Putin Year-End Address, SCOTUS Abortion Access, Trump Fraud Trial

media, but at the end of most years he holds an extended press conference.

What does he say as another year ends with his country still at war in Ukraine?

I'm Steve Inskeep and this is Up First from NPR News.

The Supreme Court, having ended a constitutional right to abortion, will hear its first abortion

case since overturning Roe v. Wade.

This is a challenge to an abortion pill.

Lower courts have delivered mixed rulings on the pill.

What does this mean for women who receive it in the mail?

Also the civil fraud trial against former President Trump is done.

The judge already found that his company inflated the value of its properties.

So what did 10 weeks of testimony add?

Stay with us.

We've got the news you need to start your day.

That's on the TED Radio Hour from NPR.

A lot.

This is an almost annual tradition.

Putin holds an extended press conference at the end of the year.

He also hosts a televised call-in show with the Russian public.

I say almost annual because Putin skipped this last year as his invasion of Ukraine

went wrong.

Today, both rituals are back and combined into one.

NPR's Charles Mainz is following along in Moscow and joins us now.

Hey there, Charles.

Good morning.

I guess we should note, as you and I are talking, we're in the middle of an event that can usually

go for hours.

So what is Putin saying?

Once again, we hear him arguing that Russia is the defender of so-called traditional values,

accusing the West of trying to isolate and destroy the country.

Let's listen to a taste.

So here Putin says that Russia's very survival rests on maintaining its sovereignty, the

implication here that Russia needs to defend its independence from the West in every sphere,

from politics to culture to the economy.

Now, Putin in some ways undermined the main intrigue of today's event with last week's

announcement given at a small Kremlin gathering rather than from the big stage here that he

intends to stand for a fifth term in office when the country holds elections in March

of next year.

So today, de facto, Putin is in campaign mode.

Moreover, for an election he's universally expected to win, yet in its own strange way,

this year-end press conference event is also what passes for retail politics here.

Russians submit videos pleading with Putin directly to intervene with problems that affect

daily life, saying, we've got no hot water, we need someone to fix the heating, the mayor

won't build the bridge, all that kind of stuff.

And so we often see Putin all too happy to intervene, you know, forever the benevolent

czar.

So what do we learn from the fact that Putin, unlike last year, is holding it?

You know, Putin canceled last year's event, as you note, amid Russia's invasion as it

wasn't going well.

But clearly Putin is feeling much more confident these days about Russia's prospects.

And the fact that he's on the stage is proof of that.

You know, he's arguing Russia's wartime economy has successfully weathered Western sanctions.

He points to Ukraine's failed counteroffensive, and he sees U.S. military support for Ukraine,

in particular in Congress, stalling.

Meanwhile, Russia has settled in for this war over the long haul.

Just last night, Ukraine says Russia launched another barrage of drones and missiles.

So the Russian attacks keep coming, and Putin argues that Russia will come out on top and

keep fighting until it achieves its goals in Ukraine, even if that's at great human

cost.

There are plenty of moments designed to make Putin look good, and there are certainly real

questions, even tough ones, with the caveat that there are usually no follow-ups.

So Putin, who, after all, has been doing this for two decades, quite easily handles these

meddlesome queries from journalists.

And even though Russia's media are almost entirely state-controlled, there are difficult

questions being raised in Russian society, particularly over the war in Ukraine, which

is soon entering its third year.

For example, we've heard from families of mobilized conscripts, civilians who were drafted

into the war last September in what was a very unpopular move by Putin.

They've been angling to get an audience with Putin today and demand the return of their

loved ones from the front immediately.

So he has an opportunity to take tough questions, but on his terms.

Thanks so much.

The court says it will review lower court decisions that would make it harder to get

Mephistophan next year.

Let's talk about this with Sarah Varney, who is a journalist who covers reproductive rights.

Sarah, good morning.

Texas.

He was appointed by former President Trump, and he actually revoked the approval of Mifepristone

entirely.

Then that decision was appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which is in New Orleans, and that

court didn't agree with that sweeping decision.

But it did agree with a group of anti-abortion organizations that argued the FDA's approval

process of Mifepristone was flawed and that the FDA erred when it made the drug more widely

available, including through telemedicine and through the mail.

So yesterday, the Supreme Court justices agreed to take up an appeal to that decision from

the company that makes Mifepristone and the Biden administration, and they're asking the

Supreme Court to reverse that ruling by the Fifth Circuit.

So it's not just a yes-no decision on whether the FDA properly approved this pill.

There are also questions about how it's accessible and a variety of FDA choices over a variety

of years.

So how could access to the pill be affected?

Sure.

in this country, and they're really used also by OBGYNs to manage early miscarriages.

So, you know, they're hugely important.

If the Supreme Court upholds the appellate ruling by the Fifth Circuit, then patients

would not be able to get Mifepristone through the mail, even if they live in states like

Massachusetts or California, where abortion is legal.

They would have to make three separate appointments in person with a doctor.

This is not currently required.

And instead of being able to use Mifepristone into the 10th week of pregnancy, patients

could only use it until seven weeks.

This doesn't mean medication abortion would become entirely unavailable.

Clinics and physicians and telemedicine services could still prescribe a drug called misoprostol.

That's usually taken with Mifepristone, but it can also be taken safely and effectively

on its own.

And just to note that misoprostol was actually approved by the FDA in 1988, so quite a long

time ago, to treat gastric ulcers.

The anti-abortion groups, we just haven't seen them target that approval process yet.

Now, since this is all about FDA approval and whether it was proper, what does this

case mean for the FDA?

The FDA approved this medication more than two decades ago.

More than 5 million people in the U.S. have used it safely.

It's approved for use around the world.

And this case has attracted a lot of attention from FDA scholars.

Some who support abortion rights, others do not.

They actually filed an amicus brief defending the FDA's rigorous drug approval process.

And they argue that if religious groups or private individuals can challenge each drug

that the FDA reviews, that it really undermines the entire FDA regulatory authority and it's

going to throw the pharmaceutical industry and really the country's regulation of drugs

just into disarray.

had a big effect on that election.

Now aren't we talking about a ruling on this abortion pill that would again come out in

an election year next year?

Yeah, so the court typically issues its decisions by the end of June, although that can sometimes

tip over into July.

So you're right.

That puts the court on just a collision course with the presidential campaign, which will

be, of course, in full swing by then.

We've seen repeatedly that voters, even in conservative states, support abortion rights.

We just saw Ohio voters enshrined a right to abortion recently in their constitution.

And there are actually some other campaigns for abortion rights ballot measures underway

in Florida and Arizona, among other states.

Journalist Sarah Varney, thanks so much.

in public for the first time ever, well, testimony's over.

An assistant attorney general said the people have rested, and soon the case goes to a judge.

NPR's Andrea Bernstein has been covering the case and joins us now.

Andrea, good morning.

general in the first claim of her case, that the Trumps had committed persistent and repeated

fraud.

And the judge ordered the Trumps to start turning over their business certificates in

preparation for a possible dissolution of the company.

That part's been put on hold.

At one point in the trial, the judge said, I've already decided these were ill-gotten

gains.

So the question is, by how much will he order the Trumps to pay back the state?

did they go on with 10 weeks of testimony?

First, from the employees, appraisers, and accountants who really divulged the details

of all this.

So let's take the value of the triplex at Trump Tower, which Trump said was three times

as big as it really was.

Here's how it worked.

Trump's chief financial officer told a broker that worked for the Trumps that the apartment

was 30,000 square feet instead of 10,000.

So the broker came up with a value that was three times bigger than it should have been.

And then that false value was attributed back to the broker.

So when the Trumps were caught lying by Forbes about the value of the triplex, what happened

is Trump's employees pumped up the value of another property at 40 Wall Street to make

up the difference in the lowered value on the statement of financial condition.

This was what former Trump corporate vice president Michael Cohen testified was called

reverse engineering of the numbers.

but because you may borrow money on the value of properties or do any number of other things

based on the value of your properties.

And that's what prosecutors describe as fraud or what the court, rather the people, so to

speak, the government describes as fraud.

What did the former president's testimony teach us, if anything?

of those statements of financial condition that the judge had found were fraudulent.

So even though he was somebody himself who'd been in real estate all his life, he said,

well, maybe this was because the broker mistakenly included the roof or the elevator shafts.

Meanwhile, Trump's sons, Don Jr. and Eric, who really were in charge of the company when

when Trump took over the White House, said, well, it wasn't us.

It was our lawyers.

It was our accountants.

And then there was Ivanka Trump, who is not a defendant, but who acknowledged sending

e-mails and letters that really laid out how, based on these fraudulent statements, the

Trumps were able to get loan rates, maybe around 2%, when out in the market, they're

about 30%.

OK, that's a difference.

So very briefly, what is the defense case here?

A major bank involved said it was seeking out Trump's business.

One executive called it whale hunting.

And inside and outside the courtroom, the Trumps have accused the AG and the judge of

bias.

They've made it very clear they will appeal.

In any event, we should see a verdict from the judge in January after we get some closing

briefs and arguments.

I'm Steve Inskeep.

Today's episode was edited by Mark Katkoff, Will Stone, Dana Farrington, and H.J. Mai.

It was produced by Katie Klein, David West, and Lindsay Todd.

And we get engineering support from Stacey Abbott.

Our technical director is Zach Coleman.

Join us tomorrow and listen to this podcast sponsor-free while financially supporting

public media if you listen to Up First Plus.

You can learn more at plus.npr.org.