Trump Knew

It is perhaps unfortunate, but some of the things Donald Trump is accused of could require the prosecutors to prove he knew that he was breaking the law. If he thought he was trying to rescue an election he genuinely believed he won, he could get off. Likewise, if he thought as a former president he was legally entitled to hang on to top-secret documents because he was never formally put on some kind of trial and had his security clearance taken away by force, he might be found not guilty. So a lot depends on what was going on in his mind, a tough thing for prosecutors to prove. Nevertheless, it can be done.

For example, in the D.C. conspiracy case, the indictment alleges that Trump made "knowingly false" claims of election fraud. How can a jury be convinced about the "knowingly" part? Well, there are witnesses. Cassidy Hutchinson could testify that her former boss, Mark Meadows, told her that Trump had told him he lost. That is second-hand testimony (hearsay, and thus inadmissible), but she put it on the record during the Jan. 6 hearings. Meadows can be called to the stand and asked point blank if: (1) he told her that and (2) Trump told him that he knew he lost. Meadows is an eyewitness and thus can be forced to testify. At this point, it is unlikely that he wants to add perjury to all the other charges he is facing.

Also from the evidence already public, and probably a lot that is not public, it is abundantly clear that Trump didn't care about the facts. There is a legal doctrine that says that when a defendant made a conscious effort to avoid "knowing" the law or facts, the judge can instruct the jury to act as if he in fact "knew," since the effort of actively trying to avoid "knowing" indicates that he knew "knowing" would make his act criminal. It is called willful ignorance. There is a lot of evidence out there showing that he tried hard to avoid knowing, to wit:

• He told DoJ officials "Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me."
• He tried to install an ally (Jeffrey Clark) as acting AG because AG William Barr told him he lost and it was over.
• In the famous call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, he asked Raffensperger to "find" 11,780 votes.
• When Raffensperger gave him a link disproving the fraud claims, he said he didn't want to see it.
• Even after Pence said he wouldn't halt the EV count, Trump tweeted that Pence agreed to halt the count.
• Trump tweeted multiple times that many states wanted to decertify their EVs, even though no state told him that.
• When John Eastman admitted that Ken Chesebro's scheme had never been tested, Trump said he preferred other opinions.

And this is only a fraction of the things publicly known. Special Counsel Jack Smith has interviewed hundreds of witnesses and probably has testimony from others who heard Trump say he lost but wanted to fight on anyway. Trump also knew that he lost 61 lawsuits about election fraud, so the courts looked at it closely and concluded there wasn't any significant fraud. Attorney John Lauro is going to have his hands full in the D.C. case.

In the Mar-a-Lago documents case, the IT guy, Yuscil Taveras, has signed a cooperation agreement and will testify that he was ordered to wipe the surveillance server of the recordings of boxes of documents being moved around. He didn't get the order directly from Trump, but can implicate his direct boss in the crime of trying to destroy evidence. We're waiting for the direct boss to flip as well. It probably won't be long. (V)

Trump Is the Force Behind the Attempt to Impeach Biden

Yesterday we had an item on how Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is in a vise and being squeezed by the Freedom Caucus and his own moderates (the Biden 18) about impeaching Joe Biden. He decided to give in and start an impeachment inquiry, and to hell with the moderates.

It turns out there is more to the story. Donald Trump is actively pressuring McCarthy to find 11,780 ... no wait, that is a different story. Sorry. Last Sunday, Trump dined with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) at his Bedminster, NJ, golf club. She had already introduced articles of impeachment against the President and told Trump she wanted the investigation to be "long and excruciatingly painful for Joe Biden."

Trump is certainly helping. He has been in regular contact with multiple members of the Freedom Caucus and is egging them on. He has also talked to Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), the #3 House Republican, about the impeachment. He even thanked her in public for pushing it along. Trump has a short memory and doesn't seem to remember that when the opposition tries to impeach an incumbent president just because it can (think: Bill Clinton in 1998), it can backfire spectacularly.

Trump has also attacked the Justice Dept. For example, in March he said: "They persecuted us and yet Joe Biden is a stone-cold criminal, caught dead to rights, and nothing happens to him. Forget the family. Nothing happens to him." Recently he posted a message to his boutique social media platform reading: "SO, THEY IMPEACH ME OVER A PERFECT PHONE CALL, AND THEY DON'T IMPEACH BIDEN FOR BEING THE MOST CORRUPT PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES???" Later he posted: "EITHER IMPEACH THE BUM, OR FADE INTO OBLIVION. THEY DID IT TO US!" So he has been actively pushing the FC to get on with the impeachment.

Most likely Trump's pressure is the main reason McCarthy decided to go ahead with the impeachment inquiry. He had to throw the FC a bone, and Trump's pressure made it that bone. He could have given them a bone on immigration or some other issue, but then he would have had to fend off Trump yelling: "TIME TO VACATE THE CHAIR" and he knows it would take only five Republican votes (plus all the Democrats) to cost him his dream job. Or was it his nightmare job? We're not sure. (V)

Mitt: I Quit

Yesterday, Sen. Willard "Mitt" Romney (R-UT) announced that he will retire on Jan. 3, 2025, and will thus not run for reelection. He said he would be in his mid-eighties at the end of a new term and it was time for new leadership. He also noted that neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump were willing to tackle big issues like climate change and debt. Actually, though, that's not true. Biden's Inflation Reduction Act provided hundreds of billions of dollars to fight climate change. And Trump's 2017 Tax-Cut Act definitely addressed the debt: It increased it enormously. Maybe if Romney had voted the way he is talking now and badgered Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to join him, Biden's original plan to attack climate change would have passed the Senate, even without any help from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ).

Romney would have won reelection easily, but maybe he got tired of being a voice in the wilderness. Or maybe he took a look at Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and thought: "Gee, this can happen to members of both parties. I want to go with my boots on and my brain functioning." He suggested that two other geezers, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, should join him on the way out the door. He did make a distinction between them, though: He said Trump is unwilling to lead and Biden is unable to lead. Of course, if Romney had often voted with the Democrats when they held the House, it might have been possible for Biden to lead. Romney also implored donors to unite around a candidate to oppose Trump. All the not-Trump candidates agree entirely that there should be a single not-Trump candidate, namely himself or herself.

Romney is a traditional conservative and admitted that the 2023 GOP is not like the 2012 GOP that nominated him to be president. He said his wing of the Party is now "very, very small" in comparison with the Trump wing. However, he is fudging the truth here—badly. In a Romney biography by McKay Coppins due out next month, Romney is said to quote his Senate colleagues by name about how they really feel about Trump vs. what they say in public. In other words, there are actually plenty of traditional conservative Republicans in the Senate. They are just all hiding in the Senate cloakroom.

When asked who would win a Biden vs. Trump matchup, Romney said: "If I had to bet, I'd say it could go either way." How's that for a spine? He didn't say how much he would bet, but we bet he'd bet $10,000 (1 betting unit for him).

Romney's decision was unexpected, so potential candidates were not in the starting blocks waiting for the gun to go off. There are plenty of Republicans in Utah probably thinking about a run as you read this. It won't be long until some of them jump in. Evan McMullin seems likely; he runs for just about every high-profile office that presents itself. Most likely the primary will pit Trumpists vs. nonTrumpists in a state that is somewhat lukewarm on Trumpists. The nomination could go either way. Maybe the Democrats will nominate a candidate, maybe they won't. It could also go either way. (V)

New Hampshire Democrats Are at War--with the DNC

The DNC's decision to demote New Hampshire from its "First in the Nation" primary status is coming back to bite it in the rear. New Hampshire Democrats are furious about it. They like all the attention New Hampshire gets every 4 years and are not about to cede it to some redneck state in the South where a Democrat couldn't get elected as deputy assistant dogcatcher.

New Hampshire Democrats are now actively working on a campaign to get state Democratic voters to write in Joe Biden's name, assuming he won't file to get his name on the ballot. This would save Biden the embarrassment of losing to Marianne Williamson or Republican-in-Democratic-clothing Robert Kennedy. Kennedy might actually get a lot of votes from low-information voters who have forgotten that Bobby was assassinated 55 years ago. Or maybe some from voters who know that, but just assume that Bobby Jr. is like Bobby Sr. (Hint: He's not).

Kathy Sullivan, a former chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, is working on the write-in campaign. She acknowledged that it will be hard work, saying "But I think it has to be done. Otherwise I think the president is going to be embarrassed." She is angry with the DNC for its almost certain decision to strip New Hampshire of its delegates and punish any candidates who file to run there.

Dennis Kucinich (yeah, that Dennis Kucinich) is Kennedy's campaign manager. He criticized Sullivan and basically called Biden a coward. Literally, he said: "The president of the United States is so afraid of New Hampshire voters that he can't put his name on the ballot but will try to come in through the backdoor with a write-in campaign. It's risible, really." Sullivan responded by saying Biden is not involved in the write-in effort. It is her baby.

