the storage room could occur off camera," Howell wrote.

"This theory draws support from the curious absence of any video footage showing the return of the remaining boxes to the storage room, which necessarily occurred at some point between June 3, 2022 -- when the room had approximately [redacted] boxes, according to FBI agents and [redacted] -- and the execution of the search warrant on August 8, 2022 -- when agents counted 73 boxes," wrote the judge.

The government previously alleged that Nauta took the trip to inquire about how long camera footage was stored. It was on that same trip, according to the indictment, that Nauta and Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira allegedly conspired in an attempt to delete surveillance footage.

Howell ultimately agreed the government had made a "likely" showing that Trump ordered his associates to "avoid the surveillance cameras he then understood to have been deputized by the government," ordering Corcoran to testify about a June 24, 2022, phone call with the former president that occurred the same day the Trump Organization was subpoenaed for the footage.

The district judge also confirmed that, "remarkably," after the FBI's August search, Trump's attorneys on two separate instances found additional classified records at Mar-a-Lago, including four documents with classification markings in Trump's own bedroom in December 2022.

The new filings, consisting of hundreds of pages, also include new photos of Nauta allegedly moving boxes that the government contends contained the classified materials Trump was seeking to hang onto despite a subpoena from the FBI.

The filing was just one among multiple exhibits ordered unsealed Tuesday by the district judge overseeing Trump's case, Aileen Cannon, who has set up a controversial process opposed by Smith that has enabled Trump's attorneys to make public evidence in the case that would typically remain under seal.

Some legal experts have criticized Cannon over a series of recent rulings that have benefited Trump's strategy to have the case delayed until after the 2024 election, including her order two weeks ago that put an indefinite hold on her scheduling a date for the trial.

The hearings Wednesday will be the first public ones since Cannon indefinitely delayed the trial, all but ensuring the case doesn't go to trial before the November election. Trump will not be in attendance, but his co-defendants, Nauta and De Oliveira, will be.

[DTravel]

Trump's biggest campaign promise would cause 'economic disaster': analysis
Raw Story

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...5e123e6f&ei=78

Donald Trump's promised crackdown on immigration could inflict mass misery and economic calamity, according to a new analysis.

The former president's radical plans for a potential second term in office include barring entry from select Muslim-majority nations, denying all asylum claims and rounding up millions of undocumented immigrants for deportation, and economic analyst Robert Shapiro warned in a new Washington Monthly column that these policies would set off an "economic disaster."

"By any measure, a policy that eliminated 4.5 percent of the current workforce, including large numbers of college and high school graduates, would set off serious economic tremors," Shapiro wrote.

"Using Okun’s Law on the relationship between rising unemployment and GDP, a 4.5 percent drop in employment is associated with depressing GDP growth by more than 9 percentage points. This estimate also includes the impact on other jobs. A recent study of much more modest programs to deport immigrants found clear evidence that they cost other American jobs. By one calculation, deporting 1 million immigrants would lead to 88,000 additional employment losses by other Americans, suggesting that Trump’s program could cost up to 968,000 Americans their jobs on top of the 7.1 million jobs held by immigrants up for deportation."

Contrary to popular misconception, only 4 percent of undocumented immigrants work in agriculture, while nearly a third of them work in the construction or hospitality industries and 14 percent of working unauthorized immigrants provide professional, scientific, technical or administrative services.

"Doing the math, we find that a mass deportation program could depress national wage and salary income by $317.2 billion or 2.7 percent of labor income in 2023," Shapiro wrote. "This would be a much larger percentage loss than during the 1980, 1991, and 2002 recessions. It also would be more than half the 5 percent decline in 2009 at the height of the Great Recession. By these measures, too, a severe recession would likely accompany Trump’s draconian program."

Mass deportation could potentially revive inflation, which happened when companies had to replace large numbers of workers after COVID-19 crested, and businesses would either have to pay more in overtime and recruitment or accept lower productivity, which all leads to higher prices for consumers.

