Trump Says He Wouldn't Sign a National Abortion Ban

Some Republicans want something, namely banning abortion, that most of the country does not want. How should they deal with this problem? They are reaching into their toolbox and looking for the best tool for the job. And the best tool is simply lying about what they will do if elected.

Yesterday, Donald Trump said that if Congress passed a national abortion ban, he wouldn't sign it. That is a total lie, of course, but you are not supposed to say that in polite company. If the Republicans managed to hold the House, win the Senate, abolish the filibuster, and then pass a bill to ban abortion nationwide and Trump vetoed it, the blowback would dwarf a category 5 hurricane. His base and Republicans in Congress would be beyond furious. They finally got their dream and Trump killed it, for no reason at all? It is absolutely inconceivable that Trump would alienate his base and members of Congress and veto the bill. If he did that, there is even a chance the House would impeach him and the Senate would convict him if the vice president said that he or she would sign the abortion bill. Chances like that don't come along every day.

So why is he telling what is almost certainly an outright lie? He knows that the base has nowhere else to go and besides, probably most of them expect him to sign the bill no matter what he is saying now. But there could be some gullible moderates who hear this and believe it. They are his prey, only they don't know it.

To some extent, evidence that Trump doesn't mean a word of what he says about abortion is given by his long history of comments about abortion. On March 1, 2016, he said: "Planned Parenthood has done very good work for millions of women. But we're not going to allow and we're not going to fund, as long as you have the abortion going on at Planned Parenthood." On March 30, 2016, at a town hall, Trump was asked if women should be punished for seeking an abortion and he said "Yes." On Oct. 19, 2016, during a debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump said: "The justices that I am going to appoint will be pro-life, they will have a conservative bent." In May 2017, Trump signed a bill allowing states to withhold federal money from organizations that provide abortion. On Jan. 24, 2020, he told a crowd at the March for Life rally: "Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House." The list goes on. He is clearly against abortion, entirely for political reasons, and his words yesterday ring as hollow as a bell.

To some extent, Trump's hand was forced by the Arizona Supreme Court decision, which de facto bans all abortions in Arizona. That is deeply unpopular there and in the rest of the country. Supporting the decision would cost him a valuable swing state, so he had to do something and making a meaningless announcement that might limit the damage seemed like a good idea.

Joe Biden's team is not going to be fooled by this outburst of moderation. Biden's communications director, Michael Tyler, said: "Trump lies constantly—about everything—but has one track record: banning abortion every chance he gets. The guy who wants to be a dictator on day one will use every tool at his disposal to ban abortion nationwide, with or without Congress, and running away from reporters to his private jet like a coward doesn't change that reality."

Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake (R) also saw the handwriting on the wall and disagreed with the Arizona court's ruling. She said the legislature and governor should work together to come up with a commonsense solution. By this, she means banning abortion via the legislative process, rather than via the judicial process. Of course, any bill the Republican-controlled legislature passed would be unacceptable to Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) and she would veto it. (V)

What Does Alvin Bragg Have to Prove?

Unless one of Donald Trump's Hail Mary plays works, his first criminal trial will begin on Monday. It's more complicated than some of the other cases, more difficult to understand, and probably harder to prove, but it's first, so let's take a look.

First, here are the basic facts. In 2006, Trump had a short affair with Stormy Daniels. He didn't want her to blab to the media about it being the worst 90 seconds of her life, so in 2016 he asked his then-fixer, Michael Cohen, to pay her $130,000 in return for her silence. He then reimbursed Cohen for an amount that would result in $130,000 net (plus a small fee) for Cohen after Cohen paid income taxes on it. Trump put these payments, via multiple checks, on the books of the Trump Organization as "payments for legal services rendered." That is false. Although Cohen is indeed a lawyer, he didn't give any legal advice for that money. Recording it as such violates New York State business law. In addition, legal services are tax deductible, so by falsely recording the nature of the payments, Trump also reduced his New York State income tax by claiming deductions to which he was not entitled. This is tax evasion, although Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg did not indict him for that (but could have).

To win his case, Bragg will have to prove four things, as follows:

• False records: Bragg will have to show that the checks to Cohen were not for legal services rendered. Daniels will testify that she got the money, but she can't testify as to how they were recorded on Trump's books. The bank statements will show all the checks but Bragg will have to convince the jury that they were not for legal services rendered. Cohen will undoubtedly testify that he did not do any legal research, make court filings, or do any other legal work for that money. It was simply a reimbursement (plus a bit more) for paying Daniels.
  
  Further weakening Trump's defense is that the check stubs state that the payments were for services rendered under a retainer agreement. But the Trump Organization won't be able to produce the retainer agreement because there was no such agreement.
  
  

  Bragg will also introduce handwritten notes from CFO Allen Weisselberg corroborating Cohen's testimony. He might also be called as a witness.

  This part should be easy because there is a clear paper trail and witnesses. However, Trump's lawyers will say that since Cohen and Weisselberg are convicted felons, you can't believe a word they say.
  
  

• Trump did it: Even if it becomes clear that records were falsified and Trump signed the checks, Trump's lawyers may try to blame Weisselberg and say that every morning he dumped a pile of checks on Trump's desk for the boss to sign. The charge states that Trump directed the plot and he will try to deflect the blame to Cohen, Weisselberg, and others. Bragg will have to convince the jury that Trump knew all about it.
  
  Witnesses will testify that Trump is a micromanager and the company couldn't spend $2 on a box of paperclips without Trump's knowledge and explicit approval. Also, from a legal perspective, Bragg can show the checks—with Trump's signature, not Weisselberg's. Trump's lawyers may argue that he didn't know what he was signing, but it is doubtful the jury will believe it.
  
  
• Intent: Somewhat trickier is that Bragg will have to prove that Trump had the records falsified with intent to commit fraud. An innocent mistake would not be fraud. Here Bragg will introduce the motive that Trump didn't want the Stormy Daniels story to come out before the election. He can also introduce the fact that Trump previously had the National Enquirer pay Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 in hush money for his 9-month affair with her. This would establish a pattern, and thus clear intent. McDougal was extremely naive and believed Trump loved her. Daniels had no such illusions. That's why the McDougal affair went on much longer.
  
  
• Concealment of a second crime: This may be the hardest part. If Bragg convinces the jury of all of the above, he can nail Trump, but only for a misdemeanor, the penalty for which is a small fine. To make it a felony, he has to show that Trump falsified the records to hide a different crime. What crime will Bragg use here? He could say that by keeping quiet, Daniels was making a contribution-in-kind to his election campaign, and that the contribution was (apparently) worth $130,000, far in excess of the maximum allowed donation. Trump will say that he made the payment to spare Melania's feelings.
  
  However, Cohen will destroy that argument by saying that Trump instructed him to delay the actual payment until after the election. Had Cohen pulled it off (he didn't), Trump would have reneged on the promise, Daniels surely would have gone public, and to hell with Melania's feelings. In short, the goal here is not the goal that Trump claims.
  
  Trump was not charged with the federal offense of violating election law, so the question of whether that could be the underlying crime is up to the judge. If he says it could be, that will certainly be appealed. This is potentially Bragg's Achilles' heel.
  

Will the whole trial matter at all? It might. A new Ipsos poll shows that 64% of registered voters consider it at least somewhat serious, vs. 34% who don't think so. It is also possible that many people are only vaguely aware of the charges, but the enormous coverage of the trial will likely make many more people aware of the case. And when the subject of how serious the charges are comes up, at least some reporters are going to point out that people have gone to prison for falsifying business records in New York, so the crime is real and not a witch hunt. (V)

Things Are Looking Better for Biden and the Democrats

Joe Biden has had some bad news of late. Republicans have continued to block funding for Ukraine. Protests against his Middle East policies continue. Donald Trump made a few billion dollars (on paper, although the DJT stock keeps slipping, down from a high of $66.22 to $34.41 yesterday) and he hasn't been held accountable for any of his crimes. Finally, Trump still leads in some of the swing states.

Nevertheless, Biden has also gotten some good news, too. For example:

• No Labels failed: It has been widely assumed that the No Labels ticket was an attempt by Republican billionaires to create an option for Democrats who are not sold on Biden to vote for a Republican plant. The group raised $70 million for this purpose. But in the end, it couldn't find a candidate and gave up. There is still the RFK Jr. threat, but his long history of being an anti-vaxxer and his running mate's comments that IVF dupes women could take down that ticket as well, later on.
  
  
• Pence snubs Trump: It is "unpresidented" for a former veep to diss his former boss, but this is what Mike Pence has done. He knows everything and said "no way." He is not afraid of Trump and probably has no future in Republican politics until such time that Trumpism is stamped out, in which case he could say: "I told you so." If Pence continues to seek publicity to say that Trump is unfit to be president, that could affect some evangelical voters who like him.
  
  
• Biden got moving: Biden's State of the Union speech showed real mojo and demonstrated to anyone who watched that he is not a feeble old man. He also raised $25 million in one day with the three-presidents event at Radio City Music Hall. Also, in the seven national nonpartisan polls April 1-10, Biden leads in four of them, a huge improvement since March.
  
  
• Trump's first trial: As discussed above, it seems increasingly likely that Trump will go on trial Monday. Being on trial for a crime is not likely to help his campaign. Dyed-in-the-wool Trumpists will say it is a witch hunt, but it is hard to see how going on trial wins over moderate Republicans, while it certainly could lose some of them.
  
  
• The Senate: The Senate map is so good for the Republicans that they can already taste victory, but the polls don't show any of the endangered Democratic senators running for reelection as losing. As is often the case, Republicans have found rich businessmen (often from out-of-state) to contest Senate seats, and the voters don't seem to be buying it. In some cases, the popular Democratic senators may even have coattails that help Biden.
  
  
• The Alabama special election: In a special election for a seat in the Alabama House, Democrat Marilyn Lands ran entirely on IVF. She won, in deep red Alabama, by 26 points. This suggests that abortion, IVF, and reproductive health issues are going to give Biden and Democrats generally a huge boost.
  
  
• John Eastman: John Eastman, one of the lawyers close to Trump who tried to steal the 2020 election, is about to be disbarred. Jeffrey Clark could be next. The attempt to steal the election is beginning to have visible consequences and may continue to in the coming months.
  
  
• Kari Lake got busted: Pretend-governor of Arizona Kari Lake was sued by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer for her lying about him. She realized that she had no chance at trial and didn't even bother to defend herself. She is likely to be hit with a whopping judgment. She is a super Trumper and having someone like that being hit by a massive penalty for pushing Trump's lies can't help Trump's campaign. Especially when Trump himself has also taken a huge financial hit for telling lies.
  
  
• Arizona Supreme Court decision: Probably the best news of all for Biden of late is the decision by the Arizona Supreme Court to de facto ban abortion in the state. This is going to goose turnout enormously in this key swing state by getting young voters who otherwise don't like Biden much to the polls to vote on an initiative enshrining abortion in the state Constitution. While there, most of them will probably vote for Biden and Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) for the Senate. If the final map looks like the one above plus a blue Arizona, Biden will have 267 EVs and will need only 3 more. If he wins any of Nevada, Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, or Maine in that scenario, he wins reelection. If Arizona goes blue on account of the state Supreme Court decision, and Biden can hold the states he is leading in now, Trump has to win all six of the states just listed. That is a very tall hill to climb, especially since Nevada and Maine are basically blue states.
  

Again, in politics a week is a long time, but some of the early gloom in Camp Biden is beginning to dissipate. (V)

But Young Voters Are a Problem

All of the above notwithstanding, there is also bad news for Biden. Many young voters dislike both him and Donald Trump and aren't going to vote. A very polite way of expressing this is that some are what are euphemistically called "low-information voters" and blame Biden for things he can't control. It's like: "I read all about the eclipse and wanted to see it but it wasn't available in my state so I am going to blame the president. It's his fault." Many of them have no idea: (1) what Biden tried to do as president and (2) why he couldn't get it.

USA Today interviewed a number of young voters to get a feel for how they are thinking. Biden can only hope they got a very skewed sample or that when push comes to shove, their peers push them to vote. For example, Viviana Ramos is a 24-year old liberal woman working in a service-industry job and living paycheck to paycheck. She is worried about climate change, health care, the cost of buying a house. She's probably not going to vote, even if that means Donald Trump, who she dislikes more than she dislikes Biden, will win.

Kathika Senevirante (25) said: "I usually judge people if they don't vote. But this is the first election where I understand if you don't want to vote. I'm just stuck."

Kirsten Mansel (23) is a liberal who wants to teach Biden a lesson because he didn't cancel student loans or protect abortion. She is willing to accept a Trump presidency to stick it to Biden because she is angry. Maybe somebody ought to tell her that Biden tried to cancel student loans but the Supreme Court, full of Republican appointees, said he didn't have the authority to do that, and nevertheless he is trying to do what he can on the interest on the loans and other things. While he or she is at it, maybe someone should tell Kirsten that only Congress can make a law making abortion legal nationwide and all Republicans oppose that, so the votes aren't there.

Jeremy Gold (30) said: "It feels like the older generation is still in charge, and there are such huge differences in our experiences." That's true, but if younger voters decide not to vote to send somebody a message, that will continue to be true.

The low electoral participation is not entirely due to lack of interest. Legislatures in red states often go out of their way to make voting difficult for young voters. For example, some states require out-of-state college students to vote where their parents live, not where they actually live most (or all) of the year. Others allow college students to vote, but don't accept a college ID as a valid photo ID, even when it is issued by a state university. In contrast, a gun permit is often accepted as a valid ID. In other cases, requiring new voters to go to a county office and fill out a voter-registration form using a pen seems so "last century" to many young people who have grown up in a digital world.

What USA Today discovered is that young people are not apathetic; they are annoyed and see Biden as only marginally better than Trump. Many of them don't have any idea of how great the gap between them really is. One possible hope is if Taylor Swift makes a big effort to get young people to register and vote. She doesn't even have to tell them who to vote for, just vote. How hard she will push that remains to be seen though. After all, Republicans buy records, too. (V)

Keep an Eye on the House

If Donald Trump wins the White House and the Republicans capture Congress, there is a good chance Senate Republicans will abolish the filibuster and then implement Project 2025, which will roll back everything Joe Biden achieved and make Christian nationalism public policy. At the moment, the presidential race is a crapshoot. It could go either way. The Senate is also iffy for the Democrats, with several Democratic seats in danger. With West Virginia a new Lost Cause, they need to hold every single one of the others to even get to 50 seats (unless they score an upset in Texas or Florida).

In view of these dynamics, veteran election guru Charlie Cook thinks the Democrats' best shot at blocking a Republican trifecta is the House. He believes that at this point, the two most likely scenarios are: (1) a Republican trifecta or (2) Trump winning and both chambers of Congress flipping, but in opposite directions. Having a party gain seats in one chamber while losing them in the other is not unusual. It happened in 2020, for example. It has never happened that both chambers flipped control in opposite directions in the same election, but 2024 could break new ground.

While Democrats will fight like crazy to reelect Biden and hang onto the Senate by a thread, the House could be the Democrats' firewall. There are 17 Republicans in seats Biden won in 2020. A majority of these are in blue states, where Democrats are well organized, especially New York and California. If the Democrats can flip half of these, that will be enough to counter the map-making shenanigans in North Carolina, South Carolina and elsewhere and produce a tiny Democratic majority. Of course, there are also some Democrats in seats Trump won or who otherwise are in swing districts.

There is also another issue involving the House that could occur. Look at the map above. Imagine that Wisconsin flips, but not Arizona. Currently, Trump leads in Wisconsin 46%-45%. Then Biden would have 266 EVs. Now imagine that Biden wins Maine, except for ME-02. That adds three more EVs to 266, bringing him (and Trump) to 269. A tie. That forces a contingent election in the House, with each state getting one vote. At the moment, Republicans control 26 state delegations, Democrats control 22, and two are split (North Carolina and Minnesota). Most likely, Republicans will control a majority of state delegations on Jan. 3. Needless to say, the pressure on the lone House members (i.e., the states with three EVs in the map) to flip will be incredible. The better the Democrats can do in the House, the more states they get in a contingent election. (V)

McConnell Supports Forcing ByteDance to Sell TikTok

Last month, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill that would block TikTok in the U.S. unless the owner, ByteDance, sold its U.S. operations to an American company. In the past, Microsoft and Oracle have expressed interest in buying it. Now it is up to the Senate to deal with the bill.

An important development in the process is that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) now supports the House bill that would force a sale of TikTok. He called TikTok a "tool of surveillance and propaganda." What isn't known is how much influence McConnell still has with his conference now that he is a self-imposed lame duck. He said he will not run for reelection as party leader in January, no matter which party controls the Senate. Members thus realize that he won't be able to retaliate against them next year if they cross him on the vote.

If Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also gets behind the bill, something he hasn't done yet, there is a strong chance that it could pass Congress. He passed the hot potato to the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), to tweak the House bill as she sees fit. She used to be an executive at a tech company and undoubtedly could easily find out what Microsoft and Oracle would like to see in the bill. Of course, if she delays too much, it will be too close to the election, and getting anything done will be impossible this year.

Joe Biden has said he will sign the bill if it makes it to his desk. But if he does, ByteDance will challenge the law in court, and as usual, the Supreme Court will decide what to do. After all, the Constitution says that the Supreme Court gets to decide all public policy issues. That's why it is called the Supreme Court. (V)

Allen Weisselberg Is Sentenced to Prison--Again

Most people who have worked for Donald Trump eventually figure out that with him, loyalty is a one-way street. He expects everyone to worship at his feet, but shows no loyalty to any of his worshippers if they ever need him. Eventually most people in his inner circle get the message and stop falling on their sword for him.

One exception to this general rule is Trump Organization former CFO Allen Weisselberg, who has never abandoned Trump and even went to prison for him. Yesterday he was sentenced to another stint in the big house for his loyalty. He lied under oath for Trump in the civil fraud case, got caught, and pleaded guilty to two counts of perjury. Yesterday, he got another 5 months for his loyalty. Maybe he made some good friends on Rikers Island and wants to hang out with them some more. The sentencing took only 3 minutes. With good behavior, Weisselberg could get out in 100 days.

Given Weisselberg's willingness to perjure himself to defend Trump, Alvin Bragg may be hesitant to call him as a witness in the upcoming hush-money trial starting Monday. However, Bragg has said that he has enough witnesses without Weisselberg. The part that Weisselberg knows best, the money trail, is documented by hard evidence such as checks. For some of the other issues, such as intent, other people may know more about them. (V)

Becerra May Leave Cabinet to Run for Governor of California

Joe Biden's cabinet has been quite stable, certainly compared to his predecessor's. Here is a bar chart showing cabinet departures in the past 40 years.

So far, only two of Biden's cabinet choices have left. Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh left to run the National Hockey League's Players Association and HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge left for her own reasons last month. In contrast, in the Trump administration, there were 14 departures in total, a huge number.

Now, another member of Biden's cabinet is considering leaving: HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. He is thinking about running for governor of California in 2026 and would need to leave soon to get ready as it is already a very crowded field. Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis (D-CA) is in, as are former state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and former state controller Betty Yee. AG Rob Bonta is about to jump in, too. Becerra would not be a shoo-in by any means. He would have a chance, but it would be a battle.

Becerra's departure might hurt Biden with Latinos, at least if Becerra left before the 2024 election. Of course, given a lemon, Biden could make lemonade by replacing Becerra with another Latino. Now the ball is in Becerra's court. (V)

Today's Presidential Polls

North Carolina gets less attention than Georgia and Arizona, but it is also very close, maybe as close as either of those. Both sides are fully aware of this. You might ask why anybody would bother polling Tennessee, but there is a reason. The poll asked Tennesseans many questions about the governor, the senators, public education, the state's business tax, unionization of the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, and other things. The presidential question was simply added to get some extra PR for the company sponsoring the poll. But there is no reason to doubt the result.

State	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
North Carolina	46%	48%	Apr 04	Apr 08	Quinnipiac U.
Tennessee	31%	55%	Mar 15	Apr 02	Targoz Market Research

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger