Senate Republicans Block the Border Bill They Wrote

The bill to provide aid to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan and beef up border security, largely written by Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), was voted down yesterday by Lankford's fellow Republicans. Thanks for the support, guys and gals. The upside of this vote is that Donald Trump is now a happy man. The downside is that he probably won't like the resulting Democratic ads saying that he personally blocked the best chance at improving border security in decades because he wanted a campaign issue, not a solution.

After the vote, Lankford made an angry speech on the Senate floor saying that he was threatened by a "popular commentator" who told him: "If you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year, I will do whatever I can to destroy you." Lankford didn't say who said this to him. Sounds like John Gotti, if not for the fact that he's been dead for 20 years. On the other hand, we do know who said: "This is a very bad bill for his career." That was Donald Trump.

Next up is a different bill that contains the national security aid but not the border funding, which was included at the last minute when Republicans said that they wouldn't vote for the bill without money for increased border security. They got what they asked for and still voted no—because Donald Trump told them to. He owns almost all of them, lock, stock, and barrel. This is essentially the bill the way it was before Republicans demanded it include border security, got what they wanted, and then killed the bill that contained all their requests. Do you have any more questions about why most Americans are so cynical about politics?

Since all of this is about politics now, if Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants to do it, he could later bring up the Lankford-Murphy bill again, but this time only the border part of it. In other words, a pure bill to beef up border security and nothing else. Then to rub it in, he could have the Democrats change the rules to require filibusters to be real old-timey Jimmy Stewart type talking filibusters. Can you imagine the PR hit the Republicans would take if one Republican senator after another stood in the well of the Senate reading the Bible or Shakespeare to block a bill whose sole function was to seal the border? And then the cherry on top of the sundae would be for Schumer to cave after a week and say the border bill was dead on account of the Republican filibuster. How would that play with voters for whom sealing the border is issue #1?

Would such a bill pass? Maybe and maybe not. The Republican caucus is in total chaos. Former presidential wannabe Tim Scott (R-SC) said he would oppose a foreign aid-only bill because "we should first secure our southern border" (i.e., the bill the Republicans had just killed). Maybe Biden's original bill could (barely) make it through the Senate but then it would hit a brick wall in the House since Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) opposes it. But given how small his majority is and the fact that some Republican members want to support Israel, he could be threatened with a motion to vacate the chair. Anything could happen now.

Yesterday, Schumer said: "Republicans have said they can't pass Ukraine without border. Now they say they can't pass Ukraine with border. Today, I'm giving them a choice. I urge Republicans to take yes for an answer." (V)

Biden Will Veto a Stand-Alone Bill Providing Aid Only to Israel

If the Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan/border bill is truly dead and has no chance of getting 60 votes in the Senate, then the next step in this drama will be Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) trying to get a bill that funds only Israel through the House. He failed once already, but may try again. If he manages it the second time, then it has to pass the Senate. It might not even be brought up for a vote, because Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants to keep the pressure on concerning Ukraine, Taiwan, and the border. But now, even if Schumer brings the bill up for a vote and it passes (which it won't if all the Democrats vote against it), it still won't become law, because Joe Biden has now said he will veto a stand-alone Israel bill if it makes it to his desk.

Biden has made it clear that as a bare minimum, he wants aid for Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. If a bill with that aid but no border funding comes to him, he would probably sign it, since that is what he asked for in the first place. The border funding is something the Republicans demanded as the price for the foreign aid. That wasn't his original plan. The Republicans saw the border funding as a poison pill that would keep the Democrats from supporting the bill. They never counted on Biden angering the Latinos in his party by swallowing the poison pill.

At this point it is hard to imagine any scenario the Republicans would agree to, simply because Donald Trump doesn't want Biden to score a win. Maybe the Democrats need to use child psychology on him. They could take the Lankford-Murphy bill and add a section exempting anyone making over $50 million a year from paying federal income tax, arguing that job creators need to be unleashed (even though there are jobs aplenty now). Trump would still order the bill killed, but the Republican megadonors would be mighty angry with him and the congressional Republicans. They might decide to withhold their campaign contributions this year, which would be a win for the Democrats. (V)

Could the Turtle Become Extinct?

