Politics
Why Trump has (several) good reasons not to want people to see ‘The Apprentice’
Given former President Donald Trump’s litigious nature, it was hardly a surprise the former president would greet a movie devoted to his formative years as a real-estate mogul with threats of legal action against “blatantly false assertions from these pretend filmmakers,” as Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung noted in May. Despite that customarily aggressive claim, I’d argue the Republican presidential nominee does have good reasons to not want people to see “The Apprentice,” which arrives in movie theaters this week.
It was hardly a surprise the former president would greet a movie devoted to his formative years as a real-estate mogul with threats of legal action.
The film’s most shocking and visceral scene depicts the fictional Trump raping his then-wife Ivana, which the real Trump and Ivana deny happened (more on this below). It’s a moment likely to dominate the conversation. But in terms of understanding what makes Trump tick, and his often-casual relationship with facts, the rest of the film is unflattering in timely and pointedly significant ways.
Written by journalist Gabriel Sherman, and directed by Ali Abbasi (whose credits include the film “Border” and episodes of HBO’s “The Last of Us”), the film mostly centers on Trump’s pivotal relationship with Roy Cohn, the red-baiting attorney whose tutelage provides the title with a double meaning, given the TV show that forged and gilded Trump’s image. “The Apprentice” introduces the young Trump character (played by Sebastian Stan) as he seeks to escape the shadow of his domineering father, gradually doing so with considerable help from Cohn, portrayed with over-the-top gusto by “Succession’s” Jeremy Strong.
Cohn spots Trump across a crowded, posh club and takes him under his wing, helping him first with a lawsuit involving allegations of discriminatory renting practices at his rundown apartment buildings, and later with his ambitious development plans in New York.
“You’re the client, but you work for me,” the imperious Cohn tells him. “That means you do what I say, when I say it.”
As presented in the film, Cohn — who was basically a mob lawyer at the time — will do anything to win, up to and including bullying and blackmailing city officials. What “The Apprentice” really captures, though, is how Trump learned from Cohn, adopting and internalizing his rules of public combat: “1. Attack, attack, attack. 2. Admit nothing, deny everything. 3. No matter what happens, you claim victory, and never admit defeat.”
Although “The Apprentice” takes the usual dramatic liberties in adapting a fact-based story to the screen, a lot of the broad strokes have been chronicled in earlier projects like the 2019 documentary “Where’s My Roy Cohn?” The title quotes Trump during his time in the White House, with author Michael Wolff reporting that he would occasionally ask aloud “Where’s my Roy Cohn,” frustrated by his inability to find lawyers who would represent him in the bare-knuckled manner that Cohn did.
As is so often the case (and any “Star Wars” fan can recognize), the apprentice eventually became the master. And Cohn’s fading health due to AIDS turns him into one of the many people Trump uses and discards on his climb to the top.
While far from humble when he meets Cohn, Trump is still developing his trademark swagger. Cohn is shown squiring Trump around and introducing him to all the right people, including Andy Warhol, Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, political operative Roger Stone and publishing mogul Rupert Murdoch (“Rupert is gonna be key for you,” Cohn tells him).
Apart from Cohn, the film also explores Trump’s relationship with first wife Ivana, whom he aggressively pursues, marries and eventually grows tired of. Their deteriorating relationship culminates in the brutal encounter she cited in a deposition related to their divorce, which, as The New Yorker detailedshe first sought to clarify, then later disavowed as a story “without merit.” (Ivana is portrayed by Maria Bakalova, who first gained attention for her role in the “Borat” sequel and her hotel-room interaction with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.)
Trump’s campaign has dismissed “The Apprentice” as “pure fiction” and “malicious defamation.”
Trump’s campaign has dismissed “The Apprentice” as “pure fiction” and “malicious defamation.” Still, any studious observer of Trump can see how its broad underpinnings ring true, particularly Cohn’s counsel to claim victory no matter what, and his declarations “There is no ‘Truth,’ with a capital T” and “Truth is a malleable thing.”
Trump’s behavior in public life, certainly over the last decade, reinforces how he took those lessons to heart. When the truth doesn’t matter, lying becomes not just a strategy but a kind of protective armor.
“The Apprentice” is, in that sense, the oldest of origin stories, where the mentor discovers the hard way how well he accomplished his task.
Brian Lowry is a media columnist and critic, most recently at BLN, and before that Variety and the Los Angeles Times.
Politics
Trump wants the Postal Service to radically overhaul mail voting. But ballots are already going out.
President Donald Trump’s controversial demands for the Postal Service to overhaul and monitor millions of mail ballots hit another snag on Friday, when North Carolina became the first state in the nation to start sending out ballots for the November election.
In March, Trump signed the initial executive order, which aimed to crack down on mail-in voting — which he regularly alleges without evidence is a vector for widespread voter fraud — and assert an unprecedented amount of federal control over the upcoming elections.
Under this order and the subsequent rule drafted by the U.S. Postal Service, the USPS would refuse to deliver ballots to states that failed to provide lists of eligible mail voters or did not adhere to an approved envelope design style.
Since then, the order has faced legal challenges, and it remains paused by a federal judge’s orders. But the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the new rule to proceed — something current and former election officials from both parties say would be both a legal nightmare that oversteps the federal government’s traditional role in elections and a logistical one that is happening far too close to the November election to implement even if they agreed with it.
“Why the hell are you rocking the boat this late in the game?” said Stephen Richer, a former Republican recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, who has clashed with Trump allies for defending the security of the 2020 election.
Still, election officials are trying to project a sense of normalcy for voters, particularly in North Carolina, which serves as a test of whether established local election systems can operate normally amid intensifying federal scrutiny.
“I want to emphasize this point because there has been a lot of outside noise: Our county workers are ready,” Sam Hayes, a longtime Republican lawyer in the state and now executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, said in a Thursday afternoon press conference.
He added, “All we can do is what we’re doing. … It is business as usual as far as I’m concerned.”
Despite the legal challenges, the Trump administration has continued to press the courts to let it proceed. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to lift an order from a Massachusetts judge which temporarily prevents the USPS from enforcing their rule. It is the second time the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to step in, after winning an earlier victory in which the high court dismissed an earlier hold on the rule as premature.
“The uncertainty is coming from a single activist judge who continues to try and obstruct President Trump from implementing commonsense measures to protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans vote in American elections,” White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement. “These safeguards for mail ballots were proposed months ago giving election officials ample time to prepare for the 2026 election.”
The USPS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Election officials said that if the rule goes into effect this close to November, it would cause chaos and place added strain on the USPS and election officials. And an anonymous federal whistleblower said in a report circulated earlier this week by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) that the USPS was moving forward in a “secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed process” to try to implement the new system ahead of the midterms.
In the coming weeks, states across the country will follow North Carolina’s lead. Nine other states will begin mailing ballots in the next two weeks, according to a tracker from the National Conference of State Legislatures — with the biggest day for mailing coming 45 days before the election in mid-September.
“It would be so outrageous to try to let this go into effect. It’s hard to even imagine,” said Ben Hovland, a senior fellow for democracy at the progressive think tank Center for American Progress and former Democratic commissioner with the Election Assistance Commission who was fired by Trump in July.
He added, “It would be a break-glass moment for our democracy.”
The rule would require meticulous changes to ballot handling and tracking practices that Hovland said are impossible to implement before Election Day in about two months, effectively disenfranchising millions of voters.
“Ballots are printed. Envelopes are printed. You can go on and on with all the practical reasons that show that implementing something like this at this time is not feasible,” he said.
Richer said he doubted the new rules would bring about more security. Even if the USPS received lists from the states, according to the postal service’s final rule, it would not do any additional vetting of the list, Richer said.
“It’s just that the mail ballots have to be on that list, and I don’t see what added value for election integrity that does,” he said.
He added, “It creates a lot of administrative burden, and I think it creates a lot more opportunity for error.”
While a decision looms in the courts, election officials and experts cast doubt on the likelihood of the rules going into effect before November. A more pressing issue, they said, is the confusion and uncertainty surrounding mail-in ballots, which could subvert and change the behaviors of voters.
“It makes things seem messy or difficult, and it can dissuade people from participating or coming out to vote,” Hovland said. “It certainly also helps establish a pretext to make bad faith claims about election results.”
Hovland said that while none of these claims of voter fraud are backed up with facts, they could cause Americans to lose faith in the voting process.
Still, some current officials contended they were well-prepared for whatever happens — and that they’d be able to communicate effectively with voters who have become increasingly buffeted by dramatic rhetoric about the once-unmentioned nuts and bolts of actually running an election.
“There’s always a lot of noise around elections, that’s not going to change, and it can be hard to differentiate that from what’s actually going on on the ground,” said Jason Tyson, director of external affairs for the North Carolina State Board of Elections.
As Election Day approaches, Tyson and election officials said they urge voters to check their registration status and make a plan to vote.
He added, “I think we’ve got a really well-trained, solid staff who are ready, and who have gone through all of the checks and balances and points of contact that we need to do to get to where we are.”
Missouri’s Supreme Court suspended a congressional map that state Republicans drew last year that would have netted the GOP an additional House seat, likely keeping the seat in Democratic hands this November.
The court ruled unanimously on Thursday that a referendum petition organized by Democrats to put the new congressional maps to a vote was incorrectly deemed insufficient by Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, and ordered that the gerrymandered map be put to a vote in the fall.
Voters will ultimately decide the fate of the new lines in November. But in the meantime, it cannot be in place for the midterms, meaning Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s original Kansas City-based district will likely stay in Democrats’ hands this fall.
Construction crews could begin the excavation process for what will be President Donald Trump’s massive 250-foot-tall arch in as soon as the next two weeks, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced on Thursday.
The monument — which will be erected in a traffic circle at the head of the Memorial Bridge over the Potomac River, coming between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington Cemetery — has generated controversy as concerns emerged about the design and traffic congestion during construction.
The arch would take two to three years to construct on the proposed schedule, according to documents released in June.
“We are pleased to announce that after a very long wait (over 125 years!), we are preparing to start, over the next two-week period, the excavation work necessary for the Great Triumphal Arch and Military Observation Deck,” Burgum said in a social media post.
The 250-foot-tall arch will be among Trump’s most visible projects, as the administration continues its attempts to remake Washington. Critics, however, have voiced fears that the structure may be too large, and overshadow other monuments, like the Lincoln Memorial on the other side of the Potomac River.
The proposed arch will dwarf the Arc de Triomphe in Paris in size. It is unclear at this time how much construction will cost; the National Endowment for the Humanities earmarked $15 million for the monument.
“This will be one the the Great Pieces of American Architecture, honoring the history and significance of Arlington National Cemetery and befitting the most powerful Capital in the World,” Burgum said.
The monument will be constructed on land overseen by the National Park Service, and critics have argued Trump’s latest project requires explicit congressional approval. However, the Interior secretary continues to rebut these claims.
Instead, Burgum echoed previous statements and said historically “Congress and various congressionally chartered commissions decreed that a monumental work should adorn Columbia Island,” the traffic circle where the monument is planned to be constructed.
“Despite Congress’s intent, the site became and remains today a barren traffic circle lacking any monumental treatment and significant historic value,” he said.
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship12 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words