Supreme Court Leakers? Ida Nottnoe and Jurgis S. Esgood-Esmyne

When a draft of the Dobbs decision—a draft that proved to be a near-final—was leaked on May 3rd of last year, Chief Justice John Roberts was furious, and promised to get to the bottom of the situation and to punish the leaker. He eventually placed the matter in the hands of Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley. Yesterday, Gurley issued her report.

If you wish to read the report for yourself, it's only 23 pages, which is positively brief by Washington standards. That said, everything you need to know is contained in the second paragraph of the introduction to the document:

After months of diligent analysis of forensic evidence and interviews of almost 100 employees, the Marshal's team determined that no further investigation was warranted with respect to many of the "82 employees [who] had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion." In following up on all available leads, however, the Marshal's team performed additional forensic analysis and conducted multiple follow-up interviews of certain employees. But the team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.

As the final sentence here reveals, Curley has no idea who leaked the draft. Meanwhile, the repeated use of the word "employees" certainly seems to be designed to obfuscate, and to avoid admitting outright that the justices themselves were not put under the microscope.

Note that it's not perfectly clear that the justices were not investigated, though it would be very strange to refer to them as "employees." At very least, one would expect a clarification that "employees" also includes "the nine justices," but there is no such clarification in the document. And of course, if Gurley investigated everyone except the justices, and simply could not find the leaker, that leads to a pretty obvious conclusion as to where the leak came from. To be more specific, there were credible suggestions all the way back in May that either Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas might have been responsible.

Gurley says that the investigation is not over and that she and her staff will continue to follow any leads that present themselves. But if they couldn't come up with anything in 7 months, what's going to change now? As it stands, it's yet another black eye for the Supreme Court, one that speaks to a lack of institutional control and, very probably, to a lack of accountability on the part of the nine folks who wear the black robes. (Z)

U.S. Hits Debt Ceiling

On several occasions, we wrote that the debt ceiling would probably be reached sometime in July, give or take a month. We weren't making that up out of thin air; that timeline was to be found all over the place. See, for example, this report from the Bipartisan Policy Center, which says: "the 'X Date'—the day when the federal government can no longer meet all its obligations in full and on time—will likely arrive no earlier than the third quarter of 2023." Q3 begins, of course, on July 1.

It turns out that the Bipartisan Policy Center was a wee bit optimistic, as the debt ceiling was reached yesterday. Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen had warned that would be the case earlier this week, and whaddyaknow, she was right. The federal government has now begun using smoke and mirrors to keep paying the bills; Yellen says that will work until June 5. On that date, if the debt ceiling has not been lifted, the U.S. will theoretically default on its debt. This would be a disaster, as everyone knows, because it would do permanent damage to the credit of the United States. That, in turn, would have a ripple effect across the U.S. economy, which would then spread to the other economies of the world.

The game of chicken has already begun. In fact, it was underway even before the debt ceiling was formally reached. House Republicans (at least, the ones who are speaking up) say that they won't agree to raise the debt ceiling until the White House agrees to significant spending cuts (specifically, rolling back some of the provisions of last year's Inflation Reduction Act, like the extra money for the IRS). The White House says that it will not be blackmailed in this way. Given that the country won't be on the precipice of disaster until mid-May, this is likely to be a very slow-moving game of chicken.

We think we have a pretty firm grasp of the mindset of the White House and of congressional Democrats, who simply cannot yield to this sort of hostage-taking, and who are not likely to be the ones who are punished by voters if the nation does default. In other words, we are confident that they will not surrender here. We also have a pretty firm grasp of the mindset of Senate Republicans, particularly Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who also know that the Democrats are not likely to get the blame if the U.S. defaults. In other words, we are confident the Senate will not be an obstacle if a bill raising the debt ceiling gets through the House.

That leaves House Republicans. If we said we truly understood their mindset here (or in many other contexts), we would be lying. In hopes of getting as close to the truth as we can, let us now switch gears for a short while to this item from New York magazine about the tax proposal that House Republicans will soon vote upon, at the insistence of Rep. Earl "Buddy" Carter (R-GA). The proposal—which Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) had to agree to bring to the floor in exchange for Carter's vote for speaker—has been floating around conservative circles for some time. The basic idea is that the IRS would be shut down, and the U.S. tax code would effectively be tossed in the garbage, with everything to be replaced by a federal sales tax on all transactions. In order to raise enough money, that sales tax would have to be very high, something like 30%.

We are not economists or CPAs, and yet it's instantly obvious to us that this plan is all kinds of stupid. To start, regardless of various tweaks like payments to low-income households, it would end up being highly regressive, and would cause rich Americans to pay less taxes at the expense of not-rich Americans (of course, that is a selling point to many conservatives). In addition, tax policy is an important tool by which Congress can steer economic activity (for example, making IRAs tax-advantaged). This would largely go away with the federal sales tax scheme. Perhaps most importantly, however, is that the proposal would put a huge damper on economic activity. People would say "Do I really need a new car this year? Do I really need to eat out tonight? Do I really need to upgrade my cell phone?" And if it's suddenly 10% or 20% more expensive to do so, many people will decide the answer to these questions is "no." If you were looking for a way to quickly plunge the country into a depression, this would be the way to do it.

Oh, and there's one other part we didn't mention. The bill, in order to make sure that the sales tax permanently replaces the income tax, requires that the Sixteenth Amendment be repealed within 7 years. If not, then the sales tax would be sundowned. Of course since the IRS and the income tax would already have been shut down, that would mean that the government could theoretically end up in a situation where its total revenues are... $0.

This silly proposal is never going to become law, of course. We can't imagine it will even get past the House, much less the Senate or the White House. Still, merely bringing it up for a vote is bats**t crazy. First, because it raises legitimate questions about what might happen to the U.S. economy the next time Republicans have the trifecta. This could cause people to decide that investing in China, or Japan, or the E.U. is a better call than investing in the U.S. Second, because the Republicans are basically giving the Democrats an early Christmas/Hanukkah/Festivus/Diwali/Kwanzaa gift: "The Republicans want to increase the sales tax to 30%! Do you have the money to pay 20%+ more for everything you buy?"

And that brings us to our point. We can only come up with three plausible explanations for what's going on here: (1) Some/many House Republicans have no understanding of macroeconomics; (2) Some/many House Republicans are so thoroughly in the thrall of wealthy/business interests that they will do anything to serve their masters; or (3) Some/many House Republicans are absolutely tone deaf. And if one or more of these three explanations is correct, it leads to this conclusion: Some/many Republicans might very well be willing to crash the economy in their quest to eliminate the federal income tax because their wealthy donors would love that.

Ultimately, we find it unlikely that the U.S. will actually default on its debt. Either a coalition of House Republicans and Democrats will overrule the MAGA crowd and get something done, or Joe Biden will declare that the debt limit is unconstitutional and he won't abide by it, or Biden will order the minting of a $1 trillion platinum coin. But it is entirely plausible, at this point, that one of these extraordinary measures will become necessary because the MAGA crew refused to blink. (Z)

State of the Union Is Set

In the most recent Q&A, we answered a question about whether or not Kevin McCarthy would invite Joe Biden to deliver the State of the Union address this year. In theory, refusing to invite the President would be a good way to poke him in the eye. In our answer, we were very skeptical that McCarthy would try that, however, as it would look very petulant and would deny the Republicans certain opportunities to grandstand.

As it turns out, this matter was being worked out at the very time we were answering that question. McCarthy sent a letter of invitation on January 13 (see it here); Biden accepted 2 days later. So, Biden will head to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue on February 7.

We suspect that because Biden is dealing with the classified documents issue, and this is his first time addressing the nation since that news broke, many people will put one and one together and will expect him to address the matter. This seems very unlikely to us, however. First, the administration is playing things close to the vest right now, and it's unlikely anything will happen to change that in the next 3 weeks. Second, it's the State of the Union address, not the State of My Presidency address. A sidebar about the files would be awkward and probably inappropriate.

Of greater interest, at least to us, will be the plans that Biden lays out for the next year. He's a bipartisanship fetishist, of course. On the other hand, he's also quite politically savvy, and knows full well that the House Republican Conference is where bipartisanship goes to die. So, we shall see if his 2023 plans focus on domestic legislation (which would require the aforementioned partisanship) or instead on things like foreign affairs and appointing judges, which the House has little influence over.

The most interesting storyline, however, might well be the question of who delivers the Republican response. Quite often, the job is given to a rising star who might be the party's next presidential nominee. Think Bob Dole (1994 and 1996), Trent Lott (1998), Tim Kaine (2006), Bobby Jindal (2009; not technically a SOTU since it was Barack Obama's first year), Marco Rubio (2013), or Nikki Haley (2016). If that was the plan this year, then the obvious choice would appear to be Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). However, as we noted yesterday, the Governor is not beloved by his fellow Republicans, and so is not likely to have such a plum assignment bestowed upon him. Plus, he's a terrible speaker. Oh, and picking him would infuriate Donald Trump and trigger a mini-civil war in the GOP.

It's also possible that, as part of prostrating himself to become speaker, McCarthy has already bestowed the spot upon one of the nutters in his conference. The only small problem with that is that the decision is customarily made by both party leaders in Congress, and Mitch McConnell is not likely to be enthused about having a raving loon speak for the Republican Party. Normally, the leaders of the two chambers would figure it out, but these two don't get along all that well, and there are really no rules that govern the situation. The first SOTU responses, back in the 1960s, were given by one senator and one representative (specifically, Everett Dirksen and Gerald Ford). Maybe we'll see a return to that model this year.

Whatever happens, this SOTU figures to be a bit more interesting than usual. Which really translates to: "a bit more interesting than watching paint dry." (Z)

White House Is Thrilled about House Oversight Committee

Over the course of U.S. history, there have been about 11,000 people who served in the House of Representatives. You would have to review many years' worth of rosters to find three members less appropriate to serve on the House Oversight Committee than Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). Naturally, they have all been seated on that committee, thanks to the machinations of Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

The job of the Oversight Committee, per its own website:

Our mission statement is to ensure the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the federal government and all its agencies. We provide a check and balance on the role and power of Washington—and a voice to the people it serves.

That's a brand new mission statement, put in place since the Republicans took the majority. The grammar is... shaky, to say the least (for example, the word "statement" should not appear, and the phrase "check and balance on the role and power" is just a mess). In case you are interested, here is the counterpart from last year, when the Democrats were running the show:

The Committee on Oversight and Reform is the main investigative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. It has authority to investigate the subjects within the Committee's legislative jurisdiction as well as "any matter" within the jurisdiction of the other standing House Committees.

We have no complaints about the grammar in this one.

Regardless of whose mission statement you prefer, the job of the Committee is right there in the name: Oversight. And everyone already knows that the House Republican Conference plans to interpret that as "let's spend lots of time and energy looking for skeletons in the closet of Joe Biden and other Democrats." Undoubtedly, Boebert, Gosar and Greene can't wait to get started.

The White House, meanwhile, is pleased at punch at the fact that the Three Nutskateers have been appointed to the Committee. At first glance, that might seem counterintuitive, but it actually makes all the sense in the world. Since House Republicans are going to investigate Joe Biden six ways to Sunday anyhow, often for things based more in fantasy than in reality, the best (and maybe only) response is to frame the investigations as partisan nonsense propagated by the nuttiest elements of the MAGA crowd. And framing things in that way is all the easier if the Committee is populated by, well, the nuttiest elements of the MAGA crowd.

House Democrats are not as certain that this will work to the Party's advantage, since Republicans have had pretty good luck in the past couple of decades using the Oversight Committee to muddy the waters for Democrats (e.g., Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton and the e-mails, Barack Obama and Solyndra, etc.). Of course, it could be that both assessments are correct. That is to say, House Democrats might be right that a weaponized Oversight Committee is going to do some damage to Biden, while the White House might be right that the presence of people like Boebert, Gosar and Greene will serve to significantly reduce that damage. (Z)

Has Santos' Achilles' Heel Been Exposed?

As long as we are on the subject of committee assignments, Rep. "George Santos" (R-NY) has now received his. He'll be on the Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Those are undoubtedly fitting choices for the man who built McDonalds from a small hamburger stand into a global empire and then served a 5-year mission as captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise.

Forgive the apparent non sequitur, but we could not help but be reminded of Andrew Jackson when we read this news. When asked for his opinion about then-rising-Democratic-star James Buchanan, "Old Hickory" gave a less-than-glowing review. When the questioner observed that Jackson had seen fit to appoint Buchanan as minister to Russia, Jackson explained that Russia was as far away as he could send Buchanan, and where he would therefore do the least damage. "I would have sent him to the North Pole if we had kept a minister there," noted the former president.

In other words, Kevin McCarthy clearly stuck Santos on the committees where he is least likely to embarrass the House Republican Conference. Given that nobody actually knows what the New Yorker's qualifications are, that's as good a standard for choosing as any, we suppose.

Moving along, there is a new story nearly every day involving some new bit of dirt about the Representative that someone has dug up. We have largely been ignoring those because they don't have much significance unless they raise the real possibility of Santos having to leave his seat prematurely, either due to peer pressure or due to criminal exposure. The latest revelation, as chance would have it, may check both boxes.

The newest skeleton from Santos' closet comes courtesy of Patch, which normally aggregates news rather than breaking it. According to their reporting, a Navy veteran named Richard Osthoff was homeless, and so was living on the street with his service dog, Sapphire. Sapphire needed an expensive operation that Osthoff could not afford. However, he was put in touch with Santos (then going by "Anthony Devolder," and Santos offered to help launch a GoFundMe fundraising drive. Osthoff was delighted to be presented with a solution to his problem.

The GoFundMe was a success, in that it did raise the $3,000 needed for the operation. But then things went off the rails, according to Osthoff. He never got the money, and when he tried to contact Santos/Devolder, he got the runaround. Someone withdrew the funds, but whoever it was, it wasn't Osthoff. Sapphire never got her operation, and had to be put down 6 months later. Osthoff had to panhandle to raise the money for euthanasia and cremation, an experience he describes as "one of the most degrading things I ever had to do."

Santos, as you would expect, has denied everything, and described Osthoff's story as "shocking" and "insane." That was probably not the best response. The existence of the GoFundMe campaign can be proven, and Osthoff has text messages and tweets from 2016 (i.e., long before Santos was a politician) that support his narrative. At that time, Santos/Devolder claimed that his organization could not help Sapphire, and that the money was being rerouted to other worthy dogs. If the Representative had stuck with that claim, well, at least it would have been consistent. But now, in addition to having lied about so many other things, he's told two very different versions of this story—the 2016 version and the 2023 version. This does not suggest someone who is telling the truth.

Meanwhile, if Santos was looking to alienate voters, then victimizing a veteran and a dog, and in a manner where the dog ended up dead, was certainly the way to do it. If only he could have worked stealing candy from a baby in there, he'd have the trifecta. Meanwhile, if he helped fundraise for [reason X] and then used that money for [anything but reason X], that is fraud. And it should be fairly easy to investigate; after all, GoFundMe keeps records. The statute of limitations for fraud in New York State is 6 years, so that might have run out in this case, depending on the exact timing of events. But if Santos really did pull this stunt, it's unlikely he limited himself to doing it on just one occasion. (Z)

Trump Angry With Evangelical Leaders

Would Donald Trump have become president in 2020 without the backing of prominent evangelical leaders? One has to assume that the answer is "no." After all, his win was narrow, and at least some of the evangelicals who voted for him must have been willing to do so because their pastors encouraged it, or at least said it was OK.

These days, however, evangelical leaders are not so sure about Trump, and many of them have been staying out of the 2024 contest, or else backing other candidates, most obviously Ron DeSantis. There are many things that Trump is only dimly aware of, but one thing he tracks with laser precision is who is fawning over him and who is not. He's noticed that the evangelicals are hesitant this cycle, and this week he lashed out. Sitting for an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, the former president fumed:

Nobody has ever done more for Right to Life than Donald Trump. I put three Supreme Court justices, who all voted, and they got something that they've been fighting for 64 years, for many, many years. There's great disloyalty in the world of politics and that's a sign of disloyalty.

In Trumpworld, of course, there is no greater sin than disloyalty.

There are two takeaways here, we'd say. Both are fairly obvious, but we'll lay them out anyhow. First, if Trump really does lose some sizable segment of the evangelical vote, he's screwed. That is doubly or triply true if the evangelicals coalesce around some other candidate. And petulantly attacking the evangelical leadership in the media is not going to help win them back. But Trump's emotional maturity is such that he just can't help himself.

The other takeaway is that evangelicals' choice of candidate has very, very little to do with Christianity or with what it says in the Bible. Donald Trump is no more or less Christian now than he was 8 years ago (he's gone from 0.0% Christian to 0.0% Christian). Ron DeSantis is no more Christian than Trump is; anyone who would, for example, use desperate human beings (i.e., migrants) as a tool to hurt their enemies clearly cares little for the lessons of Jesus' ministry. To put it in bumper-sticker form, DeSantis' low regard for Jesús makes clear his low regard for Jesus.

This is hardly the first time it's been made clear that evangelical leaders are concerned only with the vulgar pursuit of power, and that they choose their candidates based on that. There are many groups in American society for which that is true, of course, but at least most of them do not hypocritically pretend otherwise. (Z)

Introducing the Electoral-Vote.com Tracking Poll

Yesterday, we had an item about the newest Morning Consult poll, which shows Donald Trump leading Ron DeSantis by 17 points among Republican voters. Yesterday, Yahoo/YouGov responded with a poll of their own that says that it's much, much closer among Republican primary voters. Specifically, in a field of 8 leading candidates, it's Trump 37%, DeSantis 36%, Mike Pence 5%, Nikki Haley 1%, Glenn Youngkin 0%, Chris Christie 3%, Mike Pompeo 1%, Larry Hogan 1%, and Liz Cheney 2%. And in a head-to-head matchup, it's DeSantis 40% and Trump 39%.

Who knows what the explanation is for the wildly varying results we keep seeing. Undoubtedly, various pollsters are using different screens for which voters they do and do not include. They also clearly have different models of the electorate. This far out, it doesn't tell us too much, except that neither of the leading Republicans is dead in the water, as yet.

This does, however, give us an opportunity to launch something we've been bandying about, namely our presidential tracking poll. The readership of this site is disproportionately educated and politically informed, and we would be mad not to take advantage of that. While this is not scientific, per se, that's less important with a tracking poll, since tracking polls are less oriented toward being predictive, and more oriented toward identifying momentum and change over time.

Here's the plan (subject to revision, as we work out the kinks). We will provide a list of 10 possible Republican candidates, and respondents will rank the first, second, and third most likely to become the 2024 presidential nominee. Same thing for the Democratic candidates. There's also a blank field after each group of 10 to suggest someone who should be on each list but isn't. Each month, the two most popular write-ins will supplant the two lowest vote-getters.

Each month, we will also include a wildcard question on some other subject. This month, it's about most popular media outlets, other months it could be something serious like that or something a bit lighter. We'll run results on or near the first of the month each month, depending on how the calendar breaks down.

If you would care to participate, the first ballot is here. As always, we welcome comments/suggestions. (V & Z)

Jacinda Ardern to Step Down in New Zealand

By all indications, Jacinda Ardern is the best prime minister that New Zealand has had in many moons. But, as is the case in so many countries these days, politics in Kiwi-land have become very divisive, and she is subject to a constant barrage of insults and threats. Further, the PM has given her all while also raising a young child. And so, after 6 years in office, she's decided she doesn't have it in her to continue. Not only will she not stand for reelection in this October's plebiscite, she is going to resign in short order, no later than February 7.

New Zealand is an important ally to the United States, particularly when it comes to intelligence-gathering. Under the terms of the UKUSA Agreement, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K., and the U.S. collect and share signals intelligence. In other words, they monitor the world's airwaves in search of messages by the bad guys. Some of the stuff the UKUSA alliance comes up with is pretty juicy; perhaps even good enough to be pilfered and then squirreled away at Mar-a-Lago.

Although Ardern and Joe Biden reportedly get along well, her departure is not too likely to affect the U.S.-New Zealand relationship too much, especially since she's going to be replaced by a (yet-to-be-determined) member of the same party (Labour). We pass along the news primarily because it's a reminder that politics, particularly in the 21st century, is an absolutely brutal business. That's true worldwide, even for those who play the game well. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Clinton Finally Defeats Trump

Donald Trump has been abusing the judicial system for his entire adult life. And he's been enabled in that by attorneys who are more than willing to take his money to do so. Well, the ones he pays, that is.

For a long time, the former president was pretty good at keeping his lawsuits within the bounds of reason, such that, even if he lost, he didn't suffer any sanctions. However, he's gotten reckless in the last few years. Is that because he's desperate? Because the cheese is slipping off the cracker? Because he needs to pursue a few outrageous torts in order to gin up (and fleece) the base? Who knows?

One of the most ridiculous lawsuits filed by Trump (among a veritable plethora of potential candidates) was the one seeking $70 million from Hillary Clinton and a bunch of other Democrats. The basic claim was that during the 2016 election, Clinton, et al., tried to "weave a false narrative" that Trump was conspiring with the Russians, and that he was badly damaged as a result.

We don't know how far into law school you have to get before you can see this suit is utter nonsense. A week? A day? An hour? The first 5 minutes? To start, during a political campaign, there are incredibly broad protections for saying mean things about one's opponents. It's nearly impossible to be guilty of defamation in that context and, if it is, "She's a criminal and should be locked up" is worse than "He's working with the Russians." Meanwhile, as to the question of damages, well... he won that election. And if his reputation has taken a dive since he became a politician, let's just say that Hillary Clinton is not the 2016 major-party presidential candidate who is responsible for that.

Trump's suit against Clinton was tossed many months ago. However, that wasn't tne end of the bad news, because this week, Judge John Middlebrooks slapped the former president and his lead counsel (Alina Habba) with nearly $1 million in fines. In his decision, he wrote; "We are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose." In other words, it was an easy call for him.

So, Trump shot for +$70 million and he ended up -$1 million, give or take. There's that vaunted The Art of the Deal business skill showing itself. And it couldn't happen to a more worthy abuser of process. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: A Gemma of a Dog

We had a very sad dog item above, so let's finish the week with a happy dog item. Jean Findlay is a lifelong dog owner, with a preference for setters. Please don't judge her too harshly; not everyone has been enlightened as to the fact that the best dogs are hounds, particularly of the dachshund type.

Anyhow, Findlay is now up there in years, having just turned 97. She might still be OK to serve in the U.S. Senate, but she's no longer in a position to care for a dog. Still, recalling some of her former charges, she asked the staff at her adult daycare if they might arrange for a doggie visit in honor of her birthday. So, an appeal addressed to setter owners was put on Facebook, in hopes that said visit might be arranged.

It did not take long to find a willing dog owner. The Facebook request got a response within hours, and the visit took place the next day, with Findlay greeting Irish setter Gemma (8) and her daughter Romie (5). Here is a picture of Findlay with Gemma:

There are more pictures at the link. Findlay was delighted by the visitors, though she did nod off at one point. Which, frankly, just affirms her qualifications to serve as senator.

We always try to make sure that these freudenfreude items have some connection to the blog. We think that having this item as a curative for the Santos item probably clears the bar, all by itself. But if that's not enough, the fellow in the picture (i.e., Gemma's owner) is an E-V.com reader. So, there you go. 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