So what will the write-in campaign be like? TV ads are expensive so it probably won't come to that. It will probably be postings on social media, writing op-eds in newspapers, and encouraging state Democrats to tell all their friends and family to write Biden in. If there is enough money, maybe someone could make "Write in Biden" yard signs.

All this is a result of the DNC shooting itself in the foot. Everyone there knew that New Hampshire was never going to give up its "first-in-the-nation" status just to please Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC). Biden could surely have found another way to reward Clyburn for saving his bacon in 2020—for example, by letting Clyburn pick a couple of cabinet officers or building a new Navy base in South Carolina.

Biden and the DNC also knew that the Republicans hold the trifecta in the Granite State, so there was zero chance the law would be changed. It was a pointless battle from the start. They also knew that the Republicans hold the trifecta in the Palmetto Bug State, so they were never going to pass a law like New Hampshire's saying they had to go first. If the Democrats had decided to have Michigan go first, it might have worked. The Democrats hold the trifecta there and could have passed a law like New Hampshire's. Then the two states would have duked it out. When New Hampshire said: "We're doing it the day before Christmas, Michigan could have said "Great. We're doing it the day before Thanksgiving." When New Hampshire countered with the day before Halloween, Michigan could have responded with the day after Labor Day. Whoever bids for 2 days after Easter first, wins. The Democrats picked an uncooperative state where they have no power, just for ideological reasons (more than half of South Carolina Democrats are Black), and are now stuck with eggs on their collective faces. (V)

Middle-Class Joe Needs Richie Rich

Throughout his long career, Joe Biden has always presented himself as "Middle-class Joe from Scranton." As president he has talked about his economic plan as a "blue-collar blueprint" and has talked endlessly about all the good-paying jobs that don't require a college degree that he has created (e.g., repairing America's crumbling infrastructure, working in factories making advanced semiconductor chips in Ohio and Arizona, etc.). At a union meeting last month, he noted that he looks at the world from Scranton while Donald Trump looks at it from Park Avenue.

But it is not working. Despite all the new jobs, blue-collar workers are still moving toward the Republicans. This is likely to have more to do with cultural issues (e.g., abortion, the border, trans girls on girls' sports teams, etc.) than with economics, but that's the way it is. Biden thinks that having a good-paying job should be more important to a worker than who plays on which high school sports team, but the workers don't seem to agree. It may be frustrating, but he has to go with the voters he's got, not the voters he would like.

It is not hopeless, of course. Biden can point to his slaying the evil inflation dragon and he's spending $25 million for a few weeks' ads in the swing states to do just that. But if a tank of gas costs more in Nov. 2024 than it did on Jan. 20, 2021, Donald Trump and the Republicans are going to blame Biden and that will work with some voters. Polls show that lower-income voters believe the U.S. is in a recession, even though it is not. What they want is for prices in 2024 to go back to what they were in 2020. Biden can't do that.

The consequence of the Democrats' dwindling support among blue-collar workers is that the blue team is now more and more dependent on upper-middle-class and above voters. Their concerns aren't those of blue-collar workers. For example, among upper-income college-educated women, the top issue is abortion. This inverts what you might expect, since if a well-paid female lawyer in Texas gets pregnant by accident, she can probably afford to fly to Albuquerque or San Diego for an abortion, whereas a factory worker in Texas might not be able to afford it. In other words, in theory, blue-collar workers should be much more upset about banning abortion than upper-middle-class women. But as has often been misattributed to Yogi Berra, in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.

Similarly, among white college-educated adults, three-fifths said that if the accusations about Trump's role in the Jan. 6 coup attempt are true, he should be disqualified from running for office. Among noncollege whites, only 50% believe that.

So should Biden focus on getting more college-educated voters on board? He can, but math gets in the way. Noncollege voters outnumber college voters by three-to-two, so he needs really big gains among the latter to offset losses among the former. Also, the battleground states in the Upper Midwest have a disproportionate number of blue-collar workers. So a Richie-Rich-only campaign won't work.

Some Democratic strategists think that emphasizing concrete benefits for voters is more important than trying to talk about abstract ones. For voters in Columbus, OH, the $100 billion Intel plant being built there is big news, but in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, not so much. On the other hand, rebates for buying energy-efficient appliances or solar panels or home insulation is of direct benefit to voters in every state and can save them hundreds of dollars. Medicare's new ability to negotiate drug prices is of interest to seniors who need those medicines. Still, if people aren't feeling better financially, it will be tough to win an economic argument. (V)

Ramaswamy Wants to Gut the Government

Vivek Ramaswamy has decided that his campaign wants to get to the right of all the other campaigns, even that of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who has also decided he wants to get to the right of all the others. Let the bidding war start! Ramaswamy is now proposing to eliminate a million civilian federal government jobs—more than a third of the total. And that is only a start. His goal is to reduce the federal workforce by 75% after 4 years. That would cripple most government agencies.

He is especially proud of the fact that his plan would gut the Department of Education, FBI, ATF Bureau, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Commerce Dept. Are those blue-collar workers (see above) going to cheer that President Ramaswamy will destroy the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? Do they know what it does? Have they even ever heard of it? But the message is: Government is bad, even though it supports many programs useful to working class families (e.g. Pell Grants for poor college students).

So who is Ramaswamy targeting? Probably he is going for the support of right-wing media outlets. There, reporters have probably swallowed the "government is bad" Kool-Aid and see him as an ally. Experts say that cutting even a third of the federal workforce would lead to chaos. Firing a third or half or three-quarters of all the airport flight controllers? That would force the airlines to slash the number of flights and prioritize which ones are retained. JFK to LAX will stay. Chicago to Peoria, sorry about that. What would such a change do to airfares? How about the time for processing a passport application? It could jump from 8 weeks to 8 years. Meat inspection? You can barely taste salmonella or E. coli, so what does it matter if your meat is full of it?

Fortunately, what Ramaswamy says is all garbage. Norman Ornstein, a scholar emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute, said: "The idea that a president would have the unilateral capacity to fire a million people is farcical." Those agencies exist because Congress passed laws saying they are to exist and what they are required to do. A president can't change all that with an XO. What he can do, though, is replace many of the top civil service appointees with his own people on account of his signing off on Schedule F, which reclassifies 50,000 top civil servants as political appointees who don't have civil service job protection but who serve at the pleasure of the president. (V)

FreedomWorks Wants to Rebrand Itself

FreedomWorks is a libertarian-oriented group founded and funded by the Koch brothers that was associated with the tea party movement of 2010. It has come to realize that there isn't much of a market for what it is selling. Therefore, it is trying to rebrand itself from a fire-breathing right-wing outfit to a more moderate one while still pursuing libertarian goals. Politico got ahold of a PowerPoint presentation used to pitch to donors, lawmakers, and selected others. FreedomWorks believes that the policy stances in the PowerPoint will resonate with independent voters. It covers topics like "climate realism" and "abortion options," things that were previously taboo.

In a letter to donors and staff, the organization's president, Adam Brandon, said that conservatives no longer cared about limited government, so flogging it was barking up the wrong tree. He also called for modesty on social policy (= calling for a ban on all abortions is not a winner).

FreedomWorks did some survey research and discovered that independent suburban voters supported "tolerance and choice." That is not what they have been selling so far. The survey showed that gay marriage is a settled issue and abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. It also showed that the voters were rejecting the Democrats' message but also the Republicans' message. FreedomWorks needs to adapt accordingly.

What some staffers believe is that with 50% of the Koch brothers dead and the remaining 50% being less interested in them, if they want to continue to exist and keep their jobs, they need to change and support things that voters and especially donors want. The old ways are not working anymore. Brandon's idea was to position FreedomWorks just to the right of No Labels, which is essentially Republican-lite and was likely founded as a way to seduce moderate Democrats to refrain from voting for Joe Biden. Brandon wants to be on their right flank, but with a bit less of the culture-war stuff.

The group will support candidates who agree to its pledge, which is essentially socially tolerant and fiscally responsible. In other words, married gay people who want to cut rich people's taxes are definitely welcome. It is a niche where overcrowding hasn't been a historical problem.

The real impetus for the rebranding is that corporate donations fell to zero. FreedomWorks had to fire 40% of its staff because the money was gone. It was either change or die. So Brandon looked around for a niche that seemed to be empty and is going to give it a shot. But if Trump wins and there is money in MAGA, Brandon could turn on a dime. Changes forced by economics don't always have a lot of staying power. (V)

Boebert Has a "Home Game" and an "Away Game"

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) is a right-wing firebrand, a sort of Marjorie Taylor Greene but without the Southern accent or "charm." When she is in her home district on the Western Slope, she wears cowgirl boots. In D.C., she wears stilettos (because she is tiny—5'0"). But that isn't the only difference. Her views and positions are also dependent on which side of the Mississippi she is on. How can this be?

