More Legal Trouble for Trump

It's another one of those days, where Donald Trump's legal problems were all over the news (well, except for the right-wing "news" outlets). Let's run down the latest:

• The Iran Document: In the now infamous recording that was released last week, Trump speaks candidly of a plan for invading Iran that was in his possession post-presidency and that he never declassified. CNN is now reporting that no such document has been found among the materials recovered from Mar-a-Lago. At a glance, this seems to be very problematic for Trump, since it suggests that some documents, maybe many, are missing from the cache. Are they missing due to carelessness? Or due to having been passed on to people who should not have them? Any possibility would seem to deepen Trump's exposure.
  
  However, legal experts agree that the missing document isn't all that relevant to the case, unless it is eventually discovered at Mar-a-Lago (or is found to be in the wrong hands). It's entirely possible that Trump made it up. It's even more possible that he misremembered, and that he was offering a clumsy description of a document based on his less-than-perfect memory. And indeed, there is a document in the cache that talks about Iran, it's just not an invasion plan. Anyhow, point is, for the prosecution to use evidence against Trump, it has to have that evidence. And right now, it doesn't.
  
  What special counsel Jack Smith does have, by all accounts, is the tape of Trump talking about the document. And legal experts are also in agreement that the tape is a very, very big problem for the former president. As we have already noted a couple of times, his best remaining defense was that he did not knowingly hold onto classified information because he believed the documents in his possession had been declassified, since he had done the declassifying. As The Bulwark's Philip Rotner explains, that argument was going to be a tough sell, since a haphazard "I declassified by thinking about it/waving my hand/saying "Beetlejuice" three times/sprinkling the documents with pixie dust/paying tribute to Cthulhu" process is not legitimate. But with the tape, it's clear as can be that Trump knew he hadn't declassified the documents and that he wasn't entitled to have or share them.
  
  
• Pool Games: Last October, one of the pools at Mar-a-Lago was drained, and the water ended up in a room that held a bunch of computer servers. Those servers were primarily responsible for storing video footage from the facility's security cameras. It's not clear that any data was lost, but the feds are taking a close look, since deliberate destruction of video footage could be part of an obstruction of justice charge.
  
  
• Washington Meeting: On Monday, three of Trump's lawyers—John Rowley, James Trusty and Lindsey Halligan—were in Washington to meet with Smith. The meeting apparently lasted a couple of hours, and nobody involved said a word after. All that can be said at the moment is that these are the kind of meetings that tend to happen near the end of the investigative process.
  
  
• Trump Gone Wild: Before the Washington meeting, and especially after, Trump went wild on his boutique social media platform, and made numerous references to how unfair it is that he's going to be indicted. Given the proximity of those tweets to the Washington confab, not to mention that Jack Smith's grand jury is about to reconvene, it is quite reasonable to connect the dots and to conclude that the former president is about to be indicted for the Mar-a-Lago documents.

That's the latest, at least for now. It's hard to believe we'll make it through the week without more news on the Trump legal front, since he's got so very many messes he's dealing with.

Incidentally, it turns out it's hard to make the emojis idea work on an ongoing basis, especially since some days will have both good and bad news for Trump. So, we're going to let it go. (Z)

The Freedom Caucus Strikes Back

This headline seems particularly apropos, since the Freedom Caucus (FC) and the leadership of the Galactic Empire in Star Wars have a great deal in common. Not everything, mind you—Darth Vader was able to be redeemed, for example.

Anyhow, there is no question that the FCers are hopping mad about the debt-ceiling deal that has now become law, in part because they got very little out of it, and in part because their next opportunity to hold the economy hostage won't come until 2025 at the earliest. At the same time, it's become clear that none of them currently has the fortitude to file a motion to vacate the chair.

Yesterday, the FC unveiled what is apparently its alternative plan. Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was trying to move a pair of bills that limit the ability of the federal government to regulate gas stoves. The FCers support the legislation; after all, they have great affinity for anything that is full of gas and hot air. However, ten members of the caucus nonetheless banded together to keep the bills from coming to the floor.

McCarthy, by all accounts, was blindsided. This is believable, since he would never have brought the matter up for a vote if he knew what was coming. Bills fail, of course, but the vote yesterday was just on the question of whether or not to consider the bills. Those always succeed, because the majority party always votes "yea," either unanimously or nearly so. Well, not always, obviously, since it didn't happen yesterday. But the last time a speaker failed in this way was more than 20 years ago, back in 2002 (Dennis Hastert, in case you're wondering).

It's not clear what the FC's larger plan here is, or if they even have one. It could be this was a warning shot fired across McCarthy's bow—"Disappoint us again, and you'll rue the day." It could be that the FCers are going to do this multiple times, as prelude to arguing that McCarthy is ineffective and should be booted. It could also be that the FCers are going to do this multiple times, in hopes that McCarthy will fall on his sword and resign.

We will presumably learn in the next few weeks exactly how much trouble there is in paradise. Meanwhile, it's a bit more evidence that all those "Did we underestimate Kevin McCarthy?" thought pieces last week may have been a bit premature. (Z)

LIV Golf, PGA Tour Merge

About a year ago, the sovereign wealth fund of the Saudi royal family expended vast amounts of money in order to establish the LIV Golf Tour as a rival to the PGA Tour (and the DP World Tour, also known as the PGA European Tour). LIV poached several of the PGA's best golfers, as well as a whole bunch of fellows whose better days were behind them, and tried to make a go of it. We wrote a couple of items about it at the time.

It did not take terribly long for the dispute to break down, effectively, along political lines. That is to say, the LIV golfers—and nearly all of that tour's big stars are outspoken Donald Trump supporters—said that they were enjoying the benefits of capitalism and free enterprise, and that the crimes of Saudi Arabia were no worse than those of many dozen other nations. The PGA golfers took, to a greater or lesser extent, a more politically liberal point of view, arguing that Saudi Arabia is indeed one of the worst regimes in the world, and that no amount of money is worth being a part of "sportswashing" that fact. PGA Commissioner Jay Monahan, who had a vested interest in tearing down the LIV Tour, was particularly vocal about the evils of the Saudi regime.

It would seem that Monahan... didn't mean it? Yesterday, in a surprise development that shocked the sporting world, the PGA and LIV announced they would be merging. The secret was well-enough kept that not even the golfers knew this was coming. Exactly why Monahan agreed to this course of action is not yet clear, and may never be. It could be that the PGA's lawyers were worried about losing the various antitrust lawsuits filed by LIV. It could be that the split between the tours wrecked the PGA's bottom line. It could be that the Saudis' money turns out to be green and very spendable. Whatever the case may be, the war between tours is over. "I recognize that people are going to call me a hypocrite," Monahan said after announcing the news. He's certainly right about that.

Neither one of us cares for golf, so we don't care about the sporting implications of this move. And that's not what this site is about, anyhow. We are very interested, on the other hand, in the political and geopolitical implications, even if that's a story that's still unfolding and is still shrouded in some amount of mystery.

Let's start by talking about what is clear. When the Saudis announced their new tour, the general understanding was that their best-case scenario was LIV Golf becoming a secondary, gimmicky alternative to PGA Golf, like the XFL is to the NFL, or the BIG3 league is to the NBA. In truth, it would seem that the plan all along was to force a merger, as happened with the ABA and NBA in basketball, or the AFL and the NFL in football, or the American League and the National League in baseball. Clearly, mission accomplished.

More broadly, it's also clear that the Saudis are trying to insinuate themselves into American culture and politics. They will now have substantial control, as majority investor, over one of the country's more significant sports leagues. Professional golf isn't as significant as the "Big Four" (NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL), but it's in the next tier along with professional tennis, NASCAR, Major League Soccer and a few others.

Of course, the Saudis have also insinuated themselves into American culture and politics by buying favor with at least one prominent political family. Donald Trump has a close relationship with the royals, and yesterday declared that the merger is a "beautiful, glamorous deal." Exactly how close the relationship between Trump and the Saudis is will remain an open question for a while, but maybe one day the full truth will be known. Certainly the former president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is now a fully owned subsidiary of the Saudi royal family.

Those are the things that are clear, or relatively so. The most important thing that is unclear is why the Saudis are working so hard, and spending so much money, to buy themselves a chair at the American table. The widely accepted thesis, at the time that LIV Golf was first established, was that the Saudi regime was trying to deflect attention from its human rights abuses. This is what "sportswashing" refers to.

We never really found this thesis to be compelling. The Saudi royal family is indeed autocratic and is indeed guilty of serious human rights abuses. And what has been their punishment for this? Western nations have lined up around the block to suck at the black gold teat, and to sell weapons to the Saudis. What is the point in sportswashing under those circumstances?

Our best guess is that the Saudis are thinking long-term and, like the Kochs, see that fossil fuels are headed to extinction (no pun intended). The end cannot be avoided, but it can be delayed, especially with skilled lobbying. (Senator Manchin? The sheik will see you now.) The greater the extent to which the Saudis have permeated American culture, particularly through an entity that appeals primarily to conservative, affluent, older people, the easier it will be to steer things in a favorable direction.

Alternatively, the Saudis may be running a variant of the Vlad Putin playbook, and may be trying to sow the seeds of dissent in American society. They are backing the Trumps and, as we've noted, LIV vs. PGA took on "culture wars" overtones. It's hard to envision how a merger would serve this agenda, if this is what the Saudis are going for, but they are pretty shrewd and they have a lot of money to throw around. So, you never know.

Whatever is going on, this story is worth keeping an eye on, since we just don't believe that the only goal of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund is to increase the royal family's wealth. (Z)

What Mike Pence's Presidential "Lane" Looks Like

Yesterday, we wrote about the now-official presidential campaign of Mike Pence, and we were very pessimistic about his chances. Indeed, we wondered what he could possibly be thinking, since he so obviously is not going to become president.

Slate's Ben Mathis-Lilley was wondering, too, and decided to try and take Pence's bid seriously, and sketch out what the path to victory looks like. Here's the executive summary of how Mathis-Lilley has it:

• Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) fails to gain traction and drops out before votes are cast, so as to preserve his 2028 chances.
  
  
• Pence focuses intently in Iowa, and finishes a strong second in the caucuses there.
  
  
• Donald Trump's legal problems get out of control during primary season, ruining his polling vs. Joe Biden, leaving him largely unable to campaign, and allowing Pence to overtake him as the only remaining viable candidate.
  
  
• Joe Biden suffers a stroke or some other setback that leaves voters deeply concerned about his capacity to do the job, but does not drop out.
  
  
• In an election that is historic for its low turnout, Pence does very well with swing voters, based on two arguments: (1) I'm physically fit to be president and Biden isn't, and (2) I took a stand for democracy on Jan. 6, 2021.

What does this thought exercise—considering Pence on his own terms—tell us? It tells us, once again, that Pence is delusional. The odds of any one of these things happening are pretty long. The odds of all of them happening? We're talking lottery-ticket time. And note that it's not just enough that the decks be effectively cleared of all the main opponents (i.e., DeSantis, Trump and Biden). No, they have to be cleared at just the right time. For example, Trump's legal woes would have to overcome him in Q1 of 2024. If it takes until Q2, he'll probably already have the Republican nomination locked up. Similarly, Biden's incapacity would have to come in Q3; anytime before that and the DNC surely wouldn't give him the nod, delegates or no.

And this is basically the same lane that all the non-Trump/DeSantis GOP candidates are occupying. All of the 8-12 other Republican "contenders" have to hope and/or pray that they beat all the other contenders in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, and then that some sort of divine intervention then knocks off the big boys, since they, the second-tier candidates, are unable to do it for themselves.

This is just another way of establishing a basic truth about the 2024 presidential contest: While a game-changing event is certainly possible, it's not likely. And until it happens, there are only three real candidates: Trump, Biden and DeSantis. And, truth be told, even DeSantis might soon drop off the list. At the moment, the Florida Governor is averaging 21.3% in polls. The good news for him is that number is more than Pence, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) combined. The bad news is that it lags Trump's 53.7% by well over 30 points. (Z)

"George Santos" Ordered to Reveal Bond Co-Signers

Rep. "George Santos" (R-NY) has been indicted on charges of wire fraud and money laundering, has been arraigned, and has posted $500,000 bond. He was apparently unable to swing the bond all by himself, and apparently had two co-signers. We say "apparently" because the Representative took steps to hide the identity of his benefactors.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Anne Shields, who quite rightly thinks there is a compelling public interest in knowing to whom a sitting congressman owes a big, big favor, does not believe the secrecy "Santos" wants is apropos. And so, yesterday she ordered that the identity of the co-signers be revealed. The Judge's order, and the two names, remain under seal until Friday in order to give the congressman a chance to appeal. Presumably he will do so.

We mention this news for two reasons. First, it is very clear that the two names would reflect badly on "Santos," one way or another, either making him look silly or shady or something else. That affords an opportunity to speculate as to who it might be. Here are some possibilities that might well embarrass him:

• Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein
• Bert and Ernie
• Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and PGA Commissioner Jay Monahan
• Ziggy Stardust and Sgt. Pepper
• Joe Biden and Jill Biden
• David and Goliath
• Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping
• "Jay Gatsby" and Nick Carraway
• Kim Philby and Robert Hanssen
• The Father and the Son, but NOT the Holy Spirit

It's surely one of these, right? Ok, if you want a real guess, we'll go with any two of these three: John Catsimatidis, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel.

The second reason we bring this up is that "Santos" said yesterday that if he cannot keep the identity of his guarantors secret, he would prefer to forfeit the bond and go to jail rather than reveal their identities. He is truth-challenged, of course, and so he might not really mean it. But if he does, he could end up away from Washington for months on end. This would have the same effect on Speaker Kevin McCarthy's (R-CA) perilous math (see above for more) as expelling "Santos" would. (Z)

Approval Ratings Are a Mystery, Worldwide (Part III)

We'll have some more letters about abortion on Friday. Since we had the LIV Golf item today, however, we thought we would return to the subject of foreign leaders' approval ratings. The general idea is that this might give some insight into domestic approval ratings, and why it's so hard for any president these days to break into the 60s (or to stay in the 50s). We had some assessments of Narendra Modi last week; here are some assessments of other leaders' approval:

A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK: There's no great mystery to U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's terrible approval ratings.

First of all, the Conservative Party has been in power at the national level since 2010. This is a long time for a single party to be in power in a two-party-dominant electoral system. This isn't Sunak's fault, and any prime minister would likely struggle to achieve positive ratings after his party had been in power for 13 years (at least, in a healthy and competitive democracy). It doesn't help the Conservative Party that they're simultaneously bleeding votes in traditional working class 'Red Wall' areas (our equivalent of Upper Midwest Rust Belt states) to Labour and in small-l liberal traditionally Tory but anti-Brexit heartlands to the smaller, centrist Liberal Democrats.

Secondly, the stench of Boris Johnson's period in office and the catastrophic interlude of Liz Truss have both served to undermine the credibility of the Conservative Party. The opposition Labour Party currently enjoys poll leads in the range of 15-19%—which may be down from a frankly incredible peak of a 39% poll lead at the height of the Truss debacle, but which is still more than enough to win the next general election (which is admittedly a bit over a year away) at a canter. Sunak at times seems like he might have made a reasonably competent old-fashioned technocratic Conservative Prime Minister in a "normal" pre-Brexit political landscape, but following Johnson and Truss would have been a challenge for anyone—not that the country has quite forgotten that Sunak was Johnson's Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister), so was himself a senior figure in the former Prime Minister's government.

Finally, while we have to acknowledge that he was dealt a bad political hand, we also have to say that Sunak frequently just doesn't help himself. He came into office promising honesty and integrity, but was also forced to offer second-rate and scandal-tinged Johnson and Truss supporters senior government posts in order to keep his fractious party together, which has made him look weak while also undermining his claims to integrity. He lost Conservative Party Chairman Nadhim Zahawi to tax code breaches and Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab to a bullying scandal, while Home Secretary Suella Braverman—who's in charge of policing and immigration—somehow manages to cling on despite a series of scandals and her recent appearance at a hard right National Conservative event where she proceeded to criticize the failure of the immigration policies she was herself responsible for enforcing. As I write this, Sunak has himself now become wrapped up in an extraordinary attempt to stop the COVID inquiry that his own government initiated from accessing Boris Johnson's COVID-period records, which Johnson has gleefully undermined by handing over the records himself (or at least part of the records; it may shock you to read that Johnson is being slightly frugal with the truth regarding what he's handing over). This very much makes it look like the government is desperately trying to cover something up, and even right-of-center media outlets have been uncharacteristically critical, while the Science Minister openly stated he expects the attempt to fail. As one analysis of the situation recently noted, "It is quite something for a government to challenge via judicial review the use of legal powers exercised by an inquiry it set up, run by a judge it appointed, with terms of reference it drafted."

Under the circumstances, a mere -22 approval rating could be held to represent a minor triumph for Rishi Sunak. He's doing considerably better, after all, than either Johnson (final approval rating of -44) or Liz Truss, whose final approval rating of -70 made her the least-popular U.K. Prime Minister since modern polling began.

R.S. in Bedford, England, UK: "Out of touch" is surely the key to Rishi Sunak's unpopularity. Given he and his wife are reported to be worth over $800 million, it must be hard to be in touch with ordinary people facing 15% food inflation and housing scarcity while public services are falling apart. His political sense is somewhat lacking, as he continued to hold a U.S. green card even when serving as Chancellor (Finance Minister), while his wife continued to hold advantageous non-dom tax status. He also seems to lack workable ideas on how to deal with the issues facing the country. The best that can be said for him is that he is better than his two immediate predecessors—bumbling Boris Johnson and the organizationally-challenged Liz Truss. That said, he is safe until he has to face a General Election—not later than January 2025 but more probably fall 2024.

F.S. in Cologne, Germany: In my opinion, the main reason for the unpopularity of German chancellor Olaf Scholz is a planned law that would lead to a transition to climate-friendly heating. It is planned that every newly installed heating system must be powered by at least 65 percent renewable energy, beginning in 2024. A few exemptions are planned, but it's a tight timetable and many people fear that they can't afford to heat next year. That's probably exaggerated, but the details are complicated, and it's unclear if there's a good solution for everyone. The main proponents of this planned law are the Greens (who are part of the German coalition government), but it's been opposed by the more libertarian FDP (who are also part of the German coalition government). So the government is in disarray. Olaf Scholz, as chancellor, apparently isn't able to settle this dispute in a way that leaves everyone happy, so he seems to be a weak leader, and thus is quite unpopular now.

T.K. in Mannheim, Germany: I would not take it for granted that Olaf Scholz is widely unpopular. Surely, he and his traffic-light coalition, consisting of Social Democrats (red), Greens and Liberals (yellow) are dealing with severe issues these weeks. Also, economic prospects currently are highly unfavorable, which is reflected by polling numbers in general. However, the highly reknown "Politbarometer" poll, run by Forschungsgruppe Wahlen for public TV station ZDF has Scholz being rated fairly neutral by the German electorate. In general, no one of the leading politicians has a positive image, with the exception of Boris Pistorius, who leads the Ministry of Defense. He is a Social Democrat, as is Olaf Scholz.

S.C. in Geneva, Switzerland: Many Swiss can't tell you who the current president is, which is probably why Alain Berset ranks so high in the ratings.

More importantly, Switzerland is governed by consensus. At the national level, it is really a committee of 7 people that runs the country. The 7 are chosen by parliament to represent all factions (currently 2 UDC—right-wing populist; 2 PLR—center-right; 1 CDU—center-center; and 2 SDP—center-left). Each member of the council is responsible for specific function(s) of the federal government, e.g. Foreign Affairs; Justice and Police, etc. Alain Berset is simply the chair of this group this year—the chairmanship rotates annually. The president doesn't have any special powers, but this rotating system provides the country with a single individual to shake hands with visiting dignitaries when needed.

So Mr. Berset's approval is somewhat irrelevant. It's just his turn to be president this year.

I.R. in Zurich, Switzerland: I would like to add my two cents about Alain Berset of Switzerland.

Disclaimer: I'm German-born naturalized Swiss living in Zurich.

The inclusion of Berset's approval rating in a list of "leaders" is, well, probably not disingenuous, but wildly misleading: Switzerland doesn't have a "leader" or a head of state like the other states on the list (and probably most states in the world). Switzerland has a board of 7 "Bundesräte" (i.e., Federal Councilors), whose members are elected by the elected bodies (upper and lower house). Among these 7, one is chair(wo)man for a year, round-robin style. Berset is simply "up" in 2023. While this person is called "President of the Confederation," this is merely a protocol thing, and comes with no additional rights or duties. No Swiss would call Berset their "leader," nor any other councilor.

His approval is entirely based upon his performance as head of the departments he's responsible for. It's entirely possible that on Jan. 1, 2024, the approval of the Swiss president drops, say, 50% in a day, in case the next in line has a dismal personal approval.

Thanks, all! We'll have another round next week, along with the latest numbers from Morning Consult. (Z)

Maybe This Explains Biden's Approval Rating

Actually, as long as we're on the subject of Joe Biden's approval rating, let's take note of the latest Harvard/Harris poll. They asked the question: "From what you know, do you think Joe Biden was involved with his son in an illegal influence peddling scheme while he was Vice President, or do you think that is not the case?"

Take a moment, and guess what percentage said "yes, I think he was." While you consider your answer, we will note that the pollster did not allow respondents to dodge the question, they either had to say "yes" or "no." So, the percentages—20%/80%? 40%/60%? 50%/50%? 70%/30%?—do add up to 100. And now... the finding of the poll was that a staggering 53% think that Biden was involved in illegal influence peddling, while only 47% think he wasn't. Among Republicans, 70% believe that. Among independents, 58% believe that. And even among Democrats, 25% believe that.

The Harvard/Harris poll, for whatever reason, has had a slight rightward lean for several years. And any single poll can be an outlier, of course. That said, it's probable that either a majority, or close to a majority, of Americans think that Biden has behaved corruptly. Clearly, the Republican attacks on the President and his son are landing with voters. And if someone thinks that a president is corrupt, well, it's hard for them to declare that they approve of that president. Add those folks to the people who think Biden isn't lefty enough, and maybe that's how you end up with a president who's pulling about 41% right now, despite a pretty solid track record.

That said, an even greater percentage of Americans think Donald Trump is corrupt, and with considerably better evidence for thinking that way. So, we could well end up with a situation where Biden wins reelection because a sizable number of voters see him as the less bad, less corrupt option between two bad, corrupt options. (Z)

E-V.com Tracking Poll, June 2023, Senate Edition

Last month, we added a second tracking poll to our presidential poll, asking readers to weigh in on the Senate. To start, here are the 10 seats readers think are most likely to flip next November (seats are color-coded based on which party the holder caucuses with):

State	Current Holder	May Rank
West Virginia	Joe Manchin (D)	1
Montana	Jon Tester (D)	2
Ohio	Sherrod Brown (D)	3
Arizona	Kyrsten Sinema (I)	4
Texas	Ted Cruz (R)	5
Florida	Rick Scott (R)	6
Nevada	Jacky Rosen (D)	7
Wisconsin	Tammy Baldwin (D)	8
Pennsylvania	Bob Casey (D)	9
California	Open (Dianne Feinstein, D)	10

We also asked readers to guess how many seats the Democrats would hold once the dust has settled next November. The low guess was 28 (second lowest was 43), the high guess was 60, the average guess was 49.71 and the most common guess was 50.

And the "question of the month" was: "How many days will it take to resolve the debt ceiling crisis?" The low guess there was 1 day, the high guess was 100 days, the average guess was 31.24 days and the most common guess was 31 days. Relative to the launch date of the survey, 31 days works out to June 2. The bill was passed by the Senate on June 1, and was signed into law on June 3. So, the wisdom of the crowd was pretty much on the mark.

The "question of the month" for this month is: Counting from June 7, how many days until Donald Trump is indicted for the Mar-a-Lago documents?

The ballot is here! (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