"Mass deportations would involve enormous costs for taxpayers," Shapiro wrote. "One study found that apprehending, detaining, transporting, processing, and finally deporting unauthorized immigrants in 2015 cost the government an average of $18,214 per deportee or $24,094 in current dollars. Using the latest DHS estimates, the taxpayer costs to deport 11 million people would come to $265 billion—without including their American children or the costs to build and maintain large detention camps. For perspective, $265 billion is equivalent to 11 percent of all projected income tax revenues in 2024 and 30 percent of the Pentagon’s 2024 budget."

"Now, Trump seems determined to set new records for deportations," he added, "regardless of the costs to taxpayers and the economy."

[DTravel]

Trump’s history could hurt him with the jury
CNN

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...5e123e6f&ei=81

Time and again, former President Donald Trump teased the possibility of taking the witness stand to tell his version of the hush money tale. “I’m testifying,” he said in early April before the historic trial took off. “I mean, all I can do is tell the truth. And the truth is that there’s no case, they have no case.”

Now the defense has wrapped, the jury will soon be instructed, and Trump has never strayed from the safety of the defense table. Many legal analysts insist that was the smart play. Opening himself to prosecutorial questioning would have been a huge risk, especially since he has a long history of behavior that mirrors the accusations he faces.

Consider the three questions that form the backbone of the case: Did Trump have an affair? Did he falsify business records to hide a hush money payment? And did he do it to protect his 2016 bid for the White House – violating campaign laws?

Trump has denied the affair, but he’s also fostered a lifelong image of himself as a man with a wandering eye. Each of his three marriages has been plagued by reports of infidelity. He bragged on that infamous “Access Hollywood” tape about how he approaches women he finds attractive. “I just start kissing them,” he said. “It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” Prosecutors showed jurors a transcript of that tape in court.

At the heart of the E. Jean Carroll case is the assertion that Trump sexually assaulted her in a department store. Trump called it a lie. A court said by making that claim, he defamed her and would have to pay more than $80 million. And as prosecutors reminded jurors, former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal has alleged a monthslong affair with Trump starting in 2006 also eventually capped off with a hush money payment. Trump denies wrongdoing there too.

None of this proves he had sex with an adult film star he met at a golf course, but it could be understandable if a juror found the accusation on brand.

The idea of Trump falsifying records to help his cause is also familiar.

Just this past February, New York state Judge Arthur Engoron ruled Trump must pay $355 million for submitting fraudulent paperwork about the value of his properties to get favorable tax and loan terms. Trump is appealing.

Lastly, would Trump break the law to win an election? He is charged right now with just that - accused of trying to pressure election officials into tossing out legitimate votes, orchestrating slates of fake electors to claim he won, pushing Vice President Mike Pence to refuse certification of President Joe Biden’s victory, and urging his followers to “fight like hell” just before they stormed the Capitol leading to damage, injury and deaths. Trump has publicly and repeatedly defended each one of those steps in the wake of the 2020 election.

Trump has every right to dispute the charges against him, and juries are routinely urged to focus only on the evidence. Judge Juan Merchan has instructed this jury specifically to avoid exposure to any outside information about the case. Legal analysts often marvel at how well jurors do that. And because Trump did not testify, these jurors may be able to push aside their knowledge of his long history.

Then again, many of the things Trump has done – and often bragged about – have been in the headlines for decades shaping how Americans see him. What’s more, even though some of these matters were only tangentially raised before the jury, legal wrangling over the Carroll case, the real estate fraud ruling and now the hush money matter has taken place in the very town that produced the jury pool and Trump himself: New York City. That heightens the possibility of jurors being aware of Trump’s legal problems and public image writ large. All of that means, even without Trump taking the stand, his public persona may not be so easily forgotten when the door to the jury room closes and deliberations begin.

[DTravel]

Trump pitch to oil companies turns off two-thirds of likely voters, poll finds
The Hill

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...e123e6f&ei=130

Broad majorities of voters aren’t happy with Trump’s apparent offer of a quid pro quo to oil companies, a poll from an advocacy group has found.

Almost 6 in 10 likely voters surveyed — 58 percent — said they were “concerned” about a second Trump term after hearing about the former president’s reported offer to undo broad swaths of President Biden’s climate policies, according to polling by Data for Progress and Climate Power.

And nearly two-thirds — 61 percent — of likely voters told pollsters they “reconsider” their vote for a politician who made such an offer.

The findings follow reporting earlier this month in The Washington Post that Trump demanded $1 billion from top oil executives at a Mar-a-Lago Club fundraiser — an amount he called a bargain that would allow him to pass a laundry list of industry priorities.

According to the Post, these included reversing the Biden administration’s pause on liquefied natural gas exports “on the first day,” opening the Alaskan Arctic to drilling, auctioning more leases in the Gulf of Mexico and scrapping Biden administration plans to cut pollution from car tailpipes.

A source later confirmed to The Hill that Trump asked oil industry executives for $1 billion in campaign cash.

The development came amid a larger flurry of reporting about the tight relationship between Trump and the oil industry. Earlier this month, Heatmap News reported that “allies of Big Oil” had donated $6.4 million to Trump’s legal defense in his New York hush money trial.

And Wednesday, the former president will appear in Houston at a fundraiser sponsored by Kelcy Warren, chair of pipeline giant Energy Transfer Partners, and Harold Hamm of oil company Continental Resources.

“We’re going to bring our economy back again, drill baby drill, we’re bringing energy prices way down,” Trump told the Dallas-Fort Worth Fox affiliate in a Saturday interview at the National Rifle Association convention.

When painted in broad strokes, these relationships made even a plurality of Republicans uncomfortable, Alex Witt of Climate Power told The Hill.

“A majority of voters would either not vote for — or are reconsidering voting for — someone who made a deal with oil and gas giants in exchange for campaign donations,” Witt said.

“And what’s really interesting about that is it includes 42 percent of Republicans and a third of independents,” Witt added.

The polling numbers come with an enormous asterisk: Many voters responded very differently when it was not just an anonymous politician but Trump, who remains enormously popular among Republicans.

While 42 percent of Republicans said they would reconsider voting for any politician who said what the former president reportedly did, their concern dissipated when the remarks were attributed to Trump.

On getting that piece of information, 42 percent of Republicans said they would be more likely to vote for the former president as a result, and just 12 percent that they would be less likely to vote for him.

But with razor-thin margins in most polls of the presidential election, and third-party candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. looming as a potential spoiler, any loss of support could be a problem for the Trump campaign.

That’s especially true because disaffection among independent voters in the new poll was even more dramatic: 47 percent said they would reconsider a vote for Trump, specifically, after finding out about the reported Mar-a-Lago comments.

The survey’s findings are fueling a new attempt by climate groups to shave off independent voters in battleground states including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Climate Power launched a new bilingual billboard campaign Monday in the seven states likely to decide November’s election.

“The idea was to meet people with the right message in the place where they’re thinking about it the most,” Witt said, referring to major commuting routes where people would likely be sitting in their cars looking at billboards.

While not mentioning Trump by name, the Climate Power ad buy shows a group of executives with cash raining down on their heads.

“They Profit,” the text reads. “You Pay.”

That campaign riffs off recent allegations by the Federal Trade Commission that oil executive Scott Sheffield of Pioneer Resources colluded with OPEC to keep oil prices high, costing the average family $3,000.

According to journalist Matt Stoller, the Pioneer play may have contributed to more than a quarter of total inflation in 2021.

“We’re anticipating that we’ll see gas prices increasing [this summer] like we do most summers and … people are filling up their car when they’re driving around cities like Atlanta or Phoenix — they’ll know exactly why those prices are going up,” Witt from Climate Action told The Hill.

The group’s new poll surveyed 1,231 likely voters from May 10-13, with a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

The Hill has reached out to the Trump campaign for comment on its findings.

[Baxter49]

https://www.rawstory.com/james-lankford-trump/
The border security bill is coming up for another vote in the senate this week.
Lankford who co-wrote the bill and blamed Republicans/Trump in the house now says he won't vote for it, and blamed Schumer.

It failed to pass 50-49 in February with Lankford's support in the senate.

The vote is Thursday, as he claimed 5,000 crossed the border.