Fox Is Going to Have to Hustle to Fill Time Tonight...

Today, Nathan Wade, the alleged paramour of Fulton County DA Fani Willis, was scheduled to be in court to resolve his ongoing (and apparently nasty) divorce. Not only was he going to be put on the stand, so was Willis. It promised to be quite salacious, since the lawyers for Wade's now-ex (Jocelyn Wade) had every motivation to rake both Nathan Wade and Willis over the coals.

It's not going to happen, though—at least, not right now. Jocelyn presumably recognized that her time of greatest leverage was before any dirt was spilled in court. Nathan and Willis surely recognized that a public shaming would not be pleasant. And so, the two highly motivated sides reached an agreement to skip the testimony and resolve the divorce "amicably." The agreement is only tentative, and could potentially fall apart. But if it does, the parties will have to wait for another court date, which would take many weeks, if not months.

What this means is that a lot of information that right-wing types were salivating over—maybe kinky sex stuff, or tales of shady behavior, or other offenses against the Wades' marriage—will not immediately see the light of day. We are absolutely confident that Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Greg Gutfeld, et al. were planning to devote multiple segments to whatever juicy stuff was shared, and how that necessarily means that Willis should leave the case and, in fact, how the entire prosecution should just be canceled. Now, there will be none of that.

It is true that there will be a separate hearing on February 15, in which Judge Scott McAfee will consider whether he should remove from the case, or otherwise sanction, either Willis or Wade. However, the focus there is going to be on the legal issues involved, not on the salacious stuff. So, it does not appear that the pro-Trump forces are going to get a bunch more fuel for their anti-Willis campaign. They will just have to make do with the fuel they already have. (Z)

...Or Maybe Not

Shortly after the Fani Willis story effectively collapsed, House Republicans gave the right-wing punditry something else to do some foaming at the mouth about. Undoubtedly, everyone is relieved that Sean Hannity, et al., will have plenty of material for tonight's shows after all. What's the "good" news? The House Homeland Security Committee voted, along party lines naturally, to recommend the impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the full House.

We must be honest: This does not really feel like "news," according to our Spidey-sense. Of course the committee was going to vote for impeachment, and of course they were going to do it along party lines, and of course they were going to move quickly. After all, there is much need for a distraction, given that Republicans are currently actively sabotaging the border security deal being negotiated by one of their own (i.e., Sen. James Lankford, R-OK). What we are saying is that we might not have written this item, except that every major outlet, from Fox to The New York Times, announced it as major breaking news. When that's the case, we wonder if our judgment was in error, and we get to writing.

Since we are writing this up, it is worth noting that this impeachment "process" has been an affront to the normal order for these things. Normally, the initial decision in an impeachment case is made by the House Judiciary Committee, not by Homeland Security. Further, since launching their inquiry into Mayorkas, the Committee has held a grand total of two hearings, and has not arranged for the Secretary to testify. This does not exactly scream "rigorous."

It is also worth noting that the case for impeachment is thinner than the neckties of the 1980s. Remember, it is not enough for an official to be incompetent (not that we are saying this describes Mayorkas). No, to be impeached and removed, that official has to commit high crimes and misdemeanors. Other than partisan actors in the House, nobody seems to be convinced that Mayorkas came within a country mile of clearing this bar.

For example, Ross Garber, a conservative legal scholar, told CNN that "At least as framed right now, the charges don't rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor." Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, who served under George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed headlined "Don't Impeach Alejandro Mayorkas," with the subhead "House Republicans are misusing the process to target an official who has done nothing wrong." Jonathan Turley, the law professor who is typically happy to tote Republican water, wrote: "Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas has been denounced as dishonest, duplicitous, and derelict by his critics. In my view, all of those things are manifestly true. It is also true, in my opinion, that none of those things amount to high crimes and misdemeanors warranting his impeachment."

Nearly every article on this subject also notes, quite correctly, that Cabinet officers so rarely commit impeachable offenses that only one of them has actually been impeached. That would be Secretary of War William W. Belknap, who served under Ulysses S. Grant and who was almost certainly on the take. He resigned before he could be tried by the Senate, and then was acquitted anyhow. Over the years, there have been around 1,000 cabinet secretaries. An impeachment rate of 0.1%, and a conviction rate of 0.0%, speaks to how irregular the current proceeding is.

Of course, the rubber really hits the road, and this really becomes news (in our view), when Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) brings the articles of impeachment to the floor of the House for a vote. He says he plans to do so with all due haste, and we have no reason to doubt him (see: distraction). On that day, either Johnson and his friends on the Homeland Security Committee will end up with egg on their faces, or else a number of GOP members (e.g., the Biden 17) will cast votes that could very well come back to haunt them in November. We freely admit we have no idea which will come to pass. (Z)

Cori Bush Is in Hot Water

Alejandro Mayorkas isn't going to be the only grist for Fox's Fani-less mill tonight. On Monday, news broke that the DoJ had sent a subpoena to the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House "for records relating to the misspending of federal security money." The implication was that a particular member was under the microscope, but it was not clear which member. Yesterday, however, we got the answer: It's Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO).

Because this is an ongoing matter, and nobody involved (except Bush) is talking to the press, it's necessary to connect the dots a bit. It is abundantly clear that Bush spends more money than any other member of the House on security: $756,748.42 since first being elected to Congress in 2018. As an outspoken, lefty Black woman representing a somewhat Southern state, in an era where some members of the other party think nothing of threatening violence against their "enemies," maybe that is necessary. She insists it is, and we are certainly in no position to know if she's right or not.

It is also abundantly clear that the DoJ thinks that Bush used public money for "personal" security needs. You might wonder how it is possible to determine when a member of Congress is paying for security in their official capacity, and when a member of Congress is paying for security in their personal capacity. After all, it is not likely that anyone is threatening Cori Bush, private citizen. Well, this is where the dot-connecting comes in.

You see, a couple of years ago, Bush ran the same playbook that Fani Willis appears to be running right now, and married the head of her security detail. His name is Cortney Merritts, and—guess what—Bush continued to use his professional services after the wedding. That's a very unwise intermixing of personal and private business, and Bush surely knew it. Again, the DoJ is not talking, but this is undoubtedly the focal point of its investigation.

Given the Machiavellian nature of modern politics, and given how very much the Republicans would like to cause a Democratic seat to be vacant for the better part of a year, we presume that Mike Johnson and his conference are going to scream bloody murder, and are going to insist that Bush be subject to the same scrutiny, and same sanction, as "George Santos." If she does get the boot, there is zero chance that her D+27 seat will flip to the Republicans. But there's every chance it will remain vacant for as long as is practicable, since Missouri's governor, Mike Parson, is a Republican. (Z)

About Generalissimo Donaldo

While we accept that a President Donald Trump v2.0 could do enormous damage to the fabric of American democracy, we have consistently pooh-poohed the notion that he could turn himself into a dictator, brushing aside the law, and refusing to leave office when his hypothetical term came to an end on Jan. 20, 2029. He just doesn't have the brains, or the spine, or the force of will for it. Yes, he tends to surround himself with people who do have some of those things, but history is not replete with examples of people who achieved dictatorial power without being a major player in the machinations that got them there.

This week, Turkish journalist Asli Aydintasbas wrote a piece for Politico in which she agrees with us, albeit for different reasons. Noting that she knows what it looks like when a dictator takes over, Aydintasbas asserts that Trump just won't have enough time to pull it off, because it takes well more than 4 years.

Aydintasbas' argument covers three things:

1. Mainstream Media: Without any real effort on his own part, Trump already has a friendly media establishment to propagandize for him, with Fox taking the lead. The problem is all the non-right-wing media, which most certainly would not go gentle into that good night, and would become the rallying point of the resistance. It is possible to stamp out unfriendly media (see Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.) but it takes a long time, particularly in an age where it's entirely plausible to publish from places well beyond the United States' borders.
   
   
2. The Judiciary: This, in Aydintasbas' view, is the biggest obstacle to a Trump-led dictatorship. It is essential for an absolutist government that the courts be a loyal ally in maintaining the party line (see Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Poland, etc.). But the U.S. system of government gives courts a lot of independence and a lot of power, along with very long tenures for judges. Only about a quarter of the federal judges currently sitting are Trump appointees, and even then, many of his appointees have not been willing to fall in line behind him. In fact, most of them have not. Turning the federal judiciary into the kind of institution it would need to be would take multiple generations of Trumps.
   
   
3. Cities, Mayors, Governors: When a country takes a dictatorial turn, cities tend to be at the center of the resistance because they are disproportionately young, educated, and well off (and thus not disaffected). This would be particularly true in modern-day America, since there are many very large, very well supplied, very blue cities and states. Even a totally loyal military (dubious) that managed to double the size of its ranks (also dubious) would struggle to put down the resistance in, say, Los Angeles, much less the entire state of California. And feel free to replace that with New York City/New York, or Chicago/Illinois, or Philadelphia/Pennsylvania or Baltimore/Maryland.

Aydintasbas' conclusion, which is worth conveying in her own words, is this:

Any attempt at state capture by Trump will face a pushback from media, bureaucracy, major cities and the judiciary.

That resistance is necessary and will emerge at every level of civic life. It will also damage and tear up America in ways that are unimaginable today. It is easier to stop Trump now than to wait until after he becomes president again, when polarization and the push-and-pull between Trump and his opposition will consume the nation's energy and cripple state resources. It will drain every bit of energy this country has.

So my message to America is, do not panic—but organize. The most successful method of fighting creeping authoritarianism is alliance building and effective opposition—preferably before the election. After the election, it will be more costly to stop it.

Even in an imperfect democracy like Turkey, it took more than a decade to dismantle the rule of law. Donald Trump might try, but he will find that it takes a long time to become dictator.

Those readers who are nervous about what the future holds might wish to read the entire piece, as opposed to just our summary. (Z)

Nearly 65,000 Pregnancies Resulting from Rape in States with Abortion Bans

A new study, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, has findings that cannot make anyone happy, regardless of where they stand on abortion access. Working with data from various governmental sources, the authors conclude that since the Dobbs decision, the 14 states with the harshest abortion bans have seen roughly 520,000 rapes, resulting in 64,565 pregnancies.

Undoubtedly, you can guess what's coming next. In these states, it is either the case that: (1) rape is not a legal justification for an abortion or (2) that medical professionals are extremely leery of performing abortions in cases of rape, even if they are legally allowed to do so, because they could lose their licenses if some bureaucrat later decides that the evidence of rape is not strong enough. According to the research, these 14 states are averaging less than 10 abortions a month, a figure that includes medically necessary procedures, in addition to rapes and incest. The upshot is that virtually no impregnated rape victims are able to abort their pregnancies—at least, not without traveling or otherwise arranging out-of-state assistance.

In a very related note, Democratic super PAC American Bridge 21st Century announced recently that it's going to spend $200 million on the 2024 election cycle, with an emphasis on advertising targeted at women voters in the swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and potentially North Carolina. The PAC has already offered a preview of the ads' content, which "will feature the true stories of women voters and their families" who have been harmed by Donald Trump's agenda. If there aren't a bunch of testimonial ads, in which women talk about medical care they could not get, or rape-induced pregnancies they were forced to carry to term, or other such consequences of Dobbs, we will be very surprised, indeed. (Z)

The Devil Is in the Details

This is a little bit inside baseball, but it's also a pretty good illustration of how hard it is for a presidential administration to achieve change in the world, even once legislation has been approved by Congress.

The subject here is environmentalism, and more specifically electric vehicles. When it comes to combating climate change, Democrats (and pro-environment people round the world) are really hoping that cars and trucks that do not use gas will be a major part of the solution. After all, gas-powered vehicles are responsible for about 20% of all CO₂ emissions. Politically, the sexy part of this change is making it easier for people to buy electric vehicles. After all, nearly all American adults drive a car, and if the White House can help them get into a shiny, new, less-polluting EV by covering a big chunk of the purchase price, that is very, very noticeable.

However, there's another big piece of the equation that's also important, even though it's much less sexy. EVs are not a viable choice for drivers unless... they can be charged with reasonable ease. For those who are not familiar, even with the fastest chargers available, a fully electric vehicle requires between 45 minutes and 3 hours for a full charge, which will afford between 100 and 500 miles of travel, depending on the car. Slower chargers take between 4 and 12 hours to achieve the same, while the slowest form of charging, namely plugging into a regular electric outlet, takes between 12 and 36 hours.

The most convenient option, for those who have the money and the facilities, is a home charger. Home chargers are almost invariably in the middle group above, and thus take 4 to 12 hours for a full charge. That works well for someone who just plugs in when they get home, and lets the charger do its magic while they sleep at night. This option is also good news for the electrical grid, as it means drawing power at the time when demand is otherwise fairly low.

For many EV owners, however, a home charger is not an option. The most common problem is that they live in an apartment or other domicile where installing a charger is not plausible. On top of this, every EV owner, even those with a home charger, needs a public charger sometimes—like, for example, when they are taking a long (or long-ish) trip.

The people who wrote the Inflation Reduction Act did their homework, and so were aware of the need for chargers. The bill contains funding for both home and public chargers. However, very little of that money has been spent so far. Consequently, the Biden administration just announced a bunch of measures designed to encourage the construction of more charging infrastructure. Among the provisions is a very liberal redefinition of "nonurban," which makes funding for more EV chargers available to roughly two-thirds of Americans.

Of course, that means that one-third of Americans are still excluded, mostly those living in areas that are really non-urban. You know, places like West Virginia, where Billy Bubba's farm and Jim Bob's restaurant "Eats" are still not eligible for government EV-charger assistance. Because if there's anywhere you're going to see hundreds of Teslas whizzing around, it's Wheeling, WV, right? Wasn't it John Denver who sang:

Country roads, take me home
To the place I belong
West Virginia, in my Tesla
Take me home, country roads

We're pretty sure that's the lyric.

In any case, just as soon as the Biden administration had issued the new guidelines—which, again, were aimed at expanding eligibility—Sen. Joe Manchin (?-WV) blew a gasket, and issued a statement that reads, in part:

The Administration just will not stop ignoring the law in pursuit of its radical climate agenda—no matter the cost. This proposed guidance completely spits in the face of rural America with a brand-new interpretation that makes close to the entire country eligible for a credit that was designed to help drive investment in fueling infrastructure for electric, hydrogen, or natural-gas powered vehicles in rural and low-income areas where private businesses can't or won't invest. This proposed guidance ensures that rural Americans will remain stuck at the end of the investment line, the exact problem this tax credit was supposed to address, choosing to give hand-outs to those that don't need it while ignoring its responsibility to provide a hand up to rural communities at risk of being left behind. This proposal is just another example in a long line of this Administration's attempts to force electric vehicles on Americans and spend money that Congress didn't account for and doesn't have in the budget.

As per usual, Manchin is very good at complaining, not so good at proposing constructive solutions to problems. Note, by the way, that while the Democrats controlled the Senate, he could have had enough money for West Virginia to build two chargers for every resident. He chose not to play ball, of course. That is actually a bit odd because gasoline-powered cars do not use his favorite fossil fuel: coal. On the other hand, EVs can run on coal because the electricity used to charge them in many places is still generated by burning his favorite fossil fuel. While coal has no long-term future, in the short term (which is all politicians ever think about) more EVs mean more coal will be mined than if he manages to block their widespread adoption. More coal being mined means more work for the coal miners in his state. Seems odd he has missed that.

Eventually, whether the West Virginia senator likes it or not, the EV-charger money will start to flow. But even then, there's plenty of room for things to turn sideways. California is well ahead of Washington when it comes to this issue, and in particular, when it comes to lavishing money on the companies (and there are dozens of them) that build public EV-charging stations. As a result, the infrastructure expanded pretty quickly.

And yet, despite all the money and enthusiasm from the state government, the Golden State's charging network is basically a fiasco, as The Los Angeles Times reported just last week. Nobody even knows exactly how many public chargers the state has; the federal government thinks the number is around 40,000, while the state government thinks it's more like 80,000. That's a rather sizable difference.

The biggest problem, however—and this is something that every EV driver in California knows, and presumably most EV drivers in other states, too—is that there is clearly much more profit in building charging stations than there is in operating them. As a consequence, chargers are out of order all the time. According to the Times, between 20% and 30% of the state's public chargers are out of service at any given moment. And since it's usage that causes them to break, it means that the most-needed chargers are the ones most likely to be unavailable.

You can see the "perfect storm" that has emerged here. More and more people are buying EVs, and they are competing for a set of public chargers that is not growing substantially in number, at the moment. That makes it harder to get access to a charger, and it also means the chargers are overtaxed, leading to breakdowns. That leaves even fewer chargers for EV drivers, leading to even more overtaxing, leading to even more breakdowns. Rinse and repeat. It's problematic enough, from a practicality standpoint, if a person has to set aside 2 or 3 or 4 "charging hours" every week, just to remain mobile. It's rather worse if a person also has to set aside 1 or 2 or 3 "waiting to charge hours," in addition. Most people are clever enough to do some sort of practice run before committing to an electric vehicle, and many of those—when they see what kind of hassles they are in for—decide the time is not so right, after all.

Eventually, all of these wrinkles will presumably be ironed out. But not without overcoming many and varied political and logistical obstacles. Governing is hard. (Z)

Looking Forward to 2024, Part II: Our Predictions

As we explained yesterday, we are rebooting our approach to predictions, and to the scoring thereof. We've appointed a panel of judges, and developed a scoring system that distinguishes, with some precision, "risky" predictions from "not so risky" predictions. If our explanation yesterday was a bit too complicated, well, it's enough to know that if a prediction is eligible for a small number of bonus points, that means the panel didn't think it was all that bold a prediction. On the other hand, if it's eligible for big-time bonus points, that meant the panel thought, collectively, that it's kind of a longshot.

And with that review out of the way, here are our predictions for 2024:

1. Fani Willis will not have to testify in Nathan Wade's divorce case. (Potential Bonus Points: 100)
   
   
2. The House Homeland Security Committee will decide that DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas should be impeached. (Potential Bonus Points: 100)
   
   
3. Cori Bush will get in trouble for spending too much on security. (Potential Bonus Points: 100)
   
   
4. Joe Manchin will expend much oxygen whining about electric-vehicle chargers. (Potential Bonus Points: 100)

Pretty impressive, eh? We left the pundits in the dust, especially that loser Nostradamus. That's why we write a politics-focused blog, while he's dead.

Oh, wait. You're not buying that we predicted all these things in advance? Not very trusting, are you? Very well, here's our real predictions list:

1. Donald Trump will have some sort of major health crisis that he will be unable to keep out of the headlines. (Potential Bonus Points: 49)
   
   
2. Trump's Washington criminal trial will be concluded, with conviction on at least one count, before Election Day. (Potential Bonus Points: 46)
   
   
3. There will be no further presidential debates this year. (Potential Bonus Points: 24)
   
   
4. Mike Johnson will lose the speakership before the year is out. (Potential Bonus Points: 39)
   
   
5. Roughly half of the Biden 17 will lose their seats in November. (Potential Bonus Points: 31)
   
   
6. "George Santos" will spend time in prison in 2024, but Steve Bannon will not. (Potential Bonus Points: 56)
   
   
7. There will be a major scandal that involves both AI and the 2024 election. (Potential Bonus Points: 42)
   
   
8. The Dow Jones Industrial Index, currently at 38,467.31, will close above 42,000 on Election Day. (Potential Bonus Points: 43)
   
   
9. Volodymyr Zelenskyy will win the Nobel Peace Prize. (Potential Bonus Points: 60)
   
   
10. The Israeli government, perhaps against its will, will be compelled to reach a ceasefire with Hamas. (Potential Bonus Points: 36)

So, when all 10 of our predictions hit the bullseye, we'll earn 1,426 points.

Reader predictions commence next week. If you haven't weighed in already, and you want to, the mailbox is still open at comments@electoral-vote.com. Please use subject line "Predictions." (Z)

---

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 in school, at work, etc., please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share some other way.

---The Votemaster and Zenger