• California Goes Electric
• Crist Raises $1 Million on First Day as Democratic Nominee...
• ...Meanwhile, RNC Is Begging Donors for Money
• What Happened in NY-12?
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Dere Goes Da Judge
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Reunited
There was news on Thursday about two different Trump-related documents. Both were the work of the Department of Justice, and both will see the light of day in short order.
The first of these documents is the memo written for AG Bill Barr back in 2019, on the question of whether, given the findings in the Mueller Report, the DoJ should pursue obstruction charges against Donald Trump. The answer that Asst. AG Steven Engel and Principal Associate Deputy AG Edward C. O'Callaghan came up with was, of course, "No." They concluded that the facts uncovered by Mueller were not enough to warrant legal action, and that charging a sitting president is probably not OK, anyhow.
We pass this along because it's the latest chapter in the Mueller saga. However, it would be hard for us to imagine a "major" document that is more meaningless and unrevealing than this one. Engel (and, for that matter, Barr) eventually decided enough was enough, and broke with Trump. But that came more than a year after this memo. At the point it was written, they were both squarely in the bag for him. So, one cannot hope for dispassionate legal analysis. And, for what it's worth, non-Trumpy lawyers who have looked at the document have concluded that the reasoning is very shaky (see here, here, here, and here for examples). The fact is that, regardless of what Engel and O'Callaghan actually thought, they knew full well what the boss wanted to hear. Maybe they delivered it happily, maybe reluctantly, but they clearly did the job they knew they were supposed to do.
And that brings us to the second reason this memo is pretty much meaningless. Barr had, in fact, already reached his conclusions before he ever read what Engel and O'Callaghan had to say. So, what they wrote had no influence on him whatsoever. This is actually why the memo was released. AG Merrick Garland did not want to release anything beyond the 6-pages-out-of-10-are-redacted version that's already been made public, because he doesn't want his underlings to worry that their confidential memos might end up on the front page of The New York Times. However, the judge who ordered the release said that the memo isn't work product because it played no role in the decision-making process.
We have to imagine that, in addition to being the latest chapter in the Mueller saga, it's also the final chapter. The statute of limitations on obstruction or other crimes Trump might have committed as part of this situation will soon run, if it hasn't already. Further, the DoJ has plenty of other irons in the fire when it comes to prosecuting Trump, and those undoubtedly make more sense to pursue than something Mueller-related.
And speaking of irons in the fire, the second document is the Mar-a-Lago affidavit. Yesterday, Judge Bruce Reinhart issued an order telling the DoJ that they have to release the document, but allowing Garland & Co. to redact key passages, as requested.
The deadline for release is noon ET today. As nobody outside the DoJ has seen the affidavit, as yet, there isn't much we can say. However, barring the unexpected, this would appear to be a loss for Trump. There's sure to be one or more damning things in the document accompanied by absolutely nothing that is exculpatory. On top of that, the former president presumably won't learn who ratted him out, and he won't be able to sic his base on the folks responsible for the search. We'll know for sure a few hours after this post goes live. (Z)
When Bob Dylan went electric, at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965, it was pretty controversial. But that's nothing compared to what California came up with yesterday, as the state attempts to put fossil fuels on the path to extinction. At the prompting of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), the California Air Resources Board adopted new standards that will pretty quickly wean the state off of gasoline-powered vehicles.
Per the new rules, 35% of new cars in the state must be zero-emission vehicles by 2026. By 2030, that number jumps to 68%. And by 2035, it will no longer be legal to sell brand-new, gasoline-powered vehicles in the state—only electrics, alternate-fuel vehicles and a few select hybrids. Gas-powered used cars will linger on, of course, though they'll become less and less viable over time as the number of gas stations shrinks.
This is going to have a rather profound impact. California has 12% of the nation's population and close to 20% of the nation's money, so just by itself it can compel auto makers to stand up and take notice. Further, there are 17 other states—mostly big, blue ones—that follow the Golden State's emission standards. As with building new coal-processing plants, the time will soon come when designing new gasoline-powered car models just won't make economic sense.
Also, as we look ahead to the 2024 and/or 2028 presidential races, this will give Newsom some pretty serious environmental bona fides to run on. He's pretty moderate overall, but he can use this to sell himself to all wings of the party, particularly the Bernie wing. Conveniently for the Governor, California will reach the point where more EVs than gas-powered vehicles are being sold right in the middle of the 2028 campaign cycle. He might just mention that a few times on the campaign trail, assuming he runs (Pro tip: He's going to). (Z)
One of the challenges that Rep. Charlie Crist (D-FL) faces, now that he is the Democrats' gubernatorial nominee in Florida, is that he's way behind Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) in terms of cash on hand. Like, $100 million-plus behind.
In his first full day as the blue team's flag-bearer, however, Crist got some good news: His campaign collected more than $1 million in donations from across the country. That's certainly a start. We won't know additional details until the Q3 reporting deadline (Oct. 10), or until Crist releases them, but he just might make up some of that wealth gap.
Actually, we're inclined to think that while the money race favors DeSantis right now, it probably won't matter as much as other factors (like Florida's red lean and DeSantis' incumbency). As we've seen time and again, there's a certain point at which the returns provided by campaign spending start to rapidly diminish. And the Governor, perhaps in recognition of this fact, is spending a lot of his money on ads in places like Pennsylvania and Virginia. The staff geographer advises us that neither of those places is Florida, and that nobody who sees those commercials will be casting a ballot in the Sunshine State this year.
Heck, there's a chance that for DeSantis, the less advertising, the better. This week, his campaign dropped an absolutely godawful ad. Here it is, if you would care to watch it:
The bit, if you didn't watch it, is that DeSantis is "Top Gov," which is a play on "Top Gun." In other words, the Governor has cast himself as one of the most famous movie heroes in the last half-century. And in the commercial, DeSantis outlines his rules of engagement for "taking on the corporate media," which are "Number one—don't fire unless fired upon, but when they fire, you fire back with overwhelming force," "Number two—never ever back down from a fight," and "Number three—don't accept their narrative."
He's getting shredded on social media. Here are our observations:
- It's really cheesy to claim that the setting for the ad is "Freedom Headquarters."
- It's even cheesier that it's necessary to clarify, in parentheses, that you mean Florida.
- DeSantis' voice has clearly been run through a filter to make it sound deeper.
- The war on the corporate media might be taken more seriously if DeSantis wasn't airing the ad on a bunch of corporate-owned TV stations, generally during the evening news.
- If you are a politician and you decide to do some soldier cosplay, you are just begging people to bring up the devastating Michael Dukakis picture from 1988. And guess what? That's exactly what's happened.
Crist, incidentally, has already released his first ad:
Let’s make history, Florida.— Charlie Crist (@CharlieCrist) August 24, 2022
Defeat fascism, defeat DeSantis. pic.twitter.com/o5AwUDtTjO
The three main themes, if you don't care to watch, are: (1) DeSantis is a fascist, (2) Crist wants to build Floridians up instead of tearing them down, and (3) Crist really wants to be governor, and does not have his eye on a promotion. Those are some pretty strong planks to run on; we'll see what happens once the race starts to get polled. It's Florida, so the polls will soon be coming fast and furious. (Z)
Ron DeSantis is awash in cash because he comes from a big, rich state and because he is, if we may say so, the great white hope. Many of his Republican colleagues, particularly those who are running for federal office (and so cannot collect more than $5,600 per donor) are not so lucky. In particular, in nearly all of the swing-state U.S. Senate races, the Republican candidate is lagging far behind the Democrat.
The folks at the RNC, in particular RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel, are starting to get desperate. We know because Politico laid hands on a recording of a conference call between the Chairwoman and a bunch of Republican megadonors. And in it, she says that while the Republicans have a great group of Senate candidates this year, those candidates could really use some more money (hint, hint). Undoubtedly, she believes approximately 50% of that.
That was not the only interesting bit in the recording, either. It's kinda buried in the Politico story, but billionaire Republican Steve Wynn piped up and said that the key to Republican hopes is, in effect, lying. He argues that the Party must warn low-income Americans that the IRS is coming after them thanks to that $80 billion in new funding granted by the Inflation Reduction Act. Wynn even proposed a tentative script: "Hard-hitting kind of spots with a man's voice, no soft pedal. 'They're coming after you if you're a waiter, if you're a bartender, if you're anybody with a cash business... they're coming after you.'" This is not true, of course, but if you've got nothing honest to run on, then a lie will have to do. You're just not supposed to get caught on tape admitting it.
In any event, the money situation for Republican Senate (and House) candidates will be something worth watching. The right-leaning super PACs have not yet unleashed their might, as yet, and that could make up for some candidates' lack of funds. That said, PACs have to pay way more for commercials than campaigns do, so their money will only go so far. Further, once a candidate seems the be a lost cause (ahem, Mehmet Oz), both the PACs and the donors will take their money elsewhere. (Z)
We don't often get a chance to zoom in on a race for a U.S. House seat, much less a primary. Nationally, House races get only a small fraction of the coverage afforded to U.S. Senate races and gubernatorial races. And one of us lives in Europe while the other lives in a deep blue district that hasn't had a competitive House race in a couple of generations. So, we can't exactly draw on local coverage, either.
On Tuesday, there was a very interesting race in NY-12, as long-serving Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D) not only dispatched long-serving Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D), but did so in a landslide, winning by more than 30 points (55.4% to 24.4%, with another 19.1% going to third-place finisher Suraj Patel). We had no idea what happened, so we asked readers to weigh in. We got some very interesting analysis, and so we thought we'd share some of those messages today. A somewhat rare occasion of looking at the trees rather than the forest. So, without further ado:
- J.F. in Astoria, NY: I am currently in NY-12, but with redistricting was moved over to
NY-14 (AOC!) and all I can say about that move is "Thank God I lost Maloney."
I'll summarize why I believe Maloney was destroyed in the new NY-12. She had a very small base, as she wasn't popular in her own district. In 2020, she barely won against Suraj Patel, and only survived due to a pair of Democratic Socialists of America spoilers on the ballot.
No one in my neck of the woods has anything nice to say about Maloney. I remember personally during the beginning of the pandemic, when we had an issue with stimulus direct deposit. I called Maloney's office, spoke to someone who suggested I send a letter to Rep. Maloney to voice my concerns. I was calling to voice said concerns, and was told to go back to 1990 and send a letter. Big "Buzz Off" energy from her team. And all of that is on top of her history as an anti-vaxxer. Good riddance.
- S.S.H. in London, England, UK (but born and raised in New York): While both
representatives are hugely respected, Jerry Nadler is beloved—a real pothole politician, he works hard for his
constituents and actively tries to get stuff done. He's also been at it forever. Long before he was a congressman, or
city councilor, Nadler was a community organizer—he defeated Westway, Robert Moses and lots of Donald Trump's
plans for the Pennsylvania railway yards. Additionally, everyone knows he hates Mr. T, never pandered to him, even at
the height of T.'s fame. Their antipathy was legendary even in the 80's. The vast majority of Manhattanites have loathed
The Donald for 40+ years and Nadler led on that literally decades before the impeachment. So I'd say Jerry won so big
because he is respected and kind of loved. Maloney didn't really lose because people don't like or respect
her—they do. They just didn't love her.
A couple of other things. Like Sean Patrick Maloney upstate, Nadler ran in his district because it's where he lives. He does not live in the 10th; he's highly principled and wouldn't run in districts that he doesn't live in.
I think Carolyn Maloney's stand on the MMR vaccine was also hugely unpopular in a city where people live cheek by jowl.
- D.G. in New York City, NY: Readers of The New York Times are told a lot about the
Hamptons and the summer flight from the city to that playground of the rich and famous. A recent article dwelt on the
complaints of an Upper East Sider about not being able to vote in the primary because, after all, who holds a primary in
Hampton season. My guess is that more of Carolyn Maloney's Upper East Side constituents than Nadler's Upper West Side
constituents were unaware of absentee voting options. Besides, you have to lift a finger to vote.
Also, she was out in the Hamptons chasing her voters while Jerry was on the streets of the city where the same-day voters remained in place. It was hard not to have a chance to say "hello" to Jerry if you were in his district.
- S.W. in New York City, NY: Being a typical New Yorker from the Upper West Side, I spent my
summer in the mountains avoiding the unbearable heat of the city, but here are my thoughts about the recent Democratic
primary results in the new NY-12:
- Carolyn Maloney has had a some tough primaries in the last few years, barely winning her Democratic Primary in 2020.
Her opponent then, Suraj Patel, was also in the primary this year. There was obvious dissatisfaction with her in her
(old) district to serve so many terms and barely beat a (relatively) unknown candidate in 2018 and 2020. Nadler didn't
seem to have any standing complaints against him among his current constituents, where he, too, has served for many
- The newly created 12th district is heavily Jewish and many voters probably wanted to have a person of Jewish faith
- Nadler had a more acceptable voting record to the Democratic voters and appeared to vote his principles rather than
bandwagon-popular concerns. Democratic primary voters appreciated his votes against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and
his support for the Iran deal. (See Clinton, Hillary, 2008 Democratic Primary for additional examples of a pro-Iraq War
- If voters were conflicted on whom to vote for, reading The New York Times endorsement would have sealed the
deal for them: it was a very strong endorsement of Nadler. It also didn't hurt to have
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), fresh from his recent legislative wins, make a rare Congressional
endorsement of Nadler's candidacy.
- From my view in the mountains, it appeared to me that Maloney ran a lackluster, desperate campaign. To me, her
slogan that only a woman can fight for women's rights is lame, meaningless, phony and a disappointing and frantic
attempt to appeal for votes.
- Carolyn Maloney has had a some tough primaries in the last few years, barely winning her Democratic Primary in 2020. Her opponent then, Suraj Patel, was also in the primary this year. There was obvious dissatisfaction with her in her (old) district to serve so many terms and barely beat a (relatively) unknown candidate in 2018 and 2020. Nadler didn't seem to have any standing complaints against him among his current constituents, where he, too, has served for many years.
- C.J. in New York City, NY: In my opinion, in New York City, politics can be
hyper-local and there is no better way to tell an election story than by a precinct-level results map (getting deep into
the weeds, I know). Fortunately,
there is a map
that illustrates this beautifully. It is clear that Nadler ran up the score in his base of the West Side, especially
north of Columbus Circle. This was part of his old district, so the power of his incumbency is pretty obvious there.
What I found interesting is that Nadler's strength is also present on the East Side. While Carolyn Maloney was able to win some precincts, they were very close, preventing her being able to close the gap that was widened with the strong performance by Nadler on the Upper West Side. Additionally, the precincts that Maloney managed to win had smaller vote totals. In all, Nadler was able to build a better turnout operation.
Being close to the end of summer, many voters on the Upper East Side are likely away on vacation compared to the (relatively) less wealthy area of the West Side, also adding to Maloney's competitive disadvantage.
Simply put, per The New York Times: "Asked what gave Mr. Nadler the edge over Ms. Maloney, he said simply: 'West Side over East Side.'"
One last point. In the neighboring 10th District, Dan Goldman flooded the airwaves with television ads that provided a brief cameo of Jerry Nadler introducing Goldman during the Trump impeachment hearings. Perhaps that cross branding and, in Nadler's case, free publicity, helped pad the numbers more.
- E.F. in Baltimore, MD (but formerly New York City): The New York Post explains it
thusly: Democrats hate women.
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, I'd guess that Nadler's prominence in the impeachment hearings as Judiciary Committee Chairman made the difference. Real New Yorkers positively loathe Trump.
- J.A. in Hell's Kitchen, NY: I was drawn into this new district and saw a lot of the action
here in Hell's Kitchen.
While I didn't participate in any campaign, at least where I lived and on my walk up 10th Avenue to 57th Street, I only ever saw Nadler staffers handing out things. This is just personal observation.
I also saw a few particularly biting ads against Maloney that replayed a lot of possibly out-of-context (but maybe not?) anti-vaxx comments. This is a particularly effective line of attack in New York city and possibly could have turned people.
Full disclosure: I voted for Patel. I don't see the benefit of maintaining either soon-to-be-octogenarian as a ranking member on their committees. New leadership and blood is the way forward, not dinosaurs.
Thanks to all of you for your insights! (Z)
A month or so ago, there was a 17-year-old in Florida who petitioned the courts for permission to get an abortion without parental consent (as her parents are no longer in the picture). The judge, Jared Smith, took note of the petitioner's 2.0 GPA and decreed that she lacked the intelligence and maturity to make that decision. So, he denied the petition. For those keeping score at home, that's "not mature enough to choose abortion" but "more than capable of raising a child."
In short, Smith does not appear to be a top-flight representative of the judicial system. Even if one agrees with his ultimate conclusion, basing a ruling on GPA is both dubious and demeaning. And that isn't the only demerit against him. He's one of those judges who makes very clear that the main law book he follows is the Bible (which may explain why he's apparently unfamiliar with the First Amendment, as it's not in there). Further, Smith and his wife, Suzette, have both expressed the view that what Jews really need is... Jesus. Perhaps they are not aware that we already have a word for people who have embraced both the Old and New Testaments.
Anyhow, judges in Florida are elected, and Smith was up this year. In fact, he was on the ballot on Tuesday. The race between him and his opponent, Nancy Jacobs, was unusually nasty. Jacobs could not comment directly on Smith's decisions as judge, as that is against Florida law (again, what of the First Amendment?). However, she did make the case that he might not be the nicest fellow in the world, and she did post news articles about the abortion decision to her campaign website. For Smith's part, he suggested that Jacobs is definitely one of those Jews who needs Jesus.
As you can guess, given that this is a schadenfreude item, Smith hasn't had a great month. His decision on the abortion was overruled by a three-judge panel. And then, on Election Day, he was voted out of office. Nobody polls judicial races, of course, but folks with their fingers on the pulse of local politics (this was in Hillsborough County) said that it was the abortion ruling that did him in. In any case, see ya, Jared. Don't let the gavel hit you in the rear on the way out.
Incidentally, in case you think we've made an error, Smith was the judge who denied a parentless 17-year-old Floridian an abortion because of her alleged lack of intelligence. This is an entirely different story than the one about the parentless 16-year-old Floridian who was denied an abortion because of her alleged lack of intelligence. What a state! (Z)
Once a news story ceases to be shocking and scandalous, it tends to drop off the radar. And so, everyone heard, saw, and read plenty about the Donald Trump-era border policy that separated children from their families. But what has happened since?
First, note that it's estimated that a total of about 5,000 families were split up while the Trump-era policy was in place. Making things worse is that Trump administration officials kept atrocious records. Was it incompetence? Was it an attitude that these families did not deserve to be reunited? Something else? We don't know, but what we do know is that the Trump administration's handling of the whole affair was excoriated in a 2021 report from the Department of Justice. From the report:
Although DOJ leadership told the OIG [Office of the Inspector General] that their priority was to increase the number of immigration-related prosecutions in order to "restore legality" to the Southwest border and decrease the number of illegal entries into the United States, the OIG's review ultimately determined that the Department's single-minded focus on increasing prosecutions came at the expense of careful and appropriate consideration of the impact that prosecution of family unit adults and family separation would have on children traveling with them and the government's ability to later reunite the children with their parents. We further determined that Department leadership did not take steps, after learning about difficulties in identifying the location of separated children, to reconsider their prior assumptions about the ability to immediately reunify separated families.
Although his name doesn't appear in this particular excerpt, the person who serves as the main bad guy of the report is actually... former AG Jeff Sessions.
Anyhow, under orders from several judges, the Trump administration reunited all the families that could be brought back together with ease. That reduced the number of divided families to about 1,400, and at that point Trump & Co. threw up their hands and said there was nothing more to be done.
When Joe Biden took office, he decided that "nothing more to be done" was not correct, and created a Family Reunification Task Force under the leadership of Michelle Brané, formerly of the Women's Refugee Commission. Keeping in mind that there is virtually no documentation for the 1,400 remaining families, and that in most cases the children are still in the U.S. while the parents have been expelled, it was a herculean task. But Brané and her team have managed to bring 400 more families back together.
That still leaves 1,000 families to go, of course, but 1,000 is far better than 1,400. Further, the Biden administration has allowed the separated families to reunite in the United States and to remain here and work for up to 3 years. Given the cruelty that was visited upon these folks by the United States government, that certainly seems the decent thing to do. Excellent work by the Family Reunification Task Force, and here's hoping that the near future brings hundreds of additional success stories. (Z)
If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.
- firstname.lastname@example.org For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
- email@example.com For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
- firstname.lastname@example.org To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
- email@example.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
Aug25 Maybe the Sky Will Not Fall for the Democrats in November
Aug25 Biden Will Send Ukraine Another $3 Billion in Military Hardware
Aug25 Poll: Biden's Approval Rises to 41%
Aug25 The Gang of Five Will Split the Loot
Aug25 Youngkin Hits the Campaign Trail
Aug25 Oz Will Get A Tax Break on His Florida Mansion
Aug25 A Battle Has Begun over Maloney's Job
Aug24 Crist Is Risen
Aug24 So Much for the Wisdom of Solomon
Aug24 Everyone on Team Trump Had Election Data
Aug24 Thanks, Citizens United
Aug24 Senate Ready to Judge Some Judges
Aug24 Gas Prices Keep Falling
Aug23 Graham's Reprieve Will Be Brief
Aug23 Fauci to Retire
Aug23 Ron Johnson Flips and Flops
Aug23 Ballsack Polls
Aug23 The World's Courts, Part IV: The Great White North, and the Land of the Rising Sun, Redux
Aug23 Morrison Under Investigation in Australia
Aug22 Florida, New York, and Oklahoma Will Hold Elections Tomorrow
Aug22 Another Election to Watch Tuesday
Aug22 Merrick Garland Has Some Tough Calls to Make
Aug22 Democrats Are Worrying about a Cheney Presidential Run
Aug22 A Redacted Affidavit Will Enrage Trump's Supporters
Aug22 McConnell: House Flip More Likely Than Senate Flip
Aug22 Federal Appeals Court Wants Key Memo about the Mueller Report Released
Aug22 Graham Gets a Reprieve
Aug22 The State of the Races for Governor
Aug21 Sunday Mailbag
Aug20 Saturday Q&A
Aug19 The Trump Legal Blotter, Part I: The Affidavit
Aug19 The Trump Legal Blotter, Part II: Weisselberg Pleads Guilty
Aug19 The Trump Legal Blotter, Part III: Trump Has a Lawyer Problem
Aug19 The Trump Legal Blotter, Part IV: Trump Has a Trump Problem
Aug19 The Trump Legal Blotter, Part V: Would the Republicans Nominate an Indicted Trump?
Aug19 A Strange and Utterly Classless Lie
Aug19 Ron DeSantis Unveils His Latest Stunt
Aug19 This Week in Schadenfreude: Prosecutorial Misconduct
Aug19 This Week in Freudenfreude: A Slam Dunk for the NBA
Aug18 Democrats Are Starting to Run Ads about the Inflation Bill
Aug18 Planned Parenthood Will Spend $50 Million This Fall
Aug18 Trump's Stolen Documents Are Nothing Like Clinton's E-mails
Aug18 Trump Has His 2024 Platform Ready
Aug18 Pence Attacks Republicans Who Have Criticized the FBI
Aug18 Cheney Hits the Ground Running
Aug18 State Supreme Court Races Are Suddenly Hot
Aug18 Are Hearing Aids Political?
Aug18 Rick Scott: Don't Apply for a Job at the IRS