Trump Legal News: Help!

As reader J.B. in Bend pointed out, there was some logic in Donald Trump letting the Colorado decision, the one kicking him off that state's ballot, go unchallenged. He's not going to win in Colorado anyhow, and forcing the issue risked a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that could end his presidential campaign. Plus, with the decision in place, Trump could (yet again) play the role of martyr.

However, once Maine followed Colorado's lead, things got real, as actual EVs will be in play in the general election. It's only one EV in this case, thanks to Maine's system of awarding (some) EVs based on winning congressional districts, but Trump needs every EV he can get. So, he has formally filed an appeal of the decision made by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) to the Maine Supreme Court.

It is a typical Trump appeal, which is to say, it's not very good. The 11-page document, which you can read at the link if you wish, falls victim to the same two problems as most Trump legal filings. First, it takes an "everything and the kitchen sink" approach, rather than focusing in on one or two or three substantive concerns. This gives the general feel that Team Trump is just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Second, the brief makes "arguments" that are really just Trump talking points, like "The Secretary should have recused herself due to her bias against President Trump" and "The Secretary abused her discretion by considering and relying upon untrustworthy evidence."

Of course, this remains a sideshow; it's just not possible for the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid dealing with this issue. However, the filing does show that Trump is nervous about this little problem. That is consistent with reporting from Trump whisperer Maggie Haberman.

Meanwhile, if you are looking for more Trump reading material, yesterday he also posted a 32-page document about the 2020 election to his failing boutique social media platform. He prefaced the document with this:

I am pleased to share a Report that is fully verified, most of the information was gotten from Government Sources, Tapes, and other Public Records, and compiled by the most highly qualified Election Experts in the Country. These numbers are determinative and, in all cases, are hundreds of thousands of Votes per Swing State more than I needed to WIN that State. If the Republican Senate does not step forward and address this ATROCITY, it will happen again, and be virtually impossible for Republicans to WIN ELECTIONS in the future...

Remember, I was not campaigning—The 2020 Election was LONG OVER. What I was doing is bringing to light the fact that the Election was, without question, Rigged and Stolen. As President, and Commander-in-Chief, it was my duty to do so! If I did not do this, I would have been in violation of my Oath of Office, and the Take Care Clause, which requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Therefore I am entitled to Total Immunity, because that is exactly what I was doing, Taking Care of our Country, and Guarding it from Rigged and Stolen Elections. Democrats are willing to play a far different game. They are willing to Cheat at levels never seen before.

We've read this "Truth" over several times, and we really don't understand most of it. He's clearly asserting that what he did on 1/6 was lawful, but beyond that... huh? For example, he wants the Republican Senate to "step forward and address this ATROCITY." But, of course, the Senate cannot act unilaterally, and besides, it's not controlled by the Republicans. Maybe he meant the Republican House, although the House can't act unilaterally, either.

Readers have surely heard the now-old line that "Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man." Well, that pretty well describes the "report," which has lots of information and lots of footnotes and could pass for a serious attempt at analysis... if one does not know what actual analysis looks like. The document is not signed, first of all, which is kind of a problem. Nobody is putting their reputation on the line here, and the "author" might well have been ChatGPT. Beyond that, the document is a tissue of falsehoods, misrepresentations and verbal trickery. To take one example, the document notes:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled drop boxes are illegal under Wisconsin law, in a 4-3 decision issued in July 2022.

This is a true statement. Thereafter, there is a long list of statements that speak to how many ballots were cast by drop box in the presidential election. These statements, as far as we know, are also true. Trump, or whoever put the document together on his behalf, is counting on people not to notice that an election conducted in 2020 is, of course, not bound by legal rulings that were about 2 years in the future. We also suspect that the Wisconsin decision will be overturned, now that Janet Protasiewicz is on the court.

In any case, we make note of it because the man is still re-litigating the 2020 election. Presumably he'll be doing so to his dying day. The one thing that might make him stop relitigating 2020 is if he loses in 2024 and decides that relitigating 2024 seems to get his supporters more excited. And while these new "findings" will give Fox and OAN something to talk about for a week, we can't imagine that anyone beyond the base will take them the slightest bit seriously. Certainly, none of the judges tasked with overseeing Trump's numerous trials will. (Z)

It Was Only a Matter of Time...

Donald Trump isn't the only person running for office in 2024 who may have engaged in insurrection against the U.S. government. The former president is the highest-profile person, of course, and his candidacy paperwork is generally filed more quickly than other office-seekers. But there are going to be Fourteenth Amendment lawsuits targeting other politicians.

One such lawsuit was filed yesterday in Pennsylvania. Its target is Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), and it was filed by former House candidate Gene Stilp. It's pretty much a cut-and-paste copy of the complaints filed against Donald Trump in Colorado and Maine. Perry, unlike Trump, has not (yet) been charged with any crime. On the other hand, there is no question that the Representative was part of the inner circle responsible for the 1/6 plotting.

The decision lies with Pennsylvania Secretary of State Al Schmidt, who is a Republican, but was tapped for his current job by Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) for standing up to election shenanigans. So, he'll make a fair decision, whatever it may be. That said, this is yet another case that makes it impossible for the Supreme Court to take a pass on this particular issue. (Z)

Menendez: "I Am Not a Crook." Rinse and Repeat

It would seem that Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) has a thing for five-letter Middle Eastern countries. Everyone already knows he's in hot water for allegedly being in bed with the government of Egypt. And yesterday, the Feds filed a superseding indictment in which the Senator is also charged with peddling influence to the nation of Qatar.

According to the indictment, Menendez pulled a whole bunch of strings on behalf of the Qatari government, a couple of Qatari investors, and a New Jersey businessman who has close connections with Qatar. In exchange, the Senator received tickets for premium seats at Grand Prix races, $25,000 wristwatches and Menendez's very favorite, gold bars.

As a sidebar... $25,000 wristwatches? Seriously? First of all, how many people even wear traditional wristwatches anymore? Second, as a byproduct of that, how many people can actually tell the difference between a $100 watch and a $25,000 watch? Is it really worth the risk to impress one person in a hundred? Maybe one in 200? Third, if a person CAN tell the difference, doesn't it raise red flags that someone on a $174,000 salary can afford a $25,000 watch? One of the things that helped bring down the notorious urban boss William Magear Tweed was that he always wore a $150,000 diamond stickpin. Pretty fancy jewelry for a man with a working-class background and a salary of $1,500 a year. As an aside, some senators were independently wealthy before being elected to the Senate (e.g., Mark Warner, D-VA, and Ron Johnson, R-WI), but Menendez is not in that group.

Menendez, as you can guess, insists that he's innocent, and that this is all nonsense. And, of course, everyone gets their day in court. However, we will point out two things. The first is that the Feds don't go after someone (even an average Joe, much less a Senator Bob) unless they think they have the defendant dead to rights. The second is that Menendez did not report all of these "legitimate" race tickets, wristwatches and gold bars on his disclosure forms. Must have slipped his mind. In any event, we look forward to the next superseding indictment, in which it's alleged he's been taking bribes from Yemen. Or maybe Syria. (Z)

Bill Johnson Will Head for the Hills More Quickly Than Expected

Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) had already announced that he was leaving Congress to take over the leadership of Youngstown State University. However, he left his date of departure vague, suggesting it would probably be March 15. Not so much, as it turns out. Yesterday, he announced that he's thought about it, and prayed about it, and concluded that he is going to vacate his seat on January 21.

This news is not going to make Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) happy. Now, he gets to navigate the upcoming budget negotiations with room for only two defections, as the House will be 219-213 once Johnson goes. And Johnson has said he's going to spend a lot of time on campus in the next 2 weeks getting to know various constituencies. So, Johnson's margin may already de facto be 219-213. We'll see if he can channel his inner Pelosi or his inner Clay. (Z)

CNN Debate Will be a One-on-One Affair

Yesterday, CNN announced the details for the last debate to be held before people start casting ballots. It will be on Wednesday, January 10, at Drake University in Iowa with a start time of 9:00 p.m. ET. The moderators will be CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.

Three people cleared the somewhat high bar for qualifying (10% in three reputable national/Iowa polls): Donald Trump, Nikki Haley and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). Trump, of course, will not attend, and has already said he will do a Fox town hall at the same time the debate is taking place. That means the guy whose brand is "tough," "macho," and "manly" will trade a situation where he might actually face some challenging questions for one where Bret Baier will feed him a steady diet of softballs. Hm... the definitions of "tough," "macho," and "manly" that appear in our dictionary must be out of date.

Vivek Ramaswamy, who joins Chris Christie in being cut from the debate stage, promptly announced that he is dropping out of the debate. Hm... "dropping out." We do not think that phrase means what you think it means, Vivek. In any case, his absence is pleasing news to anyone who plans to watch the debate. Meanwhile, he's not spending money anymore and he no longer will have access to a national TV audience. How much longer is he going to pretend he's running for president? (Z)

Gay Resigns

The writing has been on the wall for at least a week, and yesterday, Harvard president Claudine Gay bowed to reality and resigned her position. She served just 6 months, the shortest tenure in the almost-400-year history of the institution.

There's really no question Gay had to go. Her clumsy answers about antisemitism were problematic, but survivable, since there was no ill intent. However, the numerous revelations about her history of plagiarism? How can a professor at Harvard lecture their students about the evils of plagiarism, how can they hold plagiarists accountable, if the president of the university does not play by the same rules? Once the extent of Gay's misdeeds was clear, she had to go.

Truth be told, she really shouldn't have been hired in the first place. To start, the tools that were used to identify her plagiarism in the last two weeks were available 6 months ago. For the hiring committee not to vet the document borders on malpractice. Further, Gay's publication record was shockingly scant for any Harvard faculty member, much less the president of the institution. She has just 17 items on her CV, of which a dozen are the sort that would be considered meaningful by a hiring committee. None of them are books; in general, in the social sciences, completion of the first book is a requisite for tenure. Just for comparison, the chair of Gay's former department, who was also her underling for 6 months, is David Carpenter. He has 194 publications, including four books.

In short, as academics, we see nothing wrong with Gay being shown the door. That said, it is also the case that she was the victim of a witch hunt. It was instigated, most significantly, by Wall Street billionaire financier Bill Ackman. He is generally angry about antisemitism on the nation's campuses; he's also angry about how Harvard used some of the money he donated, and he's not happy about how MIT treated his wife, Neri Oxman, who used to be a professor there. So, he decided to use his money and his influence to strike back.

Ackman found a willing toady, of course, in Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY). She's thrilled to have any opportunity to "own the libs." She also likes it when people make big-time donations to her super PAC, which Ackman can do without batting an eyelash. So, the Representative set up a trap that quickly brought down Penn president Liz Magill. When the lousy antisemitism answers were not enough to vanquish Gay, Stefanik turned her focus to the plagiarism. MIT's Sally Kornbluth better hope there are no skeletons to be discovered in her closet. She's got a long and distinguished record of scholarship, so she's not likely someone to get popped for plagiarism. But maybe she once went to a communist meeting or something.

There are, as we see it, two takeaways here. The first is that people who dislike institutions of higher education—most of them right-wingers—now have clear targets. It's pretty hard to take on mighty Harvard or mighty Yale, but if the leader of the school has liabilities, they can be brought down, following a public flogging. The leaders of the nation's other top schools better hope they don't have any dirty secrets waiting to be uncovered.

The second takeaway is that Stefanik is really showing her true colors. More and more, she reminds us of a hybrid between Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ron DeSantis. She's a chameleon like Graham, willing to embrace whatever opinion or political position seems expedient at the time. But she's cruel like DeSantis, willing to do harm to people or institutions as it suits her needs. No wonder she's a rising star in MAGA world, we suppose. (Z)

E-V Senate Tracking Poll, 2024 Edition

As we explained yesterday, we're going to run two tracking polls each month, one presidential and one senatorial. Each will have three questions: the unchanging question about the presidential race/the Senate races, a serious sub-question about the presidential race/the Senate races, and a lighter question about the presidential race/the Senate races.

Here are the questions for the January edition of the Senate poll:

1. Rate the three states whose Senate seats are most likely to flip to the other party; 1-2-3, with 1 being most likely. (Note that we are going to exclude West Virginia; that one's a given.)
2. Will Kyrsten Sinema run for reelection, or will she drop out?
3. Who is the greatest senator in U.S. history, and why?

The Senate survey is here.

The presidential survey is here. In both cases, we provide options for the first two questions, but for the third, you're on your own. Again, feel free to skip that one, if you're not into it.

Also, several readers wrote in to say that we weren't giving enough time to answer the various questions we asked yesterday, so we're going to extend things a bit. Here, as a reminder, are the questions:

1. What was the worst thing that happened in 2023? (And why?) Send your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "Worst of 2023."
   
   
2. What was the best thing that happened in 2023? (And why?) Send your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "Best of 2023."
   
   
3. Who was the most deplorable person of 2023? (And why?) Send your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "Most Deplorable." And note that we are granting Donald Trump "Immortal Deplorable" status, so he is not a valid response.
   
   
4. Who was the most admirable person of 2023? (And why?) Send your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "Most Admirable."
   
   
5. What item that we produced last year was, in your view, the strongest? (And why?). Send a link to the item, or a description, along with your feedback to comments@electoral-vote.com with the subject line "Good Job."
   
   
6. What item that we produced last year was, in your view, the weakest? (And why?). Send a link to the item, or a description, along with your feedback to comments@electoral-vote.com with the subject line "Bad Job."
   
   
7. What is your prediction, or are your predictions, for 2024? Send them to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "Predictions."

We've already gotten some very good answers, so this should provide some interesting content, we think. (V & Z)

---

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer on the site, please send it to questions@electoral-vote.com, and include your initials and city of residence. If you have a comment about the site or one of the items therein, please send it to comments@electoral-vote.com and include your initials and city of residence in case we decide to publish it. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at corrections@electoral-vote.com.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger