Hello, it’s the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕️
At one point during Trump’s sentencing hearing on Friday, Judge Juan Merchan remarked that while the circumstances of the case were unique, there was nothing really that unusual about the trial itself.
“The trial was a bit of a paradox,” Merchan said. “Because once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial was no more special, unique, or extraordinary than any of the other 32 criminal trials that took place in this courthouse at the same time.”
It’s true. The core charge brought against Trump — falsification of business records — was nothing unusual. I sat through the entire trial in the spring, and attended sentencing on Friday. The form of the trial itself was typical — as drab and impersonal in its environs and the manner in which it proceeded as any other legal proceeding. What made it fascinating was the collision with Trump’s ego, and his multi-year attempt to ram his way through the criminal justice system in the hopes that he could make it to the other side intact.
I don’t want to be too precious about the rule of law issues here. We all know who Trump is; we also all know the extensive flaws that have undermined faith in the rule of law and justice institutions over the past several years and decades. Though the trial showcased the ways in which Trump presents a unique threat to the rule of law, it’s still hard for me to contemplate the damage he has done without almost reflexively thinking of all of the police killings that led to Black Lives Matter protests, or the failure of the Obama administration to try to hold any Wall Street executive criminally accountable after the financial crisis. It’s hard to imagine an American billionaire seriously being threatened by a prosecution at this point. Now, I recognize that these are all different problems stemming from different causes. But they each contribute to the impression of a justice system that seems to have one standard for elites, and another for everyone else. Trump may be a convicted felon, but he will face no punishment. In ten days, he’ll be President.
At the same time, going to Trump’s trial each day brought that disparity — and the “paradox” Merchan highlighted — into focus: the courthouse was dingy, with barely functional climate control. It’s a far cry from the luxury in which Trump has spent his entire life, and the sheer power that he’s about to assume. The process was imposed on him as much as any consequence of the result. But that is, as Merchan said, part of what made the trial so “extraordinary.”
— Josh Kovensky
Here’s what else TPM has on tap this weekend:
- Hunter Walker looks ahead to Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing and whether he can still be confirmed despite his flaming pile of scandals.
- Kate Riga reports on Friday’s Supreme Court oral arguments on a law involving TikTok’s future operations in the U.S. and the way in which the arguments laid bare a fracture in the Republican coalition under Donald Trump.
- Khaya Himmelman looks at the legal roadmap ahead after the North Carolina Supreme Court blocked the certification of an election victory by the Democratic incumbent justice on that very court.
- Emine Yücel weighs in on Tom Homan’s rhetorical gymnastics as he outlines the Trump administration’s at-the-moment incoherent plan to deport undocumented immigrants and supposed criminals.
Can Pete Hegseth Survive His Mountain Of Scandals?
The confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth, once-and-future President Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, poses some interesting questions for us all. Namely, how much scandalousness can one person engage in and still have a position in the Trump Cabinet?
The fact that Hegseth’s uniquely checkered past has yet to sink his nomination has put the spotlight on Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), a member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. Ernst has been critical of Hegseth’s past comments on women in the military and she is widely seen as the pivotal swing vote.
And Hegseth has truly tested the limits of what any Republican might be willing to overlook for Trump.
As you may recall, Hegseth, a former Fox News host, was accused of rape in 2017. Hegseth, who has maintained that allegation was false, has said a confidential financial settlement he reached with the woman who made the claim was made solely in an effort to protect his job. The many awful details of that alleged incident include the fact Hegseth was going through his second divorce at the time. That breakup was ongoing in 2018 when Hegseth’s own mother wrote an email accusing him of having engaged in all manner of marital misdeeds including infidelity and having “abused” women.
Hegseth’s personal life may have made the most headlines, but it’s hardly the only issue with his nomination.
In his writing (both as a young man and after beginning his career at Fox), Hegseth railed against the LGBTQ community and efforts to promote diversity. He also took a number of extreme positions that are quite notable for a man who could potentially lead the Pentagon, including describing efforts to eliminate far right extremists from the ranks of the armed forces as “insidious” and arguing women do not necessarily belong in combat roles.
Hegseth also sports tattoos with symbols that have been linked to far right extremism. When TPM inquired about his ink and his extremist positions, we were dubbed a “jackass” in an angry text from an unnamed Hegseth adviser.
To top all this off, Hegseth also had a slew of issues as he led a veterans group from 2013 until 2016. Former employees compiled a report detailing a series of concerning allegations, including several that involved issues with Hegseth’s allegedly excessive drinking.
It’s extremely rare for the Senate to reject a Cabinet nominee. The last time it happened was 1989 when there were similar concerns about excessive alcohol use.
Hegseth has responded to the mountain of scandals by promising to stop drinking if he is confirmed and otherwise trying to power through the nomination process. And, in recent weeks, there have been some indications that that approach is working.
On Dec. 12, the New York Times published a detailed account of what was described as the “resurrection” of Hegseth’s bid to lead the Pentagon. According to that report, Trump had been convinced to let Hegseth stick it out after his pick to be attorney general — Matt Gaetz – flamed out and bowed out amid his own series of scandals. The Times also detailed something of a pressure campaign from Trump allies — including some associated with the Heritage Foundation’s confirmation push — aimed at convincing reluctant Republican senators to get behind Hegseth.
However, as MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell smartly pointed out, that report simply detailed continued support for Hegseth. It didn’t reveal the key fact: whether he has the votes and, specifically, if he had won over Ernst.
Ernst is crucial since one defection on the committee would technically be enough to stop the nomination from moving forward. However, there are signs Ernst may be on board including relatively positive statements from her office and a Jan. 5 CBS report that Senate Majority Leader John Thune has “privately told President-elect Donald Trump that he believes Pete Hegseth will have the votes to be confirmed as Secretary of Defense.” But, once again, the reporting was not definitive. Thune did not confirm or deny the report.
Ernst’s office did not respond to questions from TPM about whether she has made up her mind.
With the confirmation hearings set to start on Tuesday, we’re about to find out whether Hegseth will be able to overcome his scandalous baggage. One Democratic source who is actively working on efforts to oppose the nomination said it will all come down to Ernst, and the conventional wisdom is that she would need the “cover” of another member of the committee joining her to vote Hegseth down. The Democrat suggested Ernst, who is up for re-election this year, is in an unenviable position.
“She’s either going to get primaries coming out of this or she’s going to get hit in the general election with, ‘You’re just a sycophant for your party and you put someone deeply unqualified in charge of the Pentagon,” the source said.
— Hunter Walker
‘Paternalism’ v. ‘Real Risk’: TikTok Case Presses On Libertarian Tech Bro/Old School GOP Divide
Friday’s Supreme Court arguments on a law mandating that TikTok’s parent company sell the social media platform or shut it down in the U.S. exposed a fracture in the Republican coalition under Donald Trump.
For old school Republicans (and many Democrats), China is the prominent antagonist, and the notion of the PRC manipulating tender-headed Americans through a seemingly innocuous video newsfeed is a horrifying one.
“Congress and the President were concerned that China was accessing information about millions of Americans — tens of millions of Americans — including teenagers and people in their 20s, and that they would use that information over time to develop spies, to turn people, to blackmail people — people who, a generation from now, will be working in the FBI or the CIA or the State Department,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, giving voice to this camp.
The man who tried to convince him otherwise, that TikTok is a critical speech platform and that concerns of Chinese manipulation are overwrought, was Noel Francisco, Trump’s old solicitor general, arguing on behalf of the social media platform. Francisco seemed to find his staunchest ally in Justice Neil Gorsuch, generally the most libertarian conservative justice on the bench.
“Isn’t that a pretty paternalistic point of view?” Gorsuch asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar about the administration’s concern about the covert manipulation. “Don’t we normally assume that the best remedy for problematic speech is counter speech?”
Most of the justices began arguments in Kavanaugh’s posture, though as arguments went on they spent more time interrogating the government’s position that the content manipulation concerns aren’t a form of content-based restriction, which would trigger heightened First Amendment protections. The justices sounded opposed enough to TikTok’s argument to suggest that they’ll uphold the ban — but had qualms about government overreach. TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, whether posturing or sincere, has said that it would shut down TikTok in the U.S. rather than divest.
The arguments were a microcosm of an ideological schism in a party that now stretches to include self-styled tech cowboys like Elon Musk and establishment China hawks like Mitch McConnell. Trump’s flip-flop on banning TikTok over the past four years reveals his attempt to balance these countervailing factions.
“As far as TikTok is concerned, we’re banning them from the United States,” he told reporters on Air Force One in 2020.
At the time, he was explicit that his hunger for a ban stemmed from animosity towards China, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. He followed up the threat with an executive order forcing ByteDance to divest or face sanctions. That order was blocked by the courts and later retracted by President Joe Biden, though Congress would soon pass a law forcing TikTok to be sold or face a ban.
Fast forward four years to when Trump is running for president — enjoying massive popularity on TikTok — and had just met Jeff Yass, a major Republican donor who happens to own a large share of ByteDance, per the New York Times.
“I’m now a big star on TikTok,” Trump said in September 2024 on Truth Social. “We’re not doing anything with TikTok but the other side’s going to close it up. So if you like TikTok, go out and vote for Trump. If you don’t care about TikTok — and other things like safety, security and prosperity — then you can vote for a Marxist who’s going to destroy our country.”
He now fully opposes the ban and has filed briefs in the Supreme Court case calling for the deadline to be extended so he can negotiate a new deal — a tacit statement about which wing of his party is ascendant.
— Kate Riga
Republicans On The NC Supreme Court Blocked Certification Of A Dem Victory – What Happens Now?
Earlier this week, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in a 4-2 order, blocked the State Election Board from certifying the Democratic winner of a Supreme Court race, but the legal battle is far from over.
The state Supreme Court has set a briefing schedule that, as of now, will span through January 24th, to resolve the matter.
The State Supreme Court has ordered the Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin to file his legal argument by January 14. His brief will argue in favor of tossing out 60,000 November ballots, in an effort to steal the election from Democratic incumbent and apparent winner of the race, Allison Riggs. The State Election Board, which last month rejected Griffin’s ballot challenges, has until January 21 to respond. Griffin must then file a reply brief by January 24.
Republican Justice Trey Allen, in a concurring opinion this week, wrote that although he agreed with temporarily blocking the certification of Riggs as the winner, the order, “should not be taken to mean that Judge Griffin will ultimately prevail on the merits.” But, rather, that “the Court has merely ensured that it will have adequate time to consider the arguments made by Judge Griffin in his petition for writ of prohibition.”
The case has bounced between federal and state courts since the State Board of Elections rejected Griffin’s ballot challenges, but right now, resides with the state Supreme Court.
Riggs, however, this week requested an expedited review in federal court, after appealing a federal judge’s decision to have the case remanded back to the state Supreme Court. In her motion to expedite, Riggs requested a briefing schedule so that the appeal could be heard between January 28 and 31. That appeal is currently pending.
Alongside’s Rigg’s appeal, Democrats have rallied around Riggs, demanding that Griffin concede. And a coalition of voting rights groups has launched a billboard campaign and an online petition against Griffin to highlight his campaign to undermine the will of the voters.
— Khaya Himmelman
Words Of Wisdom
“They know exactly who they’re going to arrest. They know exactly where they’re probably likely to find them…”
That’s Tom Homan, the man Trump tapped as border czar for his incoming administration, last weekend attempting to explain how ICE will find and arrest supposedly known criminals who are in the United States illegally.
This “they know exactly where they’re probably likely” rhetoric sure does a lot of work to build confidence in Homan’s leadership and ICE’s ability to track undocumented immigrants and alleged criminals.
I’m sure they will definitely probably likely find and deport them all in no time.
— Emine Yücel
