Donald Trump is hellbent on punting abortion 100% to the states so that he himself doesn't have to take a stand on it. On Monday he extended this even further in an interview with Caitlin Huey-Burns of CBS News:
As president, would you enforce the Comstock Act, which could prohibit the sale of, or the distribution of medication abortion by mail?
No, we will be discussing specifics of it, but generally speaking, no, I wouldn't.
You would not enforce the Comstock Act?
I would not do that.
Needless to say, the anti-abortion base of the Republican Party isn't happy about this. But their protests are mostly pro forma. For the most part, they seem to accept Trump's wink-and-a-nudge implication that he's just saying this stuff to get elected and will shift back to their side as soon as he's back in the White House.
But will he?¹
¹Hopefully we'll never find out, of course.
Another instance of him saying anything to get votes. The only problem is if you're pro choice you won't believe him. If you're pro forced birth, you might think this is a betrayal. Why he's pandering to people who don't trust him while alienating the ones that do I'll never know.
The anti-abortion zealots understand he's just lying to get elected, at which time he'll reverse himself and ban abortion drugs by mail (or look the other way when state and local officials do). They don't give a shit.
You're probably right. They know they support a pathological liar. They're going to trust that he's lieing about this.
Do you really think Trump gives a fig about abortion? Or would disrupt his own agenda to do any favors for the pro-Lifers. Once he's reelected he won't need their votes and he has a long history of stiffing on his obligations. At least this time he's signaling as much right up front
No, *he* wouldn't do that. But if his *Attorney General* wants to wake it from its crypt, who is trump to say no?
The more straightforward bet would of course be on a straight-out lie or on its close relative, saying what he needs to in the moment to skate away. Either of these would allow him to end up doing what he gets most pressured and flattered to do. So it's at least 90% that the act would be enforced if he had a second administration.
And if that happens (speaking of dusty old locked-up laws) he'd always have the keys to the Insurrection Act and a huge Jones to unlock it.
So as far as he's concerned, it's all good.
Journalists offering such leading questions serve to help Trump's flailing cognitive problems.
"Are you considering the use of all or parts of the Comstock Act? Which parts?"
"Journalists offering such leading questions serve to help Trump's flailing cognitive problems."
Journalists know that most of their readers have no idea what the Comstock Act is.
Yes, and that can be explained to the camera or written in, after the fact. No one needs to aid Trump.
"Yes, and that can be explained to the camera or written in, after the fact. ..."
If not done carefully this would be deceptive. I expect most news organizations discourage it for that reason.
I'm not sure what you mean. I constantly see the news media offer clarifications and corrections of false statements made by the person interviewed, after the fact.
trump probably has no idea what the comstock act is.
This is a great point. IIRC back in 2016 he was asked about the "nuclear triad," no such clarification or explanation given, and it was so obvious he had no idea what the triad might be that his campaign came close to blowing up. And the interviewer was a supporter, I think, intending to offer up a softball.
This is definitely what real journalists should do.
The Triad was having sex with three women at a time not just stormy Daniels.
Or, something like that
One more of the innumerable examples of journalists asking questions based on sheer ignorance of the US system of government; either that, or a wilful intention to misrepresent it.
A decision to "enforce the Comstock Act" would not be the president's. It would be the Attorney General's prerogative to seek court orders enforcing it, and in the fullness of time, the Alito/Thomas Supreme Court's prerogative to endorse it.
The conservative position is that the Attorney General has no independence. They are entirely under the control of the President. The Attorney General acting is the same thing as the President acting, and the AG may not take actions that the President disapproves of.
You wouldn’t happen to be a New York Times fact checker, would you?
Depends on your definition of the word "journalist." Choose one of the following two options:
Option 1: A journalist informs people profitably.
Option 2: A journalist profits from misinforming people.
If you chose Option 2, then it is one more of the innumerable examples of journalists asking questions based on sheer ignorance of the US system of government and/or a willful intention to misrepresent it.
But if you chose Option 2, then it is one more of the innumerable examples of hypocrites asking questions based on sheer ignorance of the meaning of the word "journalist."
Q: But will he?
A: If "yes" or "no" serves his immediate self-interest with utter disregard for literally every other consideration, then, respectively, yes or no.
I think it should be:
The way you wrote it, it looks like it means that it is "objective truth" that it "serves...".
You missed the theory of the unitary executive. Republicans completely reject your belief on how the Executive branch is structured.
Without bad faith….
Republicans would have no arguments…..
I keep hearing that a 2nd trump presidency will be much more effective at implementing all the hateful right-wing policies. He's already trying to disavow Project 2025. Now this... it's all bullshit. If people are electing a hard ass dictator. They damn well better get what they expect.
2nd trump presidency will not implement any "hateful right-wing policies".
It will implement Trump's idea of a good ruler, which is "strong dictator", where "strong" means effectively suppressing the population.
Is there a difference? Or is that sarcasm? Sorry - it's early.
In case the questions is serious: Yes, there is a difference between "hateful right-wing policies" and "poulation suppressing dictator".
You can be pretty hateful person and still accept basics of democracy, and you can be a brutal dictator without being hateful or right-wing.
Of course his Attorney General will enforce the Comstock Act. Trump's very proud of getting rid of Roe, and AFAICT he hates women having any power.
Trump's made it very clear that he thinks Republicans are stupid to own up to any unpopular views before an election. And certainly Trump has no moral qualms about lying.
And his underlings will be happy to enforce the unpopular policies while he denies any culpability for the results.
“ Needless to say, the anti-abortion base of the Republican Party isn't happy about this.”
As if they won’t vote for him.
????????????
Notice he says "I" wouldn't do it. He didn't say anything about letting, say, his AG or Postmaster General do something about it.
Whatever, though, his evangelical base has absolutely no problem with him straight-up lying about this. As it says in the Bible, lying and deception are perfectly ok as long as it's to get something you want.
It's REALLY important to remember that, as a GENERAL principle, whatever Trump says today is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to what he will say or do at any point in the future. He's said this himself on numerous occasions: he wings it. Or to use Frankfurt's term, he's a bullshitter. He says what he thinks will be useful right now,, and that's the end of it. The next thing out of his mouth could be the polar opposite, and it would be just as meaningful when he said it.
His cult know this perfectly well. What THEY depend on are his consistent ACTIONS and CHARACTER. He is a misogynist, a racist, and an authoritarian. He will sign anything the Republicans put in front of him as long as he thinks it'll make him look good at the moment, or cause pain to his enemies, or make him money, and the Republicans are usually good enough to toss something like that into whatever they put under his nose.
He's not complicated, and he doesn't do strategy. He's too stupid for that.
Exactly. +1!
Liberals and pro-life Conservatives think that Trump is lying about this, but I think they’re both wrong.
Trump doesn’t give a crap about abortion, so why on earth would he do something extremely unpopular to please a small minority of conservative Christians (not his people) when he doesn’t have to win another primary?
"so why on earth would he do something extremely unpopular"
The problem with this is that it assumes that
(a) Trump would actually have to "do" something on this, as opposed to the band of weirdos and zealots and grifters surrounding him doing it while he golfs, tweets, pontificates at rallies, and watches teevee;
(b) That Trump cares what is or is not popular; and,
(c) That Trump is capable of discerning what is and is not popular.
Regarding (a), I'm pretty sure that if Trump wins, the horse he rode in on will continue to gallop about without Trump caring at all. Regarding (b) and (c), Trump's indifference to actual policy and personal incapacity for absorbing information coupled with the institutional nonsense built up around him (is JD Vance going to give him objective polling information? Will Stephen Miller?) means that a Trump WH isn't going to be any good at discerning reality to begin with.
He would sign anything as long as the backers promise a big group to crowd around the Resolute Desk and cheer and praise him as he does so.
I so fundamentally don't believe anything Trump says I didn't believe anyone really tried to shoot him until we saw the body of the gunman.
Stop wasting your energy on t-Rump and send Kamala good energy and a win in this selection. We need to stop wasting time on the village idiot. He says what ever he wants. Most everything he says is a lie.
Why is KD repeating anything that come out of that pathological liar's fat orange pie hole? He will say anything to get elected, and in office, he will sign any abortion restricted legislation if he thinks it will hurt his enemies. Afterall, he probably has enough money to send someone, he or one his idiot son's knocks up, to Canada for a procedure.
He will certainly appoint more MAGA Christian Nationalists as Federal judges and to SCOTUS if he has a chance.
He's a bullshitter.
This is the same playbook used by conservative Supreme Court nominees for decades. Conservative voters knew it was just a game, until the mask got pulled off.
It's been working so far, why change? Susan Collins still falls for it, why would other people?
Stipulated, Trump is a lying sack of it and it's quite possible that he is just saying that to defang Dem attacks on GOP voices that call for an unpopular total ban on abortions that could hurt his election bid.
But I think that he, at this point, really has no interest in pursuing the abortion thing further. He really does not seem to be part of the abortion=murder crowd. And I would not be surprised if he paid for a few himself. So I think there is a good chance he is not lying here.
Why bother noting or commenting on anything trump says? Trump couldn't care less whether what comes out of his mouth is "true" or "false" or anything else--he just says whatever pops into his damaged mind in the moment. He most certainly cannot be held to any "promise" he has ever made, including promises made in writing to banks.
we will be discussing specifics of it
standard bullshit response from the trump playbook; "Definitely no, but maybe"
They lie about everything. If the Comstock Act came in the form of an act of congress they’d sign it. No doubt. They’ll ban mifepristone as well no doubt. They’ll accept whatever limits on BCP’s that came their way. They’ll undermine the next election, its started already. Yeah Trump’s an old man but the guy who would succeed him is young and far worse in that he wants so hard to be a true believer. Neither of these guys believe in anything but than money and power…. a little like the ministers that support them.
As many have pointed out, taking anything Trump says at face value is dumb. Will he flip on the issue? In a heartbeat, just as soon as he discerns some benefit for himself.
Needless to say, the anti-abortion base of the Republican Party isn't happy about this. But their protests are mostly pro forma. For the most part, they seem to accept Trump's wink-and-a-nudge implication that he's just saying this stuff to get elected and will shift back to their side as soon as he's back in the White House.
Say what you want about Trump but you're in a pretty strong place as a politician when you can basically thumb your base and still have them vote for you and support because they have no choice. Hell, the Trump practically rewrote the GOP platform to completely moderate its views on abortion and again, the anti-abortion forces and had to sit and take it.
Why? Because they know their activists, funders and supporters are all Trump fans and don't not look kindly on people who attack him. So they're stuck, lest they be, as I once made the comments about Christian pastors being "shepherds without flocks" by not supporting Trump.