Trump Warns of Death and Destruction If He Is Indicted

On Friday, Donald Trump posted a warning on his boutique social media network, warning that if he is indicted that could result in death and destruction. Then he added that only a degenerate psychopath would do such a thing. No doubt Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, and Merrick Garland immediately started quaking in their boots. Maybe special counsel Jack Smith, too, but he doesn't have the final decision on indictments.

Also quaking in their boots are Trump's lawyers. With that statement, Trump accomplished a couple of things:

• He threatened (the legal term here is "assault") multiple people, which is a crime.
• He attempted to obstruct justice (another crime).
• He suggested that his supporters riot and kill people to protest his indictment (more crimes).
• He established a pattern of crimes, which could be useful evidence at one or more future trials.
• He defamed Bragg and Willis, at the very least.

A good prosecutor could probably find a few more crimes there as well. Trump probably won't be indicted for any of the above, but the pattern of threatening people could be used against him in the Georgia cases in which he threatened election officials. His lawyers probably ought to have a chat with him suggesting that they have enough work trying to figure out how to defend him for the crimes he has already committed without adding new ones to the list and also making it harder to defend him for the old ones. Or maybe they could simply say: "When you are an a hole, stop digging." Er, we mean, "When you are IN a hole, stop digging."

Will any of the prosecutors be deterred by the threat? Of course not, although they may beef up office security just before issuing their respective indictments. It is doubtful that Trump really expected any of them to throw in the towel and back down. More likely, he is now in the mode of a trapped animal who has been backed into a corner and is just lashing out as a last resort. Suppose there is a riot when any of the indictments come down and there is destruction and people die. Is that going to help him legally? Of course not. Will it help him politically? We can't imagine it. His base may lap up all the he-man threats, but moderate Republicans and independents are just going to be reminded about what they don't like about Trump.

What amazes us the most is that there is no one in Trump's inner circle who has told him how much damage he is doing by this kind of remark. The lawyers could tell him, but he probably doesn't listen to him. What about Ivanka or Jared? They surely understand the danger he is putting himself in. But maybe they are afraid of getting sucked in and (inadvertently) committing a crime themselves. What about Melania? Her son Barron turned 17 last week. She's not going to stick her neck out in any way until Barron is at least 18 and maybe not until he has graduated from college. For all we know, she might be happy to see her husband carted away and put in prison. Toward the end of his term as president, she lived in Potomac, MD, with Barron and her parents, not in the White House. A lovey-dovey couple they are not. There may not be anyone willing to tell Trump to cut it out. So he rants on and on.

Actually, one person did suggest to Trump to stop it, but he is not in the inner circle and carries no weight with Trump. When Meet the Press host Chuck Todd asked Trump's television lawyer Joe Tacopina yesterday about whether he would advise a client to attack a prosecutor, Tacopina said it was "ill-advised." Todd was referring to this photo Trump sent out:

Yeah. Tacopina doesn't think threatening a prosecutor or suggesting that your fans do it is a bright idea. He must have picked this up at the Quinnipiac University School of Law. See, they do other things there besides run polls at Quinnipiac. (V)

There's a Horse Loose in a Hospital

Lots of political observers and analysts and pundits are trying to figure out what will happen if Donald Trump is indicted for—and later convicted of—multiple possible crimes in multiple jurisdictions. We're all trying to do our best, but it's unknowable, really. Nathan Gonzales over at Roll Call has kind of thrown up his hands and said its like there's a horse loose in a hospital. No one knows what the horse is gonna do next. Nobody. Talking to a guy who once saw a bird loose in an airport doesn't really help.

Gonzales was referencing this skit by comedian and one-time Saturday Night Live writer John Mulaney:

It's very funny, but unfortunately also on point. Worth watching. (V)

Could Trump Run for President If He is a Convicted Felon?

You have probably seen a dozen articles by now that ask the question: "Could Trump run for president if he is indicted?" In case you missed the answer, it is "Yes, he could." The Constitution specifies three explicit requirements to qualify to be president:

• The candidate must be 35 years old on Inauguration Day.
• The candidate must be a natural-born citizen.
• The candidate must have been a U.S. resident for 14 years prior to inauguration.

Trump passes all three tests. There are three additional requirements imposed by amendments:

• The candidate must not have been elected twice or been elected once and served > 2 years of another's term.
• The candidate must not have been disqualified by the Senate after an impeachment.
• The candidate must not have participated in an insurrection against the United States.

The first two of these are not relevant to Trump, although if he is convicted of inciting an insurrection, the third one could be relevant.

Although this is putting the cart before the elephant, what if Trump is convicted of a felony? Prof. Derek Muller of the University of Iowa Law School says that if Trump were convicted of a felony, he would lose the right to vote, but unless the felony were an insurrection against the United States, he would not be disqualified from running, winning, and serving, even if he were in prison, although the logistics would be complex. For example, how would the Secret Service protect him? Could he hold cabinet meetings in prison? If he were convicted of a federal felony, he could probably pardon himself, since the pardon power appears to be absolute. But if he were in a state prison, in theory he could still serve as president.

Candidates have run for president from prison before. Eugene Debs was the nominee of the Socialist Party in 1920, even though he was in federal prison in Atlanta after having been convicted of violating the Espionage Act when he gave a speech in 1918 advocating resisting the draft. He got 914,000 votes (3.4%) but no electoral votes. Lyndon LaRouche was convicted of tax and mail fraud in 1988, but he ran for president in 1992 while in prison.

Of course, the political situation might be different from the legal one. If Trump is convicted of a felony before the Republican National Convention in July 2024 in Milwaukee, unbound delegates might decide somebody else might be a better bet, but bound delegates would be expected to vote for him anyway. If they bolted and voted for someone else, it might get a bit dicey. If bound delegates went rogue, that would violate Party rules and maybe state law, but the votes might still count. At that point RNC Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel might start banging her head against a wall while muttering: "Why did I take this @#$!%#!!! job? Was I out of my mind?" If Trump were convicted of a felony prior to the convention, got the nomination while appeals were pending, and lost his last appeal in September 2024, well, here be dragons. (V)

Trump Holds His First Mass Rally

On Saturday evening, Donald Trump held his first big campaign event. It was at the regional airport in Waco, TX. Waco? Huh? Waco is a city of 140,000, 150 miles north of Austin and 140 miles south of Dallas. Waco is the 24th biggest city in Texas. Surely Trump could have found a friendly venue closer to, say, Dallas, and gotten more attention and drawn a bigger crowd. So why Waco?

Readers older than 40 probably have an idea. In the early spring of 1993, a right-wing religious cult called the Branch Davidians was holed up at a ranch outside of Waco. Texas and federal law enforcement laid siege to the cult for 51 days until law enforcement attacked on April 19, 1993. This resulted in a fire in which 82 Branch Davidians died, including 28 children. Many details of the Waco siege are disputed, but for many right-wingers and anti-government types, the Branch Davidians are heroes and martyrs for resisting the Big Bad Gubmint. Trump is over 40 and knows the symbolism Waco has to many of his supporters. That's why he went there, rather than, say, Dallas. It was like a Native American politician going to Wounded Knee or an Israeli politician going to Masada.

Trump's speech in Waco was a collection of his biggest grievances, rather than his vision for the country and what he would do if given a second term. He talked about how "Ron DeSanctus" begged for his support when he ran for governor in 2018 and how he took off like a rocket when Trump granted the boon and how the damn ingrate is planning to oppose the man who made him governor.

Trump also railed against Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg, who is widely expected to indict Trump this week. He called the "weaponization of our justice system" the central issue of our time. This plays very well to his supporters' sense that straight, white, Christian men are victims. He noted: "You will be vindicated and proud the thugs and criminals who are corrupting our justice system will be defeated, discredited and totally disgraced." He also put in a plug for his good friend, Vladimir Putin, and noted how smart he is. The crowd lapped it up.

CNN's reporters interviewed some of the attendees to get a feeling for what was on their minds. Supporter Debby Cravey said Trump would be a "shoo-in" for president if he gets indicted. Todd Castro said Bragg's probe amounted to "persecution." Mike Gilbert said: "You can't keep taking an honest man down." Bobby Wilson was understanding. He said: "We all have sin. We all have some things that we've done."

Trump rolled out a list of endorsements. The list included Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R-TX), Texas AG Ken Paxton (R) and a dozen Republican congressmen from Texas. Not included were the state's top politicians: Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Maybe they have other plans for 2024. They didn't show up to explain.

Before Trump spoke, he had a warm-up act to get the crowd into a good mood. The warmer-uppers were Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL), both of whom are from states 700 miles away. Greene suggested that Texas set up its own immigration checkpoints—on its northern and eastern borders, not its southern border—to keep Americans from blue states from moving to Texas. Trump loved her speech and suggested that she run for the Senate in 2026. The fact that would probably put her on a collision course with Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) would make it all the better from his vantage point. (V)

DeSantis Can't Avoid the 8,000-Pound Elephant in the Room

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) had his plan all worked out. He was going to be the anti-woke candidate, punishing evil left-wing corporations, allowing parents to remove Heather Has Two Mommies from school libraries, and shipping migrants from Texas to Massachusetts. DeSantis is very methodical and his method was working fine until an obstacle appeared in his path out of nowhere: Donald Trump. Despite being very coy about his future plans, DeSantis roused the sleeping giant and now has to deal with him. Oops. So far, it is not going according to his carefully laid plans.

Fundamentally, this is DeSantis' problem. If he agrees with Trump on everything, basically running as Trump-lite, most Republicans will probably prefer the real thing. If he breaks sharply with Trump, he will get a lot of what electrical engineers call negative feedback. He's not going to be able to avoid the problem for very long.

The Governor got a taste of the problem last week. He, like Trump, questioned the U.S. involvement in Ukraine. But when Republican senators lit into him for that, he backpedaled. He also didn't handle questions about a Trump indictment very well. He tried to get away with answer questions like: "Do you think Trump should drop out if he is indicted?" with "Biden is a bad president." That kind of stuff isn't going to fly for very long.

Other high-profile Republicans have hit the same roadblock before: Align yourself with Trump and you are a cheap imitation, but attack him and you are a traitor. Jason Roe, who worked on the presidential campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in 2016, put it succinctly: "I don't think there's a right playbook, unfortunately."

DeSantis has been rattled by not being able to just carry out his plan in peace. His polling has suffered as a result. It's certainly not fatal this early, but he is going to have to deal with this sooner or later, probably sooner. When he gives a speech about how much he hates woke, but all the questions afterwards are: "What do think about Trump's remark this morning?" just walking out of the room without answering any of them is going to get old very fast.

Worse yet, before too long, Trump is going to start actively attacking DeSantis. Then when the questions are "How do you respond to Trump's latest attack?", talking about his glory days when he stuck it to Disney isn't going to work. In short, DeSantis' plan was conceived in a vacuum. He was going to go after woke and leave it at that. He wasn't counting on an 8,000-pound elephant in the room standing in his path. He'd better rethink his plan, and fast. (V)

It's the Racism, Stupid

James Carville once famously said: "It's the economy, stupid." He was wrong. The driving force in American politics isn't the economy or even educational levels. It's racial resentment. A detailed analysis of the electorate by Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University, based on a large data set spanning 40 years, shows this quite clearly in multiple graphs and tables. It's quite wonky, but what did you expect from a statistical analysis of the voters going back four decades? Here are some of the key takeaways, starting with these two graphs:

On the left above, we see that in 1980, the electorate was about 70% white noncollege voters. Now they are just under 40%. In contrast, there have been increases in the number of white college graduates and nonwhites, both with and without college educations. That is a stupendous shift. It is not surprising that noncollege whites have noticed their loss of power. Archie Bunker would certainly have noticed.

On the right above, we see party identification over the years. In 1980, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 19 points. Now it is 4 points. Given that Democratic demographics like nonwhites and college graduates have grown, why have the Democrats lost so much ground? It appears to make no sense. But it does.

What is happened is that white noncollege graduates used to be strongly Democratic. Now they are strongly Republican, so much so that even with their smaller numbers they are keeping the Republican Party afloat. The next question is: Why did former blue-collar Democrats become Republicans? There are two popular theories. First, it is economic stress. Second, it is racial resentment. Abramowitz looked at the data and came up with these two graphs:

The graph directly above on the left shows net Democratic identification (i.e., Democrats minus Republicans) by income for both college grads and noncollege voters. The green line shows that poor college grads (say, English majors), are roughly equally split between Democrats and Republicans. Among wealthier college grads (say, pre-med majors), there is a slight preference for Democrats, but the effect isn't very big. For noncollege voters, poor ones dislike the Democrats by about 22 points and rich ones dislike them even more, by about 32 points. So income does matter, but the effect is not gigantic. One would expect that if noncollege voters had moved to the Republicans due to economic stress, then as they got richer, the effect would be less. Actually, the reverse is true.

The graph of the right uses the standard four-item racial resentment scale. Subjects are asked if they agree or disagree with these four statements.

1. Irish, Italian, and Jewish ethnicities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Black people should do the same without any special favors.
2. Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for Black people to work their way out of the lower class.
3. Over the past few years, Black people have gotten less than they deserve.
4. It's really a matter of some people just not trying hard enough: If Black people would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites.

From the answers, a "racial resentment score" is compiled by appropriate weighting. It is the x-axis in the graph on the right. Here, the effect on party identification is dramatic. People who bear no resentment against Black people are very heavily Democratic. People who resent Black people heavily and think they are lazy and their condition is their own fault are very heavily Republican. This is true for both college graduates and noncollege people. And the effect is not due to income, as the graph on the left shows.

Finally, one more graph—we warned you the study was wonky. This shows the partisan identification (D-R) of noncollege whites over time:

Here we see that in 1980, racial resentment had a modest effect, but by 2020 it was gargantuan. Over time, noncollege whites with a low racial resentment score have become more Democratic but noncollege whites with a high racial resentment score have become very Republican.

This is the vein Donald Trump (and, to a lesser degree) Ron DeSantis have tapped into. They are appealing to racial resentment, pure and simple. Why is Trump still so popular with this base? Did he improve their economic situation during his time as president? Did he achieve a higher minimum wage, stronger unions, more social programs to help people undergoing economic stress? Not at all. Did he blame Black people (and, for that matter, Latinos and Arabs and other minority groups) for crime and what ails America? In the immortal words of Sarah Palin, "you betcha." That resonated. Carville was wrong. It is not the economy.

This puts the Democrats in a bind. They are certainly not going to try to out-racist the Republicans and raising the minimum wage may not matter much since these voters are not responsive to it. It is not clear what they should do. Maybe try to do better with Latinos and win over even more college graduates. It will call for a lot of creativity. (V)

Judge: Meadows Must Testify before Jack Smith's Grand Jury

Special counsel Jack Smith would like Mark Meadows and others who were close to Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021, to tell him what they know about Trump's actions that day. Trump is not keen on their doing so and filed a lawsuit to block them from doing so. On Friday, Judge Beryl Howell denied Trump's claim of executive privilege in a sealed order and ordered Meadows and some others to testify. The other people now required to testify include Dan Scavino, Stephen Miller, former DNI John Ratcliffe, and former NSA Robert O'Brien. The former two are close to Trump and are likely to plead the Fifth Amendment on everything but the latter two are more focused on defending the country than defending Trump and might tell what they know. Of course, if Smith grants Scavino and Miller immunity, they would be forced to testify as well.

Trump will probably appeal, but that is very likely to fail. Experts say that criminal investigations usually trump claims of executive privilege. At best it might buy a few more weeks of time. Meadows was with Trump on Jan. 6 and if he is forced to testify, might well decide that saving his own neck is more important than saving Trump's. If so, he could fill in a lot of gaps and testify to Trump's intentions and state of mind that day. Some of the crimes that Trump could be charged with require intent (e.g., inciting a riot) and if Meadows were to say that was exactly Trump's intent, it could be devastating for Trump. (V)

House Republicans Pass a "Parents Bill of Rights" Bill

House Republicans passed H.R. 5, a "Parents' Bill of Rights," on Friday with only Republican votes. No Democrat voted for it and five Republicans voted against it. These were Reps. Andy Biggs (AZ), Ken Buck (CO), Matt Gaetz (FL), Mike Lawler (NY), and Matt Rosendale (MT). They believe that the federal government should not be involved in education at all. All but Lawler are members of the House Freedom Caucus. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA). It will not even come to a vote in the Senate as Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has said it "will not see the light of day" there.

Very briefly, supporters say the bill establishes the following things:

• Parents have the right to know what's being taught.
• Parents have the right to be heard.
• Parents have the right to see the school budget and spending.
• Parents have the right to protect their child's privacy.
• Parents have the right to be updated on any violent activity at school.

These sound reasonable, but the devil is in the details. For example, it gives parents the right to get a list of all books in the school library, inspect all the books, and then demand that the school ban books that they don't like. The school doesn't have to do this, but administrators who feel intimidated by a mob of angry parents might decide that getting rid of the books is the safest course for them. Another provision bans schools from allowing students to use their preferred bathrooms, locker rooms, or pronouns without parental consent. This means that trans students won't be able to hide their feelings from their parents, something that some of them may be doing now for fear of punishment. Yet another provision gives parents the right to know if the school permits students to participate in sports reserved for the sex not on their birth certificate. Again, it doesn't ban such participation, but it requires schools to tell parents about their policies. They can't hide them.

In general, the bill gives parents the right to know many specific things, but does not give them the power to direct school officials to do or not do any specific actions. Obviously that would never work because what would happen if 10 parents demanded that a certain book be banned and 10 other parents demanded that it be mandatory reading? That said, schools tend to err on the side of accommodating the parents who are angriest, and so book banning is not a mere hypothetical issue that doesn't mean anything in practice. PEN America has reported that in the 2021-2022 school year, 1,600 books were banned from schools and libraries, largely in Florida and Texas. Most dealt with race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

There are numerous other controversial provisions and a few that are not really controversial, such are forbidding schools from selling their students' data and encouraging schools to teach the Holocaust and get broadband Internet. (V)

Manchin Likely to Face Justice

No, not the kind many Democratic voters might like to see. Gov. Jim Justice (R-WV) is term-limited and has expressed interest in running against Sen. Joe Manchin (R-WV) in 2024. Now Senate Republicans believe that he is in. He would be 73 when inaugurated if he jumps in and wins, so he clearly is never going to achieve much power, but he probably loves all the fawning attention he is getting from the Senate Republicans. Of course, if Justice wins, he will be a junior backbencher from a backward and impoverished state and nobody will care about him anymore, but right now, all the attention probably feels great.

Justice originally won election as governor as a Democrat but switched teams once in office. That was kind of sneaky because he had been registered as a Republican until just before announcing his run as a Democrat. Then when in office, he reverted to being a Republican. He is quite popular and would be the toughest opponent Manchin has ever had. In one recent poll from the Tarrance Group, a Republican outfit, Justice is leading Manchin 52-42. Manchin pooh-poohed the poll. We don't know of any independent polling of a Manchin-Justice race yet.

Given how red West Virginia is, in principle Justice ought to win, except for a couple of things. First, Manchin has already won six statewide elections in the state. He is no newbie and is as well known as Justice. Second, Manchin's ace in the hole is his seniority. He has been in the Senate for 13 years and is currently chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Whether coal is a natural resource is a matter of some debate, but it does fall under the jurisdiction of Manchin's committee. If Justice wins and the Republicans capture the Senate, the new chairman will be Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), not Justice. While Barasso is pro-mining, he is not pro-West Virginia, as Manchin is. For a poor and unimportant state like West Virginia, an argument that giving up real power to get a slightly purer ideological fit might be a bad idea for the state.

If Justice indeed runs, this will become the toughest seat for the Democrats to hold. If Justice wins, then Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Jon Tester (D-MT) must both win in order for the Democrats to have a chance to hold onto 50 Senate seats. Holding these will be challenging, but far from impossible, as each of them has already won three Senate races in their respective states. In addition, to get to 50 without Manchin, Democrats will also have to win the complicated three-way race in Arizona. That could be tough as well, although if Kari Lake gets the GOP nomination, some Republican voters may decide to vote for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) or the Democratic nominee, probably Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ). In other words, losing West Virginia doesn't mean the Democrats will drop under 50 seats, but the stars really have to align for them to get 50 without West Virginia. Flipping a Republican seat would require a massive blue wave given the brutal map. That would take something like Ron DeSantis getting the Republican presidential nomination and Donald Trump either running as an independent or ordering his supporters to not vote. (V)

Wisconsin Supreme Court Candidates Debate

In advance of what is probably the most consequential election of 2023—despite the three gubernatorial races later this year—the two candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court election on April 4 squared off in their only and only debate. The candidates couldn't be further apart.

One of the biggest items in the debate was a law from 1849. To save you the trouble of firing up your calculator app, that's 174 years ago. The law bans abortions in Wisconsin. "Democratic" candidate Janet Protasiewicz believes the law violates the state Constitution. "Republican" candidate Daniel Kelly believes it does not violate the state Constitution. The other six justices are split 3-3, so the winner of this election gets to make the call.

The debate was bitter and testy. Not only was abortion front and center, but also redistricting and criminal sentencing. The candidates agreed on nothing and clearly deeply despise one another. Kelly accused Protasiewicz, a Milwaukee judge, of coddling criminals, an allegation she vigorously denied. She pointed out his endorsements from anti-abortion groups and said he is one of the most partisan people in the state. He used to be on the state Supreme Court but lost a retention election in 2020.

Other topics that came up were the use of drop boxes for collecting absentee ballots, the state's photo ID law, and collective bargaining.

Kelly also referred to his opponent by her first name, "Janet," rather than as the more respectful "Judge," something he might not have done if he were facing a man. Some female voters may have noticed.

Both candidates called the other a liar and they did not shake hands after the debate.

This is already the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history, with over $30 million spent so far. It is for the swing seat on the Supreme Court of a swing state. You expected something else, maybe? (V)

Jurors in Trump Defamation Case Will Be Anonymous

The legal system works extremely slowly. Donald Trump is involved in half a dozen cases, some of them going back over 25 years, but so far it is all talk and no action. Finally, on April 25, one of the cases involving Trump will come to trial. It is the case that E. Jean Carroll brought against Trump. She claimed he raped her in a Manhattan department store in 1994 or 1995. He called her a liar and she sued him for defamation. Finally she will get her day in court. Note that this is a civil lawsuit. Even if Trump loses, he won't go to prison, but the judge could order him to pay her mucho money. He will appeal and it will go on until both of them are dead.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan is worried that Trump might try to intimidate the jurors, so he took the unusual step of deciding that their identities will not be made public. Neither lawyer objected, although the AP and The New York Daily News did. This is not the first time a judge has ordered jurors to be anonymous, but it is more common in trials of mafia dons than in civil lawsuits. In his announcement, Kaplan noted that Trump has attacked the foreperson of the Georgia grand jury looking into whether to charge him with crimes related to election interference and was concerned Trump might go after the jury members in Carroll's case.

The judge didn't disclose the seating arrangements in the courtroom for the trial. He could put the jury behind some kind of curtain, translucent glass, or one-way mirror to protect them. He might even put them in a separate room and have them watch the trial on video. In any event, barring any unexpected further delays, Trump will go on trial in a month. Of course, he can try to avoid this by offering her enough money to settle the case. On the other hand, she might be so angry with him that she won't accept, no matter what he offers. (V)

---

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