Trump Legal News: The Trial (Day 16)

This long, strange trip may be nearing its end. Day 16 of the Trump criminal fraud trial is in the books; here are the big storylines:

• Cohen Speaks: As expected, former Donald Trump lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen was the star of the show, and he was a very good witness for the prosecution, according to those far more qualified to judge than we are. For example, Politico described him as "mild-mannered, self-deprecating, just-the-facts-ma'am." The Hill reported that "Cohen appeared careful to not lose his temper, speaking slowly and looking dejected and even anxious on the stand." And CNN's Norm Eisen opines that "I think he exceeded expectations in how he presented to the jury, at least so far."
  
  
• And This Is What He Said: Cohen, of course, testified that he played a key role in executing the payoff to Stormy Daniels. His testimony included 5 hours' worth of details, many of them supported by notes taken contemporaneously by Cohen and then-Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, as well as by a recording of Trump and Cohen discussing the arrangement, made surreptitiously but legally by Cohen on Sept. 6, 2016.
  
  Among the things that Cohen testified to, we tend to think that these three claims are the most important: (1) that Trump said that if the Daniels story came out, "This is a disaster. Total disaster. Women are going to hate me. This is really a disaster. Women will hate me. Guys may think it's cool, but this is going to be a disaster for the campaign"; (2) that Trump said that it would be no big deal if Melania Trump left him, since he would easily find a replacement; and (3) that Cohen tried (unsuccessfully) to use the Yom Kippur holiday as an excuse to delay paying Stormy Daniels, with an eye towards pushing the payment date past the election.
  
  That last thing is pretty damning, because it would be an odd detail to invent out of whole cloth, and it makes clear (as Cohen pointed out) that if Trump was able to hold off Daniels, he was planning to stiff her, as her silence had no value to him after the election. This, in turn, would only be true if he cared about his electoral hopes and not about his wife.
  
  
• Emotional Roller Coaster?: Yet again, Trump's eyes were closed for much of the day. Was he sleeping? Or was he having a hard time listening as he was skewered by a former loyal lieutenant? Only Trump knows. However, once the day's testimony was over, the former president blew his top, ripping into Judge Juan Merchan once again.
  
  
• Pilgrimage: The trial has become something of a must for Trump sycophants who want to be seen supporting their Dear Leader. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) was there last week, and Sens. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) were there yesterday, as was Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY). How Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) hasn't made it yet, given her VP aspirations, we don't know. Eric Trump was there for a second time yesterday, but Melania was once again nowhere to be seen (and presumably she won't be attending). The jury is not supposed to infer anything from her absence, but that doesn't mean they WON'T infer anything, given that Trump's defense boils down to how very much he and his wife love each other.

Defense cross-examination begins today. Eisen believes that on Monday, "the prosecution crossed the barrier of proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Todd Blanche, et al., are going to try to poke as many holes in Cohen's story as possible, in hopes of maybe reversing that. (Z)

Voters Head to the Polls in Maryland, Nebraska and West Virginia

Three more states' voters will be casting their primary ballots today, but there's really only one race anyone is paying attention to. That is the Democratic U.S. Senate primary in Maryland, which will decide which candidate wins the right to face popular former governor Larry Hogan (R) in the general election.

Democratic candidate #1 is Executive of Prince George's County Angela Alsobrooks. Her main advantage is that she is the candidate of the Democratic establishment, and she has been able to utilize that liberally. That is to say, every Alsobrooks speech, rally, etc. includes at least a few high-profile Democrats, some of them from within Maryland, some from without. She's a touch more liberal than the alternative, and is also Black, in a state that has a higher percentage of Black residents (32%) than any save Mississippi, Louisiana and Georgia.

Democratic candidate #2 is Rep. David Trone, who is wealthy by virtue of being co-founder and co-owner of Total Wine & More, a company with $6 billion in annual revenue. So, his main advantage is that he can self-fund. Thus far, on the primary, he has spent at least $51,413,130, as compared to $5,875,228 for Alsobrooks. Those figures are as of April 24; Maryland politics-watchers think that in the home stretch, he has probably turned what was a 9-to-1 advantage into a 10-to-1 advantage.

So, who is going to win? Who knows? Here are all the polls of the race we can find conducted since April 1:

Pollster	Date Range	Alsobrooks	Trone	Net
Concord Public Opinion Partners	May 2-9	39%	34%	Alsobrooks +5%
Emerson College	May 6-8	47%	44%	Alsobrooks +3%
Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group	April 8-10	40%	43%	Trone +3%
OpinionWorks	April 7-10	38%	50%	Trone +12%

What can you say about that? Alsobrooks appears to have some momentum, but that OpinionWorks result has to have her worried. And there are so many undecided voters...

Now, let us imagine you are a Democrat who cares primarily about holding the Senate, and you want the candidate best able to defeat Hogan. Well, you can take your best guess as to which matters more: money, or appealing to Black voters in a state that is nearly one-third Black. But if you want some data, there have also been a handful of polls that test both possible matchups. Here are the last five such polls:

Pollster	Date Range	Alsobrooks vs. Hogan	Trone vs. Hogan
Emerson College	May 6-8	Alsobrooks +10 (48%-38%)	Trone +11 (49%-38%)
PPP	May 6-7	Alsobrooks +9 (46%-37%)	Trone +10 (47%-37%)
OpinionWorks	April 7-10	Hogan +18 (36%-54%)	Hogan +13 (40%-53%)
Goucher College	March 19-24	Hogan +4 (40%-44%)	Hogan +1 (42%-43%)
Braun Research	March 5-12	Hogan +14 (36%-50%)	Hogan +12 (37%-49%)

Well, that's not too helpful, is it? Maybe both of them can beat Hogan, or maybe... neither of them can. Trone has a slight numerical edge, we suppose, but he probably also has greater name recognition by virtue of already holding federal office and his massive outlays. Since the numbers are not especially instructive, we're back to demographics vs. money. Well, unless you think the Democratic muckety mucks know what they're doing, and know which candidate is more likely to win. If so, then recall they are almost universally lined up behind Alsobrooks. (Z)

Uncovered, Part I: Fava Beans and a Nice Chianti

As you may have heard, Donald Trump went on a pretty strange tangent at one of his rallies this weekend, appearing to praise (fictional) serial killer Hannibal Lecter from the movie The Silence of the Lambs (and from the books it is based upon, as well as the various sequels to the movie). Here's what he said:

Has anyone ever seen The Silence of the Lambs? The late, great Hannibal Lecter is a wonderful man. He oftentimes would have a friend for dinner. Remember the last scene? "Excuse me. I'm about to have a friend for dinner." As this poor doctor walked by. "I'm about to have a friend for dinner." But Hannibal Lecter. Congratulations, the late great Hannibal Lecter. We have people who are being released into our country that we don't want in our country, and they're coming in totally unchecked, totally unvetted.

Given the age of Trump's supporters, their general embrace of men who are strong/violent, and the fact that the film won the Academy Award for Best Picture back in 1992, the odds are pretty good his audience knows the movie. (Incidentally, for those who like their Academy Awards trivia, it's the only horror film to win Best Picture, and is the earliest-released relative to the year it won—the release date was February 14, 1991.)

Yesterday, The Bulwark weighed in on the story; their angle was taking The New York Times to task for not covering the story. The site's Jonathan V. Last writes:

Surely this is newsworthy, because it suggests that Donald Trump is either suffering from aphasia or is non compos mentis. And at the risk of belaboring the point: This man could well become president.

Last included a screenshot of the Times' front page, sans Lecter story, and laments that the paper did not get to the story on Monday's front page, either.

To start, the Times actually did cover the story on Monday, they just didn't see fit to put it on Page 1. Beyond that, however, it was also our instinct not to bother with the story. We thought we would explain why.

A part of our non-coverage is that, taken out of context, this quote sounds particularly nonsensical. But there are two things to know if you want to understand what Trump was going for. First, this was part of a lengthy harangue on how those horrible brown immigrants are invading the United States. In this specific case, the former president was referring to a favorite "fact" of his that Venezuela has let all of its most dangerous criminals out of its prisons, and has transported them all to the United States. Other than the fact that Venezuela has let some people out of prison, there's nothing truthful here, and Trump has been called out on this lie on TV (by CNN's Jake Tapper) and could not provide an actual source for his "information."

The second thing to know is that Trump was trying to be funny/sarcastic by implying that one of the evil brown criminals who has invaded the U.S. is Lecter (Note: The character is NOT Latino, and was played by a Welshman, Anthony Hopkins, in the movie). Trump's knowledge of pop culture ends pretty much at the same time as the Cold War, so it's not surprising he went with a reference that is more than 30 years old. And he's the worst president of the television era when it comes to delivering a joke, so it's not surprising people didn't pick up on the jokey element, and thought he was playing it straight.

So, taken out of context, it seems nutty. In context, with a little additional detail added, it's just a standard Trump bizarro monologue. His thought process—or, at very least, his ability to communicate his thought process—has been fuzzy like this for years and years. Consider this headline, for just one example: "Trump's incoherent speech shows why he's unfit to be president." That item is not about the Hannibal Lecter harangue. It's not even about the 2024 campaign, or the 2020 campaign, for that matter. It's from 2016. Even then, it was clear that Trump had declined significantly from the days in the 1980s and 1990s when he was actually reasonably lucid and well-spoken.

Since this aspect of Trump is now baked in, it's really not a story. The people who think Trump has lost his fastball (not to mention his mediumball and his slowball) largely aren't voting for him. The people who ARE voting for him don't care and, in fact, see criticisms of his mental abilities as cheap shots from the pointy-headed, snobbish lib'ruls who are trying to cover for their own candidate's cognitive issues.

It is at least possible that if presidential debates happen, with low-information voters actually paying attention, and Joe Biden and Trump onstage at the same time, the contrast between Biden and Trump could hurt the former president. Not likely, we think, but possible. But until that point, these meandering, nearly incomprehensible rants don't move the needle, and are just par for the course. Probably the only time Trump legitimately makes par, we would guess. (Z)

Uncovered, Part II: Brain Food

The Trump-Lecter story was not the only one that got a lot of headlines last week, and that we declined to write up. There was also the story about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the supposed worm that he claims ate part of his brain.

