Main page    Sep. 01

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page

New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

Trump Legal News: Not Guilty

There wasn't a lot of Trump legal news yesterday, but there was some.

The biggest news, such as it is, is that Donald Trump made two court filings in Georgia. The first waived his right to appear in person at his arraignment, and entered a plea of "not guilty." The second formally asked that Trump's case be severed from that of the defendants who want a speedy trial.

The reason we hesitate to call this "news" is that both filings were as inevitable as the rising sun, or the high tide, or the Angels missing the playoffs yet again. The only mildly unexpected part was that they came a few days early. Presumably, because the two filings are only five pages total, Trump needed only a few hours to read them, as opposed to the entire weekend required for one of those 10-pagers.

What this means it that the biggest news related directly to Trump's trial, in terms of things that were not absolute certainties, was the announcement by Judge Scott McAfee that TV cameras and other recording devices will be allowed into the courtroom. There's an obvious public interest in doing this, Georgia rules (unlike federal rules) explicitly allow it (and, in fact, encourage it), and it probably won't hurt in terms of McAfee's retention bid, either. So, it was at least a 90% chance that this decision would be made, though with unusual trials, especially those where space might be needed for more than a dozen defendants and their attorneys, you can never be certain. Anyhow, it's 100% now.

Time and again, Trump has said and done things that should be bad for a politician, and yet make him stronger. So, we concede that somehow, some way, he could possibly benefit from being prosecuted on national television. That said, we don't see how. It's going to be huge news, and is going to bring home certain realities to voters who don't pay much attention to headlines about this legal filing and that pleading. Also, for his mug shot, he was able to manufacture... whatever that was, because he only had to focus for a few seconds. But he's not good at controlling body language and posture, and he's going to get caught on camera glowering, and huffing and puffing, and rolling his eyes, and it just won't be a good look. Truth be told, this probably increases the chances he won't be present for the trial.

In addition to the filings and camera stuff, there is one other Trump-adjacent bit of legal news worth noting. Former Trump adviser/lawyer and current Trump co-defendant John Eastman was on Fox, and was asked about the only thing anyone cares about involving him. And, in response, he justified his actions on 1/6 by saying he wasn't pursuing anything major, he just wanted Mike Pence to hold off on certifying the election for a week or so.

In other words, "it wasn't a Civil War-level insurrection, it was just a mini-insurrection." No big deal, right? Wrong. As countless legal commentators pointed out after, by way of analogy, you can't defend yourself against a bank robbery by saying "Hey, I just stole a little bit of money." The degree of the theft may impact the length of your sentence (though probably not in cases of insurrection), but you still committed the crime. In other words, Eastman just went on national TV and admitted his guilt. And note that his words, not to mention the video of the TV appearance, are absolutely admissible in court.

We cannot imagine why these various Trump cronies, especially the ones who are veteran lawyers like Eastman is, keep going on TV to talk about the case. Are they trying to taint the jury pool? Are they so angry/offended/hurt that they need to vent, regardless of the consequences? Are they attention seekers trying to extend their 15 minutes of fame? Are they raising money for their defense funds? Those are our best guesses, but the fact is that they are playing with fire, due to the risk of saying something incriminating. When a person is on the witness stand, there are one or more lawyers there to watch for questions that could be troublesome, and to object. Even if the objection is overruled, the defendant gets a heads-up: "Be careful! Problematic question!" But when Laura Ingraham (that's whose show Eastman was on) asks a question, there's nobody to say: "I object!"

And that's the latest on the Trump legal front. (Z)

DeSantis Has Troubles: Bye, Bye, Love

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) was once seen as a serious challenger to the Trumpanthemum Throne. But now, the main story for him is "a campaign in decline." This week has quite a bit of that, in fact.

We start with the Governor's PAC, which is the backbone (PACbone?) of his campaign, since he's pretty good at attracting fat-cat donors, but not so good at attracting any other kind. With funds running low, Never Back Down made a presentation to the fat cats just hours before the Republican candidates' debate, pleading with them to donate $50 million to keep the PAC operating smoothly this year, plus another $50 million next year, in the lead up to Super Tuesday.

There were roughly 60 donors "present" for the online meeting, which means that they are basically each being asked for $1 million this year and another $1 million next year. In order to persuade the donors this is a wise investment, the PAC's staff talked about the DeSantis Index, an internal metric that "proves" the Governor is way more popular than the polls say he is. That reminds us, we've been meaning to announce our creation of the E-V.com Index, which reveals that our site is more popular with Internet users than any site besides Google. We don't know how the DeSantis Index is calculated, but we'll reveal that the E-V.com Index is based substantially on "Percentage of visitors with the initials M.M."

This obvious desperation move makes DeSantis' middling debate performance considerably more damning. If the point is to convince the donors that this thing is not over yet, then he needed to be swinging for the fences, and he most certainly was not doing so. The kind of folks you can ask for $1 million are certainly willing and able to spend that much, but they're not going to throw it away on a dumb investment. And a guy who's trailing his main rival by 30-40 points, and is trending downward, is not a good investment.

The PAC doesn't have to report its fundraising until the end of Q3 (October 1), so there's no way to know for sure how if the $100-million Zoom presentation did any good, though the early indications are not so good for Team DeSantis. Since the debate, Never Back Down has shut down its ground-game operation in four states: California, Texas, North Carolina and Nevada. Exact delegate totals for those states aren't final yet, but between them they have roughly 432 of the 1,235 needed for the nomination, or about 34%. So, the transition from "Never Back Down" to "Guess We Will Back Down, After All" represents a pretty big setback in terms of the Governor's end goal. And again, he is terrible at small-dollar fundraising, so if the PAC is running out of cash, then the campaign as a whole is running out of cash.

In addition to his PAC troubles, DeSantis himself did not have a great week. There were two crises in Florida that required him to leave the campaign trail, and to actually do his, you know, job. The first of those was the swastika-wielding guy who shot up a Dollar General store in Jacksonville, killing three people. Sometimes, tragedies like these are an opportunity to show leadership. But for DeSantis? He doesn't do empathy at all, and he also doesn't want to anger the racist voters he's not-so-secretly trying to attract. So, despite the swastika and the killing of Black people, DeSantis refused to refer to the shooter as a racist.

Further, not only is DeSantis not well suited to being part of the solution, he's pretty clearly a part of the problem. The Governor has done much to heighten divisions and tensions in his home state, while at the same time downplaying the significance of racism, up to and including scoffing at an NAACP travel warning that Black tourists should be extra mindful when traveling to Florida. "Gov. DeSantis has created and pushed a narrative of division and hate that is anti-Black," said Rev. Jeffrey Rumlin, pastor of a church near where the shootings took place.

(Incidentally, as a sidebar, reader B.C. in Walpole, ME, advises us that Canada has just warned its LGBTQ citizens about the risks of traveling to the U.S.—any part of it. We can't say they're wrong about that.)

The other crisis in Florida, of course, is Hurricane Idalia. Given the state he leads, DeSantis is actually pretty good at responding to hurricanes, as long as he remembers to leave the white boots at home. And he's done pretty well with this one. But the great majority of the coverage of this subject has focused on his hypocrisy, and how he voted against hurricane relief funds for other states when he was in Congress, but now that it's Florida, he's got his hand out.

Is focusing on this angle unfair and/or a sign of media bias? Maybe. But it's also kinda who DeSantis is; this is not the only time when he's put politics above the life-and-death needs of his fellow citizens. Heck, it's not the only time this week; recall his unwillingness to take federal funds for climate change mitigation, which we wrote about yesterday.

In any event, fair or not, the vast majority of DeSantis coverage these days is negative and/or focused on how his campaign is faltering. That could change, we suppose, but it usually doesn't, especially with someone who comes off as so unlikable. The money is running out. He's not a good debater, which takes away one possible avenue for reinvigorating his campaign. He's not a good match for the early caucus/primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, which takes away another such avenue.

Add it up, and the big question is not "Will he be the Republican nominee in 2024?" That's been answered to a 99% certainty. Now, the big question is "Will we say 'Bye, Bye, Love' to DeSantis and his campaign before Super Tuesday rolls around?" (Z)

Clarence Thomas Amends Disclosures: You're Not Sorry

It took a while, but Associate Justice Clarence Thomas filed disclosure forms yesterday that revealed at least some of the benefits he received from billionaire benefactor Harlan Crow, along with some six-figure bank accounts that Thomas claims he "inadvertently omitted" from past disclosures. Uh, huh.

