Here’s What the Columbia University Protests Have Started Elsewhere

Columbia University tried to squash a pro-Palestine protest on their campus last week, but it hasn’t worked. In fact, it has prompted solidarity protests across the country.

On Monday, 47 demonstrators were arrested at Yale University after taking part in pro-Palestine protests urging the university to divest from weapons manufacturers. Protesters had also set up an encampment on campus Friday night.

Halfway across the country, student protesters at the University of Michigan set up an encampment on the university’s famous Diag, also demanding their school divest from businesses with financial ties to Israel.

Over the weekend, protests sprang up in Boston-area universities, including MIT, Tufts University and Emerson College, with students setting up encampments on each campus. Students at the New School in Manhattan set up a “liberated zone” on campus on Sunday to show solidarity with Columbia’s protesters, and New York University students staged a march.

These demonstrations came a few days after Harvard University students rallied in support of Columbia students, with the university’s famous Harvard Yard closed until Friday to seemingly prevent a student encampment there. Students at the University of North Carolina also set up tents on Friday in solidarity.

Columbia sent city police officers onto campus last week to break up the encampment, resulting in the arrest of more than 100 students. In an effort to keep a lid on things, the school canceled in-person classes on Monday. One Columbia professor, Shai Davidai, who has attracted criticism over alleged threats to pro-Palestine students and calls to bring in the National Guard to shut down the protests, was also told to stay away from campus Monday.

In response to the canceled classes, several Columbia faculty members led a class walkout. The day before, 54 Columbia law school professors sent an open letter to the university condemning the school’s decision to authorize a police raid and suspend student protesters.

At Barnard College, which is affiliated with Columbia, three student admissions representatives, who work in the university admissions office, give tours, and speak with prospective students and families, resigned in protest Sunday over the university’s treatment of protestors.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Columbia University’s attempt to shut down protests has only brought them more attention—and spread the movement to different universities. If police crackdowns continue, the pictures and heavy-handed actions could echo protests over the Vietnam War decades ago, including at Columbia.

The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments on perhaps the most consequential case on homeless policy in decades, weighing how far cities can go in criminalizing people for sleeping outside.

And liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor kicked things off with a particularly damning hypothetical.

Under a law punishing people for sleeping outside, would people who stargaze outside not be punished? What about people who fall asleep on the beach? Or babies in public with blankets over them?

Sotomayor’s line of questioning in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson highlighted the obvious flaws in the 2019 law that the court is considering. The town of Grants Pass, which has no public homeless shelters, effectively banned homelessness by imposing escalating fines starting at $180 on those who sleep outside. One of the original plaintiffs in the case against the city had over $5,000 in penalties before she died.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine whether localities can criminalize homelessness by punishing those who sleep out on streets using tents, blankets, or even a piece of cardboard. The court must weigh if doing so when no beds are available violates the Eighth Amendment and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

And like Sotomayor, the other liberal justices weren’t so impressed.

The Grants Pass legal team tried to argue that homelessness is “conduct,” something someone does, rather than “status,” something that someone is. But justice Elena Kagan pushed back saying matter of factly “homelessness is a status, it’s a status of not having a home.”

“Sleeping is a biological necessity,” she added. “It’s sort of like breathing, you could say breathing is conduct too but presumably you would not think it’s okay to criminalize breathing in public.” For a homeless person who has no place to sleep, Kagan continued, sleeping in public is the same as breathing in public.

“It seems both cruel and unusual to punish people for acts that constitute basic human needs,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told lawyer Theane Evangelis, whose previous legal work for Uber and Grubhub has been described as “keeping the wheels of the gig economy turning.”

As the hearing continued, both Sotomayor and Jackson became increasingly incensed with Evangelis, who complained about the crime and unsanitary nature of unsheltered encampments, which she called harmful and dangerous.

“Suppose the city decided that it was going to execute homeless people... It would solve the problems that you are talking about,” Jackson quipped.

“Where do we put them if every city, every village, every town lacks compassion and passes a law identical to this, where are they supposed to sleep?” asked Sotomayor. “Are they supposed to kill themselves not sleeping?”

Evangelis continued that homelessness is a difficult and complicated problem.

But as Sotomayor responded: “What’s so complicated about letting someone somewhere sleep outside with a blanket if they have nowhere to sleep?”

“The people call David Pecker”—the former publisher of the National Enquirer and former CEO of its parent company, American Media Inc.

Pecker, the first witness in Donald Trump’s first criminal trial and an old friend of the former president, took the stand on Monday. In brief testimony, he started detailing a media coverage scheme handcrafted between Trump, Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen, and himself.

In opening statements just minutes prior, Manhattan district attorney prosecutor Matthew Colangelo proclaimed that “The National Enquirer ran headline after headline that extolled the defendant’s virtues.” Colangelo noted that the Enquirer also “ran stories attacking Mr. Trump’s political opponents” such as Ben Carson and Ted Cruz.

Pecker participated in an August 2015 meeting with Cohen and Trump to arrange the Enquirer’s catch-and-kill campaign, buying potentially damaging stories about Trump and his affairs with women with the intent to never publish them. The trio also allegedly discussed adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who had an affair with Trump after meeting him at a golf tournament in 2006, shortly after Trump’s wife Melania had given birth to their son Barron. Cohen later paid Daniels $130,000, allegedly at Trump’s behest, to keep the entanglement under wraps—but it wasn’t the first time Pecker was involved in a catch-and-kill scheme.

The Enquirer had also purchased rights to the story of another one of Trump’s alleged mistresses—former Playboy model Karen McDougal—for $150,000, in order to ensure the story would never see the light of day.

Pecker’s testimony on the stand offered some initial insights into the machinations of the Enquirer, including a key detail that all big stories pertaining to celebrities had to go through him.

“We used checkbook journalism and we paid for stories,” Pecker testified. “I gave a number to the editors that they could not spend more than $10,000 to investigate, produce or publish a story.”

Pecker agreed to cooperate with prosecution back in 2018, and is expected to continue his testimony on Tuesday. And the details he provides could be damning for the former president.

Trump is accused of using Cohen to sweep an affair with Daniels under the rug ahead of the 2016 presidential election. The trial is expected to last several weeks. He faces 34 felony charges in this case for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime. Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s failed fight to end aid to Ukraine, and her sort-of-serious crusade against House Speaker Mike Johnson, has cost her the support of right-wing media.

The Sunday front page of The New York Post, owned by the conservative Murdoch family, was the latest outlet to attack Greene, invoking the “Moscow Marjorie” nickname coined by former representative Ken Buck.

Fox News, another arm of the Murdoch media empire, had already taken aim at the Georgia Republican last week, with columnist Liz Peek calling her an “idiot” and saying she needs to “turn all that bombastic self-serving showmanship and drama queen energy on Democrats.” This follows an editorial last month from The Wall Street Journal, also in the Murdoch portfolio, that called Greene “Rep. Mayhem Taylor Greene” and accused her and her allies of being “most interested in TV hits and internet donors.”

Even a non-Murdoch outlet is on the attack, as conservative Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Debra Saunders demanded to know “who put Marjorie Taylor Greene in charge?”

It was only a matter of time before Greene’s antics cost her friends in the world of conservative media. She has an old reputation for peddling crazy conspiracy theories; she’s been in a feud with fellow far-right Representative Lauren Boebert for quite a while; and she has parroted Russian talking points on Ukraine, to the point that even Russian state television is gushing over her. Over the weekend, a Russian state TV host described Greene as “a real beauty. She is a blond who wears white coats with a fur collar. She’s demonstrably heterosexual.”

Meanwhile, Johnson successfully passing aid to Ukraine shows that he is able to deflect her attacks, despite the GOP’s razor thin-majority in the House. If Greene keeps losing allies, he won’t have to worry about her at all.

Donald Trump won’t be getting his way in his New York hush money trial—at least, not without consequences.

Presiding Judge Juan Merchan decided Monday that prosecutors can cross-examine the former president on prior judgements and gag order violations. This is only relevant if Trump takes the stand, but given he has said he would “absolutely” testify in the trial, he seems pretty eager.

But his legal team might not allow him to, especially considering the previous times Trump took the stand in an effort to change the narrative behind prior judgments.

Last week, the district attorney’s office signaled that they would be interested in bringing up a slew of Trump’s prior lawsuits to paint a picture of an untrustworthy man. Those cases include the New York civil fraud trial in which Trump was ordered to pay nearly half a billion dollars to the state, and the defamation trials brought against him by E. Jean Carroll, who won a payout of $83.3 million.

