Project Syndicate Whom Will America Elect? May 16, 2024 GARY GERSTLE

 Project Syndicate

Whom Will America Elect?

May 16, 2024

GARY GERSTLE

While many elements of the 2024 US presidential election are unprecedented, others are eerily similar to past contests in which fast-evolving economic and social developments favored the challenger over the incumbent. In such circumstances, dangerous, previously inconceivable outcomes can suddenly become plausible.

CAMBRIDGE – January 6, 2021, remains one of the most shocking days in United States history, with tens of millions of Americans staring in disbelief at their TVs and computer screens as Donald Trump’s attempted coup unfolded before them in real time. Never before had a US president authorized his supporters to storm the “people’s house” to halt an essential democratic process, namely the certification of an election and the orderly and peaceful transfer of power from one president to another.

Many institutions and individuals have since sought to hold Trump accountable for his actions. The congressional January 6 Committee documented the attempted coup in chilling and dispiriting detail. A special counsel appointed by the US attorney general indicted Trump both for conspiring to overturn the 2020 election and for illegally keeping classified national-security documents in his Mar-a-Lago home after he left the White House, and after he had been asked to return them. Legislatures, courts, and appointed officials attempted to keep Trump off election ballots in their states on the grounds that he was an insurrectionist, and thus in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

As of this writing, Alvin Bragg, the district attorney for New York County, is prosecuting Trump for allegedly falsifying business records to cover up his use of 2016 campaign funds to buy the silence of a porn star with whom Trump had an affair. And the state of Georgia has indicted Trump for conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results there. Altogether, Trump stands accused of 88 felonies in the four criminal cases filed against him. And yet, most Republicans and a large part of the American electorate seem not to care – or believe, with Trump, that a “deep state,” bent solely on his destruction, has fabricated the charges.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, with three Trump-appointed justices, has intervened twice to stop or delay ongoing legal proceedings against the defendant. And an undisclosed relationship between Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and one of her special prosecutors has sidetracked the proceedings against Trump in Georgia. As a result, only one of the four criminal cases is likely to conclude before the 2024 November election. Should Trump win in November, he will appoint an attorney general who will likely drop all federal charges against him; and though he would lack jurisdiction over the Georgia case, it is likely to remain too mired in controversy to succeed.

Trump would not be the first president to be ousted from office, only to run again and win. That honor belongs to Grover Cleveland, president from 1885 to 1889 and from 1893 to 1897. Nor, if convicted in the “porn-star” case this summer, would Trump become the first convicted criminal to seek the presidency: after being jailed for antiwar sedition, Socialist Eugene V. Debs ran his 1920 campaign from a federal penitentiary. And nor is Trump the first to use illicit means to bend an election in his favor.

Still, Trump’s willingness to do anything to keep or regain political power may well exceed that of all past presidential nominees running on major party tickets. In December 2023, Trump spoke openly about being a dictator on “day one” of his second presidency. When asked recently by a Time interviewer if he understood why “so many Americans see language like that, you know, dictator for a day, suspending the Constitution” as dangerous, Trump replied swiftly and unequivocally, “I think a lot of people like it.” Expressing contempt for democracy and the Constitution has now become a reasonable – even fashionable – position for a US presidential nominee to hold.

IT’S THE ECONOMY

As for the incumbent, he has gotten little credit for his presidency, despite several big wins. Among other things, Joe Biden steered through Congress the biggest infrastructure legislation since Dwight Eisenhower’s administration, which oversaw the postwar construction of the US interstate highway system. Already, more than 57,000 individual projects have been approved and funded – an extraordinary policy accomplishment that more than half of Americans know nothing about.

Biden has also won congressional approval for the massive reshoring of semiconductor manufacturing, and for the most consequential green-energy legislation in US history. In the process, he has broken from neoliberal orthodoxy, especially the principle that a government must not do anything that interferes with the free play of markets. For the first time in more than 50 years, the US has a clear industrial policy, one that insists that government must ensure that capitalism serves the public interest.

Biden has married this structural economic reform with effective management of most major indicators of individual economic well-being. Unemployment has been below 4% since February 2022; the number of manufacturing jobs is higher than it was a decade ago; and the rate of economic growth in the second half of 2023 (nearly 5%) was higher than most mature industrial economies are thought capable of achieving. Wages at the lower end of the economic spectrum have begun to rise, owing partly to several big wins by organized labor, which the Biden administration has heartily endorsed. The current US economy is the envy of the world.

Despite this impressive record, more than 60% of respondents to an April CNN poll deemed the Biden presidency a failure, and a whopping 66% disapproved of his handling of the economy. Disaffection stems first from inflation. The Trump and Biden administrations each put in place a $1 trillion-plus emergency relief program (in 2020 and 2021, respectively) to sustain people and businesses across a two-year span when the government shut down much of the economy to limit the spread of COVID-19. While these programs worked wonders in terms of giving people a measure of financial security and stimulating a remarkable economic recovery, they also contributed to an inflationary surge that no American under 50 had ever experienced.

The price of commodities that Americans purchased on a daily basis – notably, gasoline and food – soared, as did interest rates, which put home purchases out of reach for millions. The US Federal Reserve, after being slow to act, has done good work, in combination with the Biden administration, to slow the inflation rate to a manageable level (around 3% as of early May). But Americans are still confronting painfully high consumer goods prices, with no relief in sight.

BIDEN’S SHORT STRAW

Thus, Biden has gotten the blame for the inflationary spike, which largely unfolded on his watch, while getting almost no credit for his industrial policy and structural economic reforms – since the benefits of these policies take much longer to become apparent to the general public. The combination of visible failures and invisible successes is a deadly political cocktail, especially when served to a deeply polarized electorate. In these circumstances, broad segments of the electorate have become nostalgic for the “good old days” of the Trump presidency, when a “successful businessman” in the White House brought America peace and prosperity.

This Trump nostalgia also reflects continuing trauma from the pandemic itself: the million-plus lives lost; the massive disruptions to childrearing, education, work, and careers; the terrible isolation and immobility; and the depressive hours that millions spent plunging into online rabbit holes. There is little talk of this trauma in print or in person. The preference among still-rattled cohorts is simply to banish memories of the pandemic years.

But pushing dread and uncertainty below the surface doesn’t make it go away. The longing to return to a pre-COVID era and the conviction that government and society prior to 2020 were heading in a positive direction both lend an air of plausibility to the belief among 55% of Americans that the Trump presidency was a good one. In this context, the dangers that Trump poses to American democracy, and to the country’s social fabric and economic well-being, can be brushed aside all too easily.