The new disclosures only cover the last year, and do not correct the record for the veritable treasure chest of goodies Thomas has gotten from Crow and others in the past. On filing the paperwork, Thomas might plausibly have shown some contrition, saying he regretted the errors and that he would make sure to get his disclosures right in the future. But that is not how he rolls. So instead, he circulated a memo among friendly media members asserting that he is a victim of left-wing groups that have "weaponized" ethics against him. Yes, those pesky ethics. No purpose to them except as a political cudgel.

Thomas is almost certainly above the law here, since there's zero chance of his being impeached and removed. That said, he's clearly feeling at least a little pressure due to the reporting from ProPublica and others. Does Harlan Crow not like being under the microscope? Is Chief Justice John Roberts twisting Thomas' arm? Is there still some doozy in the closet that Thomas is trying to get out ahead of? We don't know, but it remains the case that when he leaves the Supreme Court, it will likely be on his back. (Z)

Mitch McConnell and the Senate GOP: Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) got some small amount of good news on Thursday, following the second incident in which the Kentuckian appeared to freeze for an uncomfortable amount of time, while on camera. The U.S. Capitol's attending physician, Adm. Brian Patrick Monahan, cleared McConnell to resume his normal schedule.

We are not physicians, and were not present for the examination, of course. That said, it's hard to assign too much significance to this finding. Monahan is not McConnell's regular physician, and he's also not a neurologist (his specialty is hematology and medical oncology). Further, just because McConnell was OK at, say, noon yesterday does not mean he's OK overall. The two incidents caught on camera were pretty frightening, and it seems rather unlikely that someone who is on-camera 2% of the time and off-camera 98% would only have this happen during the 2%. The explanation offered by McConnell's staff, namely "dehydration," is also a bit hard to swallow (no pun intended).

And the camera freezes are only part of the story; there's also the falls and the bruised hands and the other indications that McConnell is no longer the picture of health. It is clear enough that he's slipping that Politico's Jack Shafer authored a piece yesterday headlined: "Why Is Nobody Doing Anything About Mitch McConnell?" As you can probably guess, there is an extended discussion of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in the piece, too.

Shafer used to be very good, and sometimes still is, but he's also prone to sometimes producing flabby stuff these days. The current piece is certainly in the latter category. Here is Shafer's answer to the problem he proposes:

What the Senate needs is some spine. Instead of playing the supportive colleague for other legislators who struggle to do their jobs or otherwise turn their backs on the infirm and doddering, senators need to use their powers of persuasion, their parliamentary skills at replacing leadership and old-fashioned jawboning to persuade the mentally muddled or seriously ill to remove themselves from the pinnacles of power and even, if necessary, to resign.

In other words, when the Senate is stuck with a McConnell or a Feinstein, they should DO SOMETHING DAMMIT.

Shafer is certainly clever enough to know, column deadlines notwithstanding, that it just doesn't work like that. Absent serious malfeasance, the Senate has no precedent for ejecting members of diminished capacity (and don't think this problem hasn't come up before). If talking or jawboning or whatever was enough to get someone to step down, Feinstein would have been sent off to the Old Senators' Home at least 9 months ago. It's not so easy to go from "one of the most important people in the country" to "spending my days on doctor's appointments and waiting for death" overnight, which is basically the situation for a Senator not well enough for the intermediate step of writing/teaching/serving on corporate boards/etc. If we were in McConnell's or Feinstein's positions, we probably wouldn't step down, either. Better to keep going, as best you can, and hope you can die with your boots on.

It is also the case that many of McConnell's and Feinstein's colleagues consider the two infirm senators to be friends, or mentors, or role models, or all of the above. To prevent them from going out on their own terms would be a tough thing to do. In McConnell's case, the situation is made even more complicated by the fact that he's the leader of his conference. Those who do not feel loyalty to him, and are just making a power play, run the risk of being frozen out, and getting assigned to the Select Committee on Sticking It Where the Sun Doesn't Shine (see Scott, Rick). Those who do feel loyalty to him have to ask themselves: (1) Can anyone else keep the Conference basically unified, and (2) Can we afford a leadership fight right now, given the upcoming budget messiness?

With all of this said, there is some movement against McConnell's continuance in his current position. Some Republican senators are at least pondering having the meeting that would be necessary to discuss a leadership change. The fact that they might just have a meeting where they could possibly discuss the slight possibility of maybe demoting McConnell speaks to how far removed they are from actually demoting McConnell. That said, they're also much closer to that result than they were before this week's freeze-up.