Turtles are not generally known for their ability to herd cats, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been pretty good at it for some 15+ years. That era could now be approaching an end. The cats are now in open rebellion against him. The reason is that the carefully crafted Lankford-Murphy border bill, which McConnell supports and Donald Trump opposes, has split the Senate Republican Conference. De facto, that divides the caucus into the McConnell sub-caucus and the Trump sub-caucus. The Trump side now even has a leader as the #3 Republican senator, John Barrasso (R-WY), came out against the border bill, one of the reasons it went down to defeat. Senate Republicans who actually want a border solution (as well as aid to the three countries) are scared witless to cross Trump. He is as close as you get to being a dictator while still technically a private citizen. Even Barrasso, who as the #3 Republican in the Senate has far more actual power than Trump does, feels he has to bow to Trump.

Another powerful Republican who opposed the bill is Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), the chairman of the NRSC. He said: "I can't support a bill that doesn't secure the border, provides taxpayer-funded lawyers to illegal immigrants and gives billions to radical open borders groups. I'm a no." Lankford, who still supports his own bill, replied: "You've got to be able to actually have a moment that you can actually solve problems." Of course, Lankford is ignoring the fact that Trump and his puppets do not want to solve the problem.

McConnell's term in the Senate ends on Jan. 3, 2027, when he will be almost 85. He probably won't stand for reelection in 2026, partly on account of various health issues he has had, including a triple bypass, concussions, and possible TIAs. But he has to run for reelection as head of the Republican caucus on Jan. 3, 2025, no matter which party controls the Senate. He has been challenged before, but now that he is butting heads with a substantial fraction of his caucus, he will be in for a giant battle in January. If Trump is in the White House and Republicans have a Senate majority, no matter how small, he is certainly not going to go gentle into that good night and will fight tooth and nail to keep his leadership position for one last hurrah.

If Trump wins the presidency and the Democrats win the House (the latter of which is probably a better than 50-50 bet), then Trump will never get a bill as good as this one. In fact, any bill written by Democrats in either chamber will contain enough poison pills to kill a whole herd of elephants, for example, granting full citizenship to all the Dreamers who have been in the country for 10 years. Trump may or may not know this, but McConnell certainly does and he wants to get something through now, while he has the chance. But again, Trump is not interested in sealing the leaky border. He is interested in winning the election so he can pardon himself. McConnell, oddly enough for him, actually wants to do the right thing for the country. What's wrong with this picture? (V)

Some Takeaways from the Appeals Court's Decision

Yesterday we ran a letter about the "immunity" decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. from a reader in Los Angeles, A.R., who is a lawyer. That summarized the legal aspects very well. But there are also political aspects. The Washington Post's Aaron Blake lists four of them, as follows.

• The decision was full-throated: The decision, signed by both Democratic appointees and the Republican appointee (who probably wrote most of it) was completely and totally unambiguous. Former presidents are not immune to criminal prosecution for acts they did while in office. They didn't address the question of whether sitting presidents can be prosecuted. There is currently a DoJ policy not to do that, but a future attorney general could scrap that policy at any time. The decision left no wiggle room at all. That means Trump can't say: "Well, the Democratic judges were out to get me but the Republican judges think I am innocent." The ruling said there was no justification whatsoever for the claim that former presidents can't be prosecuted. None.
  
  
• The judges quoted his own lawyers: Trump's own impeachment lawyers said that he could be criminally prosecuted even if he was impeached and acquitted by the Senate. One of them even said that the criminal courts were actually the more appropriate venue. When Trump's own side is saying things like this, it really strikes down the "witch hunt" argument.
  
  
• It will now be harder to delay: The founding parents wanted to build a judicial system in which the issue in court cases was the guilt or innocence of the accused. They never considered the possibility that an accused person didn't care about the verdict, but just wanted to keep delaying the trial until the other side was worn out. And they certainly never considered the current situation of a presidential candidate trying to delay a trial so he could be elected president and then throw the case out or pardon himself. The fact that the judges gave Trump until Feb. 12 to appeal to the Supreme Court hits Trump hard. He can't throw in a couple of months delay now by asking for an en banc ruling. SCOTUS will now likely either take up the case quickly or reject it. It seems unlikely, given the magnitude of the case, that they will take the case, schedule oral arguments for October, then render a decision in June 2025. Chief Justice John Roberts knows how much blowback he would get for that and it would destroy what is left of the reputation of the Roberts Court. He doesn't want that. So Trump's political strategy of delaying all the cases until after the election probably won't work. Also, the appeals court decision is so watertight that it seems very, very unlikely that the Supremes will reverse it.
  
  
• Implications for a second Trump term: If Trump is put on notice that acts he undertakes as president could lead to indictment and conviction after he leaves the Oval Office, it might constrain his behavior as president considerably. If he knows that he will get a "Get-out-of-Jail-free" card when he leaves the White House, he might intentionally break the law as president by ordering political opponents jailed or killed, etc., especially if the Republicans have enough Senate seats to prevent an impeachment from leading to a conviction. But if he knows that there is no such card and he can later be put in prison for things he does as president, it could definitely crimp his style.
  

Of course, these things hold only if the Supreme Court sustains the appeals court's ruling. If they reverse it, all bets are off.

For what it is worth, Ty Cobb (Trump's former lawyer, not the dead baseball player) said: "The immunity case should be a 9-0 case on the Supreme Court. It is very clear that the president doesn't have immunity from criminal prosecution. You are weighing an argument that there is no precedent for, and is found nowhere in the Constitution." (V)

Poll: Americans Want a Verdict on Trump's Insurrection Case before the Election

A new CNN/SSRS poll shows that Americans want to know whether Donald Trump is a criminal before they vote. Among American adults, 48% definitely want a verdict before the election and another 16% would prefer a verdict before the election. Only 11% want the trial postponed until after the election. However, the partisan breakdown is very skewed, with 72% of Democrats, 52% of independents, and 20% of Republicans saying it is essential to have a verdict before the election. Also, among college graduates, 59% want a verdict before the election but among non-college Americans, only 42% want a verdict before the election. These results correlate strongly with partisanship, although not entirely so, such that there must really be people out there who would otherwise vote for Trump, but for a conviction.

Another question asked about Trump's efforts to remain president after the 2020 election. Here 45% said that he acted illegally, 32% said he acted unethically, but not illegally, and 23% said he did nothing wrong. Yet another question related to Schedule F, which Trump wants to use to fire tens of thousands of protected civil service workers and give their jobs to his supporters. Here 34% favored his plan and 66% opposed it.

Perhaps the most striking question and answer is the one that asked whether, once the election results are certified, the loser has an obligation to accept the results. Here, 86% said yes and 13% said no. This means that one American in 8 fundamentally does not accept democracy. We suppose it could be worse, but that is still a lot. (V)

The 14th Amendment Will Rise Again--Today

As noted above, voters want Donald Trump's legal issues adjudicated before the election. The four criminal cases against Trump aren't the only ones out there. There is also the small matter of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Trump is not eligible to be president on account of that pesky 14th Amendment. Trump didn't take that well and asked the Supreme Court to put Colorado in its place. The battle on that will happen today, as the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the case this morning.

This will be the first time the Court has been asked to explain what exactly Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment means. The hearing will last 80 minutes. Trump's team will get 40 minutes, the plaintiffs will get 30 minutes, and Colorado's solicitor general will get 10 minutes. The lead plaintiff is a 91-year-old Colorado woman, Norma Anderson, a Republican who was formerly majority leader of the state Senate. She says that she sued to save democracy.

There are many ways the Court could worm its way out of an uncomfortable case. First, it could say that the president is not an "officer" of the United States (the clause applies only to "officers.") Second, it could rule that the Jan. 6 coup attempt was not an "insurrection" in the sense of the 14th Amendment. Third, it could state that Trump did not "engage" in the insurrection, if there was one, because he didn't go to the Capitol himself (although according to some reports, he tried to). Fourth, it could punt and say the clause is not self-enforcing and requires Congress to pass a law defining "officer," "insurrection," and "engage." Fifth, it could say that someone kicking Trump off the ballot violates his right to free speech under the First Amendment. Sixth, it could decide that the 14th Amendment applies only to Confederate officers. There are lots of ways to weasel out of this unpleasant situation and no doubt some of the justices are trying to find the most convincing one. (V)

Marianne Williamson Is Out

Another presidential "candidate" bit the dust yesterday, as Marianne Williamson announced that she is suspending her campaign. For those who noticed that Saturn is in retrograde, Venus is rising, and the moon is in the fourth house, this news will come as no surprise. You could also look at Williamson's abysmal results in the three primaries so far, and know the end was nigh, but that's kind of the boring way, isn't it?

What on earth was the point of all this? We presume that Williamson expected a repeat of 2020, where she got some attention (and presumably sold some books) by virtue of making a couple of debate stages. She apparently did not realize that the dynamics are rather different when the nominee is a done deal before the primaries even start. As a consequence of that, the only debate stage Williamson made was a local debate with Rep. Dean Phillips (DFL-MN) in New Hampshire. We are a politics-centered site, and even we didn't cover it. That should give you a pretty good sense of how many books she sold that night.

And speaking of Phillips, the ball is now in your court, Mr. Representative. Perhaps you should take a close look at what's going on with Uranus these days. (Z)

Democrats and Republicans Are Worried about Democracy--but for Different Reasons

Only 28% of Americans have faith that democracy is working, according to a December Gallup poll. And earlier polls have had similar results. An August 2023 Morning Consult poll showed that 82% were worried about democracy. In other words, neither Democrats nor Republicans have a lot of faith in American democracy. Hey, a rare bipartisan agreement! However they completely disagree on what the problem is and what the solution is.

Among Democrats, 87% are worried about a rerun of Jan. 6, 2021, with 94% worried about Republican members of Congress helping out next time around. They are also worried about what a second Trump term would do to democracy, with 87% believing that he would weaken it. Trump's remark that he would be a dictator for only one day doesn't make them feel warm and fuzzy. Also, 82% of Democrats said that Trump is unfit to be president.

Experts on authoritarianism agree. Political science professor Susan Stokes of the University of Chicago, an expert on comparing democracies, said: "The former president's commitment to a kind of strongman style of politics, and a kind of rhetoric of politics of retribution—I think it's all very, very dangerous. We've seen this in other countries."

However, Republicans have a completely different take on democracy. Only 17% of them are satisfied (vs. 38% of Democrats). Given that two-thirds of them think that Trump won (because he says so), this result is hardly surprising. Also, only 14% of Republicans think Trump has any responsibility for the Jan. 6 coup attempt. On the other hand, 84% think the decisions in Maine and Colorado to keep Trump off the ballot are politically motivated. Trump's statements like "radical left thugs that live like vermin need to be rooted out" increased his support. His supporters want to hear things like that. Some of Trump's supporters are aware of the damage he could do to democracy, but they think the Democrats are worse (the lefties are vermin, after all). In fact, one of Trump's strategies is to paint Biden as an authoritarian, thus blunting Biden's remarks that Trump is an authoritarian. See, both sides do it. So Democrats are worried about Trump undermining democracy and Republicans are worried about vermin undermining it. (V)

Candidate Quality Revisited

The New York Times is reporting that Rep. Matt "Candidate Quality" Rosendale (R-MT) is going to announce his run for the GOP Senate nomination in Montana this weekend. Whoever gets the nomination will challenge Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT). The other senator from the Big Sky Country, Steve Daines, runs the NRSC and does not want Rosendale to run in the worst way. But there is no legal way to stop him from filing, and he is apparently planning to do it. He has been mulling this race for months and is reportedly now going to jump in.

