web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Trump, Donald J" (Page 125)

Why Republicans Will Sidestep Their Garland Rule for the Court in 2020

Westlake Legal Group 00DC-Hulse1-facebookJumbo Why Republicans Will Sidestep Their Garland Rule for the Court in 2020 United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Supreme Court (US) Senate Committee on the Judiciary Republican Party Presidential Election of 2020 Presidential Election of 2016 Obama, Barack McConnell, Mitch Ginsburg, Ruth Bader Garland, Merrick B Democratic Party Appointments and Executive Changes

WASHINGTON — When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was released from the hospital last weekend after another in a string of health scares, blue America breathed a sigh of relief. Only one more month, many whispered, until the start of a presidential election year when filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court would be off limits in the Senate.

But would it?

That was the case in 2016 when Senate Republicans stonewalled President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland to fill an opening that occurred with 11 months left in Mr. Obama’s tenure. “Let the people decide,” was the Republican mantra at the time, as they argued that it was improper to consider Mr. Obama’s nominee when voters were only months away from electing a new president who should get the opportunity to make his or her own choice on a Supreme Court justice.

But with the tables turned and Republicans holding the White House, that almost certainly would not be their refrain in 2020 if a court seat were to open up through death or retirement.

Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, majority leader and unapologetic mastermind of the 2016 Garland blockade, has made clear that he would move ahead with a Supreme Court nominee from President Trump. The only potential barrier would be resistance from his own party on the grounds it would be hypocritical and unfair for Republicans to do what they prevented Democrats from doing four years ago.

Widespread defections on that basis seem highly unlikely.

And Senator Susan Collins, the moderate Republican from Maine who broke with her party and backed holding a confirmation hearing and vote on Judge Garland in 2016, said she would take the same position in 2020: Should a vacancy arise, the sitting president should get the chance to choose a nominee, and the Senate should move forward to confirm.

“My standard on the nomination of Supreme Court nominees remains the same,” she said. “As long as the president is in office, he has the constitutional right to nominate. I thought that Merrick Garland should have had a hearing and a vote. Now obviously, senators could have voted against him based on the timing. But to block the nomination from proceeding at all, I thought was wrong.”

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, oversaw the Judiciary Committee but refused to convene a hearing for Judge Garland and met with him only grudgingly. As a result, he said last year that he would not consider a nominee in 2020 if he were still chairman of the panel. But he has since left the top spot on the panel to take over the Finance Committee, sparing him the prospect of either going back on his word or infuriating Mr. Trump and his colleagues. Allies say they doubt he would take a stand against a nominee since he is no longer chairman.

Republicans say the difference between 2016 and 2020 is one of political alignment. Democrats held the White House and Republicans controlled the Senate in 2016; Republicans now control both. To Mr. McConnell and his colleagues, that shift justifies their new position. But in 2016, Republicans focused most of their argument against taking up Mr. Obama’s nominee not on party control, but on the basis of the approaching presidential election, and they would face thunderous charges of hypocrisy if they took up a nomination next year.

Democrats remain angry over the treatment of both Mr. Obama and Judge Garland and expect Republicans to move aggressively if the chance arose for Mr. Trump to place a third nominee on the court. Should any nominee replace one of the four justices picked by Democratic presidents, it would cement a commanding 6-to-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, and the lure of that lineup would probably prove irresistible to Republicans.

“Do you have any Republican senator saying that in 2020 we won’t ram through a Supreme Court nominee?” asked Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware and a member of the Judiciary Committee. “Of course they will.”

Mr. Coons, an active player on judicial nominations, called the stonewalling of Judge Garland — a man some Republicans had earlier said they would consider a strong choice by a Democratic president — “among the worst things the Republicans have done in my decade in the Senate.” His colleagues agree. The dispute, which colored both the confirmation fights over Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, has badly frayed relationships both on the committee and in the Senate.

Should Republicans remain united, however, there is little Democrats could do to impede a nomination, because a series of rules changes has neutered the filibuster when it comes to judicial picks, meaning the majority party can push through the president’s choice without a single vote from the minority.

Though Democrats would lack procedural weapons, they and their allies say they would still mount a challenge using whatever tools available, and their attention would focus intently on the nominee. While it is hard to imagine proceedings more toxic than the Kavanaugh hearings, a move to install an election-year nominee with the specter of impeachment swirling in the capital would certainly be considered inflammatory by Democrats and those on the left.

“Any scenario where an impeached president is trying to jam through a Supreme Court pick in an election year, in direct defiance of the precedent Mitch McConnell set with Merrick Garland in 2016, would rightly spark a war,” said Brian Fallon, the head of Demand Justice, a progressive group formed in response to the Republican blockade of Judge Garland.

Mr. Coons said his preference would be that the conflict be avoided altogether and no vacancy arose. If one did, the fight would no doubt spill over into the presidential and congressional elections. It could also give momentum to calls by some Democratic presidential contenders and advocacy groups to reconfigure the court to offset what they see as an illegitimate conservative imbalance — building support for ideas that have not yet been embraced by the party mainstream.

“While there are few options we would have to stop that nominee before the election, my hope is it would mobilize Democrats at the polls to insist on restoring balance to the court,” Mr. Coons said.

One wild card is the timing of any vacancy. Judge Garland was nominated to replace Antonin Scalia, who died in mid-February, a time frame that would ordinarily be well beyond the period needed to pick a nominee for Senate review and a confirmation vote if it had not been for the Republican refusal to take up the nomination. A vacancy that occurred later in 2020, much closer to the election, could present Republicans with a tougher argument to make, though there would no doubt be intense pressure for them to move forward no matter what the calendar said.

But with no vacancy imminent — and Democrats holding their breath that none will occur — just one thing is certain about a potential 2020 Supreme Court fight: It would be brutal for all involved.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Where’s Lindsey? After G.O.P. Outcry, Graham Emerges as a Trump Defender

Westlake Legal Group 00dc-graham-facebookJumbo Where’s Lindsey? After G.O.P. Outcry, Graham Emerges as a Trump Defender United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Senate Republican Party impeachment Graham, Lindsey Conservatism (US Politics)

WASHINGTON — Late last month, as damaging revelations about President Trump began piling up in the impeachment inquiry, conservative commentators and activists, including one of the president’s sons, trained their anger on an unlikely target: Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

Mr. Graham, normally one of the president’s most ardent defenders in the Senate, had “not lifted a finger to help this president,” said the Fox News host Lou Dobbs, a friend of Mr. Trump’s. “Lindsey Graham Keeps Making Empty Promises” was the headline for a segment on Tucker Carlson’s prime-time Fox program. Donald Trump Jr. weighed in using a trending hashtag: “#WheresLindsey.”

Now, Mr. Graham, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who had a star turn in the nation’s last impeachment drama as a manager in the trial of President Bill Clinton, has surfaced as an aggressive and unapologetically partisan defender of Mr. Trump, even starting his own investigation into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter.

In the space of a few weeks, Mr. Graham, who has long prided himself on being an institutionalist, has gone from expressing an open mind about impeachment to becoming a leader of the president’s counterattack. He has angrily denounced the House inquiry — “Salem witches got a better deal than this!” he tweeted on Wednesday — while generally acquiescing to calls from an outraged party base to mount a more vigorous defense of the president. Like Mr. Trump, he faces re-election next year.

“I think Lindsey Graham has heard the message,” said former Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, who appeared on “Fox & Friends” in the media blitz last month to call the senator to action.

At the time, Mr. Graham was separating himself from the impeachment debate, instead drawing attention for his vocal criticism of Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw American forces from northern Syria. He vowed to “become President Trump’s worst nightmare” over what he called “the biggest mistake of his presidency.”

Mr. Trump was not pleased.

“I think Lindsey should focus on Judiciary,” he told reporters at the White House.

Still, Mr. Graham was wary of using his powerful perch on the committee to carry out Mr. Trump’s wishes. He privately rejected the idea of opening an investigation into the Bidens, seen by many Republicans as a way to validate Mr. Trump’s efforts to get Ukraine to announce it was scrutinizing the former vice president — the conduct at the center of the impeachment inquiry. And when he was asked in an interview if he was open to supporting impeachment, Mr. Graham told Axios he was, if new evidence of wrongdoing came to light.

With those comments, long-simmering conservative frustration at Mr. Graham boiled over, and over the next two days, one by one, nearly half a dozen right-wing heavyweights made television appearances savaging the senator.

“Senator Graham is taking a very measured approach, but he is right on the precipice of a lot of frustration that he doesn’t actually hold people accountable,” Mr. Chaffetz said. “He has the gavel, and he has the personality and the reason to bring these people in.”

A spokesman for Mr. Graham declined to make him available for an interview and instead directed a reporter to an appearance the senator had made on Fox News.

“When House Republicans tried to ask these questions about the role of Hunter Biden in the investigation of the gas company, they were shut down — so, I’m going to ask,” Mr. Graham said in the interview this week.

“President Trump wants to find out about corruption in Ukraine,” he continued. “And if there’s nothing there, fine. I hope there’s not.”

The position constitutes a turnabout from just last month, when Mr. Graham persistently worked to distance himself from any talk of investigating the Bidens, to the annoyance of House Republicans who had been working to construct an impeachment counterattack, according to people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private discussions.

He privately told colleagues in the Senate that he did not think opening an investigation was necessary and that he did not want to do it, some of the people said. Pressed again and again by conservative interviewers, he replied that it was outside his committee’s purview and suggested that an inquiry should be taken up by Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

And in conversations with reporters on Capitol Hill, Mr. Graham was similarly reluctant, citing his respect for the Senate as an institution.

“I’m going to do it the way I want to do it,” he told The Washington Post. “I’m not going to turn the Senate into a circus.”

Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, who has traveled and worked with Mr. Graham on the Judiciary Committee, has sharply criticized his decision to investigate the Bidens.

“I think we’re seeing two different competing forces play out in Senator Graham’s recent actions,” Mr. Coons said.

“He is going to have to choose whether what he’s doing is insisting on thoroughness and making sure everything is investigated, or whether he is creating a distraction away from impeachment simply to throw sand in the air,” said Mr. Coons, who has endorsed Mr. Biden.

Mr. Graham’s own history has complicated his role. Long before he was a close ally and golfing buddy of Mr. Trump, he branded candidate Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” during the 2016 presidential campaign. And he counted Mr. Biden among his friends when the two served together in the Senate; video recently surfaced of Mr. Graham choking up as he referred to the former vice president being “as good a man as God ever created.”

That is not the Lindsey Graham conservatives care to hear from these days. Many of them are openly pining for the kind of performance — red-faced, blustery and unapologetic — that he gave during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Brett M. Kavanaugh, when he declared the proceedings “the most unethical sham” he had ever seen in politics.

“This Lindsey Graham stopped a bloodthirsty, farcical attack from the Left on our nation’s most honored institutions,” Benny Johnson, the chief creative officer at Turning Point USA, a right-wing student organization, wrote on Twitter last month, posting a video of Mr. Graham’s Kavanaugh tirade. “Lindsey crushed these attacks. Do it again Lindsey.”

Before long, Mr. Graham obliged. He introduced a resolution to condemn House Democrats’ impeachment process and dialed back his criticism of how Republicans were approaching the matter. After initially deriding as “nuts” House Republicans’ decision to storm a closed-door deposition in a secure room where an impeachment witness was testifying, Mr. Graham quickly walked back his rebuke, blaming reporters for mischaracterizing the protest.

And last week, Mr. Graham went much further, asking the State Department for documents related to the Bidens and other Obama administration officials’ dealings with Ukrainians in 2016, signaling that he may delve into a debunked theory Mr. Trump has pushed that Democratic officials conspired with Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election.

Privately, some of Mr. Trump’s most ardent defenders worried that Mr. Graham would become yet another Republican committee chairman in the Senate who was failing the president. That is how they regarded Senator Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, after he issued a subpoena in May for the younger Mr. Trump during his panel’s investigation into Russian election interference.

In that case, Republican allies of the president declared war on the Intelligence Committee and turned several Republican senators against Mr. Burr. Some party leaders say that Mr. Graham has reason to worry about the same fate — and that voters might follow suit.

“Republican voters expect elected officials to show their full support of the president,” said Matt Moore, the former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party. “Thus far, Senator Graham has navigated that dynamic really well. But he’s only one tweet away from being on the president’s naughty list.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Where’s Lindsey? After G.O.P. Outcry, Graham Emerges as a Trump Defender

Westlake Legal Group 00dc-graham-facebookJumbo Where’s Lindsey? After G.O.P. Outcry, Graham Emerges as a Trump Defender United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Senate Republican Party impeachment Graham, Lindsey Conservatism (US Politics)

WASHINGTON — Late last month, as damaging revelations about President Trump began piling up in the impeachment inquiry, conservative commentators and activists, including one of the president’s sons, trained their anger on an unlikely target: Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

Mr. Graham, normally one of the president’s most ardent defenders in the Senate, had “not lifted a finger to help this president,” said the Fox News host Lou Dobbs, a friend of Mr. Trump’s. “Lindsey Graham Keeps Making Empty Promises” was the headline for a segment on Tucker Carlson’s prime-time Fox program. Donald Trump Jr. weighed in using a trending hashtag: “#WheresLindsey.”

Now, Mr. Graham, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who had a star turn in the nation’s last impeachment drama as a manager in the trial of President Bill Clinton, has surfaced as an aggressive and unapologetically partisan defender of Mr. Trump, even starting his own investigation into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter.

In the space of a few weeks, Mr. Graham, who has long prided himself on being an institutionalist, has gone from expressing an open mind about impeachment to becoming a leader of the president’s counterattack. He has angrily denounced the House inquiry — “Salem witches got a better deal than this!” he tweeted on Wednesday — while generally acquiescing to calls from an outraged party base to mount a more vigorous defense of the president. Like Mr. Trump, he faces re-election next year.

“I think Lindsey Graham has heard the message,” said former Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, who appeared on “Fox & Friends” in the media blitz last month to call the senator to action.

At the time, Mr. Graham was separating himself from the impeachment debate, instead drawing attention for his vocal criticism of Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw American forces from northern Syria. He vowed to “become President Trump’s worst nightmare” over what he called “the biggest mistake of his presidency.”

Mr. Trump was not pleased.

“I think Lindsey should focus on Judiciary,” he told reporters at the White House.

Still, Mr. Graham was wary of using his powerful perch on the committee to carry out Mr. Trump’s wishes. He privately rejected the idea of opening an investigation into the Bidens, seen by many Republicans as a way to validate Mr. Trump’s efforts to get Ukraine to announce it was scrutinizing the former vice president — the conduct at the center of the impeachment inquiry. And when he was asked in an interview if he was open to supporting impeachment, Mr. Graham told Axios he was, if new evidence of wrongdoing came to light.

With those comments, long-simmering conservative frustration at Mr. Graham boiled over, and over the next two days, one by one, nearly half a dozen right-wing heavyweights made television appearances savaging the senator.

“Senator Graham is taking a very measured approach, but he is right on the precipice of a lot of frustration that he doesn’t actually hold people accountable,” Mr. Chaffetz said. “He has the gavel, and he has the personality and the reason to bring these people in.”

A spokesman for Mr. Graham declined to make him available for an interview and instead directed a reporter to an appearance the senator had made on Fox News.

“When House Republicans tried to ask these questions about the role of Hunter Biden in the investigation of the gas company, they were shut down — so, I’m going to ask,” Mr. Graham said in the interview this week.

“President Trump wants to find out about corruption in Ukraine,” he continued. “And if there’s nothing there, fine. I hope there’s not.”

The position constitutes a turnabout from just last month, when Mr. Graham persistently worked to distance himself from any talk of investigating the Bidens, to the annoyance of House Republicans who had been working to construct an impeachment counterattack, according to people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private discussions.

He privately told colleagues in the Senate that he did not think opening an investigation was necessary and that he did not want to do it, some of the people said. Pressed again and again by conservative interviewers, he replied that it was outside his committee’s purview and suggested that an inquiry should be taken up by Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

And in conversations with reporters on Capitol Hill, Mr. Graham was similarly reluctant, citing his respect for the Senate as an institution.

“I’m going to do it the way I want to do it,” he told The Washington Post. “I’m not going to turn the Senate into a circus.”

Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, who has traveled and worked with Mr. Graham on the Judiciary Committee, has sharply criticized his decision to investigate the Bidens.

“I think we’re seeing two different competing forces play out in Senator Graham’s recent actions,” Mr. Coons said.

“He is going to have to choose whether what he’s doing is insisting on thoroughness and making sure everything is investigated, or whether he is creating a distraction away from impeachment simply to throw sand in the air,” said Mr. Coons, who has endorsed Mr. Biden.

Mr. Graham’s own history has complicated his role. Long before he was a close ally and golfing buddy of Mr. Trump, he branded candidate Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” during the 2016 presidential campaign. And he counted Mr. Biden among his friends when the two served together in the Senate; video recently surfaced of Mr. Graham choking up as he referred to the former vice president being “as good a man as God ever created.”

That is not the Lindsey Graham conservatives care to hear from these days. Many of them are openly pining for the kind of performance — red-faced, blustery and unapologetic — that he gave during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Brett M. Kavanaugh, when he declared the proceedings “the most unethical sham” he had ever seen in politics.

“This Lindsey Graham stopped a bloodthirsty, farcical attack from the Left on our nation’s most honored institutions,” Benny Johnson, the chief creative officer at Turning Point USA, a right-wing student organization, wrote on Twitter last month, posting a video of Mr. Graham’s Kavanaugh tirade. “Lindsey crushed these attacks. Do it again Lindsey.”

Before long, Mr. Graham obliged. He introduced a resolution to condemn House Democrats’ impeachment process and dialed back his criticism of how Republicans were approaching the matter. After initially deriding as “nuts” House Republicans’ decision to storm a closed-door deposition in a secure room where an impeachment witness was testifying, Mr. Graham quickly walked back his rebuke, blaming reporters for mischaracterizing the protest.

And last week, Mr. Graham went much further, asking the State Department for documents related to the Bidens and other Obama administration officials’ dealings with Ukrainians in 2016, signaling that he may delve into a debunked theory Mr. Trump has pushed that Democratic officials conspired with Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election.

Privately, some of Mr. Trump’s most ardent defenders worried that Mr. Graham would become yet another Republican committee chairman in the Senate who was failing the president. That is how they regarded Senator Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, after he issued a subpoena in May for the younger Mr. Trump during his panel’s investigation into Russian election interference.

In that case, Republican allies of the president declared war on the Intelligence Committee and turned several Republican senators against Mr. Burr. Some party leaders say that Mr. Graham has reason to worry about the same fate — and that voters might follow suit.

“Republican voters expect elected officials to show their full support of the president,” said Matt Moore, the former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party. “Thus far, Senator Graham has navigated that dynamic really well. But he’s only one tweet away from being on the president’s naughty list.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Would Republicans Follow Their Garland Rule for the Court in 2020?

Westlake Legal Group 00DC-Hulse1-facebookJumbo Would Republicans Follow Their Garland Rule for the Court in 2020? United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Supreme Court (US) Senate Committee on the Judiciary Republican Party Presidential Election of 2020 Presidential Election of 2016 Obama, Barack McConnell, Mitch Ginsburg, Ruth Bader Garland, Merrick B Democratic Party Appointments and Executive Changes

WASHINGTON — When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was released from the hospital last weekend after another in a string of health scares, blue America breathed a sigh of relief. Only one more month, many whispered, until the start of a presidential election year when filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court would be off limits in the Senate.

But would it?

That was the case in 2016 when Senate Republicans stonewalled President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland to fill an opening that occurred with 11 months left in Mr. Obama’s tenure. “Let the people decide,” was the Republican mantra at the time, as they argued that it was improper to consider Mr. Obama’s nominee when voters were only months away from electing a new president who should get the opportunity to make his or her own choice on a Supreme Court justice.

But with the tables turned and Republicans holding the White House, that almost certainly would not be their refrain in 2020 if a court seat were to open up through death or retirement.

Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, majority leader and unapologetic mastermind of the 2016 Garland blockade, has made clear that he would move ahead with a high court nominee from President Trump. The only potential barrier would be resistance from his own party on the grounds it would be hypocritical and unfair for Republicans to do what they prevented Democrats from doing four years ago.

Widespread defections on that basis seem highly unlikely.

And Senator Susan Collins, the moderate Republican from Maine who broke with her party and backed holding a confirmation hearing and vote on Judge Garland in 2016, said she would take the same position in 2020: Should a vacancy arise, the sitting president should get the chance to choose a nominee, and the Senate should move forward to confirm.

“My standard on the nomination of Supreme Court nominees remains the same,” she said. “As long as the president is in office, he has the constitutional right to nominate. I thought that Merrick Garland should have had a hearing and a vote. Now obviously, senators could have voted against him based on the timing. But to block the nomination from proceeding at all, I thought was wrong.”

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, chaired the Judiciary Committee but refused to convene a hearing for Judge Garland and met with him only grudgingly. As a result, he said last year that he would not consider a nominee in 2020 if he were still chairman of the panel. But he has since left the top spot on the panel to take over the Finance Committee, sparing him the prospect of either going back on his word or infuriating Mr. Trump and his colleagues. Allies say they doubt he would take a stand against a nominee since he is no longer chairman.

Republicans say the difference between 2016 and 2020 is one of political alignment. Democrats held the White House and Republicans controlled the Senate in 2016; Republicans now control both. To Mr. McConnell and his colleagues, that shift justifies their new position. But in 2016, Republicans focused most of their argument against taking up Mr. Obama’s nominee not on party control, but on the basis of the approaching presidential election, and they would face thunderous charges of hypocrisy if they took up a nomination next year.

Democrats remain angry over the treatment of both Mr. Obama and Judge Garland and expect Republicans to move aggressively if the chance arose for Mr. Trump to place a third nominee on the court. Should any nominee replace one of the four justices picked by Democratic presidents, it would cement a commanding 6-3 conservative majority on the high court, and the lure of that lineup would probably prove irresistible to Republicans.

“Do you have any Republican senator saying that in 2020 we won’t ram through a Supreme Court nominee?” asked Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware and a member of the Judiciary Committee. “Of course they will.”

Mr. Coons, an active player on judicial nominations, called the stonewalling of Judge Garland — a man some Republicans had earlier said they would consider a strong choice by a Democratic president — “among the worst things the Republicans have done in my decade in the Senate.” His colleagues agree. The dispute, which colored both the confirmation fights over Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, has badly frayed relationships both on the committee and in the Senate.

Should Republicans remain united, however, there is little Democrats could do to impede a nomination, because a series of rules changes has neutered the filibuster when it comes to judicial picks, meaning the majority party can push through the president’s choice without a single vote from the minority.

Though Democrats would lack procedural weapons, they and their allies say they would still mount a challenge using whatever tools available, and their attention would focus intently on the nominee. While it is hard to imagine proceedings more toxic than the Kavanaugh hearings, a move to install an election-year nominee with the specter of impeachment swirling in the capital would certainly be considered inflammatory by Democrats and those on the left.

“Any scenario where an impeached president is trying to jam through a Supreme Court pick in an election year, in direct defiance of the precedent Mitch McConnell set with Merrick Garland in 2016, would rightly spark a war,” said Brian Fallon, the head of Demand Justice, a progressive group formed in response to the Republican blockade of Judge Garland.

Mr. Coons said his preference would be that the conflict be avoided altogether and no vacancy arose. If one did, the fight would no doubt spill over into the presidential and congressional elections. It could also give momentum to calls by some Democratic presidential contenders and advocacy groups to reconfigure the court to offset what they see as an illegitimate conservative imbalance — building support for ideas that have not yet been embraced by the party mainstream.

“While there are few options we would have to stop that nominee before the election, my hope is it would mobilize Democrats at the polls to insist on restoring balance to the court,” Mr. Coons said.

One wild card is the timing of any vacancy. Judge Garland was nominated to replace Antonin Scalia, who died in mid-February, a time frame that would ordinarily be well beyond the period needed to pick a nominee for Senate review and a confirmation vote if it had not been for the Republican refusal to take up the nomination. A vacancy that occurred later in 2020, much closer to the election, could present Republicans with a tougher argument to make, though there would no doubt be intense pressure for them to move forward no matter what the calendar said.

But with no vacancy imminent — and Democrats holding their breath that none will occur — just one thing is certain about a potential 2020 Supreme Court fight: It would be brutal for all involved.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Donald Trump Jr., Debut Author, Sees Sales Bolstered by G.O.P. Allies

Westlake Legal Group 27donaldjr-2-facebookJumbo Donald Trump Jr., Debut Author, Sees Sales Bolstered by G.O.P. Allies United States Politics and Government Turning Point USA Trump, Donald J Jr Trump, Donald J Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us (Book) Republican Party Republican National Committee Presidential Election of 2020 National Republican Senatorial Committee National Republican Campaign Committee McCarthy, Kevin (1965- ) Kirk, Charlie (1993- ) Hachette Book Group Guilfoyle, Kimberly Gaetz, Matt Conservatism (US Politics) Citizens United Books and Literature Book Trade and Publishing America First Policies Amazon.com Inc

Boxes began arriving in early November at the Phoenix headquarters of Turning Point USA, a conservative student group with ties to the Trump family.

They contained copies of the new book by Donald Trump Jr., “Triggered,” according to a person who works in the building. The stockpile grew to roughly 2,000 copies, stored in an underused second-floor office under a poster bearing a slogan: “Capitalism Not Cronyism.”

Turning Point is not the only conservative group making bulk purchases to aid Mr. Trump’s new career as an author. At least nine Republican organizations, G.O.P. candidates or advocacy groups are selling “Triggered” or promoting Mr. Trump’s book tour, according to emails obtained by The New York Times, interviews and disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The president’s son has emerged over the past few years as a political star in his own right, often said to be considering a run for office. It is neither illegal nor uncommon for candidates and political organizations to use books in fund-raising drives: The National Republican Campaign Committee, for example, has also sold its donors titles by the former speakers Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan.

But the breadth of the Republican establishment’s effort behind Mr. Trump is striking for a noncandidate whose most significant claim to fame remains his parentage, and who has sought to deflect criticism of his recent attacks on impeachment witnesses by asserting that he is merely a “private citizen.” And it underscores the unusual cross-pollination between the Trump family’s political ambitions, its business ventures and the party President Trump now leads.

Some groups are harnessing the younger Mr. Trump’s popularity to raise political donations while also driving his sales. The N.R.C.C. bought $75,000 worth of books in November, a spokesman said, in a promotion that took in almost $200,000 in contributions. The National Republican Senatorial Committee ordered about 2,500 copies, which it said sold almost immediately.

The Republican National Committee and Citizens United, a conservative activist group run by a former deputy campaign manager to the president, are also offering the book to donors.

Earlier this month, the R.N.C. denied making large bulk purchases of the book, a practice that some best-seller lists, including that of The Times, may penalize authors for when ranking sales. But F.E.C. records released last week showed that it spent almost $100,000 on copies on Oct. 29, a transaction the committee acknowledged was part of its “Triggered” promotion.

Turning Point declined to discuss exactly how many copies the group had bought. But in a statement, a spokesman noted that Mr. Trump would be a featured speaker at the group’s student summit in Florida in December.

“When an author headlines a Turning Point USA event, we regularly purchase the author’s latest work for the students in our chapters who attend,” the spokesman said. “As one of our most requested speakers, Don is headlining our student-leadership conference in Florida this December, and so we purchased copies for some of the students, chapter leaders and V.I.P.s.”

Politicians closely allied with the president are also promoting his son’s book. Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida used his campaign list to promote a ticketed event on Mr. Trump’s book tour where the two men appeared together. The campaign committee for Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House minority leader, has offered copies to those who donate $35.

“Leader McCarthy shares a close relationship with Donald Trump Jr. and was thrilled to offer ‘Triggered’ to his campaign supporters,” said Drew Florio, a spokesman.

State Republican parties are also pushing the book, framing Mr. Trump’s tour as a campaign effort on his father’s behalf. The G.O.P. organizations in Arizona and Texas advertised tour stops in emails to supporters. The Times obtained copies of the promotions from CounterAction, a digital intelligence firm.

In Texas, where Mr. Trump headlined various fund-raisers, the party bought copies of “Triggered” to give “as a gift to each of the attendees,” according to the communications director for the state party.

“Kimberly and I chose Texas as one of our early stops because we know how important it is for 2020,” Mr. Trump wrote in a message distributed to Texas Republicans, referring to his girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle. “Democrats have their eyes on the Lone Star State and are willing to stop at nothing to silence conservatives and turn Texas blue.”

Party committees and candidates generally must report disbursements made to purchase books for donors, as the R.N.C. did. If no fund-raising is involved, they must obtain fair market value if someone uses the lists to promote their private business interests.

Bulk purchasing — some of it deliberately covert — is fairly common but still controversial in the publishing industry. Best-seller lists, like that of The Times, try to police the practice.

The Times, for instance, uses a dagger symbol to indicate bulk purchases. When “Triggered” debuted at No. 1 on the Times list, some observers were quick to point out that it was marked with a dagger.

And on occasion, The Times has removed a title from its best-seller list when evidence emerged that sales did not meet its standards for inclusion. A Times spokeswoman said there were no plans to reassess the presence of “Triggered” on the list.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump, Andy Surabian, said in a statement that any bulk buys were irrelevant to the book’s position on the list.

“In its opening week, ‘Triggered’ outsold its closest competition by roughly 40,000 copies and clearly would have been number one on the N.Y.T. list without the copies sold thru the R.N.C. and other G.O.P.-aligned organizations,” Mr. Surabian said. “Don is proud of the fact that the demand for ‘Triggered’ has been so high that it has allowed groups like the R.N.C., N.R.S.C. and the N.R.C.C. to net hundreds of thousands of dollars through their marketing of the book.”

When asked about big orders of “Triggered,” Mr. Trump’s publisher, Hachette Book Group, acknowledged that it had made sales to some non-retail organizations and noted that outlets might have sold the book in bulk. But it said it had no record of direct purchases by Turning Point.

Pictures provided to The Times, however, showed dozens of boxes of “Triggered” stacked in Turning Point’s office. At least some had shipped from a Hachette distribution center in Indiana.

There is little question Mr. Trump enjoys a substantial natural audience for “Triggered,” an extended screed against the American left. The book argues that liberals suffer from a victim complex and attacks undocumented immigrants among others.

Data shows that during the first two weeks of November, he sold tens of thousands of copies in areas where he made tour stops, including at Trump properties in Las Vegas and Washington.

Given his prominence on the national stage and Hachette’s significant promotional campaign, the book would almost certainly have reached the best-seller lists even without bulk sales.

“Triggered” sold 115,067 copies through the week ending on Nov. 16, the most recent for which figures are available, according to NPD BookScan. The book also hit No. 1 on The Washington Post’s nonfiction best-seller list and appeared in the top 10 of Amazon’s.

Mr. Trump appears to have been closely attuned to the public-relations coup of notching the top spot on the best-seller lists of newspapers his family routinely attacks.

“Can you imagine the Editor of The Failing New York Times, waking up one morning, having to put ‘Triggered’ by Donald Trump Jr. as the NUMBER ONE BOOK IN AMERICA?” Mr. Trump wrote in one marketing email.

That is not how the process works. Instead, The Times’s lists draw on sales data provided by a range of retailers.

Some publishing executives argue that authors who benefit from bulk purchases have an unfair advantage over writers who rely on organic sales. The visibility that comes with the best-seller list can have a huge impact on an author’s royalties, speaking fees and future publishing advances.

“The fact that it is preventing other authors from getting the recognition that they should rightfully be receiving is a bit unfair,” said Morgan Entrekin, publisher and chief executive of Grove Atlantic.

The purchase by Turning Point is an example of the mutually beneficial relationship between Mr. Trump and political allies he and his father have attracted.

Once a relatively minor organization, Turning Point has had a surge in prominence in recent years, bolstered by a close relationship with the Trumps. The group’s founder, Charlie Kirk, worked for the younger Mr. Trump during the 2016 campaign. Last year, the group received $50,000 from America First Policies, a pro-Trump organization where Ms. Guilfoyle has served as a vice chairwoman.

Mr. Trump has appeared at several Turning Point events. At one in California, he and Ms. Guilfoyle left early after being shouted down — not by liberals, but by far-right supporters who were angry he would not take questions, according to The Guardian.

In the latest Times best-seller list, released on Wednesday night, Mr. Trump lost the top spot, dropping to No. 2 among nonfiction books.

The week’s top seller was another title from Hachette: “A Warning,” by an anonymous senior Trump administration official who depicts the president as unfit for office.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Donald Trump Jr., Debut Author, Sees Sales Bolstered by G.O.P. Allies

Westlake Legal Group 27donaldjr-2-facebookJumbo Donald Trump Jr., Debut Author, Sees Sales Bolstered by G.O.P. Allies United States Politics and Government Turning Point USA Trump, Donald J Jr Trump, Donald J Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us (Book) Republican Party Republican National Committee Presidential Election of 2020 National Republican Senatorial Committee National Republican Campaign Committee McCarthy, Kevin (1965- ) Kirk, Charlie (1993- ) Hachette Book Group Guilfoyle, Kimberly Gaetz, Matt Conservatism (US Politics) Citizens United Books and Literature Book Trade and Publishing America First Policies Amazon.com Inc

Boxes began arriving in early November at the Phoenix headquarters of Turning Point USA, a conservative student group with ties to the Trump family.

They contained copies of the new book by Donald Trump Jr., “Triggered,” according to a person who works in the building. The stockpile grew to roughly 2,000 copies, stored in an underused second-floor office under a poster bearing a slogan: “Capitalism Not Cronyism.”

Turning Point is not the only conservative group making bulk purchases to aid Mr. Trump’s new career as an author. At least nine Republican organizations, G.O.P. candidates or advocacy groups are selling “Triggered” or promoting Mr. Trump’s book tour, according to emails obtained by The New York Times, interviews and disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The president’s son has emerged over the past few years as a political star in his own right, often said to be considering a run for office. It is neither illegal nor uncommon for candidates and political organizations to use books in fund-raising drives: The National Republican Campaign Committee, for example, has also sold its donors titles by the former speakers Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan.

But the breadth of the Republican establishment’s effort behind Mr. Trump is striking for a noncandidate whose most significant claim to fame remains his parentage, and who has sought to deflect criticism of his recent attacks on impeachment witnesses by asserting that he is merely a “private citizen.” And it underscores the unusual cross-pollination between the Trump family’s political ambitions, its business ventures and the party President Trump now leads.

Some groups are harnessing the younger Mr. Trump’s popularity to raise political donations while also driving his sales. The N.R.C.C. bought $75,000 worth of books in November, a spokesman said, in a promotion that took in almost $200,000 in contributions. The National Republican Senatorial Committee ordered about 2,500 copies, which it said sold almost immediately.

The Republican National Committee and Citizens United, a conservative activist group run by a former deputy campaign manager to the president, are also offering the book to donors.

Earlier this month, the R.N.C. denied making large bulk purchases of the book, a practice that some best-seller lists, including that of The Times, may penalize authors for when ranking sales. But F.E.C. records released last week showed that it spent almost $100,000 on copies on Oct. 29, a transaction the committee acknowledged was part of its “Triggered” promotion.

Turning Point declined to discuss exactly how many copies the group had bought. But in a statement, a spokesman noted that Mr. Trump would be a featured speaker at the group’s student summit in Florida in December.

“When an author headlines a Turning Point USA event, we regularly purchase the author’s latest work for the students in our chapters who attend,” the spokesman said. “As one of our most requested speakers, Don is headlining our student-leadership conference in Florida this December, and so we purchased copies for some of the students, chapter leaders and V.I.P.s.”

Politicians closely allied with the president are also promoting his son’s book. Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida used his campaign list to promote a ticketed event on Mr. Trump’s book tour where the two men appeared together. The campaign committee for Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House minority leader, has offered copies to those who donate $35.

“Leader McCarthy shares a close relationship with Donald Trump Jr. and was thrilled to offer ‘Triggered’ to his campaign supporters,” said Drew Florio, a spokesman.

State Republican parties are also pushing the book, framing Mr. Trump’s tour as a campaign effort on his father’s behalf. The G.O.P. organizations in Arizona and Texas advertised tour stops in emails to supporters. The Times obtained copies of the promotions from CounterAction, a digital intelligence firm.

In Texas, where Mr. Trump headlined various fund-raisers, the party bought copies of “Triggered” to give “as a gift to each of the attendees,” according to the communications director for the state party.

“Kimberly and I chose Texas as one of our early stops because we know how important it is for 2020,” Mr. Trump wrote in a message distributed to Texas Republicans, referring to his girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle. “Democrats have their eyes on the Lone Star State and are willing to stop at nothing to silence conservatives and turn Texas blue.”

Party committees and candidates generally must report disbursements made to purchase books for donors, as the R.N.C. did. If no fund-raising is involved, they must obtain fair market value if someone uses the lists to promote their private business interests.

Bulk purchasing — some of it deliberately covert — is fairly common but still controversial in the publishing industry. Best-seller lists, like that of The Times, try to police the practice.

The Times, for instance, uses a dagger symbol to indicate bulk purchases. When “Triggered” debuted at No. 1 on the Times list, some observers were quick to point out that it was marked with a dagger.

And on occasion, The Times has removed a title from its best-seller list when evidence emerged that sales did not meet its standards for inclusion. A Times spokeswoman said there were no plans to reassess the presence of “Triggered” on the list.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump, Andy Surabian, said in a statement that any bulk buys were irrelevant to the book’s position on the list.

“In its opening week, ‘Triggered’ outsold its closest competition by roughly 40,000 copies and clearly would have been number one on the N.Y.T. list without the copies sold thru the R.N.C. and other G.O.P.-aligned organizations,” Mr. Surabian said. “Don is proud of the fact that the demand for ‘Triggered’ has been so high that it has allowed groups like the R.N.C., N.R.S.C. and the N.R.C.C. to net hundreds of thousands of dollars through their marketing of the book.”

When asked about big orders of “Triggered,” Mr. Trump’s publisher, Hachette Book Group, acknowledged that it had made sales to some non-retail organizations and noted that outlets might have sold the book in bulk. But it said it had no record of direct purchases by Turning Point.

Pictures provided to The Times, however, showed dozens of boxes of “Triggered” stacked in Turning Point’s office. At least some had shipped from a Hachette distribution center in Indiana.

There is little question Mr. Trump enjoys a substantial natural audience for “Triggered,” an extended screed against the American left. The book argues that liberals suffer from a victim complex and attacks undocumented immigrants among others.

Data shows that during the first two weeks of November, he sold tens of thousands of copies in areas where he made tour stops, including at Trump properties in Las Vegas and Washington.

Given his prominence on the national stage and Hachette’s significant promotional campaign, the book would almost certainly have reached the best-seller lists even without bulk sales.

“Triggered” sold 115,067 copies through the week ending on Nov. 16, the most recent for which figures are available, according to NPD BookScan. The book also hit No. 1 on The Washington Post’s nonfiction best-seller list and appeared in the top 10 of Amazon’s.

Mr. Trump appears to have been closely attuned to the public-relations coup of notching the top spot on the best-seller lists of newspapers his family routinely attacks.

“Can you imagine the Editor of The Failing New York Times, waking up one morning, having to put ‘Triggered’ by Donald Trump Jr. as the NUMBER ONE BOOK IN AMERICA?” Mr. Trump wrote in one marketing email.

That is not how the process works. Instead, The Times’s lists draw on sales data provided by a range of retailers.

Some publishing executives argue that authors who benefit from bulk purchases have an unfair advantage over writers who rely on organic sales. The visibility that comes with the best-seller list can have a huge impact on an author’s royalties, speaking fees and future publishing advances.

“The fact that it is preventing other authors from getting the recognition that they should rightfully be receiving is a bit unfair,” said Morgan Entrekin, publisher and chief executive of Grove Atlantic.

The purchase by Turning Point is an example of the mutually beneficial relationship between Mr. Trump and political allies he and his father have attracted.

Once a relatively minor organization, Turning Point has had a surge in prominence in recent years, bolstered by a close relationship with the Trumps. The group’s founder, Charlie Kirk, worked for the younger Mr. Trump during the 2016 campaign. Last year, the group received $50,000 from America First Policies, a pro-Trump organization where Ms. Guilfoyle has served as a vice chairwoman.

Mr. Trump has appeared at several Turning Point events. At one in California, he and Ms. Guilfoyle left early after being shouted down — not by liberals, but by far-right supporters who were angry he would not take questions, according to The Guardian.

In the latest Times best-seller list, released on Wednesday night, Mr. Trump lost the top spot, dropping to No. 2 among nonfiction books.

The week’s top seller was another title from Hachette: “A Warning,” by an anonymous senior Trump administration official who depicts the president as unfit for office.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Donald Trump Jr., Debut Author, Sees Sales Bolstered by G.O.P. Allies

Westlake Legal Group 27donaldjr-2-facebookJumbo Donald Trump Jr., Debut Author, Sees Sales Bolstered by G.O.P. Allies United States Politics and Government Turning Point USA Trump, Donald J Jr Trump, Donald J Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us (Book) Republican Party Republican National Committee Presidential Election of 2020 National Republican Senatorial Committee National Republican Campaign Committee McCarthy, Kevin (1965- ) Kirk, Charlie (1993- ) Hachette Book Group Guilfoyle, Kimberly Gaetz, Matt Conservatism (US Politics) Citizens United Books and Literature Book Trade and Publishing America First Policies Amazon.com Inc

Boxes began arriving in early November at the Phoenix headquarters of Turning Point USA, a conservative student group with ties to the Trump family.

They contained copies of the new book by Donald Trump Jr., “Triggered,” according to a person who works in the building. The stockpile grew to roughly 2,000 copies, stored in an underused second-floor office under a poster bearing a slogan: “Capitalism Not Cronyism.”

Turning Point is not the only conservative group making bulk purchases to aid Mr. Trump’s new career as an author. At least nine Republican organizations, G.O.P. candidates or advocacy groups are selling “Triggered” or promoting Mr. Trump’s book tour, according to emails obtained by The New York Times, interviews and disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The president’s son has emerged over the past few years as a political star in his own right, often said to be considering a run for office. It is neither illegal nor uncommon for candidates and political organizations to use books in fund-raising drives: The National Republican Campaign Committee, for example, has also sold its donors titles by the former speakers Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan.

But the breadth of the Republican establishment’s effort behind Mr. Trump is striking for a noncandidate whose most significant claim to fame remains his parentage, and who has sought to deflect criticism of his recent attacks on impeachment witnesses by asserting that he is merely a “private citizen.” And it underscores the unusual cross-pollination between the Trump family’s political ambitions, its business ventures and the party President Trump now leads.

Some groups are harnessing the younger Mr. Trump’s popularity to raise political donations while also driving his sales. The N.R.C.C. bought $75,000 worth of books in November, a spokesman said, in a promotion that took in almost $200,000 in contributions. The National Republican Senatorial Committee ordered about 2,500 copies, which it said sold almost immediately.

The Republican National Committee and Citizens United, a conservative activist group run by a former deputy campaign manager to the president, are also offering the book to donors.

Earlier this month, the R.N.C. denied making large bulk purchases of the book, a practice that some best-seller lists, including that of The Times, may penalize authors for when ranking sales. But F.E.C. records released last week showed that it spent almost $100,000 on copies on Oct. 29, a transaction the committee acknowledged was part of its “Triggered” promotion.

Turning Point declined to discuss exactly how many copies the group had bought. But in a statement, a spokesman noted that Mr. Trump would be a featured speaker at the group’s student summit in Florida in December.

“When an author headlines a Turning Point USA event, we regularly purchase the author’s latest work for the students in our chapters who attend,” the spokesman said. “As one of our most requested speakers, Don is headlining our student-leadership conference in Florida this December, and so we purchased copies for some of the students, chapter leaders and V.I.P.s.”

Politicians closely allied with the president are also promoting his son’s book. Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida used his campaign list to promote a ticketed event on Mr. Trump’s book tour where the two men appeared together. The campaign committee for Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House minority leader, has offered copies to those who donate $35.

“Leader McCarthy shares a close relationship with Donald Trump Jr. and was thrilled to offer ‘Triggered’ to his campaign supporters,” said Drew Florio, a spokesman.

State Republican parties are also pushing the book, framing Mr. Trump’s tour as a campaign effort on his father’s behalf. The G.O.P. organizations in Arizona and Texas advertised tour stops in emails to supporters. The Times obtained copies of the promotions from CounterAction, a digital intelligence firm.

In Texas, where Mr. Trump headlined various fund-raisers, the party bought copies of “Triggered” to give “as a gift to each of the attendees,” according to the communications director for the state party.

“Kimberly and I chose Texas as one of our early stops because we know how important it is for 2020,” Mr. Trump wrote in a message distributed to Texas Republicans, referring to his girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle. “Democrats have their eyes on the Lone Star State and are willing to stop at nothing to silence conservatives and turn Texas blue.”

Party committees and candidates generally must report disbursements made to purchase books for donors, as the R.N.C. did. If no fund-raising is involved, they must obtain fair market value if someone uses the lists to promote their private business interests.

Bulk purchasing — some of it deliberately covert — is fairly common but still controversial in the publishing industry. Best-seller lists, like that of The Times, try to police the practice.

The Times, for instance, uses a dagger symbol to indicate bulk purchases. When “Triggered” debuted at No. 1 on the Times list, some observers were quick to point out that it was marked with a dagger.

And on occasion, The Times has removed a title from its best-seller list when evidence emerged that sales did not meet its standards for inclusion. A Times spokeswoman said there were no plans to reassess the presence of “Triggered” on the list.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump, Andy Surabian, said in a statement that any bulk buys were irrelevant to the book’s position on the list.

“In its opening week, ‘Triggered’ outsold its closest competition by roughly 40,000 copies and clearly would have been number one on the N.Y.T. list without the copies sold thru the R.N.C. and other G.O.P.-aligned organizations,” Mr. Surabian said. “Don is proud of the fact that the demand for ‘Triggered’ has been so high that it has allowed groups like the R.N.C., N.R.S.C. and the N.R.C.C. to net hundreds of thousands of dollars through their marketing of the book.”

When asked about big orders of “Triggered,” Mr. Trump’s publisher, Hachette Book Group, acknowledged that it had made sales to some non-retail organizations and noted that outlets might have sold the book in bulk. But it said it had no record of direct purchases by Turning Point.

Pictures provided to The Times, however, showed dozens of boxes of “Triggered” stacked in Turning Point’s office. At least some had shipped from a Hachette distribution center in Indiana.

There is little question Mr. Trump enjoys a substantial natural audience for “Triggered,” an extended screed against the American left. The book argues that liberals suffer from a victim complex and attacks undocumented immigrants among others.

Data shows that during the first two weeks of November, he sold tens of thousands of copies in areas where he made tour stops, including at Trump properties in Las Vegas and Washington.

Given his prominence on the national stage and Hachette’s significant promotional campaign, the book would almost certainly have reached the best-seller lists even without bulk sales.

“Triggered” sold 115,067 copies through the week ending on Nov. 16, the most recent for which figures are available, according to NPD BookScan. The book also hit No. 1 on The Washington Post’s nonfiction best-seller list and appeared in the top 10 of Amazon’s.

Mr. Trump appears to have been closely attuned to the public-relations coup of notching the top spot on the best-seller lists of newspapers his family routinely attacks.

“Can you imagine the Editor of The Failing New York Times, waking up one morning, having to put ‘Triggered’ by Donald Trump Jr. as the NUMBER ONE BOOK IN AMERICA?” Mr. Trump wrote in one marketing email.

That is not how the process works. Instead, The Times’s lists draw on sales data provided by a range of retailers.

Some publishing executives argue that authors who benefit from bulk purchases have an unfair advantage over writers who rely on organic sales. The visibility that comes with the best-seller list can have a huge impact on an author’s royalties, speaking fees and future publishing advances.

“The fact that it is preventing other authors from getting the recognition that they should rightfully be receiving is a bit unfair,” said Morgan Entrekin, publisher and chief executive of Grove Atlantic.

The purchase by Turning Point is an example of the mutually beneficial relationship between Mr. Trump and political allies he and his father have attracted.

Once a relatively minor organization, Turning Point has had a surge in prominence in recent years, bolstered by a close relationship with the Trumps. The group’s founder, Charlie Kirk, worked for the younger Mr. Trump during the 2016 campaign. Last year, the group received $50,000 from America First Policies, a pro-Trump organization where Ms. Guilfoyle has served as a vice chairwoman.

Mr. Trump has appeared at several Turning Point events. At one in California, he and Ms. Guilfoyle left early after being shouted down — not by liberals, but by far-right supporters who were angry he would not take questions, according to The Guardian.

In the latest Times best-seller list, released on Wednesday night, Mr. Trump lost the top spot, dropping to No. 2 among nonfiction books.

The week’s top seller was another title from Hachette: “A Warning,” by an anonymous senior Trump administration official who depicts the president as unfit for office.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Signs Hong Kong Democracy Legislation, Angering China

Westlake Legal Group merlin_164714724_1d87bf7b-0a98-44a1-bacc-c4a119e90a01-facebookJumbo Trump Signs Hong Kong Democracy Legislation, Angering China Xi Jinping United States Politics and Government United States International Relations Trump, Donald J Law and Legislation Human Rights and Human Rights Violations Hong Kong Embargoes and Sanctions China

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump on Wednesday signed tough legislation that would impose sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials responsible for human rights abuses in Hong Kong, signaling support for pro-democracy activists in the territory and escalating tensions with Beijing as Mr. Trump tries to negotiate a trade deal with Chinese leaders.

Whether Mr. Trump would ultimately sign the legislation had been a subject of debate, as he refused to commit to doing so as late as last week, saying that he supported the protesters but that President Xi Jinping of China was “a friend of mine.” But Mr. Trump was left with no other option, as the bill had passed both chambers by veto-proof majorities.

Mr. Trump’s decision, publicly announced the evening before Thanksgiving, throws a potential wrench into the United States’ bilateral trade talks with China. Both countries have tried to keep the Hong Kong issue separate from their negotiations, which have been moving at a slow but steady pace.

Mr. Trump tried to frame his decision to sign the legislation, as well as another bill that bans the sale of crowd-control munitions such as tear gas and rubber bullets to the Hong Kong police, as not disrespecting Mr. Xi, even though China’s government had demanded that Mr. Trump reject the measure. The president had previously skirted around the battles between pro-democracy demonstrators and police forces enforcing China’s authoritarian stance in Hong Kong.

“I signed these bills out of respect for President Xi, China and the people of Hong Kong,” Mr. Trump said in a statement on Wednesday. “They are being enacted in the hope that leaders and representatives of China and Hong Kong will be able to amicably settle their differences leading to long-term peace and prosperity for all.”

The Hong Kong government had also argued that the bill was unnecessary, making its case even more vigorously after the territory was able to hold peaceful local elections last Sunday in which antigovernment candidates won 87 percent of the seats. The vote showed that “democracy is alive and well,” and that the Hong Kong bill that went through Congress was unnecessary, said Ronny Tong, a member of the cabinet of Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s embattled chief executive.

But Mr. Trump was ultimately left with little choice but to sign the bill, which could have been enacted without Mr. Trump’s signature after Dec. 3. Congress also could have overridden a veto. Even some of Mr. Trump’s most ardent trade supporters had cautioned against rebuffing the legislation.

The main measure, titled the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, would not only compel the United States to impose sanctions on officials, but also require the State Department to annually review the special autonomous status it grants the territory in trade considerations. That status is separate from the relationship with mainland China, and a revocation of the status would mean less favorable trade conditions between the United States and Hong Kong.

China’s Foreign Ministry strongly criticized Mr. Trump’s signing of the bill, which it said “seriously interfered with Hong Kong affairs, seriously interfered with China’s internal affairs, and seriously violated international law and basic norms of international relations.”

“It was a clear hegemonic act,” the ministry said, “and the Chinese government and people firmly opposed it.”

The ministry stopped short of linking Hong Kong in any way to the trade talks, although trade is outside the its jurisdiction. The ministry did conclude its statement, however, with a warning: “We advise the United States not to act arbitrarily, or China will resolutely counteract it, and all consequences arising must be borne by the United States.”

Although Mr. Trump announced last month that the United States and China had reached a “historic” Phase 1 trade agreement, signing a deal has proved elusive. Mr. Trump has continued to play coy about whether he will agree to remove any of the tariffs he has placed on $360 billion worth of Chinese goods. A Dec. 15 deadline looms for the United States to decide whether to impose another round of tariffs on even more Chinese imports, including consumer goods like smartphones and laptops.

Evan S. Medeiros, a Georgetown University professor who was the senior Asia director on President Barack Obama’s National Security Council staff, said Mr. Trump’s action could mean that he thought signing the bill would allow him to look tough on China to American voters without entirely upsetting the negotiations.

“Signing the bill is an important signal amid the trade talks, but not an unpredicted one given the near unanimous congressional support,” he said. “The real question is how the president will use these new authorities. Perhaps this move is best understood as a leading indicator that U.S.-China trade talks are essentially done.”

Lawmakers from both parties had clamored for the president to sign the legislation as a show of support for the young demonstrators who have been defiantly pushing back against China’s tightening hold over the semiautonomous territory.

“This bicameral, bipartisan law reaffirms our nation’s commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law in the face of Beijing’s crackdown,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said in a statement. “America is proud to stand with the people of Hong Kong on the side of freedom and justice.”

In recent months, a bipartisan push to confront China and its authoritarian leader has grown on a wide range of issues, including commercial practices, global infrastructure building and the detention of at least a million Muslim ethnic minority members in camps in northwest China.

“The U.S. now has new and meaningful tools to deter further influence and interference from Beijing into Hong Kong’s internal affairs,” said Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida and one of the legislation’s many champions in the upper chamber. “This new law could not be more timely in showing strong U.S. support for Hong Kongers’ long-cherished freedoms.”

Mr. Trump has been trying to get China to agree to a trade deal that would benefit American farmers and manufacturers and allow technology firms to operate more freely in that country. The desire to sign a deal that ends pain for American farmers has become particularly important ahead of the 2020 presidential election, and Mr. Trump has left the impression that all other issues related to China are secondary, especially ones related to human rights.

Last Friday, in an interview on “Fox & Friends,” Mr. Trump said, “We have to stand with Hong Kong, but I’m also standing with President Xi.” Last June, Mr. Trump promised Mr. Xi in a telephone conversation that he would not speak out in support of the Hong Kong protests as long as trade talks were progressing. Mr. Trump did mention Hong Kong during a speech in September at the United Nations General Assembly, but did so while praising Mr. Xi, and he has not consistently made strong statements on Hong Kong.

In a separate statement issued on Wednesday evening, Mr. Trump appeared to hedge his full-throated support for the broader legislation, saying that “certain provisions of the act would interfere with the exercise of the president’s constitutional authority to state the foreign policy of the United States.”

“My administration will treat each of the provisions of the act consistently with the president’s constitutional authorities with respect to foreign relations,” Mr. Trump said. He did not specify which parts of the bill posed such interference with executive powers.

One of the main provisions compels the administration to impose economic and travel sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials found to be violating human rights in the territory. Mr. Trump or relevant agencies could try to slow walk such sanctions — and might even use the threat of imposing them to as a cudgel against China in trade negotiations.

Mr. Trump has refused to impose sanctions on Chinese officials for the mass detention of Muslims, despite recommendations to do so by some American officials.

For months, Hong Kong protesters had called for the United States to pass the bill. The protesters in October even held a rally supporting in the bill that was attended by more than 100,000 people; many waved American flags or wrapped them around their bodies. Protesters say the law would give them more leverage over officials in China and Hong Kong, since the officials want to maintain access to the United States for themselves and their family members, and they also want to preserve the favorable trade status between Washington and Hong Kong.

“I hope it can act as a warning to Hong Kong and Beijing officials, pro-Beijing people and the police,” said Nelson Lam, 32, a food importer and regular protester. “I think if they know that what they do may lead to sanctions, then they will become restrained when dealing with protests. We just want our autonomy back. We are not their foe.”

Within the White House, Matthew Pottinger, the deputy national security adviser and former senior Asia director on Mr. Trump’s National Security Council staff, has advocated for tough policies against China. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declined to openly endorse the bill when asked about it by reporters, but did say, “We have human rights standards that we apply all across the world, and Hong Kong is no different.”

Emily Cochrane reported from West Palm Beach, Fla.; Edward Wong from Houston; and Keith Bradsher from Shanghai.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Russia Inquiry Review Is Expected to Undercut Trump Claim of F.B.I. Spying

Westlake Legal Group merlin_160638654_b56fd754-105b-420f-8ba4-5ee9867ec3f5-facebookJumbo Russia Inquiry Review Is Expected to Undercut Trump Claim of F.B.I. Spying Wiretapping and Other Eavesdropping Devices and Methods United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Steele, Christopher (1964- ) Russian Interference in 2016 US Elections and Ties to Trump Associates Russia Presidential Election of 2016 Papadopoulos, George (1987- ) Page, Carter Ohr, Bruce Justice Department Inspectors General Informers Horowitz, Michael E Federal Bureau of Investigation Espionage and Intelligence Services Clinesmith, Kevin Barr, William P

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.

The determination by the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is expected to be a key finding in his highly anticipated report due out on Dec. 9 examining aspects of the Russia investigation. The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped. The startling accusation generated headlines but Mr. Trump never backed it up.

The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives’ claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — eavesdropping that Mr. Trump’s allies have long decried as politically motivated.

But Mr. Horowitz will sharply criticize F.B.I. leaders for their handling of the investigation in some ways, and he unearthed errors and omissions when F.B.I. officials applied for the wiretap, according to people familiar with a draft of the report. The draft contained a chart listing numerous mistakes in the process, one of the people said.

Mr. Horowitz concluded that the F.B.I. was careless and unprofessional in pursuing the Page wiretap, and he referred his findings in one instance to prosecutors for potential criminal charges over the alteration of a document in 2017 by a front-line lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, 37, in connection with the wiretap application.

Mr. Horowitz’s mixed bag of conclusions is likely to give new ammunition to both Mr. Trump’s defenders and critics in the long-running partisan fight over the Russia investigation. Last week, Mr. Trump described the coming report in a phone interview with “Fox & Friends” as potentially “historic” and predicted “perhaps the biggest scandal in the history of our country.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Horowitz declined to comment. The people familiar with the inquiry cautioned that the draft report was not final. The New York Times has not reviewed the draft, which could include other significant findings.

Mr. Trump has long chafed at the Russia investigation, which overshadowed the first years of his presidency. Ultimately, the special counsel who took over the Russia inquiry, Robert S. Mueller III, found insufficient evidence to charge any Trump associates with conspiring with Russia’s interference.

But the president’s allies have seized on the F.B.I.’s conduct in opening the inquiry as potentially problematic. Attorney General William P. Barr prompted alarm among defenders of the F.B.I. by accusing the bureau this year of spying on the campaign.

The F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, who was appointed in 2017, has said he would not use the term spying to describe F.B.I. activities in 2016. The Mueller report reaffirmed the factors that the F.B.I. used to open its investigation, and Mr. Horowitz’s findings are also said to show that the F.B.I. acted properly in opening the inquiry.

F.B.I. officials started the investigation, code-named Crossfire Hurricane, in July 2016 after learning that a Russian intermediary had offered information that could damage Hillary Clinton to a Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos. The F.B.I. eventually began looking at four Trump campaign advisers who had ties to Russia, including Mr. Papadopoulos, and as law enforcement and intelligence officials were realizing the extent of the Kremlin’s ongoing campaign to sabotage the election.

The F.B.I. was cognizant of being seen as interfering with a presidential campaign, and former law enforcement officials are adamant that they did not investigate the Trump campaign organization itself or target it for infiltration. But agents had to investigate the four advisers’ ties with Russia, and the people they did scrutinize all played roles in the Trump campaign.

Mr. Trump and his allies have pointed to some of the investigative steps the F.B.I. took as evidence of spying, though they were typical law enforcement activities. For one, agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos while they were affiliated with the campaign. The president decried the revelation as an “all time biggest political scandal” when it emerged last year.

The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopoulos in August 2016. And indeed, another Trump adviser, Peter Navarro, reportedly pushed Mr. Halper for an ambassadorship in the Trump administration.

Mr. Halper turned down the job and told the F.B.I. that Mr. Navarro had made the overture, according to a person familiar with the offer.

Mr. Horowitz found no evidence that Mr. Halper tried to infiltrate the Trump campaign itself, the people familiar with the draft report said, such as by seeking inside campaign information or a role in the organization. The F.B.I. also never directed him to do so, former officials said. Instead, Mr. Halper focused on eliciting information from Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos about their ties to Russia.

Mr. Barr has suggested that the F.B.I. assigned other informants as well to figure out whether any Trump associates were working with the Russians. The F.B.I. gave Mr. Horowitz’s team extraordinary access to its informant database, and his investigators examined other F.B.I. informants with possible ties to the Trump campaign.

In each case, they found that the F.B.I. had not deployed those people to gather information on the Trump campaign itself, the people said.

It is also possible that the F.B.I. received unsolicited material from inside the Trump campaign; outsiders often submit potential evidence to the bureau that agents did not seek. But it is not clear whether Mr. Horowitz uncovered any such instances.

Mr. Horowitz will also undercut another claim by Trump allies — that the Russian intermediary who promised dirt to Mr. Papadopoulos, a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, was an F.B.I. informant. Mr. Papadopoulos has helped spread that claim; he contends without evidence that the F.B.I. or the C.I.A. set him up to derail Mr. Trump’s campaign.

Mr. Papadopoulos served 12 days in prison last year on a conviction of lying to the F.B.I. about his contacts with Mr. Mifsud. Agents said his falsehoods hampered their ability to interrogate Mr. Mifsud, who was briefly in the United States but later left the country, out of the reach of the F.B.I., and disappeared from public view.

The report is also expected to debunk another theory of Trump allies: that the F.B.I. relied on information to open the investigation from a British former spy, Christopher Steele, himself a onetime bureau informant who compiled a dossier of damaging, unverified information on Mr. Trump.

The F.B.I. did cite the dossier to some extent to apply for the wiretap on Mr. Page. The inspector general will fault the F.B.I. for failing to tell the judges who approved the wiretap applications about potential problems with the dossier, the people familiar with the draft report said. F.B.I. agents have interviewed some of Mr. Steele’s sources and found that their information differed somewhat from his dossier.

Mr. Horowitz plans to say that the wiretap application, which referenced Mr. Papadopoulos, should have also included a statement he made to the undercover agent in London that could be seen as exculpatory or self-serving, the people familiar with the draft report said. Mr. Papadopoulos said at the time that he had nothing to do with Russia and knew no one else who did, he recounted in a book he has written.

Though a wiretap itself is an intrusive investigative tool, F.B.I. officials obtained a wiretap on Mr. Page after he had left the Trump campaign.

In addition, the inspector general examined Mr. Steele’s contacts with Bruce G. Ohr, a Justice Department official and an expert on Russian organized crime. Mr. Ohr, himself a target of Mr. Trump’s ire, spoke with Mr. Steele several times after the F.B.I. terminated its relationship with him in the fall of 2016 because he spoke with a reporter about his concerns about Mr. Trump. Mr. Ohr relayed information from those conversations to the bureau.

Mr. Horowitz is expected to criticize Mr. Ohr for keeping his meetings with Mr. Steele from his superiors.

The report will mark the end of one chapter of the Justice Department’s scrutiny of the F.B.I.’s handling of the Russia investigation, though the saga is ongoing. Mr. Barr has assigned the United States attorney for Connecticut, John H. Durham, to also examine the origins of the inquiry and the government’s collection of intelligence involving the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russians.

Michael S. Schmidt contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Lawyers, Skeptical of Engaging on Impeachment, Weigh Hearing Strategy

Westlake Legal Group merlin_163630737_52e9ef11-1147-4b95-8805-12ac1c9dc7f8-facebookJumbo Trump Lawyers, Skeptical of Engaging on Impeachment, Weigh Hearing Strategy United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Nadler, Jerrold impeachment House Committee on the Judiciary

WASHINGTON — The White House is reviewing an invitation from House Democrats for President Trump’s legal team to participate in the first Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing next week, even as his lawyers privately question whether to engage with a proceeding his administration branded “an illegitimate sham partisan process” to drive Mr. Trump from office.

Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote to the president on Tuesday offering him or his lawyers the opportunity to appear before lawmakers at a Dec. 4 hearing with constitutional scholars to discuss the historical precedents for impeachment, the definition of an impeachable offense and whether Mr. Trump’s actions meet the bar for removal.

In a statement on Wednesday, Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary, did not give any indication about whether Mr. Trump or his lawyers intended to accept the invitation. But people familiar with the president’s legal strategy have said privately that they are deeply suspicious of taking part in a process they view as unfair to Mr. Trump.

“What is obvious to every American is that this letter comes at the end of an illegitimate sham partisan process,” Ms. Grisham said in the statement. “The president has done nothing wrong, and the Democrats know it.”

Next week’s hearing will begin a new phase in the inquiry, as the Judiciary Committee prepares to draft articles of impeachment related to charges that Mr. Trump abused his power to enlist Ukraine in tarnishing his political rivals. The committee is also expected to consider an article of impeachment charging that Mr. Trump obstructed the investigation by blocking witnesses from testifying and refusing to provide documents.

Democrats are also weighing whether to draft an obstruction-of-justice article based on the report by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign.

The bulk of the charges, however, will be based on evidence to be laid out in a detailed report by the House Intelligence Committee after weeks of public and private depositions of current and former administration officials on the Ukraine affair. The report, which Democrats have said will be submitted soon after Thanksgiving, is expected to charge the president with abusing his power by appealing to a foreign government for help in the 2020 presidential election. It will outline Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukrainian leaders to announce investigations of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats, while denying the country’s president a White House meeting and withholding nearly $400 million in military assistance.

“I remain committed to ensuring a fair and informative process,” Mr. Nadler wrote to Mr. Trump in his letter. He noted that he retained the right under the rules of the impeachment inquiry to deny the president participation in the proceedings if the White House continued to stonewall witnesses and other evidence.

Mr. Nadler gave the president and his lawyers until 6 p.m. Sunday to decide whether they want to be part of the Dec. 4 hearing.

The question of how much the president and his legal advisers decide to participate is likely to be a contentious one as his team wrangles with Democrats over Mr. Trump’s rights to present his defense to lawmakers and the public.

Lawyers for former Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton worked to some extent with the Judiciary Committee to present defenses for their clients during impeachment proceedings. But Mr. Trump and his allies on Capitol Hill have repeatedly criticized the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry as illegitimate.

In a letter to House Democratic leaders shortly after they formally opened the impeachment inquiry, Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, said Mr. Trump would refuse to cooperate in any way with the inquiry.

“In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the Constitution, the executive branch, and all future occupants of the office of the presidency, President Trump and his administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances,” Mr. Cipollone wrote.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump claimed on Twitter that he “would actually like people to testify” as part of the inquiry because he believes they would say he did nothing wrong. But he also blasted the Democratic investigation, calling it a “phony Impeachment Hoax” and saying it is “a Democrat Scam that is going nowhere.”

A person familiar with deliberations among the president’s legal team said Wednesday morning that no decision had been made about whether to engage in a public defense of the president during the Judiciary Committee hearings.

Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on Wednesday that he would not blame the White House for declining to participate, underscoring skepticism among the president’s allies about whether it would be a fair forum for the president.

“If they come, great,” he said. “If they don’t, I would understand completely because what is the use of this hearing?”

Maggie Haberman and Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com