Trump Legal News: The Trial (Day 14)

The beat goes on. Or maybe it's the beatdown. Here are the big stories from Day 14 of Donald Trump's criminal fraud case:

• We Have a Winner?: The main witness on Thursday was Stormy Daniels, back for a second day of testimony. The defense continued to work hard to portray her as a con artist and extortionist. As we have pointed out, this is actually irrelevant. The question is not whether her story was true or not, it's whether Trump paid her off to keep her quiet, and why he did so. In other words, what is going on here is that Team Trump is trying for some jury nullification, hoping the jury will be guided by their sense of what is right/fair and what is wrong/unfair, and the law be damned. That might just say something about the strength of Trump's legal arguments.
  
  It would appear the strategy backfired. We are not lawyers, and we were not in the courtroom, but Norman Eisen is, and was. He writes that: "The risk when you swing for the fences on cross-examination is that unless you make contact, you very visibly strike out in front of the jurors. From my perspective sitting just 10 feet away from the jury box, that happened repeatedly here." In other words, Trump's lawyers encouraged sympathy for the witness, while also (inadvertently) suggesting to jurors "Hey, we don't really have a case here."
  
  
• No Mistrial...: Trump's legal team once again asked for a mistrial because of the steamy nature of Daniels' testimony. Judge Juan Merchan once again declined.
  
  
• ... And No McDougal: Presumably fearing that they are treading on thin ice with all the sexy talk, the prosecution announced yesterday they will not call Karen McDougal to the stand. So, Daniels is the only Trump paramour the jury will hear from.
  
  
• Keep It Zipped, Donald: No, not that. Trump's mouth. The former president's attorneys asked Merchan to pare back the gag order that is currently constraining their client, and the judge said no way. This says something very interesting about Trump's priorities, we think.
  
  
• The Rolodex: There were three other people who testified on Thursday, besides Daniels. One works for the Trump Organization, one works for a publisher that produced Trump's book and one worked in the Trump White House. The purpose of all three was to attest to Trump's working style, and his tendency to be very hands-on when it came to spending money. The testimony from this trio was pretty bland, excepting that Madeleine Westerhout, who was one of Trump's private secretaries, revealed a bunch of names that were in his rolodex, including a bunch of right-wing media types (Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc.) and a bunch of pro athletes (Serena Williams, Tom Brady, etc.). To us, the big news here is that Trump still uses a rolodex. Does he keep it next to the typewriter and the dictaphone?

There you have it. They'll be back at it today. (Z)

Fallout from Biden's Decision on Israel Commences

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," Harry S. Truman said. Well, after announcing his intention to halt a shipment of bombs to Israel, Joe Biden took plenty of heat yesterday.

Among the criticisms of Biden, there is one that potentially has merit. That criticism is that Biden has been a little vague about exactly where the line is between "unacceptable Israeli action in Rafah" and "acceptable Israeli action in Rafah." Reasonable people can disagree as to whether or not the President should be clearer.

That said, it is abundantly clear that Biden tried six ways to Sunday to get Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to change course, and that Netanyahu was having none of it. So, Biden went public. At the same time, he's keeping things a little flexible, and keeping his options semi-open, in the hopes that diplomacy can eventually produce dividends. This is a pretty common gambit in times of war.

Meanwhile, there are criticisms, coming overwhelmingly from Republicans, that are very hard to take seriously. The most common line of attack is that Biden has betrayed Israel, that it's not America's place to tell other countries how to run their wars, and that the nations of the world can no longer trust the U.S. Here's Senate chameleon Lindsey Graham (R-SC), for example:

Saudi Arabia is watching. Would you as a nation sign a defense agreement with the United States knowing what we have just done to Israel? Is signing on the dotted line with the United States on a mutual defense agreement equivalent with outsourcing your national security to the United States? That is the message you're sending. Israel is being asked to turn the war fighting over to the United States. "Let us plan how to do this, not you." That is a huge mistake.

Number one, I trust Israel more than I trust [Defense Secretary Lloyd] Austin. He still said Afghanistan withdrawal was a good idea. Bottom line, there's a lot at stake here. I think the region and the world is going to second-guess future relationships with us, Mr. President, if you don't change your mind.

Please. If other countries want to fight their wars backed by American guns and money, they give the U.S. a seat at the table. Maybe the U.S. doesn't exercise that privilege, but it has every right to do so. Do we really imagine that the U.S. government was not influencing how the ROK Army conducted business in the Korean War? Or the SVA/ARVN in the Vietnam War? The Contras in Nicaragua? The Mujahideen in Afghanistan? The Baathists in Iraq?

Even more outlandish is the claim being peddled by (mostly) right-wing commentators, that Joe Biden's pause on weapons shipments to Israel is no different than Donald Trump's attempt to extort Ukraine, leading to Trump impeachment #1. Scott Jennings was on CNN yesterday to make this argument, asserting that both actions were "political." Maybe that is broadly true, but Biden was implementing national policy in the manner he presumably deems best for the United States. That it might benefit him politically is only one dimension of the decision, and our guess is that it's not the main one. In any case, this kind of decision-making is a part of being president.

On the other hand, Trump was not trying to implement national policy, and there is no possibility he was concerned about what is best for the United States. He was using resources appropriated by Congress in an effort to extort personal favors from Volodymyr Zelenskyy. There is a bright-red line between Biden's behavior and Trump's behavior, and it is hard to believe that anyone can claim otherwise with a straight face. It's definitely a reminder that you should never, ever take anything that Jennings says seriously.

A third line of attack came from many on the right, most notably Donald Trump (makes sense, because this is his very favorite when it comes to Israel). Speaking to reporters as he entered court for his criminal trial, Trump said: "If any Jewish person voted for Joe Biden, they should be ashamed of themselves." Of course, the great majority of American Jews will not be voting for Trump, and insulting them does not help on that front, so this is presumably signaling for the benefit of his evangelical Christian base.

Meanwhile, several members of Congress, nearly all of them Republican, are trying to move a bill that would force Biden to send arms to Israel whether he wants to or not. Good luck with that. Even if the bill passes, Biden's not going to sign it. Even if a veto is overridden, Biden is going to do what he wants to do, and dare Congress to sue him.

In any case, the cards are very clearly on the table. If Democrats are running the show in 2025, there is at least some possibility that the Palestinian people will be considered in policy-making. If the Republicans are running the show, it's a blank check for the Israeli government. (Z)

Trump Environmental Policy: We're Gonna Need a Bigger... Bottle of Sunscreen

CNN's Zachary Wolf has a piece right now in which he argues, persuasively and with evidence, that the single biggest policy distinction between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is their approach to the environment. Biden, of course, is generally pretty green, and the Inflation Reduction Act marks the single biggest investment in green technology in the nation's history. Trump would not only roll back as much of the Biden program as is humanly possible, he would be a bought-and-paid-for lackey of the petroleum industry, doing their bidding from his first day in office.

How can we say such a provocative thing? We are not the first to say it—that person would be one Donald J. Trump. As first reported by The Washington Post, Trump had a sit-down with key petroleum industry folks at Mar-a-Lago last month, and suggested he would really like to see them donate $1 billion to his campaign. Meanwhile, should he just so happen to be reelected, he would be highly motivated to do things like eliminate federal environmental regulations, open new federal lands to drilling, undermine the trade in electric vehicles, hand out permits for natural liquified gas exports like they are candy, and cut taxes on petroleum producers.

The roughly two dozen oil honchos at the meeting were stunned by Trump's ask ($1 billion is a lot, even for them), and by the baldly transactional nature of the whole thing. Indeed, it wasn't too hard to see this as a request for a big, fat bribe. And really, it was. However, showing his talent yet again for toeing the line without actually crossing it, experts in campaign finance law say that Trump's demand was framed in a way that it's probably legal. Essentially, he took care to set it up such that the $1 billion and all the goodies were not explicitly connected as a quid pro quo.