Daines is fully backing Tim Sheehy, a wealthy businessman who owns an aerial firefighting company. Not only can Sheehy self-fund the race, but he is probably moderate enough to avoid splitting the Republican vote. Rosendale, by contrast, is a fire-breathing dragon who would cause many Republicans to shake their heads "no" and vote for Tester. We know this for a fact because that is what happened in 2018 when Rosendale ran against Tester and lost.

If the report is true and Rosendale announces this weekend, there will be a bitter ideological primary in Montana, pitting Trumpists against non-Trumpists. Daines is scared that Rosendale could win this and then go down in flames in the general election, just like last time.

The primary will test Donald Trump to the hilt. Will he endorse someone (Rosendale) who praises him to the moon, claims the 2020 election was stolen from him, and is everything he might want in a candidate, except he probably can't win? Or will he endorse the moderate Sheehy, who is not a true believer at all? Democrats are hoping that Trump will pick Rosendale, thus propelling him to the nomination, after which they can watch him go down in flames in November, just like last time. (V)

Florida Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Abortion Initiative

Many Florida voters are quite unhappy with Florida's new law banning abortions after 6 weeks. So what did they do? They circulated a petition to enshrine the right to an abortion in the state Constitution. It would bar restrictions on abortion before fetal viability and even allow abortions after that in some cases. It met all the requirements for a ballot initiative, so what did the Republican AG, Ashley Moody, do? She filed a lawsuit asking the state Supreme Court to remove the initiative. She said the initiative would "hoodwink" the voters due to different opinions on the definition of fetal viability.

Yesterday, both sides gave their oral arguments before the Court, where all the members are Republican appointees. Five of them were appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). A number of the justices felt that the language in the initiative and the summary offered to voters is not clear and doesn't make it obvious that the purpose of the initiative is to protect abortion rights. Others said that the legal ramifications were not spelled out clearly. One point that came up several times is that there is no hard number in there for fetal viability, so the initiative is ambiguous because experts disagree on when a fetus is viable. It might have been better if the initiative had simply stated all abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy are legal, but it didn't. The Court gave no indication of when it might make its ruling. (V)

The General Election Now Starts in Swing District NJ-07

NJ-07 is one of the swingiest congressional districts in the country. The PVI is R+1, making it one of only 13 R+1 or D+1 districts in the country. Along with the seven EVEN districts, these are the 20 most competitive districts in the country. Seven districts are represented by Republicans and 13 are represented by Democrats, so Democrats are mostly playing defense. However, NJ-07 is represented by Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ), son of the former governor, and a top Democratic target. The district runs north from Lambertville to Old Dingmans Road and from the Delaware River east to Dover, in Northwest New Jersey. It is the most competitive district in the state and will get a lot of attention from both parties. It might even end up being more expensive than the U.S. Senate race because that merely determines which Democrat gets to sit in the Senate. The House race could flip a seat and potentially the whole chamber.

Four Democrats filed to challenge Kean. It looked like a nasty primary was going to happen. Then two of the four dropped out. Now a third one, Jason Blazakis, has also dropped out. This leaves only one Democrat, Sue Altman, in the race, so there will be no primary to distract her, and Altman and Kean can start going after each other right now. The elimination of a possibly nasty and expensive primary increases the chances that Altman can unseat Kean, especially if there is a blue wave. Here are the general-election candidates.

Altman played college basketball at Columbia University. After graduating, she got two graduate degrees at Oxford. Then she came back home and became a teacher in Hunterdon County. She crossed swords with then-governor Chris Christie over fair funding for New Jersey public school students and protecting teachers. For the past 7 years, she has been the executive director of the Working Families Alliance, a nonprofit fighting corruption in Trenton. Now she is trying her hand at politics for the first time. (V)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up in school, at work, etc., please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share some other way.

---The Votemaster and Zenger