Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Sorry, all, that the post is both unusually late and unusually short. There was an extended Internet outage, coupled with the aftereffects of a rather aggressive dental procedure. We've gotten some... pointed letters about typos this week; please do ascribe any you see today to the codeine.
Pence Testifies...
Well, that was fast. On Wednesday, a federal judge said that Donald Trump had no legal basis for stopping former VP Mike Pence from testifying about the 1/6 insurrection before a federal grand jury. And on Thursday, Pence testified.
How did this unfold so quickly? Was Pence in Washington anyhow? Perhaps even "on call," as he and special counsel Jack Smith waited for a ruling? Or did the former VP quickly hustle to the capital so he could get his testimony in before Donald Trump could appeal to the Supreme Court? We do not know, but we read several of the news stories about Trump losing in court, and none of them indicated Pence was champing at the bit to get his testimony on the record.
What we also do not know, of course, is what Pence actually said yesterday. That will come out in time; for now, the only thing that has been made public is that the testimony lasted about 5 hours. That sounds like the sort of session in which matters of real substance were addressed, as opposed to a string of invocations of the speech and debate clause and the Fifth Amendment. But again, that's just a guess, as Smith had no comment for reporters when contacted by them.
It is also the case that, as a general rule, the inner layers of the onion are the last ones to be peeled before it's time to take action. There aren't too many people closer to the center of the onion than Pence was, and so the endgame could be nigh upon us. Could make for an interesting summer. (Z)
...And So Does E. Jean Carroll
E. Jean Carroll was on the stand yesterday for a second day of testimony in her civil case against Donald Trump. It was mostly cross-examination by Joe Tacopina and, although we were not in the room, it certainly looks like it did not go well for the defense.
The general purpose of cross examination is to poke holes in the plaintiff's argument; in general, Carroll seems to have gotten the better of Tacopina on virtually all counts. To wit:
- Timing: One of the biggest lines of attack for Tacopina, such that he's returned to it several
times, is that Carroll is not entirely certain when the alleged rape took place. However, she was able to say yesterday
that she thought it was probably on a Thursday in late 1995 or early 1996. As it turns out, Thursday is the one day when
the store where the incident took place stays open late. So, that kinda passes the smell test. On top of that, if
Carroll were making all of this up, why would she hesitate to make up a date? Her uncertainty on this point actually
bolsters her credibility, we think. Though again, we don't know how it's playing in the courtroom.
- Memory: Tacopina has introduced into evidence a few e-mails written by Carroll 5-10 years
ago. Her memory of the contents of those e-mails is fuzzy. The lawyer seized upon that, wondering how she could remember
a rape from nearly 30 years ago if she is shaky on e-mails from less than a decade ago. As a sidebar, we can scarcely
believe he would pursue such a stupid and counterproductive line of questioning. In any case, as you might guess,
Carroll said that everyone forgets about e-mails, but you never forget about being raped.
- Motivation: Tacopina has also tried to raise doubts about Carroll's motivations for coming
forward, implying that she saw a chance to cash in, or else to harm a prominent political figure. Her response to this
was very believable; she said she buried the memory until being influenced by the #MeToo movement.
- Silence: Still another angle of attack from the defense was: If you were raped, how come you didn't make a bunch of noise? Yet again, what a stupid, boorish, clueless line of questioning. Only someone who has not been raped, and who has no real understanding of rape, would presume that there is some "standard" or "logical" response while being victimized. Carroll, for her part, said that she's not a screamer, and that her silence was a product of both shock and embarrassment.
Carroll also noted that she has not had sex, or any romantic relationships, since the alleged incident with Trump. This is unlikely to be a lie, as it would be pretty easy to disprove by calling one or more exes to the stand if she was not telling the truth. And if it is indeed accurate, then it speaks to someone who was really and truly damaged by... something very traumatic.
It would appear the Trumps know the case is not going well, as they have done what they do when they are scared and have gone on the attack. Specifically, they have posted comments to the family's boutique social media platform declaring that Carroll is lying and that she's just a puppet of Trump's well-heeled enemies, particularly LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman. Apparently, the Trumps did not do their research, because while the name Reid Hoffman could be Jewish, he's not. In any event, despite the very limited reach of the Trumps' social media site, Judge Lewis Kaplan told them to knock it off. After some carping about the First Amendment, blah, blah, blah, the Trumps promptly deleted everything.