Maybe it has something to do with her near-death experience in the 2022 midterm election. She beat an unfunded unknown financial trader, Adam Frisch, by only 546 votes (0.07%) even though she was a sitting House member. It was the closest House race of the 2022 cycle. He is already in for 2024 and now has a national following and donor base of Democrats who think their $20 to defeat Boebert is money well spent. Frisch said "[we] showed that national extremist politicians are not invincible." The 2022 election scared the bejeebus out of Boebert.

The Representative's solution is to tell her constituents one thing and the Freedom Caucusers, the big donors, and the lobbyists in D.C. something very different. Works every time. In the capital, she is still a FC firebrand, but back home her main concern seems to be farmers' water rights. Doing a mode change every time she gets off a plane takes some practice, but she is working on it:

Her social media feeds are clearly aimed at the D.C. crowd. They are filled with her fiery speeches in the House and her motion to impeach Joe Biden. The latter is a sore point because she and Greene are fighting over who should get the honor of leading the movement to impeach. Here they are yelling "Build the wall" during his first State of the Union speech:

Conservatives are lucky that they can choose between a brunette wacko and a blonde wacko. Not all parties offer that choice. Someone forgot to tell them that Congress is not the British House of Commons.

Boebert is also using an old trick to try to placate the voters who don't like her antics: Get pork. She takes pride in the $20 million in earmarks she snagged for her district this cycle. Her pitch is implicitly "You may not like my behavior, but I deliver for my constituents." She also claims to work well with both (Democratic) Colorado senators, Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper. However, none of their joint bills have passed. A Democratic aide noted: "I'd argue she is chaotic and conveniently highlights whenever things are parallel." But an old friend of Boebert's noted that her sudden interest in local issues is definitely due to the 2022 election scare. Whether her new split personality works with the voters remains to be seen. The left in Colorado has a history of taking down firebrand Republicans. (V)

Who Is This Woman?

Who is she? Perhaps a college student on campus? Or maybe an intern somewhere?

Nope. She is Anderson Clayton, chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party. At 25, she is the youngest state chair in the country and probably the most enthusiastic. Donald Trump won North Carolina by 74,500 votes (1.35%) in 2020 and it is going to be a huge battleground in 2024. The Democrats are putting that burden on the shoulders of this unassuming young woman. It's not going to be a breeze, even though Breeze is her legal middle name

Clayton got her job as chair by ousting a 73-year-old incumbent earlier this year. She is from the small town of Roxboro, NC (pop. 8,000). She has a B.A. in journalism and political science from Appalachian State University, where she was president of the student body and director of communications for College Democrats of North Carolina. She worked as a community organizer and as a field organizer for Elizabeth Warren. In 2021, she got three Black Democrats to run for the city council in Roxboro. She made up yard signs and knocked on 600 doors. They won and flipped the council. In 2022, she flipped her state House district. Now she is in the major leagues. Reporters have taken notice of her because she is a novelty. Democrats see her as a rising star. Maybe she could be North Carolina's answer to Stacey Abrams, but at half Abrams' age. If Biden wins North Carolina and the election, Clayton will undoubtedly get a job in his administration. Keep an eye on her.

Clayton has some ideas about how to win North Carolina. There are 562,000 college students in the state, of whom 60% are women. She wants to get them engaged and ready to vote. She believes that rural voters are not hopeless, but you have to go talk to them. She believes that on issues like health care, broadband, and some others, they actually agree with the Democrats. Clayton agrees with Woody Allen: 90% of success is just showing up. In that respect, she is going to outdo the full Grassley and personally visit all of North Carolina's 100 counties (Iowa has a mere 99). In 2022, North Carolina Democrats lost 44 seats in the state legislature because they didn't even bother to field a candidate. Clayton vows never to let that happen again.

Will her youthful enthusiasm make up for her lack of experience? It could, and might even be an advantage. All the pros know that about 80 or 90 of North Carolina's counties are hopeless, so they never show up and make their pitch. Clayton is too young to know that, so she is going to do it anyway. Remember, if she can flip 800 votes in each county, that could be enough for Biden to win the state. Actually showing up might be a good start. (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