You Won’t Believe How Trump Spent Day One of His Trial. Wait—You Will.

For all of the insults Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans like to lob at President Biden over his energy levels, perhaps he should look in the mirror.

As his hush-money trial in Manhattan started Monday, the former president seemed to be sleeping, according to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, who was present in the courtroom.

“Trump didn’t pay attention to a note that his lawyer Todd Blanche passed him. His jaw kept falling on his chest and his mouth kept going slack,” Hagerman told CNN.

It’s pretty ironic behavior for someone who has long mocked his presidential election opponent by calling him “Sleepy Joe.”

Before the trial began this morning, Trump characteristically took to his Truth Social account to attack presiding Judge Juan Merchan and Biden and complain about the gag order against him.

Trump is accused of paying off adult film actress Stormy Daniels to cover up an alleged affair before the 2016 presidential election. He is charged with 34 felony counts for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime.

Republicans aren’t likely to acknowledge Trump’s dozing, and plenty of them don’t have room to talk. When Biden repeatedly demonstrates his mental sharpness before national audiences, they try to explain it away with some ridiculous excuses. Meanwhile, Trump keeps making verbal gaffes and going on nonsensical rants whenever cameras are on, as recently as a Saturday rally in Pennsylvania.

The Supreme Court’s inaction has effectively abolished the right to mass protest across three states, allowing a lower court’s ruling to seemingly infringe upon the Constitution’s First Amendment.

The nation’s highest court decided Monday not to hear Mckesson v. Doe, leaving in place a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that punishes protest organizers with extreme financial consequences if even one participant commits an illegal act. The decision, which now stands as law in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, makes it dangerous and practically impossible to organize mass protests.

The case questioned whether DeRay Mckesson, the leader of a 2016 Black Lives Matter protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, could be held liable for negligence after an unidentified member of the march threw a rock at a police officer’s face, seriously injuring him.

But the high court’s decision not to take up the case does not necessarily mean that it agrees with the constitutionality of the lower court’s ruling. In a brief opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that even though the court denied a review, “its denial today expresses no view about the merits of Mckesson’s claim.”

Instead, Sotomayor believes that another monumental decision by the court last year in Counterman v. Colorado—which looked at whether statements could be considered free speech if they were threatening in nature—should inform a review of Mckesson v. Doe in lower courts.

“In Counterman, the Court made clear that the First Amendment bars the use of ‘an objective standard’ like negligence for punishing speech,” she wrote. “Although the Fifth Circuit did not have the benefit of this Court’s recent decision in Counterman when it issued its opinion, the lower courts now do. I expect them to give full and fair consideration to arguments regarding Counterman’s impact in any future proceedings in this case.”

Mckesson was, ultimately, unsatisfied with the decision, lamenting the need to return to district court for a renewed opinion.

“Today, the Supreme Court did not grant cert in my case. This has been going on since 2016. And now we go back to the District Court,” he wrote on X. “This has been endless.”

Donald Trump tried to recount some history for the crowd during a weekend rally in Pennsylvania—but he didn’t seem to know what he was talking about.

“Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was. The Battle of Gettysburg,” the former president said Saturday. “What an unbelievable―I mean, it was so much and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways.”

As he spoke further, Trump even drew confused looks from his audience of supporters.

“The statement of Robert E. Lee―who’s no longer in favor, did you ever notice that?” Trump continued. “No longer in favor―‘Never fight uphill, me boys, never fight uphill.’ They were fighting uphill. He said, ‘Wow, that was a big mistake.’ He lost his great general, and they were fighting. ‘Never fight uphill, me boys!’ But it was too late.”

Leaving aside the incoherence, speaking about a Confederate general in a weird, favorable way also sets off some red flags.

Was it because Lee was an insurrectionist?

And it’s not even the first time: In 2020, Trump also praised Lee and cited the made-up quote about fighting uphill.

But mostly, people just couldn’t believe how incoherent Trump sounded, even for Trump, with author James Surowiecki describing the speech as a “bizarro history lesson.”

Does Trump know that much about American history? Seven years ago, he had some odd words about nineteenth-century abolitionist Frederick Douglass being “recognized more and more.”

Maybe it’s yet another example of his cognitive decline. Trump has said he wants to deport U.S. citizens, can’t give a straight answer about TikTok, claimed that migrants at the southern border speak languages no one can understand, and, when called out about his gaffes, says he’s just being sarcastic.

Perhaps he needs to pay a visit to the actual battlefield—although he’d probably say something even more insane.

The Republican Party is all in on Donald Trump, so much so that at least one representative is trying to sway his legal proceedings.

Ahead of the start of the Republican presidential pick’s first criminal trial on Monday, Representative Byron Donalds pleaded with the people of Manhattan to give his party leader a break.

“My plea is to the people of Manhattan that may sit on this trial: Please do the right thing for this country,” the Florida congressman told Newsmax. “Everybody’s allowed to have their political viewpoints, but the law is supposed to be blind and no respecter of persons. This is a trash case, there is no crime here, and if there is any potential for a verdict, they should vote not guilty.”

Donalds’s appeal is indicative of a new wave of opinion within the conservative party—that is, a complete disregard for not just Trump’s 91 criminal charges but also their outcome. According to The Daily Beast, just one in 20 interviewed GOP lawmakers showed concern with the possibility that their nominee for the White House could be a convicted felon, instead referring to the proceedings as “frivolous.”

“You get an alleged conviction on BS charges in front of a judge that is not impartial and that’s supposed to sway my mind?” Donalds told the Beast. “Man, I’m bigger than that. I don’t worry about that kind of stupid stuff.”

Other lawmakers, such as Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, completely threw the judicial system under the bus, blaming Trump’s woes—which also include repercussions for bank fraud, sexual abuse, election interference, hoarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, and more—as the failures of another pillar of government.

“I’m very uncomfortable with the weaponized justice system,” Vance told the outlet. “I couldn’t care less what a weaponized justice system says. Ultimately, it’s not going to change my vote. I don’t think it’ll change most Americans’ votes.”

The only outlier was Utah Senator Mitt Romney, a longtime Trump critic who is leaving Congress at the end of his term. He told the Beast that the implications of having a convicted felon as president were “not good”—still, he didn’t believe that a conviction would “make any difference at all” to Trump voters.

“He will once again say, ‘This is all political,’” Romney told the outlet. “And they will dutifully follow.”

That appears to extend to Trump’s acolytes in Congress, as well.

House Republicans announced early Monday they were dropping bills tackling home appliances, plans that had drawn widespread scorn, in light of Iran’s counterattack against Israel over the weekend.

Last week, the House Rules Committee was scheduled to review six bills about washing machines, refrigerators, and air conditioners, sparking jokes from Democrats and commentators. Monday’s last-minute change means the House agenda this week will now consist of 17 bills meant to either shore up support for Israel or to punish Iran, reported Chad Pergram, the senior congressional correspondent for Fox News. Of those bills, 11 would require a two-thirds majority vote, including one that would increase sanctions on Iran, and six would head to the House Rules Committee, where one would explicitly condemn Iran’s attack.

Some of the bills will also sanction Chinese companies that buy oil from Iran, as well as target U.S.-designated terror groups, particularly Hamas. One such bill will be blatantly superficial: declaring the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” to be antisemitic (despite the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has used the phrase “From the river to the sea” himself).

In a statement, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said the bills “demonstrate our support of Israel and take action against Iran.”

“These bills … represent a comprehensive response to the Iranian threat by supporting Israel’s response to the attack and sanctioning Iran’s leaders, cutting off their revenue sources, and targeting their partners and terrorist proxies,” Scalise said.

While it certainly is an improvement to see House Republicans flushing “appliance week” for more serious and current events, why did it take a new international crisis? Not to mention that Israel’s brutal assault of Gaza has been ongoing for six months, without any substantive bills from the GOP side.

It may be an improvement that Congress isn’t wasting time on dishwashers, or, for that matter, gas stoves, but the GOP’s posturing on Iran isn’t a breath of fresh air. It doesn’t take much for Republicans to start rattling sabers every time there’s news from Iran, with the last such event taking place just a couple of months ago.

Even Republicans themselves know that their party wastes time while ignoring important issues. And when the important issues come up, the party melts down into chaos and inaction, and then its own members start looking for the exits.

Even party stalwarts know that the GOP has little to nothing to campaign on. And “We talked tough about potentially starting a new war” is hardly a better campaign slogan than “We spent a week worrying about your appliances.”

Donald Trump had a few last words to say before entering  the initial proceedings for his—and the country’s—first criminal trial of a former president.

Jury selection in Trump’s hush-money trial began Monday. But just hours before, Trump slammed the proceedings in several posts on Truth Social, hurling insults at Judge Juan Merchan and President Joe Biden.

“As virtually every legal scholar has powerfully stated, the Biden Manhattan Witch Hunt Case is, among other things, BARRED by the Statute of Limitations. This ‘trial’ should be ended by the highly conflicted presiding Judge,” Trump wrote.

The GOP presidential nominee also claimed that the criminal charges against him and the lengthy trials are tantamount to election interference as a method to keep him away from the campaign trail—even though he’ll be permitted to campaign every weekend, evening, and Wednesday during the process.