There's also some carping from outsiders. The National Review, which has rather more cachet in right-wing circles than Jack Shafer does, published an editorial yesterday headlined "Mitch McConnell Needs to Step Aside." If you read it, there is no doubt that the editors are big fans of the Senator. And they don't think he needs to quit entirely, merely that he needs to give up his leadership position at some point. They don't exactly put a timeline on it, but they don't think it would be appropriate for him to remain leader for the balance of this congressional session, much less the balance of his term in office (his current term ends on Jan. 3, 2027).

There are also some non-Senate Republican politicians calling for McConnell to step down (or, to be more precise, taking potshots at him). We mentioned Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) yesterday. And Nikki Haley has also joined the chorus. Appearing on Fox, the wannabe president said that McConnell has to go, and referred to the Senate as "the most privileged nursing home in the country." Very classy.

We do not think that Greene and Haley actually speak for anyone in the Republican Party who has any meaningful amount of power. In fact, we suspect that their remarks have very little to do with the Senator, and everything to do with the President. That is to say, if Greene and Haley don't call for McConnell to step down, then anytime they slur Joe Biden as old/demented/incapable, the follow-up question will be: "What about Mitch McConnell?" This way, they don't have to hem and haw and try to explain why the two circumstances are different. This is also a main reason why you're not hearing many, or any, Democrats call for McConnell to step down. They don't want the follow up question: "What about Joe Biden?"

Not too long ago, we wrote that if McConnell did not regain the majority leadership in 2022, he probably never would. Quite a few readers took us to task for that, but now we're definitely feeling good about that particular prediction. If there are no more public freezes (and that may be a pretty big "if"), we would guess that McConnell keeps his current position until the end of the session, and then spends the last 2 years of his term as a backbencher. (Z)

My Gift is My Song, August 31: Rock of Ages

If we are to continue with the songs of the week, it really works better to make the weekly reports a distinct Friday item, as opposed to putting a note at the top of the page, or shoehorning it into some other item. So, that is how we will proceed going forward.

Last week's songs, in the order they appeared, were:

  1. Kodachrome, by Paul Simon
  2. Say Say Say, by Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson
  3. Fields of Gold, by Sting
  4. Nuthin' but a 'G' Thang, by Dr. Dre
  5. Dirty Laundry, by Don Henley
  6. Edge of Seventeen, by Stevie Nicks

Here are some of the more interesting comments/guesses we got:

Let us note that we're still getting the hang of this, and our sense of things will become more finely tuned over time. We don't want it to be too hard, but we don't want it to be too easy, either. And it is entirely plausible that a reader will discover a commonality that we did not think of or notice. For example, the one from F.W. in Franklin (although "Edge of Seventeen" was actually 1982). Similarly, reader L.B. in Ashburn, VA, came up with a very creative answer that would be difficult to quote, but boils down to: 6 song titles in item heads, 6 song titles in subheads, 6 lyrical references in body text, which adds up to 18—one for each Trump co-defendant who might "sing." Not what we intended, but very impressive.

At the same time, we're not likely to go with something too general, like "songs [that] have been covered by other artists," just because there are so many of those. If we do it right, the commonality should be narrow enough and precise enough that once you have it, you know you have it (or you are at least pretty sure you have it). That said, the guess from S.W.S. in Los Angeles is actually a pretty good clue to this week's theme.

For the correct answer for the week, here's the response from A.C. in Kingston, MA:

The song theme hit me after two entries, and then "Nuthin' but a G Thang" cemented it. They're all from solo albums by artists (Paul Simon, Sting, Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney, Dr. Dre, Don Henley, Stevie Nicks) who'd previously been in chart-topping bands (Simon and Garfunkel, The Police, The Jackson Five and The Beatles, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac).

A.C. adds: "It was particularly heartwarming to see Fields of Gold, as it's 'our song' for my husband and me and the first dance at our wedding, which was 20 years ago last week." Happy anniversary to you and your husband, A.C.!

The first 10 readers to get it right:

  1. M.A. in Park Ridge, IL
  2. T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts
  3. B.P. in Ellensburg, WA
  4. A.W. in Chicago, IL
  5. A.J. in Baltimore, MD
  6. B.P. in Arlington Heights, IL
  7. C.F. in San Francisco, CA
  8. S.A. in Downey, CA
  9. S.T. in Ocean Grove, NJ
  10. J.E. in Gilbertsville, PA

If you have a guess for this week's theme, or a comment, send it here. And note that "My Gift is My Song" is not one of the clues. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Everything Happens To Me

We would guess that approximately 100.0% of lawyers, and some sizable chunk of non-lawyers, are familiar with the observation that someone who represents themselves has a fool for an attorney. We do not generally use this space to talk about the 1/6 defendants and their sentences, since it's kind of like shooting fish in a barrel, but Brandon Fellows worked so very hard to give an object lesson in "don't represent yourself" that we are going to make an exception.

Fellows was among the many people who breached the Capitol during the insurrection. In his case, he headed to the office of Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), put his feet up on the desk there, and smoked a joint. We suspect that's not the first time that's happened in that office, but you can't do it if you don't have to have permission to be there.

Among the things that could go wrong if you represent yourself:

As a result of his behavior in the courtroom, Fellows has already been sentenced to 5 months, just for contempt. And this is from Judge Trevor McFadden who is, let's just say, very friendly to Trumpism. Once the jury comes back and renders the inevitable guilty verdict, Fellows will undoubtedly have his stay as a guest of Uncle Sam extended by several years. But at least he can sing "My Way" to make himself feel better while he sits in his cell. None of them highfalutin' edumicated public defenders for him—No sir!

Of course, having an actual lawyer only goes so far, especially if you committed serious crimes. And so, since we are on the subject anyhow, we'll note that two of the leaders of the Proud Boys, who did have proper lawyers representing them, got long sentences handed down yesterday. Joseph Biggs gets 17 years, Zachary Rehl gets 15. The only longer sentence thus far is the 18 years given to Stewart Rhodes. That said, Enrique Tarrio's sentence will be handed down next week, and he figures to leave them all in the dust.

In any event, the piper is now being paid, and plenty of insurrectionists are now getting heaping helpings of their just desserts. Though the fate of the true kingpins is still pending. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Child Is Father of the Man

In some cases, when a toy becomes a subject of political controversy—like, say, Mr. Potato Head—we are inclined to roll our eyes. That said, we are not averse to the general argument that children are impressionable, that toys play a big role in young people's lives, and therefore that certain toys might well be problematic from a messaging perspective. The Barbie line alone, having been around for 65 years, and having spent much of that time trying to push the envelope, has ended up in hot water at least a dozen times. For some of those, we don't know what the people at Mattel were thinking, and agree with the pushback. Like, which genius approved the Black Barbie called "Oreo Fun Barbie"? And in 1997, for God's sake, not 1947.

We mention this because there are a lot of times when a toy company's screw-up (or their reasonable decision) gets attention and becomes politicized. We don't remember too many cases where a toy company's good work gets that kind of attention. It is for that reason that we pass along this story about Lego.

Most folks will know that Lego bricks have raised circles of equal size on top, like this:

Several Legos, on top of a Lego base

Meanwhile, the people who make Lego bricks took note of the fact that another thing that uses raised circles of equal size is... the Braille alphabet. And so, the company's staff decided to take advantage of that insight. They engineered bricks that work as normal, but are also encoded in a manner where the circles on top represent the various Braille letters. This is no small feat, as Lego bricks are manufactured to extremely precise tolerances (which is why knockoff bricks work poorly). The company began distributing test sets to schools for vision-impaired children in 2020 and, after refining the bricks in response to feedback, will now begin selling them to the general public.

In an era where text-to-speech readers exist, some people believe Braille is outmoded, and no longer necessary for non-sighted people to learn. However, as it turns out, there are plenty of non-sighted people who like to do what sighted people do, which is read one thing while listening to another. Who knew? Further, it's not like you can use text-to-speech on things like elevator buttons. So, the new Lego set can help both non-sighted children and the sighted adults who interact with them regularly to learn Braille in a fun way.

It's true that Lego is a Scandinavian company (they're based in Denmark), which means they're pinko commies, and are basically the Canadians of Europe. Nonetheless, we must congratulate them on their efforts, which are undoubtedly a labor of love, since there aren't fat profits in such specialized toy sets.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers