E. Jean Carroll Case Nears Its End

Since the defense does not intend to put up a case in the lawsuit between E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump, the trial is very nearly over. In fact, yesterday, both sides rested.

Before the testimony came to an end, however, Donald Trump did make an appearance. Not in person, and not in his own defense, mind you. His "appearance" came in the form of footage from the deposition conducted by Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan; the jury saw about 45 minutes of video of the former president. The "highlight" ("lowlight"?) came during a segment when Trump was being pressed about other claims of sexual assault against him. He got irritated, insisted he could not have assaulted those women because they are not "his type," and then proceeded to advise Kaplan that "you wouldn't be a choice of mine either, to be honest. I wouldn't in any circumstances have any interest in you."

We are not lawyers, we are not jury consultants, and we were not in the courtroom, so we can't be 100% certain about how this played with the jury. But we just can't imagine any possibility beyond it hurting Trump's case. To start with, the plaintiff's counsel wouldn't have played it if it wasn't bad for Trump. Beyond that, it's an obnoxious thing to say, especially since his willingness to rape Roberta Kaplan (or not) is utterly irrelevant. And finally, the former president is apparently not clever enough to think through the implications of his words, but "I wouldn't rape you because you aren't my type" strongly implies that there are some women he would rape. And given the very real possibility, which we noted earlier this week, that the (alleged) assault of Carroll was driven by rage rather than lust, well, Trump very well may have hanged himself.

The last thing that happened yesterday before the court adjourned for the weekend was an offer made by Judge Lewis Kaplan to the Trump defense team: If they want to reconsider having their client testify, Kaplan is willing to consider it as long as the motion is filed by 5:00 p.m. Sunday. Again, we are not lawyers. But we are certainly familiar enough with court procedure to know that could well be a strong hint from the Judge that the defense should rethink its strategy. Trump's lead counsel, Joe Tacopina, said that he did not plan a change in course. And if we were Trump's counsel, we would have a very hard time even thinking about the possibility of putting our unhinged client on the stand. On the other hand, if the case appears to be lost, that's when it's time for a Hail Mary. So it's at least possible that the defense takes Kaplan up on his offer.

If both sides stick with their current position ("we rest") then the jury is expected to get the case around 10:00 a.m. Monday. That means that by Monday evening or Tuesday, Donald Trump could well be found civilly liable of rape. We've already had this question several times, so we'll just answer it now: "Convicted of rape" means "found guilty of the criminal offense of rape." That will not describe Trump; so media outlets would have to characterize him as someone "found liable of rape" or "judged civilly responsible for a rape." Alternatively, if they want to keep it simple, a person who committed a rape is a "rapist," regardless of the nature of the court case (or even if there's no court case at all). So, the phrase "Donald Trump, rapist" could well be accurate and non-defamatory within the next 100 hours or so. (Z)

Carlson Toying with "Alternate Debate" Plan

Tucker Carlson does not plan to fade away after having been fired by Fox, the way that Bill O'Reilly essentially has. He's entertaining various offers to host a podcast, or to appear on one of Fox's competitors, or maybe to stream a show that he himself owns and produces over the Internet. Further, in order to maintain some level of influence in Republican politics, Carlson is toying with the idea of staging his own GOP candidates' debate, an idea that already has some amount of buy-in from Donald Trump.

We find this news to be interesting for two reasons. First, we presumed that Carlson has a non-compete clause in his contract, and the linked story confirms it. He'll be paid by Fox until the end of 2024, assuming he does not start doing work similar to his duties at Fox. However, disappearing from the airwaves for 18 months, and missing out on an entire presidential cycle, could be fatal to his brand. By December 2024, his audience might have moved on. Or died. So, he might decide to get back in the game much sooner and to let Fox off the hook.

Meanwhile, it's clear that even with his lead in the polls, Trump wants the attention that will come from a debate, he just doesn't want to be subject to grilling from a moderator (he is apparently particularly leery of Bret Baier). But if the former president can get a moderator who will handle him with kid gloves, then he might just show up to "debate."

And if we may address a related point, as long as we're at it, Trump has clearly become a much savvier politician since he first entered the biz 8 years ago. Sure, he still makes foolish, unforced errors (see the item above), but he's gotten much better in terms of strategy. Further, he's gotten good at "the little things," like calling Republican officeholders to congratulate them on the birth of a child, or lining up the most useful endorsements (such as most of Florida's House delegation). We doubt that Trump has much to do with keeping track of details like this, but a well-oiled political operation is a well-oiled political operation, regardless of who the brains are.