None of this means that Trump will win in November. The radicalism of the anti-abortion movement has alarmed millions of women across the political spectrum. They will turn out in force, as they did in 2022, to prevent the triumph of what is beginning to look like a GOP theocracy. Moreover, consumer confidence, even with a dip in April, is up significantly from a year ago; if that indicator resumes an upward trajectory, the sentiment about who is a better manager of the economy – Biden or Trump – may begin to tip in favor of the incumbent.

ANYONE’S GAME

Not many Americans need to change their minds to shift polls in Biden’s direction. Those voters might be independents or Republican defectors upset about the party’s hard line on abortion or Trump’s indifference to the rule of law, or they might be Democratic voters who had previously decided to stay at home on Election Day rather than cast an unenthusiastic vote for Biden.

Both sides have reasons to worry about their base. The tawdry details of Trump’s personal life and corrupt business dealings emerging from the New York trial may cost him a critical share of Republican and independent voters. Biden is threatened most by the lack of enthusiasm for him among young Democrats and progressives. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s independent candidacy could affect the election’s outcome as well, drawing disaffected voters from both the Democratic and Republican camps. His campaign has yet to catch fire, as Ross Perot’s did in 1992 and George Wallace’s did in 1968; but it might still matter in November, given the slim margin that is likely to decide the election.

Some disenchantment with Biden reflects the deep divide over the Israel-Gaza war that has rattled the Democratic Party base. The explosion of pro-Palestinian protests across college campuses this spring is easily the largest student uprising since the anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960s. Even if these protests recede once the academic year concludes, they seem likely to flare up again in August, when the Democratic Party will gather in Chicago for its nominating convention.

The eerie coincidences between 1968 and 2024 – in both cases, New York City police hauled student protesters from the same building at Columbia University on April 30; and the Democratic Party chose Chicago to host its convention – make one wonder whether a third coincidence looms. Will Democratic Party disarray in August hand the White House to the self-proclaimed party of law and order?

If Biden loses, his defeat will be less like that of the loser in 1968, Hubert Humphrey, than that of Jimmy Carter in 1980: another one-term Democratic president who was overwhelmed by economic turmoil at home and by Middle East conflict abroad, despite being widely regarded as a decent man.

Should Biden lose, the question is what, if anything, will survive from his plans to construct a post-neoliberal political economy. Trump would almost certainly dial back Biden’s green-energy policy, despite that policy’s efforts to place a disproportionate number of battery and solar manufacturing plants in Republican-leaning states. But Trump would likely preserve Biden’s infrastructure program and the reshoring of chips manufacturing, as these both command strong bipartisan support. And continuity has already prevailed in America’s China policy, with the Biden administration largely keeping the Trump administration’s tariffs in place.

One intriguing question is whether portions of the Republican Party have become serious about joining the Democrats in advancing an economic populist agenda. Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and J.D. Vance have been working with Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren on legislation that would curb the power of social-media companies and big banks, respectively, while Republican Senator Josh Hawley has found common ground on antitrust with the progressive chair of the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan. If these cross-party initiatives bear fruit, retrospectives on this tumultuous moment may one day come to focus not just on the deep polarization dividing Americans, but also on the shift to a political economy profoundly different from – and perhaps more egalitarian than – the neoliberal one that prevailed from Ronald Reagan’s presidency through Barack Obama’s.

While this shift to a new political economy may be praiseworthy, the outcome will depend on whether the US can find a way to survive the profound threat to democracy that Trump embodies. Much is at stake in 2024, both for America and the world.

FEATURED

Iran’s Succession Crisis Is a Legitimacy Crisis

May 27, 2024 ABBAS MILANI

Strict Separation Is Not the Answer for Palestine and Israel

May 29, 2024 YANIS VAROUFAKIS

The Global Implications of Georgia’s Political Crisis

May 28, 2024 SALOME SAMADASHVILI

The Economics of Health for All

May 28, 2024 MARIANA MAZZUCATO

Maxims for the AI Age

May 27, 2024 REID HOFFMAN

Gary Gerstle

GARY GERSTLE

Writing for PS since 2024

1 Commentary

Gary Gerstle is Emeritus Professor of American History and Director of Research in American History at Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge, and the author of The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era (Oxford University Press, 2022).

Secretary Antony J. Blinken At a Solo Press Availability 05/31/2024 12:29 PM EDT Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State Prague, Czech Republic Hrzan Palace

 Secretary Antony J. Blinken At a Solo Press Availability

05/31/2024 12:29 PM EDT

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

Prague, Czech Republic

Hrzan Palace

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, good afternoon, everyone.  Let me begin by thanking our extraordinary hosts here in Czechia, starting with President Pavel, my friend, Foreign Minister Lipavsky – I thank them for hosting this meeting of NATO’s foreign ministers in advance of the NATO summit, but more important to thank them for the remarkable Ally and partner that Czechia is, demonstrating over these 25 years of its membership in the Alliance how much it contributes to our common defense, to our common purpose, and to sustaining our common values.

I also want to thank Secretary General Stoltenberg.  I’ve said this many times before; it bears repeating:  His vision, his tenacity, his leadership of this Alliance during a highly consequential decade has been nothing short of remarkable, and he’s got more leadership to do as we get to the summit in Washington.

It’s not an overstatement to say that this is a critical moment for transatlantic security.  We’ve seen in recent weeks Putin ramping up an offensive against Ukraine in Kharkiv in the northeast; Ukrainians continuing to show extraordinary courage in resisting the Russian aggression.  The Kremlin’s also been intensifying its hybrid attacks against frontline states – NATO members – setting fire and sabotaging supply warehouses, disregarding sea borders and demarcations in the Baltics, mounting more and more cyber attacks, continuing to spread disinformation.  I can tell you that in the meeting of foreign ministers today virtually every Ally was seized with this intensification of Russia’s hybrid attacks.  We know what they’re up to, and we will respond both individually and collectively as necessary.

More broadly, the stakes couldn’t be higher in this moment.  We know that if Russia’s aggression is allowed to proceed in Ukraine with impunity, it will not stop with Ukraine.  And other would-be aggressors in other parts of the world will take note and consider pursuing their own aggressions.  By continuing to strengthen Ukraine, by continuing to show our determination to make sure that it can effectively defend itself, we’re also strengthening the security of the United States, of Europe, of free countries all around the world.

I was in Kyiv a couple of weeks ago, and one of my messages then was that Ukraine is not alone.  As the Ukrainian people continue to fight for their freedom, for their independence, for their prosperity, for their democratic future – a future where they decide for themselves the trajectory of their country – they’re not alone.  The United States is with them.  Ally after Ally in NATO and many countries beyond are with them as well.  And I heard that reinforced loudly and clearly today among the NATO Allies.

Since Congress passed the President’s supplemental budget request of $60 billion last month with overwhelming bipartisan support in our country, we’ve sent assistance surging to the front: tens of thousands of artillery rounds, thousands of anti-tank mines, air defense capabilities already making a difference.  Partners are speeding up their own deliveries to Ukraine, doing more than their share.  We saw yesterday – and some of you were with us – how Czechia is sourcing artillery shells around the world and transferring tanks as well to Ukraine.  The Netherlands and Germany are contributing additional Patriot air defense systems.  Sweden is sending $1.3 billion for radar surveillance aircraft, artillery shells, armored vehicles – and the list continues.

Thanks to the extraordinary bravery of the Ukrainians and thanks to this enduring, strong support from partners, the front in the east and northeast is stabilizing.  And of course, Ukraine has made significant gains in the Black Sea, pushing back the Russian fleet, allowing Ukraine to continue to grow its economy by exporting – in fact, exporting through the Black Sea as much, even more than it was before the Russian aggression in February of ’22.

So at this pivotal time, the work of the Alliance and the NATO summit itself that we’ll host in Washington is, I think, more important than ever.  We look forward to welcoming our NATO Allies to Washington.  And, of course, it’s the 75th anniversary of the most successful Alliance in history.  So we will celebrate that fact.  But even more important, we will be focusing on the steps we’re taking to ensure that the Alliance is fit for purpose for the next 75 years to meet the challenges of today and challenges we anticipate tomorrow.

Today, we spent very productive time working to finalize some of the commitments and some of the outcomes for the summit.  And I can say that as we stand here and as we’ll see in Washington this Alliance is bigger than it’s ever been with the addition of two new members, it’s stronger, it’s more resilient and more united.

At the summit, we’ll be taking concrete steps to bring Ukraine closer to NATO and ensure that there’s a bridge to membership, a bridge that’s strong and well-lit.  NATO will help build Ukraine’s future force, one that can effectively deter aggression and defend against it if necessary.  We’ll advance Ukraine’s integration with NATO.  Thirty-two countries are also negotiating individual bilateral security agreements with Ukraine; 13 have already been concluded.  I expect many more will be concluded by the time of the summit.  We’ll bring them all together to show how powerful that commitment is.

At the same time, we’re seeing Allies stand up to increase burden sharing.  Two-thirds of Allies are now on track to meet the 2 percent commitment, and we’ll welcome more.  Back in 2020, 11 NATO Allies were at 2 percent of GDP contributed to defense.  By the time of the summit, we expect that number will be over 20.

We’re also working in the Alliance to strengthen the Alliance’s collective deterrence and defense.  We’re ramping up production; we’re strengthening our defense industrial bases.  We’ll have new regional plans that will spell out how and what Allies need to do and will do to protect every inch of NATO territory.  And we’re deepening cooperation between NATO and critical partners – the European Union, partners in the Indo-Pacific.

And here, just as Allies today were seized with the hybrid threat that has grown from Russia, they’re also seized with China’s support for Russia’s defense industrial base.  And as I’ve had occasion to discuss before, including in China, what we’ve seen from China is not the provision of weapons to Russia, but the provision of critical inputs that have allowed Russia to accelerate its own production of tanks, of missiles, of shells.  Seventy percent of the machine tools that Russia is currently importing are coming from China.  Ninety percent of the microelectronics that China is importing are coming from China.  And I heard Ally after Ally today raise their deep concern about this, and it only made even more clear to me what I shared with Chinese counterparts in Beijing:  China cannot expect on the one hand to improve relations with countries of Europe while on the other hand fueling the biggest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War.

None of us are under any illusions about the challenges we face today and we’ll continue to face in the days and months ahead.  But 25 years ago, as Czechia joined NATO ahead of the Alliance’s 50th anniversary, a daughter of Prague, my friend, mentor, predecessor, Madeleine Albright, reminded us that, and I quote, “When we stand together, no force on Earth is more powerful than our solidarity on behalf of freedom.”  That conviction was reinforced for me today by what I heard from all of our Allies, and I can tell you it will be further reinforced when we come together in Washington.  It’s been true for the last 75 years; I want to track to make sure that it’s true for the next 75.

MR MILLER:  For the first question, we’ll go to Humeyra Pamuk with Reuters.

QUESTION:  Hello.  Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary.  I have two questions – one on Ukraine, one on Gaza.  So the Biden administration has allowed Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia to defend Kharkiv.  Do you leave the door open for this decision to be expanded to other cities and targets that are deeper inside Russia?  And since it took the Biden administration a while to make this decision, I’m wondering:  Do you think you were too cautious?  Or has your intelligence assessment on the possibility of Putin using tactical nuclear weapons has shifted?

And on Gaza, the UN said humanitarian aid going into Gaza has dropped by two thirds since Israel began its Rafah offensive.  Your colleague, USAID Administrator Samantha Power, who’s an export in – expert on genocide, yesterday said the humanitarian conditions in Gaza were now worse than ever.  On April the 4th, President Biden conditioned U.S. military aid to Israel on improvement of the aid situation, among other things.  So I’m wondering, why isn’t the current dire picture in Gaza triggering a bigger policy shift?  Thank you.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Great.  Thanks, Humeyra.  So with regard to the use of U.S. arms by Ukraine and Russia, I said this the other day:  The hallmark of our engagement, our support for Ukraine over these more than two years, has been to adapt and adjust as necessary to meet what’s actually going on on the battlefield, to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs when it needs it, to do that deliberately and effectively.  And that’s exactly what we’re doing in response to what we’ve now seen in and around the Kharkiv region.

Over the past few weeks Ukraine came to us and asked for the authorization to use weapons that we’re providing to defend against this aggression, including against Russian forces that are massing on the Russian side of the border, and then attacking into Ukraine.  And that went right to the President, and as you heard, he’s approved the use of our weapons for that purpose.  Going forward, we’ll continue to do what we’ve been doing, which is, as necessary, adapt and adjust.  And that, as I said, has been a hallmark of our engagement; it will continue to be.

As I’ve also said many, many times, we want to make sure that we’re proceeding deliberately as well as effectively.  So I think time and again we’ve adapted, we’ve adjusted, we’ve provided Ukraine with the systems, the weapons it’s needed.  But again, as I’ve shared with you many times before, for example, when it comes to weapons systems, we also want to make sure that they have the necessary training to use the weapons and they have the necessary capacity to maintain them.  So you have to look at this in a comprehensive way, and I think if you look back as well as look at what we’re doing now, it reflects a very deliberate determination to make sure that we’re getting Ukraine what they need when they need it.

With regard to Gaza and the humanitarian situation, the humanitarian situation remains dire for people in Gaza.  We’ve seen changes, some positive changes, but the net effect is not there.  The positive changes are that, of course, crossings in the north have been opened in recent weeks, including Zikim.  We have a route from Jordan that is getting trucks in.  If you look at the number of trucks that are actually getting to Gaza and going in, it’s up significantly, but distribution within Gaza is not working effectively.  And part of the reason for that are the combat operations in the south.  In addition, Rafah gate continues to be closed.  President Biden secured an agreement with Egypt and with Israel to make sure that goods could go through Kerem Shalom, including goods coming from Egypt, but Rafah remains closed.  And that’s a real problem.

So the focus that we have, continue to have, and are working on intensely every day is, again, making sure that we’re not just measuring inputs – we’re measuring impact.  And yes, the impact remains insufficient in terms of addressing the acute needs of children, women, and men in Gaza.  But it’s a moving story every day as we’re working intensely to make sure that the different access points are working and then distribution within Gaza is working more effectively.  And that’s what we’re focused on.

QUESTION:  But sir, since President Biden conditioned this on it, then why wouldn’t you use that leverage?  United States provides almost 70 percent of Israel’s weapons.  That gives it a big leverage, and President Biden specifically conditioned it on this and other things.  Why wouldn’t you use that policy?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  The – the issue is the conditions are such that the effective distribution of aid is being impeded.  And that’s what we’re working on, trying to make sure that the conditions are there, and there are ways of doing this much more effectively.  We’re trying to get the results; that’s what I’m focused on.

MR MILLER:  For the next question, Henry Foy with the Financial Times.

QUESTION:  Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.  We know that Ukraine hopes and, in some regards, expects an invitation to join NATO this – at the summit.  We also know that your administration and other countries are opposed to that this summer.  As such, what tangible, real things can you offer, both you as the U.S. and NATO, Ukraine to ease that disappointment and avoid the sense of them feeling let down again and the response that we saw from Kyiv in Vilnius to that?  Thank you.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you.  Well, as the Allies agreed and made clear at Vilnius, the last summit, Ukraine will become a member of NATO.  And our purpose now is to put in place the bridge to bring Ukraine closer to and then ultimately into NATO.  And as I’ve said, it’s a bridge that I think, as you’ll see emerge at the summit, it’s both very strong and very well-lit.  There will be a robust package of support for Ukraine at the summit, a package that strengthens NATO’s cooperation and support for Ukraine; that advances Ukraine’s integration into NATO; tangible steps that will increase NATO’s role in helping Ukraine build a future force, one that can deter and defend against aggression.

At the same time, you’re going to see, I think, the completion of these bilateral security agreements, 32 countries that are engaged in doing that.  I expect all of that to come together at the summit as well, and that will help ensure that Ukraine is properly resourced to continue to defend itself.  But this is a process, and we’re proceeding very methodically and proceeding in a way that is delivering practical benefits to Ukraine, including advancing its membership to NATO in very clear and practical ways.

MR MILLER:  John Hudson with The Washington Post.

QUESTION:  Thanks.  Mr. Secretary, you don’t do domestic politics, but you do —

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Good, thank you.

QUESTION:  (Laughter.)  But you do represent the United States on the world stage.  What are you hearing from foreign counterparts about the guilty verdict in the Trump trial?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  I really have nothing to share on that.  We have diplomatic conversations that will remain just that, diplomatic conversations in private.

QUESTION:  And former President Trump’s trial was defined by his efforts to castigate and delegitimize a court of law.  Does that give you any pause about how the Biden administration has responded to another court of law, the International Criminal Court, as well as the International Court of Justice, with regards to Gaza?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  I’m not going to comment on the first part of your question because, as I’ve long said, I don’t do politics – I do policy.  With regard to policy and the ICC, look, we’ve been very clear about this.  The decision that the prosecutor made was, in our judgment, profoundly wrongheaded.  And in creating an equation between Hamas and Israel – Hamas’s leaders and Israel’s democratically elected leaders – as we said, and as I’ve said, it’s quite frankly shameful.  The reality is that the court was created for a very good reason: to be a court of last resort, one that would swing into action where a country either couldn’t or wouldn’t effectively police itself.  And so the principle of what’s called complementarity is at the heart of the court’s creation and what it does.

And in Israel, you have a vibrant, independent, and very active judicial system.  And in the case of Gaza as well, there are many incidents that are under investigation, including some under criminal investigation.  There’s a case right now before the Israeli supreme court about the alleged denial of humanitarian assistance for Gazans.  And so Israel and its system – its democratic system with independent courts and judges as well as a military justice system that can effectively investigate any allegations of abuse – that should be allowed to run its course.  And given that – never mind the fact that we don’t accept the jurisdiction of the court over Israel, but leaving that aside, Israeli justice should be allowed to run its course.

Finally, I think it’s very deeply unfortunate that Israel was prepared to cooperate with the investigation even while rejecting the jurisdiction of the court, and yet the prosecutor chose not to pursue that cooperation.

MR MILLER:  And for —

QUESTION:  And just lastly, the Kremlin has put out a statement saying that the trial shows the White House is eliminating Biden’s political rivals.  They’re trying to use this as a way to besmirch the American legal system.  How do you respond to that?

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  I would say that’s a classic case of projection.

MR MILLER:  And for the last question, Alexandra von Nahmen with Deutsche Welle.

QUESTION:  Thank you very much.  Secretary, you’ve mentioned China and how they are propping up the Russian war economy.  And Jens Stoltenberg said today as well that without the deliveries from China, Russia would not have been able to conduct the war against Ukraine the way they do.  So is there anything you can do about it?  And if yes, what are you planning to do about that?  Thank you.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Yes.  Again, this is something that Ally after Ally was seized with today.  I heard it from virtually everyone in the room.  We’ve already taken action against Chinese entities that have been involved in sanctions evasion, involved in supporting Russia’s defense industrial base, including sanctioning more than, I think, now – more than a hundred Chinese entities of one kind or another.  And as I’ve made clear, as necessary, we will continue to do that.  From what I heard today, Europeans are also very seized with this, and I would expect to see actions taken by Europeans, by Europe.

And again, I come back to this proposition that’s so clear.  Russia getting this support from China is, as the secretary general said, a huge difference-maker right now on the battlefield.  And for China to purport to have better relations with countries in Europe while fueling this –what I believe is the biggest threat and what Europeans believe is the biggest threat to their security since the end of the Cold War – does not add up.  And I think that will continue to have consequences going forward.  Thank you.

MR MILLER:  Thank you all.

# # #

Hediye Levent - 31 Mayıs 2024 : Türkiye, Suriye Kürtleri meselesini niye köpürtüyor?

 31 Mayıs 2024 04:55

Türkiye, Suriye Kürtleri meselesini niye köpürtüyor?

Fotoğraf: Pixabay

      Paylaş

• 
 
• 
 

Hediye Levent

Tüm yazıları

Geçtiğimiz günlerde Suriye’de BAAS Partisinin kongresi vardı. Kongrede konuşan Beşşar Esad’ın “Kuzey Suriye meselesini birkaç ay içerisinde çözeriz. Askeri operasyonu reddediyoruz” dediği iddia edildi. Neredeyse 600 kişinin katıldığı kongrede Esad’ın bu sözleri söylediğini iddia eden tek bir haber kuruluşu var ve o da kendi kaynaklarına dayandırıyor. Bu konuya ilişkin ne haber metni var ne görüntü ne de benim kaynaklarım arasında doğrulayan. Kaldı ki Esad’ın ve Esad yönetiminin Suriye Kürtlerini güvenlik çerçevesinde gördüğü biliniyor. Bu nedenle Şam-Kamışlı arasında temaslar belli bir ilerleme sağlamadan 600 kişilik kongrede böyle bir konuşma yapması pek Şam tipi siyasete uygun da değil. Kaldı ki Şam-Kamışlı doğrudan temaslarının olmadığı, iletişimin karşılıklı mesajlar gönderme seviyesinde kaldığını İlham Ahmed de söylüyor. Zaten Ahmed de karşılıklı mesajların hangi kurumlar arasında ve aracılar üzerinden gönderildiğini söylemediği gibi içeriklerine dair bilgi de vermiyor. Yani Şam-Kamışlı mesajlaşmaları taraflar arasında müzakere sayılmayacağı gibi günlük işlere dair ve özellikle sahada tarafların askeri yapılarının karşı karşıya gelmemesi ile de sınırlı olabilir.

Türkiye’de öne çıkarılan bir diğer önemli mesele ise, Suriye Demokratik Güçleri (SDG) Komutanı Mazlum Abdi’nin Kuzey Aşiretler Meclisi toplantısında yaptığı bir konuşma. Abdi konuşmasında Türkiye’ye sesleniyor ve “Askeri seçeneklere gerek yok, Türkiye ile bu meseleyi oturup konuşabiliriz” mealinde bir açıklama yapıyor. Bunda da yeni bir şey yok aslında. Çünkü Abdi daha önce defalarca Türkiye’ye seslendi ve benzer içerikte çağrılarda bulundu.

Suriye’nin kuzeyindeki öz yönetimin yerel seçimlere hazırlandığı biliniyor. Türkiye’de çok eleştirilen bu gelişme çerçevesinde tartışmalar da büyüyor ancak işin ilginç tarafı aralık ayında Suriye Kürtleri parlamento seçimi yaptı ama Türkiye’den ses seda çıkmadı. O seçimde Suriye Demokratik Meclisini seçen Suriye Kürtleri daha sonra da kontrol ettikleri bölgeleri idari yapılara böldükleri bir düzenleme de yaptı. Türkiye’den yine tepki yoktu. Şimdi tartışmalara konu olan seçim ise yerel seçim… Yani belediye, belediye meclisi vs…

Yukarıda sıraladığım iddialar üzerinden analizler yapılıp yorumlar diziliyor Türkiye’de. Bunun olası nedenlerine gelmeden önce birkaç noktada hatırlatma yapmak gerekiyor.

-Şam, Suriye Kürtleri tarafından kurulan siyasi ve askeri yapılardan hazzetmiyor ancak başından beri askeri seçenekleri reddediyor. Çünkü Suriye ordusu çok yorgun, Kürtlerle bir savaş yeni bir ağır yıkım demek. Ayrıca Şam, Kürtlerden çok Kürtler üzerinden bölgeye yerleşen Amerikan varlığını tehdit olarak nitelendiriyor.

-Şam Suriye Kürtlerine karşı sadece bir kez ‘terörist’ ifadesini kullandı ancak sıkça “Amerikalıları topraklarımıza getirdiler” suçlamasını yöneltiyor. Bu ifadeler Türkiye’de “Nihayet Esad, Ankara’nın çizgisine geldi. Ankara ve Şam Suriye Kürtleri konusunda ortak hareket edebilir” gibi aşırı iyimser yorumlara sebep olabilir ancak Şam’ın ve Ankara’nın Suriye Kürtleri konusundaki söylemleri örtüşmeyecek kadar farklı.

-Şam, Türkiye’nin Suriye’deki varlığını çok daha büyük tehdit olarak görüyor. Şam’a göre şimdilerde tehdit sıralamasının tepesinde on binlerce cihatçının yığıldığı İdlip var. İkinci sırada Türkiye’nin vali atayıp millet bahçeleri açtığı, tekrar tekrar yapılandırarak her açıdan finanse ettiği silahlı grupların kontrol ettiği bölgeler geliyor. Suriye Kürtleri tarafından kurulan siyasi ve askeri yapılar ile kontrol ettiği bölgeler ise üçüncü sırada.

-Şam’a göre Suriye Kürtleri ile ilgili mesele Suriye’nin iç meselesi ve Amerikan desteği olmadan o yapıların uzun ömürlü olması mümkün değil. Bu nedenle Şam da Amerika’nın Irak’tan ve dolayısıyla Suriye’den çekilmesini bekliyor. Burada kritik olan ise elbette Amerikan seçimleri… Yani Şam’ın Amerikan seçimleri yapılmadan ve Amerikalıların Irak’tan çekilip çekilmeyeceği belli olmadan Suriye Kürtleri ile ilgili büyük ve hele de askeri adımlar atması pek mümkün değil.

Sahada durum buyken aslı astarı olmayan iddialar ve aslında sıradan olan gelişmeler üzerinden bu mesele Türkiye’de neden bu kadar tartışılıyor? Ya da soruyu şöyle soralım; Türkiye bu meseleyi neden köpürtüyor?

Henüz Ankara’dan bu konuyla ilgili resmi açıklama diyebileceğimiz bir açıklama yapılmadı ancak mevcut duruma bakılırsa;

-Ankara Kürt meselesini bir kez daha Amerikalılarla ilişkilerde gündeme getirmeye başlamış olabilir. Yani “Bakın durum ciddi, Suriye Kürtleri yanı başımızda devletleşmeye gidiyor” söylemi üzerinden baskıyı artırmaya çalışıyor gibi görünüyor.

-Elbette Ankara da Amerikalıların Irak ve Suriye’den çekileceğine dair senaryo çerçevesinde pozisyon almaya çalışıyor. Bir süredir devam eden Ankara-Bağdat-Erbil diplomasi trafiğinin ana gündemlerinden biri de bu.

-Türkiye olası çekilme sonrası dönemde oluşacak boşluğu doldurmaya aday ülke olarak öne çıkıyor. Elbette kendi ajandası çerçevesinde Irak’ta PKK’nın, Suriye’de PKK’nın uzantısı olarak gördüğü yapıların da önünü almak istiyor.

-Henüz sinyallerini görmediğimiz ancak önümüzdeki yaz yapılacağı söylenen PKK’ya karşı geniş çaplı askeri operasyonun kapsamını genişletmek ve Suriye Kürtleri ile PKK’nın bağını kesmek ve Suriye Kürtleri üzerindeki baskıyı artırmak gibi bir politika gözetiyor olabilir.

Bekleyip görelim!

Emekli diplomat Gürsel Demirok'un, "Düne bakarak yarını görmek" başlıklı , 31 Mayıs 2024 tarihli yazısı

 Emekli diplomat Gürsel Demirok'un, "Düne bakarak yarını görmek" başlıklı , 31 Mayıs 2024 tarihli yazısını okuyabilirsiniz..

“AK Parti Genel Başkan Vekili Efkan Âlâ, Cumhurbaşkanı Tayyip Erdoğan’ın ‘Kopenhag Kriterlerini gerekirse Ankara Kriterleri yapar, yine yolumuza devam ederiz’ sözünden hareketle 2028’e kadar tamamlanacak yeni bir reform hazırlığı yaptıklarını söyledi.”

Medya, AKP’nin yeni bir reform paketi hazırlığında olduğunu Efkan Âlâ’nın açıklamalarına atfen bu tür başlıklarla duyurdu.

Efkan Âlâ, Avrupa Birliği müktesebatında olan ve Türkiye’nin yararına reformların da hayata geçirileceğini belirtmiş. Birçok alanda yapılacak ince işçilik gerektiren reformlara ilişkin partideki birimlere ve bakanlıklara tek tek görev verildiğini söylemiş.

Efkan Âlâ’nın açıklamaları beni yıllar öncesine götürdü. Rahmetli Erbakan’ın imzasıyla yayınlanan 9 Nisan 1997 tarihli bir Başbakanlık Genelgesi ile İnsan Hakları Koordinatör Üst Kurulu oluşturulmuştu. Kurul’un Başkanı İnsan Haklarından sorumlu Devlet Bakanı idi. Kurul üyeleri, Başbakanlık, Adalet, İçişleri, Dışişleri, Milli Eğitim ve Sağlık Bakanlığı müsteşarlarıydı. Kurul’a bu bakanlıkların mensuplarından oluşan bir Sekreterya destek hizmeti sunuyordu. Ben de orada Sekreterya Başkanı olarak görevlendirilmiştim.

O yıllarda da, siyasiler “Kopenhag Kriterlerini gerekirse Ankara Kriterleri yaparız” sözünü pek severlerdi. Ancak “Ankara Kriterleri”nin neleri kapsadığı üzerinde pek durulmazdı. Kimse de sormazdı “Ankara Kriterleri” neleri kapsıyor diye.

O yıllar koalisyon yıllarıydı. İlk Başkanı Devlet Bakanı Prof. Dr. Hikmet Sami Türk Üst Kurul’a çok önem verirdi. Ardından atanan bakanlar ise, başka konularla da ilgilenmek durumunda kaldıklarından Üst Kurul’a fazla zaman ayıramadılar. Kurul düzenli toplanamaz hale geldi.

Ancak Sekreterya olarak biz görevimizin başındaydık. Başbakanlık Müsteşar Yardımcısı’nın gözetiminde çalışmalarımızı sürdürüyorduk. Bu çerçevede Müsteşar Yardımcısı’nın imzasıyla tüm ilgili bakanlıklara bir yazı gönderilerek Türkiye’de insan haklarının güçlendirilmesine, geliştirilmesine yönelik önerileri sorulmuştu. Benzer bir yazı üniversitelere ve insan hakları ilgili sivil toplum kuruluşlarına da gönderilmişti. Başbakanlık’tan gelen bu yazıyı önemseyen Bakanlık, üniversite ve sivil toplum kuruluşlarının önerilerini Sekreterya’ya iletmişti.

Sekreterya bu önerileri değerlendirerek, Türkiye’de insan haklarının güçlendirilmesi, geliştirilmesi amacıyla atılması gereken adımlar hakkında “İnsan Hakları Gündem 2000” başlıklı bir rapor hazırladı. (*) Rapor, Türkiye’de demokrasiyi daha güçlendirmeye, insan haklarını daha geliştirmeye yönelik Anayasa’da ve yasalarda yapılmasında yarar görülen değişiklere ve idari düzenlemelere ilişkin yol haritası mahiyetindeydi. Rapor hazırlanırken, sorunlara çözüm arayışlarında öz güvene dayalı öz eleştirel bir yaklaşım sergilenmişti.

Bu rapordan önce, Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı’nın 8’inci Beş Yıllık Kalkınma Planı hazırlık çalışmalarında yararlanıldı. Açıklandığında kamuoyunda büyük ilgi uyandıran rapor, gözden geçirilerek Üst Kurul tarafından 21 Haziran 2000 tarihinde “Kopenhag Siyasi Kriterleri Işığında Türkiye’nin Alması Gereken önlemler” adı altında bir rapor haline getirildi. Ardından rapor, 21 Eylül 2000 tarihli Bakanlar Kurulu toplantısında görüşülerek, bazı ufak değişikliklerle referans ve çalışma belgesi olarak kabul edildi.

Avrupa Birliği’nin Türkiye’ye sunduğu Katılım Ortaklığı Belgesi ışığında belirlenen Ulusal Program’ın hazırlanması sırasında bu rapordan yararlanıldı. AKP’nin ilk iktidar yılları dahil izleyen yıllarda Türkiye’nin demokrasiyi daha güçlendirmeye, insan haklarını geliştirmeye yönelik atılan adımlar esas itibarıyla bu raporda yer alan öneriler doğrultusunda idi. Örneğin, Milli Güvenlik Kurulu’nun hükümete tavsiyelerde bulunan bir kurula dönüştürülmesi, Kurul’daki sivil üyelerin sayısının artırılması, MGK Genel Sekreteri’nin sivil olması bu raporda önerilmişti.

TBMM’nin o tarihlerde gerçekleştirdiği insan hakları ve hukukun üstünlüğünü ön plana çıkaran Anayasal ve yasal düzenlemelere de öneri olarak bu raporda yer verilmişti. Bu bağlamda raporda, 1982 Anayasası’nın temel hak ve özgürlüklerle ilgili bazı maddelerinin Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ilkeleri doğrultusunda yeniden düzenlenmesi, ayrıca çeşitli yasalarda değişiklikler yapılarak ifade özgürlüğünün sınırlarının genişletilmesi öneriliyordu. Bu öneriler de zaman içinde gerçekleşti. Sekreteryanın bu çalışmasına en fazla katkıda bulunan Bakanlıkların başında Adalet ve Dışişleri bakanlıkları geliyordu. Bazı sivil toplum ve meslek kuruluşları da değerli katkılarda bulunmuşlardı.

Bunları neden hatırlatıyorum?