Again, you never know how things are playing in court, but before the case started, the general presumption was that Carroll was a credible and compelling witness, while Tacopina was a bull in a china shop and ill-suited for a case like this. Nothing that has happened thus far would seem to contradict those presumptions. (Z)
ERA All the Way? Not Today
Yesterday, the Senate held a vote on adding the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. We have written about this general subject multiple times before, but as a reminder, the current status of the ERA goes like this. The Amendment has reached the necessary threshold for approval, with Virginia signing on as the 38th state about 5 years ago. However, there are two problems. The first us that the enabling legislation had a deadline of 1982. The second is that several states have tried to rescind their approval.
Yesterday's vote was on the first question. The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel recently issued an opinion that says Congress can lift that deadline, if it votes to do so. This would take a two-thirds majority in each chamber (although no presidential signature would be needed). Should those two-thirds majorities be secured, then the ERA would theoretically become official. That would still leave the matter of the states that rescinded (Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Tennessee), but they would presumably have to file suit (which they might or might not do) and then persuade the Supreme Court that it's legal to rescind an approval.
In any case, it's all academic, because there's zero chance that two-thirds of either chamber will vote to lift the 1982 deadline. Yesterday's vote in the Senate was 51-47, with the vote breaking along party lines, excepting that Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted for the measure and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) switched his final vote to "nay" so that he might retain the right to bring the measure up again.
Schumer, of course, can count, and he knows that 51 or 52 is far less than 67. Yesterday's vote, then, was just a show vote. The plan for 2024 is to paint the Republican Party as the anti-woman party, opposing abortion access and opposing equal rights. If the GOP ends up with a presidential nominee who has been found to be liable for having raped a woman, then it becomes all the easier to make this case. We are advised that about half the electorate is female, so this might just be a winning strategy. (Z)
Today's Presidential News, Part I: Hutchinson Is In
It can sometimes be hard to remember which candidates are in the "everyone knows they're running for president" category, and which are in the "they've officially declared for president" category. So, you are to be forgiven if you were not certain in which group to place former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson. In fact, he was in group #1 until Wednesday, when he formally joined group #2.
The official launch was marked by a speech delivered in Bentonville, AR. That is where Hutchinson was born. It is also where Walmart was born. Readers can decided for themselves which of these things was responsible for the choice of site for the launch. In his speech, the former governor attacked Donald Trump (but without using his name), while holding himself out as a model "consistent conservative" of the sort that Republican voters want.
Hutchinson's problem is that "consistent conservative" is not what Republican voters want, anymore. They want someone who is isolationist, xenophobic, populist and willing to wade into the culture wars and "own the libs" on occasion. There is nothing on this list that describes Hutchinson in any meaningful way. He is hoping that the fever breaks, and that the Republican Party goes back to nominating Ronald Reagan clones. But this does not appear to be the direction in which things are headed, at least not in the next 12 months.
Hutchinson's other path, at least in theory, would be for some number of Trumpublican types to split that part of the primary vote, and for Hutchinson to claim the rest, giving him a plurality. In most states, Hutchinson 30%, Trump 25%, DeSantis 20%, Haley 15%, Some White Guy Named Mike 10% would give the Arkansan the majority of the delegates. However, there is not the slightest indication that some sizable chunk of NeverTrump Republicans are coalescing around Hutchinson, nor that the Trump vote is going to go to any candidate but Trump himself.
That said, at least Hutchinson has a theoretical path to the nomination. Someone like Nikki Haley, from where we sit, doesn't even have that. So, the former governor is the most plausible Republican whose name does not rhyme with "Con." But it is nonetheless very unlikely that 2024 will be his year. (Z)
Today's Presidential News, Part II: Sanders Is Out
This is hardly surprising, but we pass along anyhow that yesterday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said he would not be mounting a third presidential run in 2024.
Joe Biden looks like he will have a very easy path to the Democratic nomination, and this story illustrates why. No "establishment" Democrat is going to challenge a sitting "establishment" Democratic president, which means the only potential headache for Biden was a challenge from the left. Such a challenge would not likely have been successful, but it might have forced the President to tack left, and fighting it off would also have used up precious time, energy and money.
But there isn't going to be a serious lefty challenger (loony birds don't count). In part, that is because Biden has delivered on some progressive priorities. Not all of those priorities, and not to the extent that the AOCs of the world would like, but some of them. Perhaps more importantly, progressives are scared witless of a second Trump presidency (or a first DeSantis presidency). They are not willing to risk doing anything that might help make that possible. Sanders himself, in announcing his non-bid, said: "I don't think one has many alternatives. What's at stake is the future of American democracy."
And so, Biden likely won't have a nasty Hillary vs. Bernie-type situation, and he can spend the next year uniting the Democratic Party behind him. That will be a big advantage once campaign season really heats up. (Z)
Today's Presidential News, Part III: DeSantis Will Have His Way
There is a story about Warren Harding that his father once said to him: "Warren, it's a good thing you're not a girl, because you'd always be in the family way. You just can't say 'no.'" There's pretty good evidence this is true, and if so, it certainly helps explain how Harding ended up with so many appointees whose hands were in the cookie jar.
Also unable to say "no"? The Florida legislature, which we should probably just start calling the Warren Harding Memorial Sunshine State Legislature. Whenever Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) says "jump!" they say "how high?" And so it is that, this week, the legislators began the process of changing state law so DeSantis can run for president without resigning his current office.
Not too many states have resign-to-run laws; in those that do, the logic is that being an officeholder is a full-time job and running for office is a full-time job, and you can only do one full-time job, so you gotta pick. However, when we're talking about the highest levels of the political system, these rules are generally put aside, because both the candidate and their fellow state citizens want the glory and the power. The Texas legislature famously rewrote the rules for Lyndon Johnson, and now the Florida legislature will do the same for DeSantis. (Z)
This Week in Schadenfreude: Great, Scotty
This actually could have run last week, and we almost tacked it on to the Mike Lindell schadenfreude item. However, we decided that both stories should be given undivided attention, because it each case the schadenfreude is so richly deserved.
One of the ringleaders of the fiasco in Tennessee was then-state Rep. Scotty Campbell (R). Maybe he was the ideal person for getting his colleagues riled about the Justins Jones (D) and Pearson (D), since prior to his political career, Campbell was a... wrestling promoter. In any case, he worked hard whipping votes for expulsion, and was probably the difference-maker when it came to getting the two Justins tossed (albeit only temporarily, as it turns out).
Well, you know what they say about those who live in glass state houses. In addition to being undemocratic, and very possibly racist, it turns out that Campbell creeps on female staffers. We know, you wouldn't guess it of a swell fellow like that. What he did, apparently, was corner a couple of young, female interns at some sort of social event (very possibly at a bar), and pepper them with lewd comments and sexual come-ons.
The exact details of the encounter(s) are not fully known; the information in the previous paragraph was dug up by a local news station. In any case, an ethics investigation was conducted, the claims of the female interns were sustained, and Campbell decided to resign.
And so, the Justins still have their seats, while the sleazeball Campbell does not. There's a fair bit of karmaic justice in that, we would say. Meanwhile, given his résumé and his personal code of conduct, Campbell should consider applying for a job with Vince McMahon of the WWE. He'll fit right in. (Z)
This Week in Freudenfreude: Lee Loses Again
Even if someone is familiar with the politics and cultural milieu of late-19th-century America, it really is madness that there is a U.S. Army base named after Robert E. Lee. First of all, he literally led an armed rebellion against the United States. He should have been hanged as a traitor, not honored as a war hero. Second, he lost. The country has not named military bases after John Burgoyne, Arthur St. Clair, William Westmoreland, or the Detroit Lions, so why Lee? Third, he wasn't an especially great general. Good? OK, sure, but his reputation was propped up by the skilled performance of his subordinates, and by the fact that the Union generals he faced for the first half of the Civil War were pretty lousy.
Anyhow, it's not a secret that the staff historian is a sucker for stories about putting aside these Confederate-commemorating military names in favor of something more apropos. And this week, Fort Lee became Fort Gregg-Adams. The new signage is already in place.
The Gregg in Gregg-Adams is Arthur J. Gregg, who is Black. He joined the U.S. Army as a buck private while it was still segregated by race, and rose up the ranks, doing several tours of duty in Korea, Vietnam. He also served for several years at... wait for it... Fort Lee. By the time his career had come to a close, he was a three-star general. Also, he's still alive, which means he is the first person since the 19th century to have a military based named in his honor while still living.
The Adams, meanwhile, is the late Lt. Col. Charity Adams Earley. She enlisted in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) in July 1942 and quickly rose up the ranks. She was the first Black officer in WAAC, led the only all-Black company of WACs to serve abroad during World War II, and finished the war as the highest ranking Black female in the U.S. military. After, she worked at the Pentagon, the VA, and in academia, and was heavily involved in activism, including the Civil Rights Movement.
In short, the name of a man who fought to sustain white supremacy is being replaced by the names of two people who fought to destroy it. That would appear to be the very definition of "progress." Have a good weekend, all. (Z)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers