Legal Bytes: Courts Continue to Push Back against the Trump Administration

We are not entirely sure what Donald Trump's batting average in lawsuits is these days, but it's gotta be below .200. Maybe even below .150. There were three substantial stories on the legal front this week, none of them pointing in a direction that is likely to get that batting average up:

Slow Your Rolls: In the latest rebuke of the Trump administration's efforts to obtain state voter rolls, judges have dismissed Department of Justice lawsuits against Wisconsin and Maine. This brings the total won-loss record to 0-8, after similar suits against California, Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Rhode Island were dismissed. Judges across the political spectrum have rejected this federal overreach into states' election administration. In Maine, Chief U.S. District Judge Lance Walker, a Trump appointee, ruled that "Under our Constitution, states are the primary regulators and administrators of elections for federal office, unless Congress passes legislation that preempts that framework." In Wisconsin, U.S. District Judge James Pederson, a Barack Obama appointee, held that the Voting Rights Act prohibits this type of request from the federal government.

Our Take: The detailed voter data the feds want contains private information such as birth dates, driver's license numbers, addresses and partial social security numbers. It's clear that Trump's DoJ doesn't want this information for any legitimate purpose, since they haven't identified any. Instead, they are gathering comprehensive information to put into a nationwide database of Americans as a weapon of intimidation and monitoring. This is exactly the type of federal government overreach that conservatives normally get apoplectic about. But apparently, states' rights and individual liberty go out the window, including at the Supreme Court, when their team is running the show. Even if the administration appeals, the information is safe until at least the midterms, so these states that are fighting back have successfully protected their citizens' data for now.

---

Lemon Law: Journalist Don Lemon, who was indicted in February for allegedly obstructing religious services, is now seeking the grand jury transcripts from his case. His attorneys claim that the recent examples of grand jury misconduct by the DoJ taint the efforts to prosecute Lemon. The motion cites the Broadview Six case, in which U.S. District Judge April Perry excoriated the prosecutors and stated that the presumption of regularity is lost and that the trust between the judiciary and the prosecutors has been "broken." Lemon is arguing that this behavior is now so commonplace that grand jury secrecy should no longer be sacrosanct, because this DoJ is abusing the system and committing serious misconduct.

Our Take: Lemon's case is likely to be dismissed on First Amendment grounds, but if there is also grand jury misconduct, he could file a motion for sanctions and attorneys' fees. This is going to be a serious problem for the DoJ going forward, and not just in high profile cases involving Trump's adversaries. This misconduct will jeopardize legitimate cases against real criminals. To the extent, for example, that Broadview Six prosecutor Sheri Mecklenberg was regularly using improper "vouching," or excusing jurors who refused to indict, judges will have to dismiss those cases, even if they are meritorious. Many of those cases can be refiled, but there could be procedural hurdles, like the statute of limitations, that preclude bringing the case again. So much for being the party that's "tough on crime." That might just come up in some Democratic campaign messaging.

---

Running Out of "Enemies" to Target: On Wednesday, news broke that Trump victim E. Jean Carroll is being investigated by Andrew Boutros, the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District in Illinois, the same fellow who was just forced to drop charges against the Broadview Six because the judge discovered significant grand jury misconduct.

Supposedly, this is related to a deposition she took in one of her defamation cases against Trump, where she testified that she wasn't receiving outside help with legal fees. As her lawyer explained, her arrangement was a contingency fee agreement, so she wasn't on the hook for fees unless she won, in which case the fees would be subtracted from the judgment. Her lawyers sought, and received, some help with costs from a non-profit run by Reid Hoffman. Carroll, through her attorneys, clarified that portion of her deposition before signing it, which is common in civil litigation. Trump's attorneys tried to use that seeming inconsistency at trial to undermine Carroll's credibility, but to no avail. Carroll prevailed in both her defamation suits and two courts of appeal upheld the verdicts. Trump has since appealed to the Supreme Court and the case has been listed for consideration and rescheduled by the Court 12 times—it was just rescheduled again on May 27. So, it's unclear when the Justices will actually consider whether to grant certiorari.

Our Take: Illinois? Last we checked this was nowhere near New York, where Carroll lives and where the defamation cases were litigated. This is a clear indication that Acting AG Todd Blanche shopped this around and could only get Boutros to agree to this festering turd of an assignment, perhaps to get himself out of the doghouse after the Broadview Six debacle.

This is 100% unvarnished harassment, intimidation, retaliation and abuse of power. Trump has been after Carroll ever since she beat him in court. And Hoffman has been a Trump critic and target since Trump v1.0. So, why now? It's possible the Supreme Court doesn't have the votes to grant cert and they're just waiting for Associate Justice Clarence Thomas or Associate Justice Samuel Alito to finish an insulting dissent. If someone leaked that bad news to Blanche, and they'd been waiting to go after Carroll until the Supreme Court's decision, they may have seen no more reason to wait. Or maybe they think a criminal investigation will cause the Court to take a second look at the case. Whatever the reason, unless the Court wants to put the final nail in the coffin of its credibility, there's no way they can grant cert now and NOT be seen as part of this concerted governmental retribution campaign against a woman that Trump was found to have sexually assaulted.

As for Blanche, the DoJ claims he's recused from this case, but anyone who believes that, we've got some land in Florida to sell you. This is clearly being pushed from the top and he will claim the credit if she gets indicted, at least to Trump. After his recent screw ups, maybe he thinks this will get him the big chair. Delusion, thy name is Blanche.

Finally, this will not end well for anyone involved—on the government side, that is. Boutros has lost the trust of the federal judiciary and everything his office does will be carefully scrutinized. And Carroll has the resources and some heavy legal muscle behind her to fight back. This is what weaponization of the DoJ looks like—hopefully, she's already put in her application for some of that $1.7 billion slush fund money.

One of the many problems with picking Trump's targets first and then manufacturing some bogus criminal allegations second (aka "putting the cart before the horse") is that it undermines and jeopardizes the Department's legitimate work in solving and prosecuting real crimes. It drains resources not only through the loss of ethical career attorneys but also because the attorneys who are left are having to devote so much time trying to justify the unjustifiable. So, they have no time to do their job, which is to work on behalf of the American people to keep us safe.

The one silver lining, to the extent there is one, is that this shows that a prosecutor can't just indict a ham sandwich. He or she needs actual evidence and cannot simply be doing the dirty work of a corrupt administration. The reason why it had seemed so easy in the past is because we had an independent Department of Justice with experienced, ethical, career prosecutors who would only bring cases they could win at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. That legitimacy has been lost and these people trying to pass themselves off as prosecutors are going to face increasingly long odds in carrying out Trump's revenge plans and consequences for their legal and ethical violations.

Our legal coverage should pick up even more steam (if that is possible) in the next week or two, because several major Supreme Court decisions are imminent. And no, we don't mean Clarence Thomas' decision whether he will drive his RV to Yellowstone or to the Everglades during the Court's summer break. (L)

TrumpWatch: What's a Little Nepotism among Friends?

We don't enjoy writing about news like this, because it's a big downer, and it's part of an unending parade of self-dealing and other corrupt behavior. On the other hand, sometimes the shadiness is so extreme, we just have to say something.

This week's first nepotism story involves the Nepotist-in-Chief, Donald Trump Sr. (and yes, "nepotist" is a word). A couple of years ago, Vulcan Elements was founded; its business is trying to find alternatives to the rare minerals the United States gets from China. Last year, Donald Trump Jr.'s venture capital firm took a stake in Vulcan Elements. And shortly thereafter, in "support" of Vulcan's work, the Pentagon loaned $620 million to the firm.

Trump Jr. said he did not know anything about the arrangement, and that he and his family had nothing to do with it. If you believe this, then please make sure to contact us about that aforementioned land in Florida (see above). ProPublica has now collected the evidence that there was heavy-duty lobbying of Trump Sr. done by White House Senior Advisor Peter Navarro. It's problematic when lobbyists have direct access to the President. It's rather worse when they have that access because... they already work in the White House.

Of course, the Trumps aren't the only corrupt family in Washington. Joining them in the Hall of Shame this week are the Alitos. Philip Alito was able to get a top-flight undergrad education, at the University of Virginia, and an even topper-flight law degree, at Duke. But apparently, those benefits of being the son of Samuel were not quite enough. And so, strings were pulled, and the young Alito was appointed to a legal position in the Treasury Department.

We would say that Philip has done nothing wrong, other than accept the spoils of having an influential father. However, the younger Alito has almost certainly worked on cases that ended up before the elder Alito (it is hard to be sure, because the Treasury is obscuring the nature of Philip's work). The Associate Justice should have recused himself from any cases his son worked on, and should do so from any such cases in the future. Don't hold your breath waiting for him to do so, however.

At this point, just recall for a moment that Hunter Biden's work as a sorta lobbyist for Burisma (and a few other entities) was treated as a capital offense by many Republicans, who launched a dozen investigations. This is despite the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever that Biden secured any boons from his father, or from anyone working with or for his father. Certainly he never landed a $620 million loan, and he never worked on a case that would be heard by a judge who happens to be his parent. We can only assume that at least one special counsel will be appointed here, and there will be at least half a dozen investigations conducted by House committees. Right? Right? (Z)

Texas Senate: Will the Stars Align for Democrats in the Lone Star State?

We are obviously very, very interested in the Texas U.S. Senate race. Beyond the fact that the two candidates offer such a stark choice to Texas voters, it's almost certainly the single-most important general election race on the calendar. The California governor's race is also important, but that one will likely be settled by the primary next week, with the general election contest serving only as a coronation.

That is why this is our fifth item of the week about the showdown between Texas AG Ken Paxton (R) and state Rep. James Talarico (D). Every day, at least right now, there's news that we think is both interesting and relevant. At the moment, we have four things worth passing along.

To start, there's a new poll of the race, from Public Policy Polling. It was conducted before the primary, but after Donald Trump made his last-minute endorsement, such that the pollster did not even bother to ask about Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). There were eight questions about Paxton, but nary a one about Cornyn.

The topline number is that 45% of respondents preferred Talarico, as compared to 38% for Paxton. So, that's obviously Talarico +7. Of greater interest, perhaps, is some of the crosstabs. Talarico is viewed favorably by 41% of respondents, unfavorably by 35%, for a net of +6. Paxton is viewed favorably by 30%, unfavorably by 56%, for a net of -26. On the question of "Which candidate do you think will better address your personal economic concerns and issues?," Talarico comes out on top by 13 points, 49% to 36%. On the question of "Which candidate do you think will better represent your personal values in office?", Talarico comes out on top by 15 points, 51% to 36%. If Paxton is going to win this thing, he's going to need that (R) next to his name to do a lot of heavy lifting.

We should note that while the pollster here, PPP, is legitimate, the survey was commissioned by a Democratic-leaning PAC. The potential problem, in that case, is not that the numbers are screwy, it's that the entity paying for the poll might selectively release only those polls that favor their side. Probably not a problem here, because we doubt the commissioning PAC (Lone Star Rising PAC) has paid for two or three or four polls in the last week, and then only released the best one. Still, we mention it, so readers can reach their own conclusions.

Moving along, in our rundown yesterday, we noted that Paxton has an ugly divorce trial coming up, one in which his "Biblical" indiscretions will take center stage. As it turns out, we missed an even larger scandal in which he is currently enmeshed. The full story is a little complicated, but goes something like this: Adam Hoffman, an attorney in Waco, TX, was accused of raping a young boy, multiple times, over a 3-year span. The local prosecutor recused himself from the case (since Hoffman and the prosecutor had previously had professional dealings).

Paxton's office took over the case, tried it, and the result was a hung jury. Rather than re-try Hoffman, a plea deal was reached by which Hoffman would be sentenced on lesser charges, would lose his law license for 5 years, would serve 1 day in jail, and would NOT have to register as a sex offender. The judge in the case was so appalled by the leniency that he insisted the jail sentence be increased. It was, to 60 days, and Hoffman walked after 29 days, thanks to credit for time served (-1 day) and good behavior (-30 days).

There has been a fair bit of buck-passing in the case. Paxton claims that the victim was so traumatized, he was unwilling or unable to endure a second trial. So, the plea deal was made to spare him. The victim's mother says she was OK with the general notion of a plea deal, so as to protect her son, but that she is very unhappy about the deal that was hammered out. What's indisputable here is that Hoffman is guilty of sex crimes, and that he's now walking the streets, with no particular constraints on his ability to commit additional sex crimes, thanks to Paxton.

We think it's fair to say that, in the Epstein Era, this is an even worse liability than a messy divorce. Certainly, Talarico thinks so. He's not been shy about mentioning the plea deal in interviews on a regular basis. "I think if Paxton is worried about freaks," the would-be senator has observed, "He should stop giving Epstein-style sweetheart deals to pedophiles." That, uh... that stings.

By virtue of his many years as AG, there are other black marks on Paxton's prosecutorial record. An accused sex trafficker named Rakim Sharkey also got a lenient plea deal in which he got probation and was also kept out of the sex offender registry. There was also a murder-for-hire case where the defendant was allowed to cop a misdemeanor plea and to serve a 4-day jail sentence. It won't be too hard for Team Talarico to figure out how to use these incidents in campaign ads. All they have to do is watch the ads put out by Cornyn's campaign, which highlighted all three apparent miscarriages of justice.

Our next bit of news involves fundraising. In the 24 hours after the Texas primary crowned Paxton as the Republican nominee, the Talarico campaign raised more than $3 million. That is the single-best day Talarico has had so far, even outpacing the $2.5 million he raised in the 24 hours after the censored Stephen Colbert interview. Further, $3 million is more than Paxton's entire current bankroll ($2.6 million). Overall, Talarico has about five times as much money in the bank as Paxton does. That gives the Democrat an advantage when it comes to the first wave of commercials, which will frame the overall campaign. We'd guess Texans are about to hear a whole lot about the lenient treatment of sexual predators.

And finally, on the lighter side of things, reader J.R. in Austin, TX, brought to our attention the t-shirts that Talarico is selling on his website. There are two designs worth noting, starting with this one:

Obviously, as J.R. in Austin observed in their message to us, Talarico is taking lemons (the insulting play on his name bestowed by Paxton) and making lemonade. One cannot help but think of how "deplorables" was appropriated by, and became a rallying cry for, MAGA.

The other shirt that caught our notice is this one:

For those who don't follow, it's a soundbite Talarico uses a lot, and a reference to Jesus overturning the tables of corrupt money changers in the temple. It is, of course, a metaphor for fighting back hard against political corruption and billionaire donors and politicians. Including, you know, billionaire presidents. We are reminded of what we wrote earlier this week about meeting people where they are.

We probably won't have another week where we write an item every single day about the Texas Senate race. But we do think it is going to provide fuel for a lot of items in the next 5 months or so. (Z)

Polling: Guess Who the Leaders of the Democratic Presidential Field Are?

Every month, Emerson College polls registered Democrats, and asks them the question: "Looking ahead to the 2028 Democratic presidential race, who would you support for the Democratic nomination at this point?" The latest Emerson Poll was released yesterday, and there's a new frontrunner (albeit, by a small margin). Here are the results:

1. Pete Buttigieg: 17.9%
2. Gavin Newsom: 15.9%
3. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: 11.1%
4. Josh Shapiro: 10.0%
5. Kamala Harris: 9.9%
6. Andy Beshear: 8.5%
7. JB Pritzker: 4.4%
8. Ro Khanna: 1.0%
9. Someone else: 3.8%
10. Undecided: 17.5%

Needless to say, a poll like this comes with several grains of salt. Actually, more like salt boulders. First, there's a long, long time until the presidential primaries commence. Second, name recognition is far more important now than it will eventually be. Third, a candidate who has a smallish-but-dedicated base of support can do well in a circumstance where it only takes a plurality (particularly a small plurality) to win, but might not do so well when a majority is wanted.

That said, it is interesting that 40% of the support goes to candidates who are gay, brown, female, or more than one of the above. Maybe Democratic voters are not worrying so much about finding a "middle America" candidate, and instead want the candidate that most appeals to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

The main reason we mention this, however, is that we've been trying to get going again on the Democratic presidential candidates' series, and now we have the time to do that. But the list we had, driven by reader votes, is a little out of date. So, we're going to re-vote a top 25, and re-start there. Click here to vote for: (1) the 10 (or fewer) candidates you think are most likely to be the nominee and (2) the 10 (or fewer) candidates you would most like to be the nominee.

And note that, in the original vote, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) was in first place on BOTH questions. However, just yesterday, she said she's not running. That's not definitive, especially since she semi-walked it back later in the day, but we do think readers should be aware of it as they cast their votes. Please vote by Sunday night at 8:00 p.m. PT; we may re-start as early as Monday. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: This Theme Was Not a "W" for Most Readers

Readers of Electoral-Vote.com—a fair chunk of them, at least—like the headline themes. We get plenty of feedback on that point. They were not too keen on the one from last week, however, despite the fact that we used the same exact concept for a previous headline puzzle. We were trying to gauge whether this general "type" of theme was a good idea, before we tried a trickier version of it. The answer would seem to be, "No, not a good idea."

Anyhow, here is the solution, courtesy of reader M.S. in Canton, NY:

"The last shall be first."

More specifically, the LAST word of the headline is the FIRST word of the text of the post.

Exactly correct. Just like the last word of this item's headline is "Readers" and the first word of this item is also "Readers."

Here are the 15 readers to get it right:

R.S. in Landing, NJ S.K. in Ardmore, PA P.A. in Redwood City, CA J.N. in Zionsville, IN P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ M.K. in Long Branch, NJ B.B. in Avon, CT D.L. in Springfield, IL M.S. in Canton A.E. in Cleveland, OH J.E. in San Jose, CA D.B. in Farmville, VA A.S.D. in Dorchester, MA B.M. in Chico, CA N.H. in London, England, UK

We told you it was (apparently) very difficult.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word or letter per headline, and it's in the category Language. For a hint, we'll say that you might want to think about which bone is connected to the—brief pause—thigh bone, and is connected to the—brief pause—back bone.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line May 29 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Even C + C Music Factory Isn't Interested

What a strange story this is. The Trump administration is trying to squeeze America's upcoming 250th birthday for all it's worth. And, as part of the "festivities," someone who works for Trump is organizing "the Great American State Fair," which will be held in D.C., along Pennsylvania Avenue, and will feature musical performances, as these things are wont to do. Here is the official announcement of the acts scheduled to appear; it lists the following entertainers:

• Martina McBride (June 25)
• C + C Music Factory (June 26)
• Vanilla Ice (June 26)
• Milli Vanilli (June 26)
• Young MC (June 26)
• The Commodores (June 27)
• Morris Day and The Time (June 27)
• Flo Rida (July 2)
• Bret Michaels (July 3)

It's a fairly standard "county fair" kind of list, full of performers who are far removed from their days of glory. You don't do the county fair the year you've released a hit record. Or any of the 20 years after that, either.

We have no doubt that any reader of this site would be instantly aware that something called "Freedom 250" and/or "the Great American State Fair" is connected to the Trump administration, because of the over-the-top rah-rah patriotism. And if you read the release linked above, it does make several references to MAHA events, and to the "White House Task Force" and to other details that make clear what's going on.

Given that it was so painfully obvious to us, we assumed it was also obvious to the folks who agreed to appear. And we were kind of surprised by the list. "Are these folks all MAGA?" we wondered. Sure, Bret Michaels is, and it's not surprising if Vanilla Ice is. But there are a lot of Black musicians here, and if they're all MAGA, then finding that many MAGA Black artists would be quite a feat. Since we doubted that, we supposed that they all just needed the work.

As it turns out, at least if you believe the musicians, most of them had no idea what they were signing up for. So, the same day that the roster of entertainers was released, there was a run of drop-outs. Here's the list, as it now stands:

• Vanilla Ice (June 26)
• Flo Rida (July 2)
• Bret Michaels (July 3)

That is a rather shorter, whiter list.

As we note above, we're struggling to wrap our minds around what happened here. It is certainly possible that, as the artists claim, they were misled, and they had no idea they would be performing in support of MAGA. We can definitely see the kind of dishonest people that Trump hires being willing to try to pull the wool over the performers' eyes until it was too late. Alternatively, maybe the artists said, "Hey, a paycheck is a paycheck," and they only jumped ship when their fanbases rebelled. Certainly, on social media, you can see plenty of evidence that the fans were furious. As in, "I'll never attend another concert, I'll never buy another record" furious.

Who knows what the White House will do to re-populate the schedule. Maybe they'll have each of the performers who are still "in" do multiple days. Though the more likely possibility is that the administration will round up the usual suspects, and we'll once again get to see Kid Rock, Jason Aldean, Lee Greenwood, and a bunch of other folks who are mostly kinda old, kinda sad and very white. It's another reminder that Trump, who has spent decades longing to be one of the "in crowd," will reach the end of his days never having been accepted by the cool kids, or even the semi-cool kids. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Aussies Stick to their EV Guns

Forgive us for generalizing, but there is much in Australian culture that mirrors what you would find in Texas. A lot of Aussies love their beef and their cowboy hats and their pickup trucks (which they call "utes"). These similarities are probably explained by similarities in landscape, and similarities in historical circumstances (i.e., far-flung settlement, largely left to its own devices).

That said, utes use a lot of gas, particularly when we are talking the kinds of distances you sometimes have to cover in Australia. And because the Aussies have to import most of their petrol, it's quite expensive, and is very much subject to the vagaries of the market—say, if the Strait of Hormuz gets shut down. At the moment, the average price of a liter of gas down under is AUD 1.84, which works out to about $5/gallon in U.S. terms. That's a shade higher than the current U.S. average, which is $4.39/gallon. And the current price in Australia is actually a bit misleading, because the government has halved the usual tax through June 30.

For these reasons, Australia is one of the nations where enthusiasm for electric vehicles is highest. According to Nielsen Research, 51% of Aussies want a hybrid car and another 36% want a fully electric vehicle. If the U.S. could get to numbers even half of those, Ralph Nader could die happy.

We note all of this as prelude to the news that the Aussies have just achieved something notable on the EV front, albeit more a commercial and industrial achievement, rather than one involving private citizens. New Energy Transport is a company that is working to make viable electric semi trucks. For them to be viable, they have to be able to charge fairly quickly, and to travel a fairly long distance on that charge. Last month, the company revealed that it had executed a very successful test. An electric semi, carrying 20 tons of freight, made the trip from Sydney to Canberra (a little less than 200 miles) on a single charge.

That charge, which took just one hour to execute, left the semi with enough electricity to make the return trip, plus a bit more (a full charge gives a range of about 415 miles with a load of 40 tons). Because an electric motor is able to deliver more consistent power on hills and other challenging terrain, the trip was 25 minutes faster than it would have been with a gas-powered semi. And the fuel costs were 84% lower than they would have been with gas.

These are deal-breaker numbers. Politics aside, if EV makers can deliver more efficient performance at a lower cost, and without any serious downsides (it's easy enough to recharge the trucks while they are parked overnight, or while the driver is having a bit of lunch), that is something that companies that rely on long-haul trucking have to take notice of. And, for what it's worth, 415 miles of range is enough to cover the distance from Los Angeles to San Francisco, from Houston to Dallas, from Boston to New York City or from Chicago to St. Louis.

In short, a tip of the (outback) hat to the Aussies. And have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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.

---The Votemaster and Zenger