As Time Goes By

The movie that song is most closely identified with is about a clash between people fighting for democracy and people fighting for fascism, so it seems apropos here. Anyhow, in a true "Play it again, Sam" moment, Team Trump has gotten to work trying to delay the Florida classified documents trial.

Firing the first salvo was Donald Trump's co-defendant, Walt Nauta. In theory, he is supposed to be in court on Friday for a procedural hearing. However, Nauta asked to delay the hearing because his Washington lawyer is busy with another trial this week. Special Counsel Jack Smith was not pleased with this request, noting that Nauta's Florida lawyer should be able to handle the hearing, and that Team Nauta has already engaged in plenty of foot-dragging. Judge Aileen Cannon will presumably sort this out sometime in the next 48 hours.

Meanwhile, late Monday night, Trump joined the party with a filing claiming that he and his team simply cannot be ready to go to trial by December, and that it would not be fair to ask him to stand trial in the midst of a presidential campaign. In other words, Trump wants the trial delayed until after next year's election. Obviously, he believes that he will win that election and that he'll also be able to pardon himself. Both suppositions are questionable, but hope springs eternal.

Interestingly, Trump's desires are at odds with what the voting public wants. According to a new poll from Politico/Ipsos, nearly two-thirds of voters overall, 48% of independents and 46% of Republicans want the trial to take place before next year's elections. Do these voters want to know whether or not the former president compromised national security? Do they want him cleared so there's nothing hanging over his head when people head to the polls next November? The pollster did not ask a follow-up, but it's probably some of both.

Of course, it's not Nauta, Trump, Smith or the American people whose opinion matters here. The only opinion that counts is Cannon's. And she is about to face her first big test when it comes to impartiality. Specifically, if she agrees to delay the trial until December 2024, she is going to be broadly condemned for being in the bag for Trump. Again, we should find out in short order what she will do. (Z)

I, The Jury, Part VII: Instructions

Readers will recall that some content scheduled for a week ago was lost to the unforgiving heat of California's High Desert. We got a few messages from folks who pointed out that even if the plastic portion of a USB drive is destroyed, the data-storing metal-and-chip portion is still functional. That's true, as far as it goes, but what actually happened was that both the USB drive and the USB to USB-C adapter were ruined. The damage to the former might have been overcome, but not the damage to the latter. And while one might find a place in Los Angeles to buy a new USB-C adapter at 10:00 p.m., there is no such place in Twentynine Palms and its environs. Especially when one has been unable to recharge one's car because the heat caused the high-speed chargers to shut down as a safety measure.

It's been 10 days since the last entry in this series, so please recall that we asked for readers' experiences, and then tried to organize those responses by theme. Today, it's four accounts that address the impact of the judge's instructions:

C.B.L. in Warwick, RI, writes: A number of years ago I was chosen for a Superior Court non-criminal jury trial, and was elected as foreperson. I have a college degree, but no Ph.D. My main takeaway from the whole experience was a very sober one.

I am not one to be easily cowed, but the seriousness of the case, the official proceedings, the courtroom atmosphere, and the general gravity of the whole situation put all of us in a very business-like mood, and as the case went on we clearly felt a great responsibility to do our duty by the law, not by our personal opinions.

Our judge was very experienced and respected, and he made clear our instructions. Both sides presented good arguments, but it was not an evidence based case—more of a grievance case with "injuries" to the plaintiff as to how he had been treated during a certain situation. While we all had some sympathy for the plaintiff and his case, it became clearer each day that our "feelings" about it all had no bearing. We were instructed to rule on the exact charges only, and to that end we could not find for him.

Clearly, any trial involving a famous person would be very different from the one I participated in, but I would hope that the same somber atmosphere would prevail within the courtroom and the jurors would feel the same responsibility to do their solemn duty to the law. They will have to weigh very serious charges in an unprecedented case. I wish them all the best.

---

T.B. in Leon County, FL, writes: I served on a jury about 6 years ago and think some of my experience might bear on some aspect of the forthcoming Donald Trump trial in Miami. My trial was about an abusive boyfriend/ex-boyfriend and his not hearing "no" with regards to his wanting to enter her room (broke door down) and taking her phone to read texts. The crux of the similarity to a possible Trump trial is that one of the State's charges was for a crime that would only be a crime if the boyfriend had known he was breaking the law before the acts he committed in the house (which were quite obviously crimes of passion, not premeditated).

A detail inadvertently blurted out by the prosecution (boyfriend had beat up her younger brother months before) almost caused a mistrial on the spot, and sheds light on what premeditated act he might have been guilty of: violating a restraining order that barred him from the property (my post-trial conjecture). Because we formally did not know of any premeditated criminal act (breaking a restraining order), we could not convict the misguided fellow on one of the charges. For a Trump jury, if all of lawyer #1's summary notes, etc., are prevented from being presented in the trial (you know, lawyer-client confidentiality), the jury instruction might be to rely only on testimony given in court and not to be swayed by any uncorroborated detail in the indictment.

---

G.V. in Plano, TX, writes: I've had one jury experience. It ended in a mistrial because of a situation that I haven't heard about elsewhere. It's hard to imagine the prosecutors in Trump's case making the same blunder, but... well, you just never know. And the story illustrates one of the weird technicalities that can happen in a real trial.

It was an assault case related to a road-rage incident. A young man thought that a woman had cut him off, so he followed her recklessly for several miles, all the way into a parking lot where he got out of the car and threatened her.

There were two charges: aggravated assault, with a "lesser included charge" of simple assault. The distinction between those two crimes is that aggravated assault requires the use of a deadly weapon; if there's no weapon, it's simple assault. The judge's instructions to the jury were very clear: We had to decide which of the two charges applied, and then we had to vote to convict on that charge and that charge only. In other words, we couldn't vote guilty for simple assault if we were convinced that the attacker had a weapon. I can only assume this was done so that the jury couldn't take the easy way out and settle on the charge that everyone could agree on, so that we could go home early.

All of us on the jury believed that the defendant was guilty of assault. But we disagreed on what kind of assault. Ten of us believed there was a weapon, but there were two who found the testimony about the weapon less than credible. (Also, as I recall, at least one of those two also struggled with the thought of condemning the young defendant to the kind of prison sentence that an aggravated assault conviction would bring. Needless to say, considering such things was definitely a violation of the instructions to the jury.)

We could not reach agreement the first day, so we went home. The next morning it was clear that nothing had changed. The two who did not believe a weapon was involved could not vote for aggravated assault, and it was clear that nothing would persuade them. The rest of us could not vote for simple assault, and the idea of all ten of us changing our minds was laughable. We were back in front of the judge by 9:30 telling him that we couldn't reach agreement, and he declared a mistrial.

The prosecutors asked to speak to any jurors who were willing to answer questions. When we explained, they said that it was their mistake; they believed the testimony about the weapon was compelling and credible, so they gambled that they could get the conviction on the stronger charge. Instead, they got a mistrial where all 12 jurors believed the man was guilty of assaulting a woman. It was very frustrating. I never learned whether there was another trial, but I've always assumed there wasn't.

There's one final, funny addendum. I found the experience so infuriating that on the way home, even though it was mid-morning, I stopped to buy a 6-pack of beer. In the store, I picked up the beer, went to the counter... and the person in front of me in line, also buying a 6-pack at 10:15 in the morning, was one of the other jurors.

---

M.B. in Menlo Park, CA, writes: I'm a lawyer, and somehow wound up on a misdemeanor criminal jury in L.A. Municipal Court years ago. Relevant to the Trump documents case, in my trial it was clear that the facts in the case weren't really in dispute. The defendant was charged with keeping a loaded gun in his vehicle, and his defense was that the "vehicle" was a van that he lived in (the gun was kept in the living area in the back). The police and the defendant (who took the stand) mostly told the same story. Comparing this to the Trump documents case, note that none of Trump's defenders are arguing that any of the facts in the indictment are wrong.

As a lawyer, I realized that the outcome of my case would be determined by the court's jury instructions about the definition of "vehicle." When we finally heard the instructions, they were a mess. The deliberating jury asked the court to clarify the instructions, and the court didn't (it was obvious to me that the two sides didn't agree on what to do). Absent clear instructions, the jury hung, split about equally for conviction and acquittal.

The Trump documents case might turn on the wording of the jury instructions.

As always, our thanks to these readers! The next several entries in the series will cover the dynamics inside the jury room. Also, if any readers who are not Americans have comments on how their system of justice differs, or how the American system appears from an outside vantage point, we would welcome those. (Z)

A Lousy Poll for DeSantis

Well, this is not going to gladden the heart of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), assuming he has one. Yesterday, Florida Atlantic University (FAU) released its latest survey of the state, which says that among Republican presidential candidates, Donald Trump is leading DeSantis by 20 points, 50% to 30%.

There hasn't been that much polling of the Sunshine State's presidential primary, and what polling there has been is all over the place. FAU also did a poll back in April, and had Trump up 28 points. National Research did a poll back in May and had Trump up 8. On the other hand, the May poll by Victory Research, and the June poll by Breakthrough Research had it as a dead heat.

Of these pollsters, FAU is the strongest, followed by National Research. Victory Research is mediocre, as you might guess from its somewhat leading name, while Breakthrough Research "broke through" just a few months ago, and so doesn't have a track record. In other words, the good pollsters have Trump up big, and the mediocre pollsters have the race close. So, if you have to choose, you have to assume that Trump really is up by a comfortable margin.

If this is correct, it's really bad news for DeSantis. One of his relatively few rays of hope is the notion that once voters get to know him, they'll warm up to him. Florida voters, of course, already know him quite well, thank you very much. And if they like Trump way better (or even if they like Trump about the same), how can the Governor possibly hope to overcome the former president in states where he (DeSantis) can never possibly achieve the name recognition that Trump has?

Another ray of hope for DeSantis is the notion that if Trump is indicted or convicted, that will fatally wound his campaign for a second term as president. The problem is that while this might hold for most politicians, it clearly does not hold for Trump, a.k.a. the Dear Leader. A new poll confirms something that was already showing up in the numbers, namely that 25% of Republicans say Trump's indictment for stealing classified documents makes them more likely to support him. Most of these people are True Believers, of course, who were going to vote Trump regardless. We seriously doubt that there are many people who are saying "You know, I wasn't going to vote Trump... but then he was indicted for mishandling classified information." Still, the point is that Trump's base is simply not going to leave him, regardless. And given the Republicans' winner-take-all/winner-take-most primaries, a solid 35% or 40% of the GOP primary vote, which Trump clearly has locked up, is going to be enough to give him an insurmountable delegate lead by the time Super Tuesday is over.

In short, DeSantis is running out of plausible rays of hope. And his campaign has been so godawful that prominent Republicans who said they were "out" are pondering getting back "in" again, people like Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) and Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA). They aren't going to knock Trump off, either, but at least they are not likely to run a campaign as poor as DeSantis' has been.

It's not going to happen, but at this point, DeSantis should really think about getting out, trying to improve on his weaknesses, and then making another go of it in 2028 when Trump is considerably less likely to be in the way. The Governor could, for example, take note that Florida now has the worst inflation of any state in America, and could say he simply has to devote all his time to working on that problem, so he just can't run for the White House right now. Savvy politics-watchers would know this was just a face-saving excuse, but many less-dialed-in voters might see it as a credit to the man that he's willing to put duty above ambition. (Z)

RNC Debate Qualifying Has Become a Mockery

The RNC doesn't particularly want a bunch of hopeless candidates sucking up valuable airtime at the Party's candidates' debates, the first of which is scheduled for August 23. To that end, Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel announced that there would be four prerequisites for making the stage. A candidate must:

1. Be constitutionally eligible and appropriately filed with the Federal Election Commission.
   
   
2. Sign pledges by August 21 agreeing that they will not participate in any non-RNC debate and that they will support the eventual nominee.
   
   
3. Prove to the RNC by August 21 that they have polled above one percent since July in three national polls—or in two national polls and two early primary state polls. The polls must meet RNC stated standards.
   
   
4. Prove to the RNC by August 21 they have attracted donations from at least 40,000 individuals, with at least 200 from each of 20 states or territories.

Thus far, #1 has worked out OK (though check back once someone challenges Donald Trump's candidacy on Fourteenth Amendment grounds). The other three have been... less successful, let's say.

Working in list order, #2 was always plainly foolish, as it's unenforceable. What is the RNC going to do if a person fails to honor the pledge—send them to bed without their nightly Big Mac? There cannot be a single person in the entire country who thinks that, if Donald Trump is denied the nomination, he'll give his support to the candidate who conquers him. Meanwhile, Ron DeSantis has refused to say if he'll honor the pledge, Asa Hutchinson has implied that he won't back Trump if Trump is the nominee, Will Hurd has outright said he won't support Trump, Chris Christie has also said he won't support Trump, and Mike Pence and Vivek Ramaswamy have both equivocated. That means that the only candidates who apparently plan to honor the pledge, no matter what, are Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND), Nikki Haley, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) and Mayor Francis Suarez (R-Miami). And we can tell you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those four are not the candidates the RNC was worried about.

Moving on to #3, we've already written about how the RNC's rules for what polls actually count, for debate-qualifying purposes, are quite stringent. As a reminder, to be valid, the poll has to have 800 likely Republican primary voters. There are not very many polls right now with that many people, because collecting that many responses is expensive, and not worth the investment since the election is still over a year away. To a large extent, media outlets and polling operations are only investing enough resources to get a broad overview of how things stand, not fine-grained results. Most of the polls that count for debate purposes will be online polls, since it's far cheaper to get the response rate up on those.

And finally, #4 on the list was just begging to be gamed by candidates with money to burn. That is to say, candidates like Ramaswamy and Burgum. The former already used "rewards" for donors to effectively buy the necessary number of donations to qualify, and now the latter is taking things to extremes. Would you like a $20 gift card? All you have to do is be among the first 50,000 people to donate $1 to Burgum's campaign. The Governor is doing his best to make this look kosher, explaining that the cards are "Biden Economic Relief Gift Cards" designed to help people suffering from "Bidenflation." But the only thing being Bidenflated here is the cost of a podium at the Republican candidates' debate; if everyone who gets a gift card gives the minimum $1, then the outlay by Burgum will be $950,000.

This isn't the first time a national party has tried to manage its list of debate participants, but never has it turned into such a laughable circus. Is that because the rules for this cycle were badly conceived? Maybe. Is it because the candidates the GOP attracts these days are unusually willing to bend the rules, because the ends justify the means? Could be that, too. Whatever the case may be, the GOP is probably stuck with this nonsense for at least one debate, and probably two or three, since the RNC would be sued if it tried to rewrite the rules on the fly. Maybe McDaniel can find a way to clean up the mess thereafter. (Z)

Swede-In?

Ukraine will not become a member of NATO until after the war with Russia is over (if then). Sweden, on the other hand, has been knocking on the door of the alliance, waiting primarily for approval from Turkey. It would appear that approval is now forthcoming. Yesterday, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced that he was withdrawing his opposition to Sweden's admission, and would support their addition to the alliance.

It's hardly a secret that Erdoğan's opposition was largely about extracting concessions from Sweden and/or NATO. So, what did he get? According to NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, the answer to that question is: "Sweden has amended its constitution, changed its laws, significantly expanded its counter-terrorism cooperation against the [militant Kurdistan Workers' Party], and resumed arms exports to Turkey." Our guess is that the most important part of that is the latter part. We also wouldn't be terribly surprised if the U.S. had tossed in a boon or two, that Stoltenberg "forgot" to mention. In particular, Erdoğan previously said that he wanted Turkey to be admitted to the E.U. as a condition for approving Sweden. Stoltenberg didn't say that E.U. membership had been arranged, but he also didn't say anything about Erdoğan dropping that demand.

Monday's news doesn't guarantee Swedish admission to NATO, but it does make it very likely. The Turkish parliament still has to approve the move, but that's pretty close to a rubber stamp, since the Turkish legislature's relationship to Erdoğan is similar to the relationship between the Florida legislature and Ron DeSantis (i.e., "Jump!" "How high, sir?"). Hungary has also yet to approve Swedish membership. PM Viktor Orbán insisted his country won't be the last to give approval, which implies he was just waiting for Turkey's blessing. That said, Orbán is both an inveterate liar and a nutter, so don't take his promises to the bank quite yet. He will almost certainly fall in line eventually, but he may demand some concessions of his own before doing so.

In the extremely likely event that Sweden becomes part of Team NATO, then it's another foreign policy win for Joe Biden. As we noted yesterday, American voters don't tend to pay too much attention to most foreign policy issues, unless those issues involve Americans getting killed. That said, given the sharp contrast between Biden's coalition-building and standing up to Russia versus Donald Trump's isolationism and kowtowing to Russia, 2024 could end up as an exception to the general rule. (Z)

The Marine Corps Is Headless

Archibald Henderson is something of a legend in American military history, particularly in the history of the U.S. Marine Corps. He served in that branch for 52 years, the last 38+ of those as commandant, reinventing the Corps as a major fighting force and earning the sobriquet "Grand old man of the Marine Corps." He died with his boots on in 1859, leaving the Corps temporarily leaderless until a replacement could be promoted (John Harris, who was elevated to the job the next day).

In the 164 years since Henderson shuffled off this mortal coil, the Corps has always had a commandant in place, avoiding even the less-than-a-day gap of 1859. Yesterday, however, that streak came to an end. The 4-year term of Gen. David H. Berger expired, and his replacement-designate, Gen. Eric M. Smith, has not been formally approved by the Senate. Smith is running the corps nonetheless, but as acting commandant. Nobody knows how long the Corps will be without a proper leader, but it's sure as heck going to be more than one day.

Actually, to be accurate, there is one person who (possibly) knows how long it will be. That would be Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), whose hold on all military promotions is what is keeping Smith from being formally appointed to his new post. We do not pretend to know if there are significant legal differences between what a commandant can do and what an acting commandant can do, but there certainly could be. What we do know is that military types in general, and Marines in particular, are not fond of ambiguities in the chain of command.

Tuberville will pay no political price for his obstinacy; he's from a red state, he's holding up the promotions to make a statement about abortion, and he won 159 games as a football coach. Those things, particularly the football wins, make him bulletproof. On the other hand, it's not a great look for the Republicans as a whole, particularly given that Party's ostensible pro-military stance. There is zero chance that Tuberville is going to secure a reversal of the specific policy he's targeting (the federal government paying travel expenses for soldiers who require abortions). So, he's either going to yield to pressure, or the Senate is going to change its rules, or Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is going to begin the (very slow) floor-vote process for some nominees, or the Pentagon is going to end up with a gaggle of acting commanders. Which will it be? Stay tuned. (Z)

Today's In-N-Out News

We're still in the window for "team players" to announce their retirements, so that aspiring members of their party have time to build a campaign operation. And we are in primetime for candidates to announce their intent to run. So, for the next several months, there will be a fair bit of news of the sort covered by this item.

First up, the Nevada U.S. Senate race. Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) occupies one of the three or four Democratic seats that are at risk this cycle. She's not as endangered as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) or Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), but she's not 100% safe, particularly if the Republicans come up with a good challenger. And the GOP thinks they've landed one in Sam Brown. Brown is young and charismatic, and is a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, where he was badly injured in an explosion. He's going to run a moderate (by the standards of the current GOP) campaign, and he already has the backing of the NRSC and of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

That's the good news for the Republicans. Now the bad news. Brown already ran for the U.S. Senate once before, in 2022, and he was crushed in the primary by Adam Laxalt, 56% to 34%. This time around, Brown's main opponent will be former state representative Jim Marchant, who is as whackadoodle as it gets. We're talking QAnon, "stop the steal," deep state, secret cabals running the world, the works. The Nevada GOP is pretty evenly divided between nutters and sane Republicans, so it's likely to be close, regardless of which candidate eventually advances to face Rosen. And the candidate who wins is not going to be terribly popular with the supporters of the loser.

Moving along, the Democrats just got a very promising candidate for the U.S. Senate race in Texas. It's state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, who is well connected to the state's sizable Latino community, and whose primary campaign theme will, in essence, be "Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is an a**hole." That would seem to us to be the correct tack for running against a Ted Cruz or a Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) or a Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

That's the good news for the Democrats. Now the bad news. The Party already has a promising candidate to face off against Cruz in the person of Rep. Collin Allred (D-TX). Allred is Black, rather than Latino, but he's got wider name recognition and he's a prodigious fundraiser, which is essential for running in a state as big and populous as Texas. It is not likely that Allred vs. Gutierrez will be as divisive as Brown vs. Marchant in Nevada but, all things being equal, the Democratic establishment would have preferred that its candidate face no serious primary challenge so the focus could be on Cruz throughout the campaign.

Those are the two "in" stories of the day, now for the "out" story. Demonstrating that age is just a number, Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) commenced her career in the U.S. House at 60, and is now serving her 13th term. That means she's now 86, which makes her (by a month) the oldest member of the lower chamber. She has decided that she's done her part, and that the time has come to yield the seat to an up-and-comer. Here's hoping her well-earned retirement is long and pleasant.

Napolitano represents CA-31, which is east of East L.A. and includes the cities of El Monte, Baldwin Park and Covina, among others. It therefore figures to remain in Democratic hands. That said, given California's jungle-style primary, the race could come down to a moderate Latino Republican and a very lefty non-Latino Democrat. In a district that is 60% Latino, that could make things interesting. (Z)

Scavenger Hunt, Part II: Trump in Pictures, Continued

As readers will recall, we launched a scavenger hunt for readers a week ago. There's been a bit of a pause in sharing the results because we got a lot of responses, and it took time to sort them all. In addition, we decided we made an error in the one entry we've already run, "Scavenger Hunt, Part I: Trump in Pictures." We limited it to just 10 images, in the interest of keeping the piece from getting too long or getting data-intensive. However, we flatter ourselves that, one day, the archives of this site might be a resource for enterprising historians or political scientists. And wouldn't it be nice for them to have a fairly comprehensive list of the definitive photos of the Trump years? So, we are going to add another 10 images to the list, which will mean much better coverage. And with that explanation out of the way, here we go:

G.W. in Eden Prairie, MN, writes: In my opinion, this epitomizes the absolute shallowness of Trump and the entire MAGA movement.

BTW, what is the proper flag etiquette when using it to beat Capitol cops? Also, if one is using the flag to cover one's face when sacking our nation's Capitol, should the blue field be facing left or right? I can never get that straight.

Also submitted by: J.P. in Phoenix, AZ; O.S. in Berlin, Germany

---

J.G. in Chantilly, VA, writes: It was Trump who coined the term "shit**le country." Little did he know he was speaking about Mar-a-Lago.

Also submitted by: S.C. in Denver, CO

---

A.S. in Carson, CA, writes: Why do so many photos show Trump having issues with strong women?

Also submitted by: J.P. in Cleveland, OH; T.L. in Minneapolis, MN; S.C. in Farmington Hills, MI

---

F.R. in Syracuse, NY writes: It seems like so long ago, but this was the moment Trump really crystallized for me what kind of man he is.

Also submitted by: D.T. in Parsonsfield, ME; M.M. in Jamaica Plain, MA

---

M.S. in Burlington, VT, writes: He isn't helping but he thinks he is, and he doesn't understand why the public isn't fawning over him like at his rallies.

Also submitted by: D.R. in Portland, OR

---

C.L. in Boulder, CO, writes: It seems that all Republicans have either run against Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi.

Also submitted by: S.C. in Farmington Hills, MI

---

C.W. in Chicago, IL writes: Classy... and classless.

Also submitted by: E.D. in Dansville, NY; D.G. in Ocala, FL

---

D.D. in London, England, UK, writes: Shi**y president, anyone?

Also submitted by: I.O. in Norman, OK; C.C. in Hillsboro, OR; J.R. in New York City, NY; P.C. in Toronto, ON, Canada; A.B. in Delray Beach, FL

---

D.M. in Massapequa, NY, writes: To me this represents everything wrong with Trump and his presidency.

Also submitted by: S.N. in Charlotte, NC; M.B. in Chicago, IL; W.V. in Andover, MN; M.W. in Richmond, VA

---

J.G. in Fredonia, NY, writes: A small man in front of the wall that did not get built... looking at bars that he may find himself behind.

---

And we are going to exercise our executive privilege, or editorial discretion, or whatever you like and add one image of our own:

Note that there's still time to submit suggestions for the other seven scavenger hunt questions we asked:

2. Something that would make a terrible Christmas gift for Joe Biden. (Submit here)
3. A book that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would never, ever read. (Submit here)
4. A t-shirt that would be very apropos for Chief Justice John Roberts to wear. (Submit here)
5. The wisest, most insightful, or most pithy quote ever to be uttered by a politician or political figure (need not be limited to Americans). (Submit here)
6. The worst bumper sticker, button, yard sign or other campaign-related ephemera in U.S. history. (Submit here)
7. A portrayal of a key figure in U.S. history—image, song, verse, book, etc.—that is even more ridiculous than Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. (Submit here)
8. This isn't exactly a scavenger hunt type question, but we're going with it anyhow. Finish this joke: "Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis and Hillary Clinton walk into a bar..." (Submit here)

Tomorrow, we'll unveil the Biden Christmas gifts. (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, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger