Alina Habba Invents a New Constitutional Right at Hush-Money Trial

Donald Trump’s attorney Alina Habba thinks it’s a violation of the First Amendment to be prohibited from attacking witnesses.

Fox News presenter John Roberts asked Habba Thursday afternoon, seemingly referring to Trump’s former fixer and attorney Michael Cohen, about why “the prosecution’s star witness can say anything that he wants and then the former president is not allowed to respond?”

“We have a dual system of justice and a very unconstitutional gag order,” Habba said, standing outside of the courthouse in Manhattan while Trump’s hush-money trial was on break. “As his legal spokeswoman, I am nervous about what I can’t say and that is also unconstitutional.”

Under the gag order, Trump is barred from speaking publicly about courtroom staff, prosecutors, jurors, witnesses, or their family members. He has already been fined $10,000 for ten violations, with Judge Juan Merchan threatening jail time if the former president violates the order again. Trump may have come close Wednesday when he vented on Truth Social about how “sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters that you oppose are allowed to say absolutely anything that they want.”

On Thursday, Trump’s legal team asked Merchan to modify the gag order, saying that Trump should be allowed to reply to adult film actress Stormy Daniels’s testimony against him. The prosecution responded that Trump’s attacks put witnesses and court staff in danger, noting the increase in threats against the Manhattan district attorney’s office and their family members.

Merchan ultimately sided with the prosecution, noting that Trump does not have a good track record of measured responses, and denied the motion to modify the gag order. And with good reason: Trump has a history of attacking witnesses in his court cases. He couldn’t refrain from violating a gag order in his bank fraud trial, attacking Judge Arthur Engoron’s principal law clerk, Allison Greenfield. Even earlier than that, he had a gag order imposed in his Washington, D.C., trial related to his efforts to subvert the 2020 election.

Regardless, it’s ridiculous to suggest that intimidating witnesses to an alleged crime is protected speech under the Constitution. But it’s no surprise that Habba is making this argument, considering her own record of legal missteps and unhinged assertions. She made the boneheaded move of stating that she didn’t have high hopes for Trump’s acquittal in the hush-money case late last month, and also seemed to admit his guilt in attempting to state that he did nothing wrong.

She claimed that the New York state law requiring Trump to attend all of his criminal trial proceedings violated his right to due process because he couldn’t attend his trials in other locations. And none of this includes her missteps in his defamation trial earlier this year, where she was reprimanded a whopping 12 times in one day.

Trump is facing 34 felony charges for allegedly paying off Daniels through Cohen before the 2016 election to try and cover up an affair with her. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Donald Trump’s attorneys attempted Thursday to throw out his hush-money case on the basis that the trial had unnecessarily turned into an evolving tale about Trump’s less than stellar sexual trysts.

During testimony delivered over the course of two days, porn star Stormy Daniels recounted in great detail the shady circumstances under which Trump originally got her into his hotel suite, including false promises for a spot on his reality TV show, The Apprentice. Daniels revealed that she didn’t necessarily consent to the sexual encounter and “blacked out” while the two were intimate, that she spanked Trump with a rolled up magazine featuring his profile, and that she felt there was a vast discrepancy in their power dynamic.

But none of that should matter, according to Trump’s attorneys, who attempted to argue that the trial—which hinges on whether Trump was the source of a $130,000 payment to Daniels for her silence about the affair ahead of the 2016 presidential election—isn’t about sex.

“This is not a case about sex,” Todd Blanche told the judge before clarifying that it wasn’t about whether the sex took place or did not take place.

“You have jurors who are now hearing about an imbalance of power between a man and a woman,” he continued indignantly, arguing that the details about the encounter—which some legal experts have claimed adds to Daniels’s credibility about having experienced the events—are not relevant to the case.

That argument didn’t pass muster with Judge Juan Merchan, however. After returning to his chamber and re-examining transcripts from Daniels’s testimony, Merchan ruled that no one had violated his rules during the descriptive testimony.

Trump is accused of using Michael Cohen to sweep an affair with Daniels under the rug ahead of the 2016 presidential election. The Republican presidential nominee 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.

Columbia University alumni are firing back at the university over its crackdown on student protests demanding the school divest from Israel-aligned companies and weapons manufacturers. 

As of Thursday afternoon, more than 1,600 alumni from the university’s 20 schools have signed an online statement pledging to “withhold all financial, programmatic, and academic support of Columbia University” until certain demands are met, including, but not limited to: 

Divest from all companies and institutions that fund or profit from Israeli apartheid, genocide, and occupation in Palestine.

Ensure accountability by increasing transparency around financial investments.

Drop charges against student activists and reverse expulsions, suspensions and disciplinary action. 

End the policing and militarization of Columbia’s campus by removing and banning the NYPD. Continuous NYPD presence on campus until May 17th is unconscionable.

Hold accountable faculty members, administrators, and any other University affiliates who have harassed and assaulted student human rights defenders.

Sever all academic ties with Israel, including Columbia’s Global Center in Tel Aviv and the GS Dual Degree program with Tel Aviv University.

Remove Minouche Shafik from her position as University President.

More than $67 million of financial contributions to the school are at stake if demands are not met, according to the statement. 

The statement cites the university’s lack of a good-faith response to a Columbia College student body vote on a divestment referendum in late April that passed with 76.55 percent of voters calling to cancel the university’s Tel Aviv Global Center and end the dual degree program between the School of General Studies and Tel Aviv University. The statement also noted that Barnard College passed the same referendum with a 90.99 percent majority. 

As the statement points out, Columbia has a history of protests similar to the recent student protests over Israel’s war in Gaza, citing a three-week blockade of Hamilton Hall in 1983 over the university’s investments in apartheid South Africa. Protesters at the time renamed the building Mandela Hall in honor of anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela. That effort led to the university becoming the first Ivy League institution to divest from South Africa.  

On April 30, pro-Palestine protesters took over Hamilton Hall and renamed it Hind’s Hall to honor 6-year-old Hind Rajab, a Gazan who was killed alongside her family by Israeli forces during the current war.

While wealthier donors, such as billionaires Robert Kraft and Leon Cooperman, have threatened to or have withheld their financial support to Columbia University for not taking a harder line against pro-Palestine protesters, Thursday’s alumni statement is the first such effort in support of the students, albeit from individuals with seemingly less wealth. 

Columbia’s protests have inspired similar activism from institutions across the country, which have been met with violence but also some successes and even acceptance from campus officials. 

Representative Marjorie Taylor Grenee’s spectacularly failed effort to strip Speaker Mike Johnson of the gavel has earned her a whole slew of new enemies.

The motion to vacate fell apart Wednesday after an overwhelming majority of the House voted 359–43 to keep Johnson in leadership. But the time-consuming and chaotic effort came at the cost of Greene’s already minimal popularity in the lower chamber, with Republicans insisting that the Georgia Republican see some level of consequence for leading another attempt to divide an already thin and historically unproductive majority.

“I would suggest a 80 percent rule. Oddly enough, what the Freedom Caucus has,” Representative Ryan Zinke told Politico. “If someone routinely violates the rules … then it should be the conference’s decision of whether he should be removed or suspended from committees.”

Other conservative lawmakers insinuated that Greene could lose her committee assignments for causing more intraparty bedlam. Greene currently sits on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, the House Committee on Homeland Security, and the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, as well as several related subcommittees.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some changes on a couple of committees after watching that motion to table vote,” Representative Steve Womack told the outlet.

Representative Dusty Johnson, meanwhile, claimed that there was an “extremely high level of interest” by a “high number of members” to completely change the rules around how the House functions.

“I am interested in anything that would make the House run better,” Johnson told Politico.

But Greene was already prepared for the backlash, flagrantly brushing off the ramifications of her own behavior.

“They probably want to kick me off committees. They probably want a primary. I say, go ahead.… That is absolutely their problem,” Greene told the publication after Wednesday’s vote.

Adult film actress Stormy Daniels got in some jabs at Donald Trump, who is accused of paying her off via his lawyer to cover up their affair before the 2016 election, during her testimony in his hush-money trial Thursday.

During cross-examination, Trump attorney Susan Necheles asked Daniels a series of questions that seemed to have been posed to make the former president happy, including one about Trump being a good golfer at the tournament where they met, and whether a lot of people followed him around. Daniels didn’t play ball, saying she couldn’t remember his performance and some of his entourage probably included paid staff.

Not long after that, Necheles asked Daniels about Trump’s indictments, to which the adult film actress replied, “There are a lot of indictments.” Necheles moved to strike that answer from the record, but was rebuffed by Judge Juan Merchan.

Later, Necheles attempted to discredit Daniels by mentioning her merchandise sales, noting that she sold items based on Trump’s criminal proceedings.

“Not unlike Mr. Trump,” Daniels replied to a small amount of laughter in the courtroom.

When asking Daniels about her career in the adult film industry, Necheles insinuated that Daniels had made “a lot of phony stories about sex” appear to be real in her films. Daniels replied that the sex in her films “is very much real, just like what happened to me in that room [with Trump],” and followed up with a quip about her tryst with the former president.

“And if that story was untrue, I would have written it to be a lot better,” Daniels said.

Daniels’s testimony has included other jibes against Trump, resulting in “orange turd” being entered into the court record Tuesday. The term again came up in court Thursday during cross-examination.

Daniels’s testimony, which has now concluded, has included salacious details about her affair with Trump, including his comparing her to his daughter, Ivanka, as well as an excuse Daniels used to avoid sex with him another time. But her testimony could also be very damaging to Trump’s case, as he can’t lie about her statements under the penalty of perjury.

Trump is facing 34 felony charges for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime by paying off Daniels through his former attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen. He has pleaded not guilty to all of them.

Donald Trump’s youngest son is about to join the new family business: leading the Republican conference.

After he graduates from high school next week, Barron Trump will assume his role as a Florida delegate to the Republican National Convention. The 18-year-old was selected as an at-large delegate, along with his siblings Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Tiffany Trump, according to a list released Wednesday by the Florida Republican Party.

Other family members named on the list include Tiffany’s husband, Michael Boulos, and Don Jr.’s fiancée, Kimberly Guilfoyle, whose name was misspelled to omit the first ‘L’ in her last name. Ivanka Trump—the presumed GOP presidential nominee’s former star child who left politics in an attempt to salvage her social life—was not listed.

The lineup also includes a wide swath of Trump allies and state-level officials who opted to back Trump over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in the presidential race.

“We are fortunate to have a great group of grassroots leaders, elected officials, and members of the Trump family working together as part of the Florida delegation to the 2024 Republican National Convention,” Florida GOP chairman Evan Power said in a statement.

With his children’s selection as delegates, Trump is even closer to completely taking over the Republican Party. Eric Trump’s wife, Lara Trump, has assumed the reins at the Republican National Committee. Since becoming co-chair in March, Lara has focused all of the RNC’s power on putting her father-in-law back in office.

Meanwhile, Trump has chosen to fly off to a Minnesota GOP rally on the same day as his son’s high school graduation on May 17, even after his attorneys fought to get him the day off in his New York hush-money trial in order to be with his family.

“We are thrilled to welcome President Trump back to Minnesota,” said Minnesota GOP chairman David Hann, announcing that Trump would be headlining the event after the former president was excused from his Friday attendance in New York. “I can think of no one more fitting to join us this year than President Trump.”

After Judge Aileen Cannon announced that Donald Trump’s classified documents trial in Florida has been postponed indefinitely, there’s been a dramatic spike in calls for her removal or recusal from the case. 

Several online petitions have been launched from liberal and progressive websites, including one from the Daily Kos calling for her to recuse herself from the case with 102,000 signatures, and another led by Demand Justice, Demand Progress, Dose of Democracy, and People Power United with 42,622 signatures. Yet another petition from MoveOn.org, with nearly 102,000 signatures, calls for Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to remove Cannon from the case.

While online petitions don’t have a strong track record for accomplishing their goals, the calls show a growing backlash to Cannon, a Trump appointee, and her decisions that keep helping Trump. Even prior to being assigned to the documents case, Cannon drew ire from legal observers when she granted Trump’s request for a special master to review the classified documents seized at Mar-a-Lago—only for her decision to be struck down by a federal appeals court, which rebuked her.

Later, after being formally assigned to the classified documents case, Cannon repeatedly drew ire for decisions that seemed to drag the case out and put potential witnesses at risk. Her rulings convinced at least one potential witness, former Mar-a-Lago worker Brian Butler, to publicly come forward and criticize Cannon’s handling of the case.

Cannon’s conduct even disillusioned some of her clerks, two of whom decided to quit as a result of her conduct on the classified documents case as well as an allegedly hostile work environment. Despite all this bad press, she still indefinitely delayed the case, possibly paving the way for a positive outcome for Trump. Barring any sort of action compelling her to be removed from the case, it seems as though the prosecution is also indefinitely stuck with Cannon’s delays and seemingly biased decisions.

Donald Trump’s sexual escapades aren’t exactly the conquests that his allies have made them out to be—at least, not according to one woman he slept with.

Stormy Daniels continued her testimony on the stand Thursday, clarifying point blank that it was no high honor to sleep with the former reality TV star.

“Even though you had agreed that you would not discuss this supposed story and you had received a lot of money for that agreement, you then decided that you wanted to publicly say that you had sex with Donald Trump,” prompted Trump attorney Susan Necheles.

“No, nobody would ever want to publicly say that,” Daniels replied.

But that wasn’t her only punch at Trump’s bedroom performance. During another exchange in which Necheles attempted to sow doubt about Daniels’s vivid recollections of the events, the porn star reminded the court of her professional abilities.

“You bragged about being good at writing dialogue and sex scenes in adult films, right?” asked Necheles.

“If that story [with Trump] was untrue, I would have written it to be a lot better,” Daniels quipped back.

Daniels wasn’t keen to jump back into bed with Trump, either. On Tuesday, the actress revealed that she slinked out of his advances at a Los Angeles bungalow in 2007 by lying about being on her period.

Daniels’s get-out-of-jail-free card was a lighthearted anecdote in an otherwise heavy description of a relationship that stemmed from what she described as an “imbalance of power.” Daniels has previously said she was mad at herself for not seeing right away that Trump didn’t want to help her career and just wanted to have sex with her, and told the court Tuesday that she hates him.

Meanwhile, Trump’s allies—including Senator Ted Cruz, whom he humiliated in the 2020 election—have vehemently defended his sexual performance, with one Fox News host describing Trump as a “sex god” merely for getting a woman to have sex with him.

Trump is accused of using Michael Cohen to sweep an affair with Daniels under the rug ahead of the 2016 presidential election. The Republican presidential nominee 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.

Very early Thursday morning, Donald Trump was posting feverishly on his Truth Social account, with one “Truth” being an article from the National Review titled “Yes, Fight Anti-White Racism.”

The post was one of many that Trump fired off just after midnight Thursday as his hush-money trial was set to resume hours later. His late-night avalanche of posts ranged from articles praising him to attacks on Joe Biden, Paul Ryan, and Rupert Murdoch.

His post on “anti-white racism” is not the first time the former president has brought up the made-up problem. His supporters inside and outside his presidential campaign are making plans to use civil rights laws to counter “anti-white racism,” attacking programs that seek to combat racism and provide economic opportunities to marginalized and minority groups.

In a recent interview with Time magazine, Trump railed against anti-white bias, saying, “But if you look right now, there’s absolutely a bias against white and that’s a problem.” It’s just one of many disturbing, but altogether incoherent, ideas Trump has for a second term if he’s reelected as president. His allies, including Christian nationalists, anti-immigrant xenophobes, and fascist admirers, are practically salivating for the chance to carry out their agendas. 

A bit of alleged unsolicited advice may have compromised the judge in Donald Trump’s $454 million New York bank fraud trial.

New York’s judicial oversight body has opened an investigation into a conversation between Judge Arthur Engoron and real estate attorney Adam Leitman Bailey that allegedly occurred in the weeks leading up to the seismic judgment against Trump.

“I actually had the ability to speak to him three weeks ago,” Bailey told NBC New York on February 16, the day that Engoron’s decision was due. “I saw him in the corner [at the courthouse] and I told my client, ‘I need to go.’ And I walked over and we started talking.… I wanted him to know what I think and why.… I really want him to get it right.”

Bailey also said that Engoron had had a lot of questions about prior fraud cases and that they “went over it.” Ultimately, however, Engoron’s ruling went in a direction that Bailey did not advise: utilizing the statute to effectively shut down Trump’s New York real estate operation, which Bailey believed would hurt the local economy.

A spokesperson for Engoron denied in a statement that the unaffiliated attorney’s comments held any weight with the judge as he made his decision.

“No ex parte conversation concerning this matter occurred between Justice Engoron and Mr. Bailey or any other person. The decision Justice Engoron issued February 16 was his alone, was deeply considered, and was wholly uninfluenced by this individual,” Al Baker, a spokesman for the New York State’s Office of Court Administration, told NBC in a written statement.

The New York state rules of conduct specify that a “a judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers,” though there is wiggle room for a judge to “obtain the advice of a disinterested expert” if the judge gives advance notice to both parties in the case with the possibility of issuing their own responses.

A member of the Trump defense team, Christopher Kise, claimed that the conversation could cast doubt on Engoron’s entire process.

“The code doesn’t provide an exception for ‘Well, this was a small conversation’ or ‘Well, it didn’t really impact me’ or ‘Well, this wasn’t something that I, the judge, found significant,’” Kise told NBC. “No. The code is very clear.”