Thus far, the pitch hasn't had much of an effect; since the meeting, petroleum industry donations to Trump's PACs have totaled about $7 million, which is rather less than $1 billion. Undoubtedly, part of Big Oil's reticence is the possibility that Trump might not win reelection, and that their money would go to waste. Also Biden might be pretty miffed at Big Oil and govern accordingly. But if Trump wins back the White House, that goes away, and there's absolutely no doubt that Trump will deliver and the petroleum industry will pay. (Z)

Electoral-Vote Presidential Tracking Poll, May Edition: Are We in for a Thriller?

We're just shy of 6 months to Election Day, and thought we'd do a bird's-eye view of where the presidential election stands. So, here are the major polling aggregators' averages of national preference polls:

Aggregator	Trump	Biden	Net
FiveThirtyEight	41.3%	40.6%	Trump +0.7%
The Hill	44.6%	44.4%	Trump +0.2%
270toWin	42%	41.2%	Trump +0.8%
The Economist	44%	43%	Trump +1%
RealClearPolling/RealClearPolitics	46.1%	44.9%	Trump +1.2%

There can be no doubt Trump is ahead. And because of the Electoral College, Biden really needs to win the popular vote by at least 3 points. So, he's got some ground to make up, it would seem.

That said, the hill that Biden needs to climb isn't all that steep, especially when 10-20% of voters are not committed to either candidate, as yet. There's also the possibility that the polls are overestimating Trump's support, either due to overcorrecting for the "shy Trump voter" effect, or due to undercorrecting for increased Democratic turnout, due to the abortion issue. There are also the known unknowns, like what will happen with Trump's trials, Trump's VP choice, what will happen with Israel, and what will happen with the economy. And, of course, the unknown unknowns.

Oh, and as we've pointed out a thousand times, a week in politics is a lifetime. That would make 6 months approximately 26 lifetimes. The point here is that Trump is nominally in the lead, but it's far too close a race to know what will happen in November. Which means, if nothing else, we'll have a lot to write about between now and November. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Black Magic

For last week's headline theme, we gave this hint on Friday: "We will tell you there's a touch of evil in the theme." And we gave this hint on Saturday: "We've got one word for you: Rosebud." And now, reader B.R.M. in Aurora, CO, with the solution:

All of the headlines are movies that Orson Welles was involved in:

• Trump Legal News: The Trial (Day 10)—1962 drama film written and directed by Welles
• Trump 2024: The Catch-22 Shuffle—1970 film starring Welles
• Kristi Noem: Dog Shooting Is Now Officially Her Waterloo—1970 film starring Welles
• Ron DeSantis: Moby Dick, Meet Captain Ahab—1956 film starring Welles
• Evan Low: The Man Who Saw Tomorrow—1981 film presented and narrated by Welles, who also hosts some segments
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Butterfly—1982 film starring Welles
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Too Much Johnson—1938 film written and directed by Welles
• This Week in Freudenfreude: A Safe Place—1971 film starring Welles

According to IMDB, he actually appeared in all of these films, albeit briefly in some cases. We wanted to limit it to films he directed, but he didn't do enough to make it work.

Here are the first 30 readers to get it right:

1. M.B. in Albany, NY, who adds: "'Magnificent' clue."
2. G.W. in Avon, CT
3. J.T. in Philadelphia, PA
4. R.D. in Cheshire, CT
5. K.M. in Ypsilanti, MI
6. M.L. in New York, NY
7. M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO
8. D.S. in Layton, UT
9. S.K. in Drexel Hill, PA
10. M.W. in Frederick, MD
11. N.S. in Los Angeles, CA
12. L.D. in Bedford, MA
13. B.R.M. in Aurora
14. J.N. in Zionsville, IN
15. M.V. in Aurora, CO
16. W.M.H.B. in Salamanca, Spain
17. M.R. in Concord, MA
18. D.B. in Glendale CA
19. J.L. in Walnut Creek, CA
20. G.K. in Blue Island, IL
21. E.B. in Avon, IN
22. R.R. in Lancaster, PA
23. D.C. in South Elgin, IL
24. D.M. in Austin, TX
25. R.C. in Des Moines, IA
26. D.S. in Mankato, MN
27. M.P. in Albany, CA
28. J.B. in Waukee, IA
29. J.C. in Trenton, NJ
30. L.W. in Nashville, TN

Black Magic is another Welles film, of course. We would have paid good money to be able to work in that champagne commercial where Welles was too drunk to deliver his lines properly, but there was no way to do it.

As to this week's theme, it includes some of the words to the right of the colon (but not all of them), the Israel headline is not part of the game, and it's in the category Arts & Entertainment. As to a hint, clicking on this link and listening for 10-15 seconds will tell you what you need from THIS item's headline, and will also give you a big clue as to the overall theme.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "May 10 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Nights In White Satin

Many people in Utah do not care for trans people. So, the Utah legislature passed a law that was designed to address "the problem." It's not so easy for the government to impose itself on private businesses and institutions without running afoul of the law, but government-owned spaces are fair game. So, the Utah law made it illegal for people to use a bathroom where the gender is different from the one on their birth certificate, with the penalties also extending to state employees (particularly teachers) who did not enforce this policy with sufficient vigor. And to aid with enforcement of the law, the state created a tip line and a website, so people could tattle on their fellow Utahns. The penalty for a violation is a fine of up to $10,000.

This is, to be blunt, crazy overreach. It's not a secret, to anyone who reads this site regularly, that we don't approve of anti-trans discrimination. And beyond that, turning one's state into a literal police state tears at the fabric of civil society, and rarely, if ever, works out well. After all, the great majority of people don't have the experience to actually judge who is, and who is not, trans.

It has not worked out well in this case. Since the tip line and the website went online, the state auditor's office has gotten more than 10,000 phone calls and more than 5,000 web reports. And how many of them were legitimate? Approximately zero. It's at least possible there's a real one in there somewhere, but sifting through all the fake ones takes so much time and labor that state authorities have yet to find an actionable tip.

This is not the first rodeo of this sort. Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Virginia and other states have tried to set up tip lines/tip websites to allow people to alert state authorities about naughty books, teachers who seem to be teaching critical race theory, clinics offering gender-affirming care, and other things that offend (primarily) evangelical sensibilities. All were flooded with fake calls, and all (or nearly all) had to be taken down. Good, we say. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: (You're My) Soul And Inspiration

There have been a sizable number of House members this term who have quit their seats early. We certainly understand that life happens, sometimes. We also understand that people should not have to work at jobs they don't want to work at. That said, when you are running for a 2-year term, you're making a 2-year promise to the people who invested their votes in you. So, it seems to us that quitting should be an "only if absolutely necessary" choice.

One member who would have every right to step down early is Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-VA), who has been diagnosed with an aggressive (and fatal) form of Parkinson's disease called progressive supranuclear palsy. However, even after the diagnosis, Wexton said she was going to fulfill her commitment and finish her term. Not only that, but she's still trying to move legislation, like a bill to name a post office after one of Wexton's role models, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright. And not only is Wexton still trying to move legislation, she's even taking to the floor of the House to rally support.

That's right, this week, Wexton spoke to her colleagues about the bill she's sponsoring. She can't actually speak well enough to be heard properly anymore, however, so she utilized an app to aid in making the speech. Here is her appearance on the floor, if you care to see for yourself:

Wexton may not have her voice anymore, but she's got courage to burn. And any member who votes against her bill should be embarrassed. One also wonders how certain members, say from Georgia or Florida, can look at Wexton and not be ashamed of themselves. In any case, perhaps Wexton's colleagues can commemorate her last day in the House by naming something in her honor.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

Another poll making clear that Maryland is not in danger for Joe Biden. (Z)

State	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Maryland	56%	35%	May 06	May 08	Emerson Coll.

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

---

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