“The Radical Left Democrats are already cheating on the 2024 Presidential Election by bringing, or helping to bring, all of these bogus lawsuits against me, thereby forcing me to sit in courthouses, and spend money that could be used for campaigning, instead of being out in the field knocking Crooked Joe Biden, the WORST President in the History of the United States,” he wrote. “Election Interference!”

Trump also lamented the recently expanded gag order placed on him by Merchan, insisting that it’s “unconstitutional” that he isn’t allowed to say whatever he wants related to the trial—like repeatedly insulting Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan.

“I want my VOICE back. This Crooked Judge has GAGGED me. Unconstitutional!” he posted. “The other side can talk about me, but I am not allowed to talk about them! Rigged Trial!”

Moments before entering the courtroom, Trump had a couple more words to share—with a slightly different tone.

“It’s an assault on America. And that’s why I’m very proud to be here,” he told reporters.

Trump is accused of using former fixer Michael Cohen to sweep an affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels under the rug ahead of the 2016 presidential election. He faces 34 felony charges in this case for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime. Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.

Donald Trump’s two co-defendants in his classified documents case requested Friday the charges against them be dropped, insisting they had no idea about the contents of the boxes they helped to move.

Carlos De Oliveira, a property manager at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, and Walt Nauta, the former president’s aide, are accused of helping Trump move boxes of classified documents so that federal investigators could not find them. They have also been accused of trying to delete security footage that showed them moving boxes.

The men’s attorneys claimed that their clients couldn’t be guilty of their obstruction-related charges because they didn’t know what Trump was really up to. De Oliveira’s lawyers even said he wasn’t aware of a grand jury subpoena for the security camera footage, and thus isn’t guilty of obstruction of justice.

“It’s not possible to obstruct an investigation you know nothing about,” attorney John Irving said in court.

Nauta’s lawyers also said he didn’t know he was doing anything illegal when he moved boxes “whose contents he was not aware of.”

But prosecutors argued otherwise, telling the court that they had evidence that De Oliveira knew the boxes were part of a legal action.

Cannon did not rule at the end of the hearing, but suggested that the positions sounded more like arguments to a jury—not a judge. A Trump appointee, she has been accused of delaying the case in Trump’s favor and possibly slow-walking a dismissal.

Meanwhile, Trump’s lead attorney on the classified documents case stepped down recently. Evan Corcoran was one of the few lawyers to have been with the president from the start and, thanks to being misled by Trump and his aides about the documents, could even be called as a witness in the case.

Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake is claiming she has switched sides on the abortion debate.

After galvanizing her budding, far-right political career by fearmongering about the medical procedure, Lake suddenly changed her tone following the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to revive a 160-year-old anti-abortion law that offers no exemptions, even in cases of rape or incest. Apparently, actually getting what she had been advocating for was a step too far.

“This total ban on abortion the Arizona Supreme Court just ruled on is out of line with where the people of this state are,” Lake said in a video on Thursday, apparently coming out as in favor of abortion rights. “This is such a personal and private issue.”

“I chose life, but I’m not every woman,” she continued. “I want to make sure that every woman who finds herself pregnant has more choices so that she can make that choice that I made.”

“It’s natural for women to be nervous or anxious when they’re pregnant. I never would ever assume that any woman had the same exact feelings that I had or situation that I had,” Lake said. “We know that some women are economically in a horrible situation. They might be in an abusive relationship. They might be a victim of rape.”

It’s a strategic move from a woman who has previously supported banning the abortion pill, publicly identified as “100 percent pro-life,” and had previously called the 1864 ban a “great law.” When she entered the political sphere with her gubernatorial run in 2022, Lake called abortion the “ultimate sin.”

And lest you think she has truly moved away from those positions, earlier this week, she backed Arizona Republicans’ bill to replace the 1864 ban with a law banning abortion after 15 weeks. The proposed bill also does not make exceptions for rape or incest.

Trump took note of the turning tide this week, telling reporters on the tarmac of Atlanta’s airport on Wednesday that the Arizona high court went too far in actually banning the procedure. He promised that, if reelected, he would not sign a national abortion ban. But like Lake, his new stance is a little hard to believe.

Trump has made abortion a key component of all three of his campaigns, repeatedly promising over the last eight years to ban the medical procedure at every available opportunity. While in office, he expressed support for a bill that would have banned abortion nationwide at 20 weeks.

Since then, he has used scare tactics to spread disinformation about the procedure, erroneously claiming as recently as Monday that Democrats support “execution after birth.” And Trump’s track record includes the most egregious offense against national access: the appointment of three Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Abortion has become a losing issue for Republicans nationwide. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn nationwide abortion access proved disastrous for Republicans last November, resulting in major losses in districts where abortion was a key talking point. Postelection, those raw numbers turned into some stunning platform reversals for the conservative party, with GOP consultants referring to the turning tide on the issue as a “major wake-up call.”

With all of the problems facing the country, House Republicans have decided that next week is the perfect time to do the laundry. And fix the air conditioning. And take a look at the fridge.

Seriously, that’s the focus of six bills the House Rules Committee put on its schedule for next week. The committee is usually the last place bills are reviewed before they go to the House floor for votes.

Republicans fought hard last year to prevent the government from putting health and safety regulations on gas stoves. But why dishwashers and other home appliances are now the top priority is anyone’s guess. Spring cleaning, maybe? A distraction from House infighting? Trump’s use of the toilet to get rid of documents? House Democrats are trying to insert more important items into the bills, but they have no idea, either.

Some House Democrats decided to have some fun with the agenda, and one House Democratic amendment even proposed renaming one of the bills the “Make Appliances Great Again Act.”

In that spirit, here are a few bills that House Republicans could add to the list.

• Hampering Progress Act
  
• Free and Liberate the United States House Act (perhaps in November, or if Mike Johnson is removed)
  
• Stop Ousted American Presidents Act (probably more for Democrats)
  
• Toilet Regulation and Unqualified Master Plumber Act (because Donald Trump is obsessed with toilets)
• Make Gas Stoves Great Again Act
• Let Roombas Roam Free Act
• Don’t Touch My Dyson Act

A St. Louis judge has ruled that Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey can access some of Planned Parenthood’s care records, ordering the nonprofit to turn over certain files to the man who has built his unelected political career on restricting health care access for trans people.

In his Thursday decision, Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer wrote that Bailey can collect documents under Missouri’s consumer protection statute that aren’t protected under federal mandate, namely the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, better known as HIPAA.

“It is clear from the statute that the Defendant has the broad investigative powers when the consumer is in possible need of protection and there is no dispute in this matter,” wrote Stelzer. “Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to some of the requested documents within his [Civil Investigative Demand].”

Bailey, who last year attempted to implement a ban on gender-affirming care for people of all ages, was quick to celebrate the decision, calling it a “big day” for the state.

“My team will get to the bottom of how this clandestine network of clinics has subjected children to puberty blockers and irreversible surgery, often without parental consent,” he wrote in a statement. “There is no more important fight than to ensure Missouri is the safest state in the nation for children. No stone will be left unturned in these investigations.”

In reality, providing trans and nonbinary children with gender-affirming care actually makes them safer. Gender-affirming care decreases the amount of depression and anxiety that trans and nonbinary teenagers feel, and it makes them less likely to consider suicide.

Planned Parenthood derided the decision for allowing Bailey to pursue his “sham investigation,” arguing in a statement that, like abortion access, transgender health care is being “systematically dismantled—little by little, starting with the most vulnerable, including young people.”

“To our patients: rest assured that your private medical records and information will not be disclosed,” wrote the group’s local interim president, Richard Muniz. “As we consider all of our legal options, we want you to know that Planned Parenthood will do everything possible to ensure your rights to privacy and health care are protected. We won’t back down.”

The group stressed that HIPAA will shield personal medical records, telling The New Republic that trans patients can continue to receive care without worry that their records will be “unnecessarily and illegally disclosed.”

But it’s not exactly clear yet which other documents Bailey will be able to access.

“I’m not incredibly optimistic, especially since the attorney general’s statement says that they’re looking into billing practices,” said Harvard Law Cyberlaw Clinic instructor Alejandra Caraballo. She explained that means that Bailey will be able to examine which services were rendered to whom and that, ultimately, “you need medical records for that.”

And even if this court order doesn’t provide instant access to all the medical records, it certainly opened up a legal door to obtaining them.

“The court doesn’t immediately give access to the attorney general to patient records,” Caraballo explained, but “if the attorney general continued to press, he may be able to obtain them.”

That precedent exists in other states, like in Tennessee, where last year the attorney general was able to access the last five years of Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s transgender patient medical records under the umbrella of a Medicaid billing fraud investigation.

In Caraballo’s opinion, the federal government needs to intervene here.

“I absolutely believe DOJ needs to get involved here along with [the Department of Health and Human Services] as well as the HIPAA office, and say, look, this is not a valid investigation,” Caraballo said. “This is clearly pretextual. And you’re targeting an entire group of people.

* This story has been amended to clarify that Andrew Bailey cannot access transgender people’s medical records.