Aradan çeyrek asra yakın bir zaman geçti. Dünü çabuk unutuyoruz. Dün yapılanları da. Bugünlere belirli aşamalardan geçerek gelindiğini de. Efkan Âlâ, ince işçilik gerektiren reformlara ilişkin partideki birimlere ve bakanlıklara tek tek görev verildiğini söylemiş. Bu görevlendirmenin 31 Mart seçimlerinden alınan dersler çerçevesinde gerçekleştiği anlaşılıyor.

Efkan Âlâ, İstanbul Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi mezunu, valilik, Başbakanlık’ta müsteşarlık yapmış bürokrat kökenli bir siyasetçi. Devleti, bürokrasiyi iyi bilir, tanır. AKP’nin ilgili birimlerinin reform yapılması istenen alanlarda ne ölçüde donanımlı bilmiyorum. Keza bakanlıkların bulunabilecekleri katkılar konusunda da kuşkularım var. Yukarıda yazdım. İnsan Hakları Gündem 2000 başlıklı çalışmayı gerçekleştirirken öz güvene dayalı öz eleştirel bir tutum izlemiştik. Günümüz koşullarında bakanlıklar böyle bir tutum takına bilirler mi? Kuşkuluyum.

Âlâ’ya önerim, çalışmaları sırasında ilgili sivil toplum kuruluşlarının, üniversitelerin vs. de görüşlerine başvurmalara ve bu kuruluşların görüş ve önerilerini önemsemeleri, dikkate almaları.

Bu vesileyle kendi görüş ve önerilerimi yazayım:

2017’de antidemokratik anayasa değişikliği yapan AKP”nin önceliği mevcut Cumhurbaşkanlığı Sistemini değiştirmek olmalı. Yıllardır yaşanan sorunların temelinde “Tek Adam Sistemi” yatmakta. Bu sistemin yerine gözden geçirilmiş “Parlamenter Sistem”e geçiş konusu masaya yatırılmalı. Bu mümkün görünmüyorsa “Yarı Başkanlık Sistemi” tartışmaya açılmalı.

AKP’nin bu yöndeki önerilere olumlu yaklaşması, diğer partilerin anayasa çalışmalarına katkıda bulunma yolunu açacak

AKP, kuvvetler ayrılığına, hukukun üstünlüğüne dayanan bu sistemlerle ilgili olarak önümüzdeki süreçte bir tartışma ortamı yaratmalı.

Önümüzdeki süreç son derece önemli. Mevcut sistemin ileride ülkeyi ne maceralara sürükleyeceği bilinmez.

Sistem esas itibarıyla Erdoğan’ın beklentilerine göre tasarlanmış. Bu sistem Erdoğan’ın görev süresi dolmadan önce tarihe gömülür, yeni sistem üzerinde prensip mutabakatına varılırsa ülkenin önü açılır. Toplumsal barış güçlenir. Demokrasiyi güçlendiren, hukukun üstünlüğünü güvence altına alan, insan haklarını geliştiren vs. adımlar daha kolaylıkla atılır. Cumhurbaşkanının konumu, görev ve yetkileri, seçim süresi vs. yeni esaslara bağlanır.

2028’e kadar mevcut sistem değiştirilmez, “altın yılı”, “gümüş yılı” gibi pırıltılı adlar altında gerçekleştirilecek göstermelik, göz boyayıcı reformlar ile yetinilirse, yapılacak seçimlerin sonucunun AKP için hüsran olacağı göz ardı edilmemeli.

(*) Kamuoyunda “Demirok Raporu” olarak da biliniyor.

AP Guilty: Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes BY MICHAEL R. SISAK, JENNIFER PELTZ, ERIC TUCKER, MICHELLE L. PRICE AND JILL COLVIN Updated 11:40 AM GMT+3, May 31, 2024

 

AP 

Guilty: Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes

BY  MICHAEL R. SISAK, JENNIFER PELTZ, ERIC TUCKER, MICHELLE L. PRICE AND JILL COLVIN

Updated 11:40 AM GMT+3, May 31, 2024

NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump became the first former American president to be convicted of felony crimes Thursday as a New York jury found him guilty of all 34 charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex.

Trump sat stone-faced while the verdict was read as cheering from the street below could be heard in the hallway on the courthouse’s 15th floor where the decision was revealed after more than nine hours of deliberations.

Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts marks the end of his historic hush money trial. But the fight is far from over. Here’s what to know.

When is the sentencing? July 11, just days before Republicans are set to pick Trump as the 2024 nominee.

Can Trump vote? He may be convicted and reside in Florida, but can still vote as long as he stays out of prison in New York state.

Will this impact the 2024 election? It’s unclear whether Trump’s once-imaginable status as a person convicted of a felony will have any impact at all on voters.

“This was a rigged, disgraceful trial,” an angry Trump told reporters after leaving the courtroom. “The real verdict is going to be Nov. 5 by the people. They know what happened, and everyone knows what happened here.”

Judge Juan M. Merchan set sentencing for July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where GOP leaders, who remained resolute in their support in the aftermath of the verdict, are expected to formally make him their nominee.

The verdict is a stunning legal reckoning for Trump and exposes him to potential prison time in the city where his manipulations of the tabloid press helped catapult him from a real estate tycoon to reality television star and ultimately president. As he seeks to reclaim the White House in this year’s election, the judgment presents voters with another test of their willingness to accept Trump’s boundary-breaking behavior.

A demonstrator reacts to the guilty verdict announced against former President Donald Trump outside Manhattan Criminal Court, Thursday, May 30, 2024, in New York. Donald Trump became the first former president to be convicted of felony crimes as a New York jury found him guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through hush money payments to a porn actor who said the two had sex. (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson)

Guilty: Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes

A member of the media looks at news of former President Donald Trump on his phone after the conclusion of Trump's hush money trial, in New York, Thursday, May 30, 2024. (Michael M. Santiago/Pool Photo via AP)

Trump could still vote for himself after New York conviction if he’s not in prison on Election Day

Former President Donald Trump leaves the courthouse after a jury found him guilty of all 34 felony counts in his criminal trial at Manhattan Criminal Court, Thursday, May 30, 2024, in New York. (Justin Lane/Pool Photo via AP)

Here’s what you should know about Donald Trump’s conviction in his hush money trial

Trump is expected to appeal the verdict and will face an awkward dynamic as he returns to the campaign trail tagged with convictions. There are no campaign rallies on the calendar for now, though he traveled Thursday evening to a fundraiser in Manhattan that was planned before the verdict, according to three people familiar with his plans who were not authorized to speak publicly.

He’s expected to appear Friday at Trump Tower and will continue fundraising next week. His campaign was already moving quickly to raise money off the verdict, issuing a pitch that called him a “political prisoner.”

The falsifying business records charges carry up to four years behind bars, though Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg would not say Thursday whether prosecutors intend to seek imprisonment, and it is not clear whether the judge — who earlier in the trial warned of jail time for gag order violations — would impose that punishment even if asked.

The conviction, and even imprisonment, will not bar Trump from continuing his White House pursuit.

Trump faces three other felony indictments, but the New York case may be the only one to reach a conclusion before the November election, adding to the significance of the outcome. Though the legal and historical implications of the verdict are readily apparent, the political consequences are less so given its potential to reinforce rather than reshape already hardened opinions about Trump.

0:00 / 51

AP AUDIO: Guilty: Trump becomes first former U.S. president convicted of felony crimes

Former president Donald Trump found gulty in his hush money case. AP correspondent Julie Walker reports from court.

For another candidate in another time, a criminal conviction might doom a presidential run, but Trump’s political career has endured through two impeachments, allegations of sexual abuse, investigations into everything from potential ties to Russia to plotting to overturn an election, and personally salacious storylines, including the emergence of a recording in which he boasted about grabbing women’s genitals.

The case’s general allegations have also been known to voters for years and, while tawdry, are widely seen as less grievous than the allegations he faces in three other cases that charge him with subverting American democracy and mishandling national security secrets.

Ahead of the verdict, Trump’s campaign had argued that, no matter the jury’s decision, the outcome was unlikely to sway voters and that the election would be decided by issues such as inflation.

Even so, the verdict is likely to give President Joe Biden and fellow Democrats space to sharpen arguments that Trump is unfit for office, though the White House offered only a muted statement that it respected the rule of law. Conversely, the decision will provide fodder for the presumptive Republican nominee to advance his unsupported claims that he is victimized by a criminal justice system he insists is politically motivated against him.

Trump maintained throughout the trial that he had done nothing wrong and that the case should never have been brought, railing against the proceedings from inside the courthouse — where he was joined by a parade of high-profile Republican allies — and racking up fines for violating a gag order with inflammatory out-of-court comments about witnesses.

After the verdict, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said in television news interviews that he did not believe Trump received a fair trial and that the team would appeal based on the judge’s refusal to recuse himself and because of what he suggested was excessive pretrial publicity.

Republicans showed no sign of loosening their embrace of the party leader, with House Speaker Mike Johnson lamenting what he called “a shameful day in American history.” He called the case “a purely political exercise, not a legal one.”

The first criminal trial of a former American president always presented a unique test of the court system, not only because of Trump’s prominence but also because of his relentless broadsides on the foundation of the case and its participants. But the verdict from the 12-person jury marked a repudiation of Trump’s efforts to undermine confidence in the proceedings or to potentially impress the panel with a show of GOP support.

“While this defendant may be unlike any other in American history, we arrived at this trial and ultimately today in this verdict in the same manner as every other case that comes through the courtroom doors, by following the facts and the law and doing so without fear or favor,” Bragg said after the verdict.

The trial involved charges that Trump falsified business records to cover up a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, the porn actor who said she had sex with the married Trump in 2006.

The $130,000 payment came from Trump’s former lawyer and personal fixer Michael Cohen to buy Daniels’ silence during the final weeks of the 2016 race in what prosecutors allege was an effort to interfere in the election. When Cohen was reimbursed, the payments were recorded as legal expenses, which prosecutors said was an unlawful attempt to mask the true purpose of the transaction.

Trump’s lawyers contend they were legitimate payments for legal services. He denied the sexual encounter, and his lawyers argued at trial that his celebrity status made him an extortion target.

Defense lawyers also said hush money deals to bury negative stories about Trump were motivated by personal considerations such as the impact on his family, not political ones. They also sought to undermine the credibility of Cohen, the star prosecution witness who pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal charges related to the payments, by suggesting he was driven by personal animus toward Trump and fame and money.

The trial featured weeks of occasionally riveting testimony that revisited an already well-documented chapter from Trump’s past. His 2016 campaign, threatened by the disclosure of an “Access Hollywood” recording that captured him talking about grabbing women sexually without their permission, also faced the prospect of other stories about Trump and sex surfacing that could have harmed his candidacy.

Trump did not testify, but jurors heard his voice through a secret recording of a conversation with Cohen in which he and the lawyer discussed a $150,000 hush money deal involving a Playboy model, Karen McDougal, who has said she had an affair with Trump. Trump denies that affair.

Daniels herself testified, offering a vivid recounting of the sexual encounter she says they had in a Lake Tahoe hotel suite. The former publisher of the National Enquirer, David Pecker, testified about how he worked to keep stories harmful to the Trump campaign from becoming public at all, including by having his company buy McDougal’s story.

Jurors also heard from Keith Davidson, the lawyer who negotiated the hush money payments on behalf of Daniels and McDougal. He detailed the tense negotiations to get both women compensated for their silence but also faced aggressive questioning from a Trump attorney who noted Davidson had helped broker similar hush money deals in cases involving other prominent figures.

The most pivotal witness, by far, was Cohen, who during days of testimony gave an insider’s view of the hush money scheme and what he said was Trump’s detailed knowledge of it.

“Just take care of it,” he quoted Trump as saying.

He offered jurors the most direct link between Trump and the heart of the charges, recounting a meeting in which a plan to have Cohen reimbursed in monthly installments for legal services was discussed.

And he emotionally described his dramatic break with Trump in 2018, when he began cooperating with prosecutors after a decade-long career as the then-president’s personal fixer.

“To keep the loyalty and to do the things that he had asked me to do, I violated my moral compass, and I suffered the penalty, as has my family,” Cohen said.

The case, though criticized by some legal experts who called it the weakest of the prosecutions against Trump, took on added importance not only because it proceeded to trial first but also because it could be the only only one to reach a jury before the election.

The other three — local and federal cases in Atlanta and Washington alleging that he conspired to overturn the 2020 election, as well as a federal indictment in Florida charging him with illegally hoarding top-secret records — are bogged down by delays or appeals.

____

Associated Press journalists Ruth Brown, Joseph B. Frederick, John Minchillo, Mary Conlon, Ted Shaffrey, Cedar Attanasio, Julie Walker, Seth Wenig and Julia Nikhinson in New York and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.

MICHAEL R. SISAK

Sisak is an Associated Press reporter covering law enforcement and courts in New York City, including former President Donald Trump’s criminal and civil cases and problems plaguing the federal prison system.

ERIC TUCKER

Tucker covers national security in Washington for The Associated Press, with a focus on the FBI and Justice Department and the special counsel cases against former President Donald Trump.

MICHELLE L. PRICE

Price is a national political reporter for The Associated Press. She is based in New York.

JILL COLVIN

Colvin is an Associated Press national political reporter covering the 2024 presidential campaign. She is based in New York.

mailto