Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Kentucky's gubernatorial primary is actually next week. Oops! We usually double-check with the website of the state Secretary of State, and forgot to do so in this case. We'll never make Kentucky Colonel that way, that's for sure.
Trump's a Loser
In court, that is. Since 2015, Donald Trump's been an admitted pu**y grabber, and now a court has confirmed it. The jury was not willing to go so far as to find that he committed a rape, but they did take just 2½ hours to find him liable for sexual abuse and for defamation. The former president has been ordered to pay $5 million to E. Jean Carroll; $2 million for the assault and $3 million for the defamation.
This means that anyone who describes Trump as a rapist is not supported in that by a court finding. On the other hand it would be correct to say he's a sexual assaulter, or a sexual predator. The jury's finding most certainly supports those descriptors. It would also be fair to conclude that most or all of the other women who have accused Trump of various misdeeds are telling the truth. Sexual assault is rarely a one-time thing, and so once the first incident is proven, additional incidents are basically assumed. When you have actual people confirming those additional incidents, well, that approaches slam-dunk territory.
Trump has already gone into full spin mode, as you can imagine. He took to his boutique social media platform to offer up this response when the verdict was read:
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO THIS WOMAN IS. THIS VERDICT IS A DISGRACE — A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME!
Presumably, he believes that such assertions serve to underscore his innocence. From where we sit, however, the message is more like "I've done this enough times that I can't even keep the incidents straight anymore."
The former president has also, with lightning speed, managed to make himself into the victim here. He is claiming that he was "not allowed to speak or defend myself." It is true, of course, that he did not speak or defend himself at the trial. It is also equally true that was either his decision, or the decision of someone who works for him. It was not the deep state, or the Clinton judge who oversaw the case, or the Globalists, or George Soros, or Joe Biden, or Hillary, or anyone else who was responsible for that. Anyone who believes that Trump's rights have been trampled on here would have to be almost wholly ignorant about U.S. civics. Which, truth be told, pretty much describes Trump's base.
Trump's allies in the media are doing their best to help him muddy the waters and/or sweep this under the carpet. Here is what the front page is The New York Post looked like early Tuesday evening:
As you can see, the truly big news of the day is how a beer company's sales are being affected by a trans influencer. Here's Fox at the same time:
Fox is on top of the trans story as well (how did we fail to cover it?), but they see the end of MTV News as the real story of the day. You will note that neither outlet has included the Trump verdict among its top items, but that readers of both sites have nonetheless put the Trump verdict into the "trending" stories. We really don't know what that means; maybe the readership wants to know even if the NYP and Fox don't particularly want to tell them, or maybe the readership is just looking for a place to post snotty comments about how this is all a witch hunt, and how St. Donald of Trump is a martyr. In any case, we seem to recall a conscious effort on the part of the Murdoch-owned newspapers to distance themselves from Trump. Not covering this story in a meaningful way, and thus de facto toting the former president's water, would seem to suggest that Rupert & Co. have thought better of that decision.
Meanwhile, the outspokenly and unwaveringly pro-Trump Newsmax also buried the story completely:
And the outspokenly and unwaveringly pro-Trump OAN stuck the story in the sixth slot:
It's rather interesting; although we would rank things differently from OAN, we actually think their choice of stories is not too far off. Their top six and our top six actually overlap a lot more than is the case with any of these other outlets. Maybe that says something about OAN. Or about us.
Non-Trumpy Senate Republicans, among them John Cornyn (R-TX) and Mitt Romney (R-UT), have already reacted to the verdict, in a manner that is predictable, and yet also makes you feel a little bit sorry for them. Basically, their view is that once a court has confirmed that you are a sexual predator, you should no longer be a viable presidential candidate, and yet... this is not going to affect Trump's political career much, if at all. You can practically hear them sighing sighs of resignation.
It's hard to disagree with that. With the former president having danced around "rapist," and with his spin operation already working at full blast (with assistance from his media supporters), he might well convince the base that this is much ado about nothing. And the base is all that he cares about. We'll have to see if he can pull it off, especially if he piles up a few more indictments and/or convictions in the next 12 months or so. Oh, and he says he's going to appeal, but we wonder if he ultimately thinks better of that. He's got a weak case, and yet as good a result, PR-wise, as he could have hoped for, short of exoneration. May be best for him, politically, to give this story as little additional oxygen as is possible. (Z)
"Santos" Is Indicted
If you like your schadenfreude buffet-style, then Tuesday was a very good day for you, assuming you're not a Trumpy Republican. First, Donald Trump was found to be a sexual predator, a label that will stick with him for the rest of his days. And if that were not enough, Rep. "George Santos" (R-NY) has been indicted in federal court.
The indictment is sealed, and so nobody knows exactly what Santos is charged with. Well, nobody who is talking, at least. Here are a few of our best guesses:
- Kidnapping the Lindbergh baby
- Wearing sweater vests to work every day—a crime against fashion if we've ever seen one
- Aiding and abetting the meth empire of Walter White, under his alias Saul Goodman
- Scaling Mt. Everest 10 times in 10 days without permission
- Shooting a man in Reno, just to watch him die
If readers have guesses as to what crime(s) it might be, send 'em in and we will run some guesses tomorrow. And while we are at it, there are 605 days left in the term that Santos has been elected to. How many of those 605 do you think he'll actually serve? Cast your vote here, and we'll include the results in any Santos-related item we run tomorrow.
On that point, Santos appears to be shameless enough that he won't resign voluntarily under any circumstances. However, once there is an indictment, then we enter into a situation where there's precedent for booting someone out of the House. And if there's a conviction, then expulsion is all-but-guaranteed. Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) says he will take a wait-and-see approach, and he's waiting to see exactly what the charges are. McCarthy, of course, is pretty shameless as well, and he certainly doesn't want his already-slim margin of error to become even slimmer. However, it's quite clear that the other New York Republican members of the House think Santos is a giant millstone around their necks. So, the Speaker could well decide it's in his best interests to jettison Santos.
The Representative has already returned to New York, and is expected to surrender sometime today. That means a court appearance is imminent, which in turn means we should soon learn what the charges against him are. By the end of the week, we might actually know if there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll. (Z)
DeSantis unPACs
In Florida, if a candidate wishes to coordinate with one or more super PACs, there is no legal issue. And, let's be honest, even if there was, the Florida legislature would just change the law to let Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) do it anyhow. Consistent with this, DeSantis has long benefited from his PAC Friends of Ron DeSantis, which he effectively runs, aided by friends of his. It's all very... incestuous, frankly.
When one is running for federal office, however, coordinating with PACs is a big no-no. Some (many?) politicians still do it, but they have to be at least a little subtle about it. They can send out a press release that says, "Boy, our polls show that we could benefit from some ads in Poughkeepsie, and it sure would be nice if someone would run some!" But they can't, you know, be on the board of the PAC, or have the PAC be named after them, or have their close friend serving as the primary accountant.
In view of this reality, DeSantis yesterday ended his official relationship with Friends of Ron DeSantis. The PAC will change its name and its management, and won't take orders from the Governor anymore. At least not directly.
Naturally, since this is a non-issue for candidates for state office, but a huge issue for candidates for federal office, this is a crystal-clear signal that DeSantis 2024 is still a go, despite the bad polling. It's also likely a sign that the Governor is going to jump in sooner rather than later. Which is probably wise at this point, because the "I'm not actually a candidate" thing isn't actually working for him very well. Might as well mix it up and see what happens. That DeSantis appears to be timing his entry into the race to come shortly after Trump's being found liable for sexual assault, and shortly before a likely indictment in Georgia, is surely just a big coincidence. Undoubtedly, this never even crossed the Governor's mind. (Z)
She's Baaaaaack!
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) may or may not feel well enough to return to work in Washington. She may or may not want to return to work in Washington. She may or may not have the cognitive capacity to return to work in Washington. However, the vagaries of the American political system dictate that her vote is very much needed, and can only be cast in Washington. And so, to Washington she will return.
Different outlets are reporting the story a little differently; some say she's returning to Washington soon (future tense), some say she's already returned (past tense). Her office has not posted anything to her website, and the main source of information here seems to be Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Whatever the case may be, surely she'll be back to work on Monday, if not sooner.
Thus far, Feinstein's Democratic colleagues have juggled things pretty aggressively to compensate for her absence. But there are now several things where Schumer simply must have Feinstein's +1. The first of those is the appointment of Julie Su to succeed Marty Walsh as Secretary of Labor. Su is pretty lefty, and is definitely not white, and between those two things her confirmation is going to be very close, one way or the other. The fact that Su has not withdrawn, but Schumer has not brought her up for a vote while Feinstein was away, may suggest that the Majority Leader has whipped the votes, and it's going to be 50-50 (with Kamala Harris casting the tiebreaker).
Another tricky matter is the confirmation of Michael Delaney to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which just so happens to be the Circuit that would hear appeals on the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) debt-ceiling case we wrote about yesterday. Delaney has a distinguished record, but also accepted some not-so-admirable clients when he was in private practice, such that even some Democrats are not too sure about him. The vote on him will be as tight as the one on Su, most likely.
And then there's the debt ceiling. Schumer can't know what's going to happen there, but he does know that he's got (maybe) 51 votes, at least two of which (Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema) are eager to show they are not in lock-step with the blue team. Maybe three, depending on what Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) is seeing in polls. There are also three Republicans (Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski) that might be gettable, but here again, having an extra vote could make all the difference in the world. One can only hope that Feinstein is able to do what she needs to do without undue physical unpleasantness. It's no fun to go into work when you're really not up to it, but you have no real choice. (Z)
He's Baaaaaack!
We used the headline we did for the item above because we couldn't think of anything better. But inasmuch as the original movie line and song actually reference a cold-blooded psychopath, it might be a wee bit better fit here. Tucker Carlson has decided he just can't bear to sit the rest of 2023 and all of 2024 out, and so he announced yesterday that he is going to quickly re-launch his show... on Twitter. Here is the video where he shared the news, if you're into, you know, S&M.
Carlson decreed that "there are not that many platforms left that allow free speech. The last big one remaining ... is Twitter, where we are now." That is both ridiculous, and yet... pretty correct. Carlson is not really referring to free speech, of course, what he's referring to is speech without consequences. Since he will now be Twitter's biggest star, Elon Musk is going to let him do and say whatever the hell he wants. And given the changes to the platform's algorithm, and to it's blue-checkmark program, Carlson's not even going to get much in the way of negative feedback. These days, when someone posts vitriol and/or lunacy, the algorithm prioritizes like-minded haters and loons, particularly those who have paid $8/month to make sure their vitriol and lunacy are heard. Note that it happens with left-wing haters and loons, too, although thanks to Musk's policies, the platform is skewing ever more rightward these days. Neo-Nazi participation is way up, for example. Undoubtedly, they will be delighted to once again enjoy daily programming from their favorite entertainer.
Carlson is still under contract to Fox, of course, and this new venture could threaten his ability to claim the $30+ million in salary he is still owed. He seems to be prepared to make two arguments to try to counter that; the first is that Fox breached its contract with him (dubious, since they're still signing the checks), the second is that Twitter does not directly compete with Fox (probably also dubious, because media non-competes tend to be pretty broad, and generally cover all different kinds of platforms).
Still, Carlson doesn't want to sit on the bench, and it's not like he's at risk of going without food (even if it's Swanson frozen dinners). Plus, Fox is probably not eager for a(nother) ugly lawsuit. So, our guess is that Carlson and Fox settle somewhere in the middle, and he gets the majority of the salary that is owed to him. That said, Twitter has 70 million users in the U.S., while Fox is in the homes of about 280 million people. That means that Carlson's potential audience just dropped by 75%. It's not going to be easy for him to remain relevant, especially since the Trumpers now know his true feelings about their Dear Leader. (Z)
Lake Is Maneuvering for a Senate Run
Speaking of Trumpers, Kari Lake is doing all the things she needs to do in order to launch a bid for the U.S. Senate next year. In particular, she's had two meetings with the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). Don't read too much into that, since the NRSC takes meetings with just about any candidate who asks for one. Actually, since the NRSC de facto answers to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and since he knows that Lake is damaged goods, the NRSC almost certainly doesn't want her to run. But they have to make nice in case she does, since she would likely get the nomination with or without their help.
If Lake does get in, Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer are going to be very pleased, indeed. Some sizable chunk of Arizonans, maybe 40% or 45%, like Lake very much. Most of the remaining population is frightened to death of letting her get anywhere close to real power. Our guess is that if it's Lake vs. Kyrsten Sinema (I) vs. Ruben Gallego (D), that nearly all the Democrats, independents, and Never Trump Republicans will just vote for whichever non-Lake candidate is up in the polls. That would be a repeat, of sorts, of the 2006 Connecticut Senate election, where a sizable number of Republicans decided they'd rather use their votes to help a very moderate Democrat (Joe Lieberman) win, as opposed to wasting their votes on the Republican (Alan Schlesinger) and possibly letting an actual liberal (Ned Lamont) take the seat. A Lake nomination is not a guarantee that a non-Republican keeps the seat, but it's certainly the best chance for a non-Republican to do so, unless Sarah Palin relocates from Alaska.
Meanwhile, we must point out that Arizona is one of the states with a resign-to-run law. So, if Lake does intend to mount a campaign, she will have to resign the governor's seat she "won" last year. Who wants to be the one to tell her? (Z)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers