1/You’d think it would be impossible for Trump to cozy up to Hispanic voters. He announced his 2016 campaign by calling Mexicans criminals & rapists, separated migrant families at the border & more recently has been involved in plans for concentration camps & mass deportations.
2/In 2020 Trump's campaign branded Univision as: “a leftist propaganda machine & a mouthpiece of the Democrat Party.” But @washingtonpost is reporting Univision, recently merged with Mexican Media Company Grupo Televisa, has warmed up to Trump nonetheless. washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/…
@washingtonpost 3/Jared Kushner is on the scene. Kushner arranged for Trump to sit for an hour long interview with Univision last week at Mar-a-Lago. The tone of the interview was extremely friendly given Trump’s history. It consisted of a series of softballs lobbed at the former president.
@washingtonpost 4/Here's an example: This week you were in New York in court. Today, you're facing four indictments in multiple jurisdictions. Are you concerned that you might win the Republican nomination only to be forced to drop out of the race?” Not exactly hard-hitting journalism.
@washingtonpost 5/Jared Kushner has a friend who is a Univision executive. That executive & 2 colleagues visited Mar-a-Lago for the interview. Then, Biden campaign ad buys made to run during the Trump interview in Arizona, Florida, Nevada, & Pennsylvania were canceled.
@washingtonpost 6/Univision rescinded the ads due to a previously unannounced policy against permitting opposition advertising during a candidate interview. Univision also canceled a scheduled interview with Biden’s Hispanic Media Director that was intended to respond to Trump’s interview.
@washingtonpost 7/No block of voters can be taken for granted in any election. But this development is remarkable by any standards. Trump is intent on remaking, or perhaps just ignoring prior history. Univision hasn't offered Biden a comparable interview slot.
@washingtonpost 8/Univision is a cable channel so they're not subject to FCC rules that apply to radio & TV broadcast networks. These developments will have to be dealt with in the political arena because it’s unlikely there is legal recourse. It will be up to voters-we know it always is!
@washingtonpost 9/If you've made it this far, you're probably interested in the important issues at the intersection of law & politics we face as a country. Sign up for my newsletter Civil Discourse to stay informed: joycevance.substack.com/p/trump-on-uni…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/This week, Paul Pelosi, is expected to testify at the trial of David DePape, who viciously attacked him with a hammer in October 2022. DePape was there for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was thankfully not at home. nbcnewyork.com/news/national-…
2/In opening statements, prosecutors said they will show that DePape had a list of Democratic officials he planned to attack, including Rep Adam Schiff & CA Governor Gavin Newsom.
DePape’s lawyer told the jury she wouldn’t dispute he committed the attack.
3/Instead, she planned to show that her client believed scores of crazy conspiracy theories and thought he was fighting child abuse and corruption. DePape, a Trump supporter, bought into a whole host of QAnon conspiracy theories.
1/There's a story about Ben Franklin emerging from the Constitutional Convention & telling a woman who asked what type of government they’d created, “a Republic, if you can keep it.” The 2024 election is the moment where we find out if we can.
2/If Trump wins in 2024, we lose the Republic. That’s not drama, and that’s not overstatement. That’s what Trump is promising. It's what he's been working on since at least October of 2020. Read the full explanation here: joycevance.substack.com/p/frogs-boiled…
3/On Sunday @washingtonpost reported onTrump’s plans for a 2nd term. It’s not the first time there has been reporting on Trump’s plans for 2025 if he wins a second term, but this article goes the furthest in laying out Trump’s plans in clear reporting. It starts like this:
1/Judge Chutkan gives Trump a little extra time, but not as much as he asked for, to complete discovery related motions in the DC prosecution pointing out that the deadlines he seeks would fall too close to trial. Good ruling. Nothing for the court of appeals to find fault with.
2/The Judge also makes a good record on Trump's complaints about discovery, confirming the gov't followed best practices & complied with deadlines. Most importantly she sees through Trump's efforts to delay the March trial date.
3/Trump tries the same strategy of getting permission to delay filing his dispositive motions in the case with reasons that were pretextual. I detail that history here. joycevance.substack.com/p/deep-dive-tr…
1/Tuesday SCOTUS hears argument in Rahimi. The issue is whether, given recent decisions that it’s unconstitutional to limit gun rights more than the Founding Fathers did, the fed'l crime of possessing a gun while under a domestic violence restraining order is constitutional.
2/Congress has said the domestic violence prohibitions in the law are intended to help keep firearms out of the hands of people who have demonstrated that they pose an unacceptable risk to others. But the 5th Circuit didn't see it that way.
3/The 5th Circuit held: “Rahimi while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the 2nd Am’s guarantees, all other things equal.” They wrote the "ban on possession of firearms is an ‘outlier[] that our ancestors would never have accepted"
1/The week start offs with a bang with Donald Trump on the witness stand in NY today, toddler-ish lack of self control & all. The Judge has already ruled on fraud claims that, if they succeed on appeal, will end the family's NY real estate business. Still at issue: $ damages.
2/Monday is also the deadline for Special Counsel Jack Smith to respond to Trump’s dispositive motions in the District of Columbia. What’s a dispositive motion? A defendant can attack the legal basis for the case, arguing prosecutors got the law wrong or engaged in misconduct.
3/That's what Trump has done, arguing, the indictment must be dismissed b/c he has presidential immunity, it is infirm for constitutional &statutory reasons, & b/c of prosecutorial vindictiveness and selective prosecution. Special Counsel's responses to the last 3 are due today
1/ Last night in my newsletter I wonder if Judge Cannon, who has been so unstinting in her criticism of prosecutors, might have some to spare for the Trump's lawyers after it came to light they'd concealed a motion to continue they were filing in DC from her.
2/But of course no, she did not. Instead she chastised prosecutors for violating word limits & showed no interest that Trump's lawyers asked her to delay the MAL case because of the DC case, without telling her they'd filed a motion to delay in DC.
3/In my experience, judges get very worked up about this kind of thing. Lawyers have a duty of candor to the court. Judges take it seriously. You can't ask a judge to delay your case because it conflicts with another—when you're asking that judge to delay too. & not disclose it.