"Trump som president vore protektionistisk mardröm"

"Trump som president vore protektionistisk mardröm"

När Donald Trump var USA:s president införde han högre importskatter än någon annan president gjort på nästan ett århundrade. Hans protektionistiska hållning har spätt på inflationen och gjort USA fattigare. Inte heller har den gynnat landets exportörer, skriver The Economist. Skulle Trump bli president igen skulle det enligt tidningen innebära en protektionistisk mardröm, med upp till en tre gånger så hög genomsnittlig amerikansk importskatt. Höjda importskatter skulle inte bara skada konsumenter och de flesta producenter. De skulle också påverka USA:s relationer med andra länder och riskera att förstöra det globala handelssystemet, anser tidningen. Sequels are always worse than the original By The Economist October 31st, Washington DC Sequels are never as good as the original. And when the original was terrible, there is even more reason to dread the next episode. So it is with “Tariff Man Part Two”. In the White House, Donald Trump put more new tariffs on American imports than any president in nearly a century. His philosophy was simple: “I am a Tariff Man. When people or countries come in to raid the great wealth of our Nation, I want them to pay for the privilege of doing so.” Mr Trump’s protectionism made America poorer, did little to help exporters and fed the inflation still raging. If he wins the Republican presidential nomination (a likely outcome) and goes on to win the election (too close to call), he has vowed to ramp up things. He is mulling an across-the-board levy of perhaps 10% on all products entering America. In one fell swoop, his plans would more than triple the average American tariff. The direct costs would be bad enough, with the tariffs functioning as a tax on consumers and hurting most producers. Yet they would also tear at America’s ties with its allies and threaten to wreck the global trade system. To get a sense of the impact, look back. On January 23rd 2018, a year after Mr Trump was sworn in, he got started with tariffs, hitting washing machines and solar panels. A couple of months later he went after aluminium and steel. A few months after that, it was Chinese goods. By 2021 American duties were worth 3% of the country’s total import value, double the level when Mr Trump took office. Tariffs on Chinese imports rose from 3% to 19%, calculates Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a think-tank. Mr Trump’s first aim was to slim the trade deficit. He thought tariffs would bludgeon other countries into submission, leading them to rejig policies to America’s advantage. Memorably, he declared that “trade wars are good, and easy to win.” But instead of shrinking, the deficit widened. Instead of buckling, China tripled its tariffs on America. Many allies retaliated, too. The consequences were dismal. Industries that were protected by tariffs reaped benefits, enjoying greater market share and fatter profits. Most others suffered. America’s International Trade Commission (usitc), a bipartisan agency, found that industries downstream from tariff-coddled producers faced higher input prices and lower profitability. The Peterson Institute estimated that steel users in effect paid an extra $650,000 per job created in the steel industry. Studies have calculated that almost all the costs have been borne by Americans, rather than foreign producers. The usitc found a near one-to-one increase in the price of American imports in the wake of tariffs on China. Mr Trump’s first aim was to slim the trade deficit. He thought tariffs would bludgeon other countries into submission, leading them to rejig policies to America’s advantage. Memorably, he declared that “trade wars are good, and easy to win.” But instead of shrinking, the deficit widened. Instead of buckling, China tripled its tariffs on America. Many allies retaliated, too. The consequences were dismal. Industries that were protected by tariffs reaped benefits, enjoying greater market share and fatter profits. Most others suffered. America’s International Trade Commission (usitc), a bipartisan agency, found that industries downstream from tariff-coddled producers faced higher input prices and lower profitability. The Peterson Institute estimated that steel users in effect paid an extra $650,000 per job created in the steel industry. Studies have calculated that almost all the costs have been borne by Americans, rather than foreign producers. The usitc found a near one-to-one increase in the price of American imports in the wake of tariffs on China. Mr Trump did unquestionably succeed in one respect. He helped remake politics. According to a recent survey from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a think-tank, 66% of Americans think the government should place restrictions on imported foreign goods to protect jobs at home, up from 60% in 2018. On the campaign trail in 2019 Joe Biden criticised tariffs as a costly policy. In power he has rolled them back only a little. The array of levies on China remains intact. Whatever the merits of lifting tariffs, the White House appears fearful of blowback from looking soft on China. At the same time, Mr Biden has concocted an enormous industrial policy, fuelled by more than $1trn in subsidies for electric vehicles, offshore wind, semiconductors and the like. It is a more thoughtful and deliberate approach than Mr Trump’s, but it still looks likely to fail to bring about a manufacturing renaissance, is very expensive and, in lavishing subsidies on American factories, discriminates against other countries. It is, in short, rather Trumpist. How much worse could things get? If Mr Trump wins the presidential election in 2024, the world may discover that the answer is: “Rather a lot.” In August Mr Trump was interviewed on Fox Business, a television channel, by Larry Kudlow, his former economic adviser and a long-time media personality. Mr Trump put forward two ideas. First, all foreign firms selling to America would face a 10% levy. Second, if any country placed a high tariff on anything American, he would hit back with exactly the same tariff. “Call it retribution,” said Mr Trump. “Reciprocity,” interjected Mr Kudlow, using the politer label. The lineage of these ideas can be traced back to thinkers who crafted policy during Mr Trump’s presidency, and who are working on new, more detailed plans. Robert Lighthizer, United States Trade Representative under Mr Trump, recently laid out his vision in a book, “No Trade is Free”. One of his ideas is the universal tariff on all imports, to be used as a lever to bring America’s trade flows into balance, so that the country no longer runs a big deficit. Mr Lighthizer would not limit the tariff to 10%. Rather, he writes, America should impose the levy “at a progressively higher rate year after year until we achieve balance”. Project 2025, a coalition of conservative groups, published a book earlier this year with blueprints for almost every facet of government during a second Trump administration. In the trade chapter, Peter Navarro, another economic adviser to Mr Trump, bemoaned the fact that countries like China and India have higher levies on America’s goods than America does on theirs, arguing that this has led to “systematic exploitation of American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers”. In principle, reciprocity could be achieved in two ways—either by persuading other countries to lower tariffs or by America raising its own. Mr Navarro leaves no doubt as to his preference. If Mr Trump has his way, other countries will probably respond by slapping their own tariffs on America. The spread of universal tariffs would be akin to a giant tax on cross-border transactions, making international commerce less attractive. Meanwhile, Mr Trump’s hopes of shrinking the trade deficit would run headlong into the economic forces that actually determine the balance of exchanges between countries. In America’s case the crucial factor is the country’s low saving rate, which is almost certain to continue as a result of persistently high consumer spending and widening government deficits. Mr Trump has pointed to one ostensible virtue of his tariffs: they generate income. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an advocacy group, estimates that a 10% tariff may bring in up to $2.5trn in extra revenue during its first decade of implementation, which could be used to reduce America’s budget deficit. But this money could also be brought in by other methods. Raising tariffs simply means picking them as a tax over others such as, say, a higher income or inheritance tax. Every tax has pros (eg, generating public revenue or discouraging bad behaviour) and cons (eg, hurting growth or imposing costs on individuals). The cons of tariffs are big. Ahmad Lashkaripour of Indiana University estimates that a global tariff war would shrink American gdp by about 1%. Most countries would suffer falls closer to 3%. The drag on smaller, trade-reliant economies would be greater still. Tariffs are also regressive since they hurt those on lower incomes twice. They tax more of their spending, by raising the price of consumer goods, and more of their earnings, since many work in industries, such as construction, that face higher material costs. If the bulk of the tariff bill is passed on to American consumers, as occurred with the first round of Mr Trump’s tariffs, a 10% duty would cost each American household about $2,000 per year. The toll from universal tariffs would go beyond their economic impact. International commerce, and the system that enables it, built after the second world war, allows countries to challenge each other’s policies at the World Trade Organisation (wto). But the wto’s role in dispute settlement has been disabled since 2019, when the Trump administration blocked appointments to its appellate body, preventing the institution from making binding rulings. The result is that countries which object to Mr Trump’s tariffs would lack a suitable way to confront them. “The system would fall apart in a much greater way than it did even during his first term,” says Douglas Irwin of Dartmouth College. Mr Biden has not been a model free-trader. His industrial policy is built on lavish subsidies that, by incentivising investment in America, are unfair to other countries. Yet even if somewhat hamfisted, he has worked to cobble together supply chains and trade networks that bring America and its allies closer together. This is part of an attempt, still in its infancy, to lessen dependence on China. Mr Trump’s tariffs would reverse Mr Biden’s progress. It would no longer be America and (occasionally reluctant) friends versus China—it would be America versus the world. “Trump would view it as a badge of honour if other countries were upset. He’d say, ‘See, I’m fighting for you and we’re sticking it to them’,” predicts Mr Irwin. Mr Trump would lack outright authority to implement a universal tariff. The constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce; the president can intervene only by using special justifications. Mr Trump previously drew on two statutes: section 232 of trade law allows the president to restrict imports in order to protect national security (the dubious basis for tariffs on steel and aluminium); section 301 allows a president to impose tariffs against a country with discriminatory trade behaviour (the more reasonable basis for actions against China). But both require time-consuming investigations, which would cut against the desire of Mr Trump and his advisers for rapid executive actions. Another option would be to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which Mr Trump used in 2020 to order the removal of TikTok and WeChat, Chinese social-media goliaths, from American app stores. In this scenario Mr Trump would declare a national emergency and then announce a universal tariff as the response. “It is less clear exactly what national emergency would be declared,” says Jennifer Hillman, a former general counsel with the us Trade Representative. “Perhaps that the trade deficit is threatening American competitiveness? Or that the size of the trade deficit is unsustainable?” Few economists would endorse such thinking. Far from being a weakness, appetite for imports comes from America’s strength. The country has run deficits for the past half-century, a period of economic dominance. More crucially, legal experts would also take a dim view of a declaration. “Trump would be bending the law in a direction that it was never intended to apply,” says Alan Wolff, a veteran of trade law. “There would be court challenges, and they might well be successful.” Reciprocal tariffs might seem tidier, but even an attempt to impose tit-for-tat duties would get messy. Mr Navarro loves to point out that American tariffs on cars are just 2.5%, whereas the European Union charges 10%. What he omits is that America has long placed a 25% tariff on imports of pick-up trucks, not to mention hefty duties on some imports of lumber and some foods. Any line-by-line examination of tariffs would turn up scores of examples where American levies are higher than those of other countries. Indeed, a guiding principle of the wto is that countries can negotiate across different product categories to set tariffs that protect politically sensitive sectors, so long as they keep tariffs down overall. Letting countries hammer out unique tariff regimes is a core part of diplomacy. Pure reciprocity would descend into absurdity. Politically, Mr Trump would also face opposition. Despite his embrace of protectionism, many in the Republican Party are less committed. Consider Project 2025, the coalition drawing up policy plans for Mr Trump’s second term. It is quite clear in all of its positions—except for that on trade. Its chapter on trade is split in two: Mr Navarro’s plea for tariffs is set against a free-trade argument by Kent Lassman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think-tank. Mr Lassman lays out what he dubs a “conservative vision for trade”, calling for tariff cuts to reduce consumer prices, as well as more ambitious trade deals. Mr Trump’s domestic opponents would receive support from abroad. A trade official with an American ally says that his government is braced for tariffs at the start of a new Trump administration, and that he and his colleagues have a damage-limitation playbook, honed during Mr Trump’s four years in office. They would work with firms and politicians in Republican districts that enjoy the benefits of trade—from Iowa’s corn-growers to Tennessee’s car industry—and try to persuade Mr Trump to carve out exceptions. Yet both legal challenges and lobbying would take months, if not longer, to play out. In the meantime, the global trade system would be plunged into uncertainty. Other governments would slap retaliatory tariffs on America. Mr Biden’s work to repair ties with America’s allies would be torn apart. As firms try to assess the risks, they could well turn more cautious in their investment, which would weigh on economic growth. Companies with border-straddling operations would face pressure to retrench. Smaller countries that are dependent on trade would be vulnerable. One of the lessons of Mr Trump’s first stint in the White House is that he can cause great damage with the stroke of a pen, and that the damage is not easily reversed. Most of his tariffs are still on the books. The wto remains neutered. The America-first ethos that he preached, once a fringe preference, is now a force in the political mainstream. The consequences of a second Trump presidency for global trade would be grave and enduring. © 2023 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved.

Här hyllar Stallone Trump: "En andra George Washington"

Här hyllar Stallone Trump: "En andra George Washington"

America First Policy Institute-galan arrangerades vid Donald Trumps resort i Palm Beach i Florida på torsdagskvällen. Under galan medverkade Sylvester Stallone, som på duken bland annat porträtterat actionhjälten Rocky Balboa. Stallone var inte sen med att hylla den tillträdande presidenten, rapporterar The Wrap. – Vi befinner oss i närvaron av en riktigt mytisk karaktär, inleder Stallone sin presentation av Donald Trump och tillägger: – Jag älskar verkligen mytologi. Ingen i världen hade kunnat åstadkomma det han åstadkom. Den personen finns inte på den här planeten. Jag är verkligen imponerad, säger Stallone från scenen och möts av jubel. Hyllningskavalkad Dessförinnan hade han förklarat att hans egen filmpersona Rocky var en "utvald person" som kunde "förändra liv – precis som president Trump". Men hyllningarna tog inte slut där. Innan Stallone klev av scenen hann han dessutom jämföra Donald Trump med en av USAs ”founding fathers”, tillika landets första president George Washington. – Och jag vill bara säga detta, och jag menar det. När George Washington försvarade sitt land hade han ingen aning om att han skulle förändra världen, för utan honom kan ni föreställa er hur världen skulle se ut. Gissa vad? Vi har fått en andra George Washington. Grattis. När Trump sedermera äntrade scenen förenades de båda i en kram.

Sverige satsar fem miljarder på luftvärnsrobotar

Sverige satsar fem miljarder på luftvärnsrobotar

Tillsammans med flera andra europeiska länder satsar man 60 miljarder, från svenskt håll över fem miljarder. – Det är en erfarenhet från kriget i Ukraina, att det går åt mycket patriot-robotar då Ryssland har både ballistiska robotar, stridsflyg och kryssningsrobotar, säger Jonson och tillägger: – Det andra som är nytt är att produktionen kommer att ske i Europa, det är bra att det finns fler ställen där de här robotarna produceras. Försvarsministern menar att beskedet kommer att skapa en starkare europeisk försvarsindustriell bas. Kan pressa priserna tillsammans Patriotsystemet är ett amerikanskt luftvärnssystemet inom den svenska försvarsmakten benämns det som Luftvärnssystem 103. Sverige använder sig av två olika robotar, en för att skjuta ner olika typer av fientliga flygplan och en som används mot ballistiska missiler och kryssningsrobotar. – Vi går ihop med andra länder, då kan vi pressa ner priserna och se till att vi får fler robotar, säger Jonson. Att robotarna kommer tillverkas i Europa är en positiv aspekt enligt Jonson, då det råder en brist inom den europeiska försvarsindustrin på produktionsförmåga. Jonson: Inte hållbart med så ensidigt stöd Donald Trumps seger i det amerikanska presidentvalet har lett till många frågor kopplat till kriget i Ukraina. Trump har tidigare lovat att lösa konflikten på 24 timmar och i amerikanska medier kommer uppgifter om att Trump vill dra tillbaka stödet helt till Ukraina.

– Det vi tar med oss är den grundläggande ekvationen att det i längden inte är hållbart att en allierad står för två tredjedelar av försvarsinvesteringarna inom det euroatlantiska området.

Samtidigt menar Jonson att man ser en förändring bland Nato-länderna, där allt fler satsar mer på försvaret. Natomedlemmar förväntas satsa minst 2 procent av landets BNP på försvaret. Idag lägger Sverige 2,2 procent på försvaret, en siffra som förväntas ligga på 2,4 procent nästa år.

– Vi förväntar oss också att de andra allierade agerar på ett liknande sätt, säger Jonson.

Donald Trump på YouTube

Donald Trump speaks after winning the 2024 Presidential Election

Former President Donald Trump delivers remarks from Mar-a-Lago as Americans await the results of the 2024 presidential ...

Fox News på YouTube

Donald Trump ‘acted like a man’, says Putin

President Vladimir Putin congratulated Donald Trump on winning the US election, praised him for showing courage when a ...

The Times and The Sunday Times på YouTube

Så reagerar svenskarna på Trumps valseger i USA

Katastrof, säger en. – Stenhård affärsman, säger en annan. Expressens Anton Gymark möts av blandade reaktioner på ...

Expressen på YouTube

Jimmy Kimmel Reacts to Donald Trump Winning the Presidential Election

Last night we had the choice between a prosecutor and a criminal and we chose the criminal, more than half of the country voted ...

Jimmy Kimmel Live på YouTube

Full speech: Donald Trump declares victory in 2024 presidential election

Here is the full speech from Donald Trump, which he gave early Wednesday morning following the 2024 presidential election vs.

WKYC Channel 3 på YouTube

Donald Trump i poddar

What to expect from President Trump 2.0

Despite being banned from the ballot paper in two states (so far) and multiple legal hurdles, Donald Trump is the clear favourite to return as the Republican candidate for US president, and opinion polls also give him the edge in a rematch with Joe Biden. Trump has joked about becoming a "dictator" for a day if he wins, and says he would carry out mass deportations – and that’s just the beginning of his plans for a second term.This podcast was brought to you thanks to the support of readers of The Times and The Sunday Times. Subscribe today: thetimes.co.uk/storiesofourtimes. Guest: David Charter, US Editor, The Times.Host: Manveen Rana.Clips: Sky News, ABC News, New York Post, CBS News, Trump 2024, The Economic Times, Fox News, The 700 Club, CNN, US Network Pool, Forbes, The Benny Show. Read more: Will Donald Trump still run in 2024? The Colorado decision explainedIf Donald Trump becomes US president again, here’s what he’ll doEmail us: storiesofourtimes@thetimes.co.ukFind out more about our bonus series for Times subscribers: 'Inside the newsroom' Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump: Dictator in Chief?

The shadow looming over the fourth Republican debate was the party’s most recent president, Donald Trump. But while the other candidates traded blows at one another, Trump was conspicuously absent, instead taking part in a town hall event on Tuesday evening. He raised eyebrows when saying he would only be a dictator on ‘day one’ if elected president. The Americast team chew over Trump’s comments – and the Republican debate – before speaking to GOP candidate Asa Hutchinson, the former governor of Arkansas who’s still in the race for the White House.And, a clip of American university leaders has gone viral after they failed to say explicitly to Congress that calling for the genocide of Jewish people violated their schools code of conduct. The team assesses how we’ve reached this point. HOSTS: • Justin Webb, Radio 4 presenter • Marianna Spring, disinformation and social media correspondent • Anthony Zurcher, North America correspondent GUEST: • Asa Hutchinson, Republican presidential candidate GET IN TOUCH: • Join our online community: https://discord.gg/qSrxqNcmRB • Send us a message or voice note via WhatsApp to +44 330 123 9480 • Email Americast@bbc.co.uk • Or use #Americast Find out more about our award-winning “undercover voters” here: bbc.in/3lFddSF. This episode was made by George Dabby with Alix Pickles, Catherine Fusillo, Claire Betzer and Maia Davies. The technical producer was Mike Regaard. The series producer is George Dabby. The senior news editor is Sam Bonham.

You've Got Mailbag

At the end of every episode of Prosecuting Donald Trump, we ask you to submit your questions and today, we finally have a chance to answer some of them. As we’re all reflecting on the year ahead, Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord answer your questions about 2023’s legal landscape and what’s to come in 2024. 

Will the courts Trump the Donald?

Today, we look at Donald Trump’s disqualification from the Colorado ballot.The state’s Supreme Court has ruled him ineligible because of his actions in the run up to the US Capital riot in 2021. Americast’s Sarah Smith and Justin Webb join to discuss whether this could be the beginning of the end for his 2024 bid.And the departing First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, is in the studio to talk about his political legacy, as well as really liking cheese. You can join our Newscast online community here: https://tinyurl.com/newscastcommunityhere Newscast brings you daily analysis of the latest political news stories from the BBC. It was presented by Adam Fleming. It was made by Chris Flynn with Gemma Roper, Sam McLaren and Joe Wilkinson. The technical producer was Matt Dean. The senior news editors are Jonathan Aspinwall and Sam Bonham.

Disqualified in Colorado

For the first time in history, the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate from running for office. In this special breaking news episode, MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord react to the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to disqualify former president Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 presidential ballot under the Constitution's insurrection clause. Andrew and Mary discuss what the court’s decision means and the potential fallout. Note: Trump’s legal team intends to appeal the decision. 

BONUS: The Full Presidential Immunity Hearing

Former President Donald Trump appeared in federal court Tuesday morning as his lawyers argued that he is immune from prosecution on charges to overturn the 2020 election. Listen to the full hearing here. 

Is America about to give Donald Trump a second chance? Dispatch from the Deep South

Emily reports from Georgia, the eye of the Donald Trump legal storm, where he was caught on tape trying to get an election official to 'find' him more votes to win the 2020 election. A year out from 2024, is this purple state closer to staying blue or turning MAGA red? The latter could tip the election in Trump's favour. And we cross state lines to the hometown of the woman who could capitalise should a jail cell call for the Donald. Nikki Haley. Could she prove to be the Republican nominee come election day?And...Jon is in Paris, France- and he's nabbed the Mayor of Detroit - Mike Duggan. Don't ask how. He talks to the man in charge of a crucial blue city in a crucial swing state. Editor & Field Producer: Gabriel RadusVideo Producer: Rory SymonYou can listen to this episode on Alexa - just say "Alexa, ask Global Player to play The News Agents USA".

DC Drama

Former president Donald Trump renewed his efforts to delay the DC election subversion case by asking for a halt in all proceedings while his appeal on presidential immunity moves through the courts. Meanwhile, Special Counsel Jack Smith is pushing to keep the trial on schedule by bringing the issue before the Supreme Court. MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord break down Smith’s strategy and what this could mean for the former president’s other criminal cases. Plus, they discuss news out of Wisconsin where ten fake Donald Trump electors settled a civil lawsuit admitting their actions were part of an effort to overturn the 2020 election.

Immunity Denied

In what could be his most consequential legal defeat yet, a federal judge rejects Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity in his 2020 election case. MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord break down what this – and a similar ruling in a parallel civil case --could mean for the ex-president. Plus, they'll talk GA where Trump’s lawyers say he shouldn’t be tried until 2029 if he wins next year’s election.

Bunker USA: The 5 key Donald Trump dramas you need to focus on

Donald Trump is never out of trouble. And it’s hard to keep up with his latest wrongdoing. Jacob Jarvis is joined by Andrew Rudalevige, Thomas Brackett Reed Professor of Government at Bowdoin College and a visiting professor at LSE, to go over the five key areas of drama you need to understand in the run up to 2024. • “If Trump were convicted of all 90 of his current felonies, he'd’ be looking at something like 700 years in prison.” • “Any private citizen not named Donald J. Trump would inevitably get convicted for espionage and obstruction of justice in the classified documents case” www.patreon.com/bunkercast  Written and presented by Jacob Jarvis. Producer: Eliza Davis Beard. Audio production: Simon Williams. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Music by Kenny Dickinson. THE BUNKER is a Podmasters Production. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Trump's Thanksgiving Threats

Donald Trump’s Thanksgiving threats take center stage as judges in NY and DC decide whether to reinstate his two gag orders. Plus, we’ll dig deeper into Trump’s charade of victimhood as he tries to get his federal election case in DC dismissed. All this, as Andrew and Mary celebrate 50 episodes of the pod!

Foreseeable Consequences

Donald Trump’s team and the U.S. government squared off in a DC appeals court over his latest attempt to undo a gag order issued against him in his federal election subversion case. MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord break down Trump’s claims and which way they think the three-judge panel is leaning. Plus, a judgein Colorado denies a motion to keep Trump off the ballot there in 2024 – but why some say the ruling is still a bad one for the former president.

Trump's Tumultuous Testimony

Donald Trump took the witness stand Monday in the biggest moment of his civil and criminal trials thus far. MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord dig into some of his big admissions and how badly he may have hurt himself. Plus, we’ll get into the former president’s latest efforts to delay his federal trials and the new criticism facing Judge Aileen Cannon in the FL documents case.