This stands in clear contrast to Gov. Ron DeSantis' (R-FL) operation, which brings to mind the Keystone Kops (as well another organization, perhaps, where all the words in the name start with 'K'). And we are hardly the only ones to notice this. Politico had a piece this week headlined "'The DeSantis people are rookies': Even Trump critics say he's running circles around DeSantis." It's no secret that the Governor doesn't like retail politics, but that's the game you gotta play if you want to be president. And it's political malpractice if you can't bring yourself to make a few gestures to the movers and shakers of your party, like calling them once in a while to make sure they know they're important to you.

Thus far, DeSantis has been a one-trick pony (lean into the "culture wars") and the trick isn't working so well. Trump is right on the cusp of opening a staggering 30-point lead in FiveThirtyEight's polling average (it's currently Trump 52.0% and DeSantis 22.9%). The former president also got a few polls in the last couple of weeks where he's up by more than 40, and one where his lead is just a couple of points short of 50. A candidate does not often come back from a deficit like that, particularly if their political operation isn't ready for the Major Leagues. (Z)

Today's Shady Clarence Thomas Behavior

ProPublica has set up residence in Clarence Thomas' closet, and the outlet just keeps finding skeletons. Their latest report, which dropped yesterday, reveals that while Thomas and his wife Ginni were raising his grandnephew Mark Martin, whom the justice described as being "like a son," billionaire benefactor Harlan Crow paid for the young man's tuition at an exclusive private school. Also, while Thomas included on his disclosure forms a "donation" of this sort made by another friend for Martin's benefit, the Justice somehow forgot to mention the payment from Crow.

This would appear, at first glance, to be a clear-cut example of bad (and possibly illegal) behavior. However, there are nuances that probably push it from "black and white" into a gray area. First, it was a single year's worth of tuition, and not an entire academic career's worth. Second, Crow apparently funds scholarships for promising students, and has intimated that Martin was covered on that basis. Third, and finally, "like a son" is not actually "a son."

It seems quite clear, at this point, that Thomas was (and presumably is) very good at finding these gray areas and taking full advantage. The ProPublica piece quotes numerous experts in government ethics, and they all describe Thomas' choices here as concerning, problematic, etc. But there is a big gap between engaging in problematic behavior and actually getting sanctioned for that behavior. This is double or triply true when one is a member of the Supreme Court, and thus a law unto one's self (and we mean that on multiple levels). So, we have to assume Thomas will skate on this, along with all the other stuff ProPublica has dug up.

Meanwhile, in response to ProPublica's reporting, the distinguished "journalists" at the Daily Wire have been playing a fun game of whataboutism, and have been trying to dig up unethical actions by liberal justices. Here's what Ben Shapiro & Co. have come up with:

• Sonia Sotomayor, who has a contract with publisher Penguin Random House, has voted a couple of times to hear cases involving the publisher instead of recusing herself (the same is true of Neil Gorsuch, incidentally). The Court did not actually hear these cases, because there weren't enough votes to accept them.
  
  
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg once accepted an award from a Democratic-aligned group. Note, incidentally, that the staff mortician advises us that Ginsburg is currently dead.

The meager amount of dirt that the Daily Wire managed to uncover would seem to suggest that liberal justices are pretty good at conducting themselves appropriately. That said, we really don't know how big a problem it is that Sotomayor didn't recuse. And so the main lesson here, which is surely not the one that the Daily Wire intended, is that the Supreme Court needs a much clearer set of guidelines for what is, and is not, outside the rules. (Z)

North Carolina Legislature Adopts Ban on Abortions after 12 Weeks

Yesterday, the North Carolina legislature approved S.B. 20, which is entitled the "Care for Women, Children and Families Act." That's a characteristically spin-ny name; the bill bans surgical abortions after 12 weeks, excepting in cases of rape and incest (20 weeks) and life-limiting anomalies in the fetus (24 weeks).

The bill will be vetoed by Gov. Roy Cooper (D-NC), and then the legislature will consider overriding his veto. Assuming all members vote as they did yesterday, the override will be successful. To the extent there is a wildcard, it's state Rep. Tricia Cotham. She was a Democrat until earlier this year, one who ran on protecting access to abortion and who introduced legislation to codify Roe v. Wade. Then, she switched to being a Republican, which is what gave the GOP the supermajority in the assembly necessary for overriding vetoes. Cotham voted in favor of the abortion ban, and presumably would vote to override a veto, although someone who does such a rapid 180 on such an important issue has to be deemed at least somewhat unpredictable, right?

We are hardly experts in the politics of North Carolina (though some of our readers certainly are). That said, we do know a few things:

• Polls suggest that just shy of two-thirds of North Carolinians want to keep abortion legal in most cases (see here for an example).
  
  
• North Carolina is roughly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.
  
  
• The Republican dominance of the state legislature (not to mention the state Supreme Court) is due primarily to aggressive gerrymandering.
  
  
• Aggressive gerrymandering means that the gerrymandering party leaves themselves with relatively small margins of error, and is susceptible to being wiped out in a wave election.

Add it up, and it looks to us like North Carolina Republicans are playing with fire here. We could certainly imagine a situation where the abortion legislation (perhaps coupled with a nutter like Mark Robinson being the GOP nominee for governor) persuades the state's Democrats to turn out in droves. And if that happens, Republicans could lose any or all of the state House, the state Senate, the governorship and the presidential contest.

Clearly, the folks running the show in the state legislature are sensitive to this risk, which is why they passed an abortion ban that's aggressive, but not as aggressive as the ones passed in redder states. We shall see if a 12-week ban (plus exceptions) is strict enough to keep the anti-abortion crowd happy without rousing the pro-choice crowd into a fury. (Z)

Raffensperger to Democrats: We're Sticking with the Schedule

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) is probably the most famous state SoS in the country thanks to his willingness to say "no" to Donald Trump. And, as it turns out, he's perfectly willing to say "no" to Joe Biden, as well. The President and the DNC both wanted to move Georgia up on the primary calendar, in part because it's a swingy state, in part because it's pretty representative of the Democratic electorate, and perhaps in part because it's very Biden friendly. Raffensperger previously said he was not open to making a change this cycle, and yesterday he made it official, setting the Georgia primary for March 12, which is several weeks later than the Democrats wanted.

Raffensperger claims, probably truthfully, that nobody from the DNC ever reached out to him about a change, and said that he's not inclined to make a change unless that is supported by both parties, especially when he only learns about the wishes of the "let's make a change" faction by reading about it in the newspaper. That strikes us as a very reasonable position for the Secretary to take.

We don't know exactly why the Democrats made what seems to be a half-a**ed attempt here, but we can certainly offer up some theories. Here are three of them:

1. The Democrats didn't actually expect things to change; they just wanted to send a message to Georgia Democrats that "we value you."
   
   
2. The Democrats knew there was little chance of a change prior to 2028, and they just wanted to get the ball rolling in anticipation of that election.
   
   
3. The Democrats knew Raffensperger was never going to play ball, and they plan to hold their own primary without the state's help.

That third option is still possible, though if that was the plan, it would be strange for the Democrats to keep it to themselves. Further, it's none too cheap to stage an election in a state as populous as Georgia, and would be something of a waste of money when you're only moving things up by a few weeks and Joe Biden is going to win either way. So, we assume that March 12 it will be. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: It's a (Seditious) Conspiracy

If you're just joining us after heading over from Fox's website/cable channel—which surely must be the case for, what, half of our readers?—we've got another story on the legal beat that you will not have heard about. Yesterday, Henry "Enrique" Tarrio and three other members of the pro-Trump extremist group the Proud Boys, all of whom are antidemocratic bigots, were found guilty of seditious conspiracy (a fifth defendant was exonerated).

Sentencing has not been scheduled, but it's expected to happen sometime in July (Fox presumably won't cover that, either). Each of the four convicted defendants was popped for at least one crime that carries a sentence of 20 years. People don't often get the maximum, but certainly these fellows will be spending a nice, long time as guests of the federal correctional system. Couldn't happen to nicer guys. They're appealing, of course, but those who followed the trial said they are grasping at the thinnest of straws.

We largely pass this story along for one reason, and it's not to demonstrate that Fox is a farce of a "news organization." If we wanted to demonstrate that, we could do it literally on a daily basis. No, we pass this story along because of this portion of the Fourteenth Amendment:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Between the debt ceiling and Donald Trump's activities on 1/6, the Fourteenth Amendment is the heavy favorite to win the coveted "Amendment of the Year" award for 2023. In any event, if Donald Trump ends up as the Republican frontrunner next year, there are going to be lawsuits filed asking various courts to declare him ineligible to serve in public office. Maybe those suits will come from private groups, maybe they'll come from government officials (like Pennsylvania AG Michelle Henry), maybe both (presumably, any American citizen would have standing). And the more people that are convicted of crimes in relation to 1/6, particularly if the crime is seditious conspiracy, the easier it would seem to be to make the case that Trump "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Los Angeles Super Chargers

We freely admit that the political connection here is a little tenuous. Although we could certainly point out that fat-cat sports owners often manipulate (or try to manipulate) politicians into handing out vast amounts of corporate welfare. Yesterday, for example, the politicians in upstate New York made it official that they're going to give the Buffalo Bills $850 million to cover the majority of costs for a new stadium. They are doing this just 'cause; the Bills have not been a candidate to move to some other city, and Bills owners Terry and Kim Pegula are worth $7 billion and could certainly afford to build a stadium without being handed a bushel of taxpayer money.

Not all shakedowns are successful, of course. The Spanos brothers, who own the Los Angeles Chargers, tried for many years to get the city of San Diego to pony up for a new stadium. That never happened, which is why the one-time San Diego Super Chargers decamped for environs to the north and became the L.A. Chargers. They now play at shiny new SoFi Stadium, which the Spanoses did not have to pay for, although they also don't own it (it belongs to the L.A. Rams).

Thanks to this maneuvering, and numerous other incidents over the years, the Spanoses have a reputation for being jerks. It's a justified reputation, and (Z) knows people who can personally attest to jerky incidents.

That said, a football club is made up of many hundreds of people, and those others often do good and great things, even if the head of the fish is a bit rotten. And this brings us to the central point of this particular item. (Z)'s parents had to put down their elderly dog a few months ago, and on Monday of last week, they said the time had come for a new pup, and asked (Z) to find an appropriate one. Meanwhile, Thursday of last week was the first day of the NFL draft, when teams select new players from the college ranks.

One would not expect these two things (the dog and the draft) to have any connection with each other. However, the new dog had to fit a rather narrow profile (small, quiet, very calm, housebroken) and most dogs available at the shelters are pit bulls or pit bull mixes. Those can be excellent dogs, but small and quiet they are not. As chance would have it, however, in conjunction with an event for Chargers fans who gathered to watch the draft, the team also held something they called "Draft a Doggy." And, through a somewhat complicated series of events, (Z) became aware that one of the dogs available to be "drafted" was a perfect fit for what was needed, a 9-pound Chihuahua mix named Olivia.

And so it was that a Packers fan found himself surrounded by people in Chargers gear on draft day, at a local outdoor shopping mall. The dogs were supposed to arrive at 3:00 p.m., but did not actually arrive until closer to 5:00, leaving (Z) with an awful lot of time to kill. This particular mall specializes primarily in women's designer clothes and jewelry, which are not exactly (Z)'s bag. That meant multiple trips to the Apple Store, the Container Store, the Italian market, and the other 3-4 stores that are even remotely of interest.

We would not be writing this if things did not work out, and of course they did. Olivia finally arrived on the scene around 4:45, and the adoption was completed a little after 5:00. The Chargers staffers working the event were absolutely terrific, and (Z) left the event not only with dog in hand, but laden with a large quantity of dog toys and clothes and such adorned with the Chargers logo.

Olivia met, and made friends with, the staff dachshunds shortly thereafter, though she was pretty tired after a big day:

After getting caught up on her beauty sleep, she was ready and raring to go for a trip to Petco the next day:

And although "very calm" is not a descriptor that is often applied to Chihuahuas or Chihuahua mixes, the vet said that Olivia is the most laid-back Chihuahua she's ever seen. And indeed, (Z) is still not certain that Olivia actually barks. She certainly didn't while she was with the dachshunds, despite their... encouragement. She has now settled into her forever home with (Z)'s parents.

So, a tip of the hat (or the helmet) to the Chargers. Perhaps there is a useful lesson in this item. And if not, well, at least you got some good dog pictures. Have a good weekend, all. (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