So far, Merchan has decided that he will allow questioning pertaining to Trump’s defamation of E. Jean Carroll (he did not mention the sexual assault ruling), the New York bank fraud trial, a 2018 case that led to the dissolution of the Trump Foundation over financial irregularities, and Trump’s repeat violations of the gag order issued by Judge Arthur Engoron after he refused to stop attacking the judge’s law clerk.

That last bit is noteworthy, considering that Trump has already teetered several times on violating another gag order issued in this trial, using his Truth Social account to disparage witnesses, court staff, and their family members, including Merchan’s daughter.

Merchan told the court Monday that he had “greatly curtailed” what elements of Trump’s legal history could be questioned, and warned the GOP presidential nominee that the decision was “a shield and not a sword” to which his testimony could become a “door to questioning that has otherwise been excluded,” according to The New York Times.

Donald Trump’s legal defense in his hush-money trial may be doomed before it begins.

Trump is on trial for 34 felony counts for allegedly falsifying business records after his lawyer and fixer at the time, Michael Cohen, paid $130,000 to silence adult film actress Stormy Daniels from speaking about her affair with the former president. Trump claims that those payments were simply part of Cohen’s ordinary fees.

Ex-prosecutor Andrew Weissman wrote on X (formerly Twitter) Sunday that even if Trump tries to claim that those payments were actually legal fees, there are notes made at the time that are more specific.

“Trump’s latest defense, which we will see at trial I’m sure, that the 34 business records were not false because they were legal payments (reimbursing his lawyer Cohen for making the $130,000 hush money payment) is BELIED by contemporaneous notations that the payments were for ongoing legal services rendered during a certain month,” Weissman explained. “Oops.”

But Trump’s legal team isn’t exactly on the ball, as all of their blatant attempts to delay proceedings in this trial have been shot down. One attorney, Alina Habba, has claimed that Trump’s being required to attend every day of his hush-money trial, per state law, is a violation of due process, and has tried to excuse away his dozing off in court by saying he “reads a lot.”

Presiding Judge Juan Merchan has also refused to let the team know who the prosecution’s first three witnesses are, lest Trump try to attack the witnesses on social media.

This is Trump’s first criminal trial, and he’s under a gag order that prevents him from speaking about court staff or their families. It hasn’t prevented him from attacking about Merchan’s daughter, though, and he has a contempt of court hearing this week about it.

Now, as jury selection ends and his trial begins in earnest, the proceedings aren’t going to be an easy experience for the former president. The witness list includes his former employees, his White House aide Hope Hicks, Daniels, and his former fixer Cohen. If Cohen’s words are anything to go by, Trump and his lawyers have reason to “be worried.”

Donald Trump extended a dangerous message to his Truth Social followers on Monday: descend upon U.S. courthouses.

The post, which also lambasted American university students for a wave of pro-Palestinian protests last week, came mere hours before the GOP presidential nominee was scheduled to return to his New York hush money on trial in New York, where opening statements are expected to begin.

“Why are Palestinian protesters, and even rioters, allowed to roam the Cities, scream, shout, sit, block traffic, enter buildings, not get permits, and basically do whatever they want including threatening Supreme Court Justices right in front of their homes, and yet people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights,” Trump questioned, referring to dozens of protests during which hundreds of students were arrested and not allowed to practice their First Amendment Rights.

“America Loving Protesters should be allowed to protest at the front steps of Courthouses, all over the Country, just like it is allowed for those who are destroying our Country on the Radical Left, a two tiered system of justice,” Trump continued. “Free Speech and Assembly has been ‘CHILLED’ for USA SUPPORTERS. GO OUT AND PEACEFULLY PROTEST. RALLY BEHIND MAGA. SAVE OUR COUNTRY! ‘THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE TO FEAR IS FEAR ITSELF.’”

Trump’s comments are eerily similar to those that prompted many of his supporters to descend on Washington, D.C., in January 2021. That rally eventually turned into the January 6 insurrection. Fortunately, turnout has been much lower this time around.

Trump is accused of using former fixer Michael Cohen to sweep an affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels under the rug ahead of the 2016 presidential election. The trial is expected to last several weeks. He faces 34 felony charges in this case for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime. Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.

A Washington, D.C., judge issued a dire warning Friday about the effects of the January 6 attack.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan sentenced Scott Miller, a former Proud Boys leader  who fought with multiple police officers while trying to storm the Capitol building, to 66 months in prison. This is one of the longest sentences that Chutkan has given. She cited Miller’s actions at the Capitol, as well as evidence that he held Nazi beliefs and thought that Washington, D.C., residents should be executed. 

Previously, the longest sentences Chutkan had handed down related to the insurrection were 63 months long, given to two other violent offenders at the Capitol. Chutkan described the storming of the Capitol as “close to as serious a crisis as this nation has ever faced.” 

“It can happen again,” Chutkan, who is expected to preside over Donald Trump’s criminal trial for trying to overturn the 2020 election, said Friday. “Extremism is alive and well in this country. Threats of violence continue unabated.”

Those threats have become normalized in Republican discourse, with right-wing figures across the country invoking violence and urging their supporters to arm themselves. The man behind it all, Donald Trump, has yet to face any consequences thanks to the Supreme Court holding up his case over questions of presidential immunity. 

Since the January 6 attack, Trump has not toned down his own rhetoric, saying that 2024 could be the “last election we ever have”—and his far-right supporters could try to make that a reality. Not to mention that many Republicans still believe in conspiracies about the Capitol riot, a sign that the right isn’t concerned about inciting political violence, let alone the violence itself. 

In short, Miller’s sentence shows that the consequences for political violence in the U.S. right now only come after the fact, and do not deal with those who incite it beforehand. This does not bode well for the aftermath of the 2024 elections, no matter how they go.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s conspiracy theories, vitriolic language, and xenophobia have made her a darling of the right and a pariah on the left—and now, she’s gained admiration from Russian state television.

Greene’s attempts to block aid to Ukraine, her criticisms of NATO, and her beliefs that the United States should withdraw from the alliance have drawn plaudits from TV hosts in Russia, The Daily Beast reported Friday.

“She believes that Americans should help Putin win. Yes, you heard that right. To help him win in Ukraine,” says host Evgeny Popov in one clip.

It’s a new development for Greene, who previously was mocked in the country for confusing gazpacho with Gestapo and claiming that Jewish space lasers caused the California wildfires. Russian TV even said her words were proof of “mental debilitation” in Western politics. But Greene may be happy to know that her echoing of Russian propaganda in the House of Representatives has paid off, despite the fact that the issue of aid to Ukraine has divided the Republican Party. It looks like former Representative Ken Buck was right on the money when he called her “Moscow Marjorie.”

Some experts have even suggested that Russia is buying off American politicians just like they do in Europe. Greene wouldn’t be the only Republican to spew Kremlin talking points, but she seems to be the most popular so far. As the new darling of Russian state TV, she’s filling a void left by Speaker Mike Johnson, who in recent days has come out in support of aid in Ukraine after months of blocking it. Johnson was so beloved on Russian television for blocking aid to Ukraine that one TV host called him “Our Johnson.”

Green also appears to have usurped erstwhile Fox News host Tucker Carlson, whose February interview with Putin fell flat, ending Russian TV’s love affair with him.

Russia’s praise of Greene, and other conservative personalities before her, is just further proof that post–Donald Trump, a large part of the Republican Party has pledged its allegiance to Vladimir Putin.

New York state Attorney General Letitia James on Friday asked the judge presiding over Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial to reject the former president’s bond, which has been dogged by reports of the insolvency of the company backing it.

Earlier this month, James gave Trump and Knight Specialty Insurance, the insurance company that underwrote his civil fraud case bond, 10 days to guarantee that the $175 million surety could be justified. Those 10 days are now up.

Trump and Knight Specialty Insurance, which is not licensed as a surety in New York state, could not prove the surety “meets the requirements of trustworthiness and competence,” according to a memo from James’s office,  and thus failed to demonstrate that they would be good for the $175 million. 

It’s not exactly a surprise, given that the bond would account for more than a third of Knight Specialty’s assets and more than its surplus funds. The company may also have not actually legally agreed to pay the bond for Trump. Trump has struggled to come up with the money to pay the various legal fees against him on his own; he enlisted the insurer Chubb to loan him the $91 million needed for the E. Jean Carroll defamation judgment.

As a result, James wants to give Trump a week to post another bond, this one backed by someone more trustworthy than the “king of subprime car loans.” If he cannot, James may begin seizing his assets to cover the judgment against him. 

Judge Arthur Engoron is set to hear arguments on the surety’s validity on Monday. Trump, meanwhile, won’t be far: His criminal hush-money trial, which now has a full jury, is set to proceed in New York the same day.