So, why did we initially take a pass on this one? A few reasons. First, who knows if it's true? We have no doubt that at some time in the past, Junior had health problems, and the possibility of a brain worm was mentioned. Was it more than that, though? Was he actually diagnosed? Treated? His narrative doesn't especially line up with an actual case of neurocysticercosis, and he has a well-established history of blending fact and fantasy when it comes to medicine. Unless he releases some actual medical records, then this is nothing more than another tall tale.

Second, the angle that a great many outlets took was "Ha, ha! OF COURSE something ate part of Kennedy's brain!" This seemed in poor taste to us, even on Saturday Night Live, where boundary-pushing comedy is their stock in trade. If he really was stricken in this way, it's sad, not funny. And there are certainly other people out there who definitely have been stricken, and who don't need to feel their illness is being made the butt of jokes.

Finally, does it matter? As with Trump, it's evident to anyone who has listened to RFK Jr. talk that there's something off there, cognitively. Does knowing the root cause, or the potential root cause, really change anything? Either way he's a fellow who peddles dangerous conspiracy theories and dangerous quack medical ideas, and who has profited from that.

All of this said, there is one angle that is worth bringing up, which is why we finally decided to note this story. Given the demands of the presidency, not to mention the frequency with which physical/mental health concerns become campaign issues, it sure would be nice if candidates were required to submit complete medical records in order to be eligible for federal office. This would be none too easy a change to make, since it would surely require a constitutional amendment, and since it would be hard to design a system that could not be gamed by "friendly" doctors (e.g., Donald Trump and Dr. Harold Bornstein). But it's not insurmountable, we think, and could plausibly attract bipartisan support. Though it might struggle to get through the Senate, where the average age is currently 64.3 years old. (Z)

Where is RFK Jr. on the Ballot?

As long as we're on the subject of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., we get e-mails every week asking where he has qualified for ballot access. Here's the current list of states where he has made the ballot, or where he says he has the signatures needed to make the ballot:

State	EVs	How Accomplished?
Arizona	11	Signatures (42,303)
California	54	Nominee of the American Independent Party
Delaware	3	Nominee of the Independent Party of Delaware
Georgia	16	Signatures (7,500)
Hawaii	4	Nominee of "We the People" Party
Idaho	4	Signatures (1,000)
Iowa	6	Nominating convention staged by the campaign
Michigan	15	Nominee of the Natural Law Party
Nebraska	5	Signatures (2,500)
Nevada	6	Signatures (10,095)
New Hampshire	4	Signatures (3,000)
New York	28	Signatures (45,000)
North Carolina	16	Nominee of "We the People" Party
Ohio	17	Signatures (5,000)
Oklahoma	7	Paid $35,000
South Carolina	9	Signatures (10,000)
Texas	40	Signatures (113,151)
Utah	6	Signatures (1,000)

A few notes of explanation. First, the "We the People" Party is the third-party that Kennedy founded to get on the ballot in states where it's easier to qualify a third-party nominee than an independent candidate.

Second, the number in parentheses is the minimum number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot, should a candidate go that route. For the states with weird, non-round numbers, it's because a candidate is required to get signatures equal to [X]% of the electorate (e.g., in Arizona, it's 3%). Kennedy's team is clever enough to know that some signatures won't survive the verification process, and so has submitted extras (usually something like 50% more than needed) as insurance.

Third, bold type indicates states where the Kennedy campaign regards their work as complete (i.e., they have finished and submitted all the paperwork). That doesn't mean it actually IS complete; the state Secretary of State (or equivalent official) could deny certification, most commonly if not enough signatures are deemed to be valid. The remaining states on the list above are those where the campaign has said they are ready to file, but haven't yet. There are also efforts underway in another 20 or so states that aren't at the "ready to file" state. The campaign maintains a map, should you care to stay up-to-date on its progress.

The states that the Kennedy campaign considers to be complete have 187 electoral votes, while the four states where the campaign is ready to submit have another 64. That said, Kennedy isn't going to win hundreds of EVs, because he's not going to win any EVs. His role, in theory, will be "spoiler," and the states listed above where he could plausibly play that role are Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska (NE-02), Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and maybe Texas. The $64,000 question (or, if you're in Oklahoma, the $35,000 question) is which party's candidate he will hurt. Nobody knows the answer to that; you can tell because both the Democrats and the Republicans are scared witless that he'll take votes out of their hides. It's also possible that RFK Jr. will hurt Joe Biden in some states and Donald Trump in others, or that his support will crater and he'll end up as a minor blip on the radar. Yet another known unknown. (Z)

House Republicans Tee Up Israel Bomb Bill

Tomorrow, House Republicans are going to move forward with their bill allegedly intended to force Joe Biden to deploy military aid to Israel, and to deprive him of the ability to withhold the bombs that might end up being used against civilians in Rafah. In theory, if the White House does not comply within 15 days, various bits of funding would be frozen, including the salaries of key Department of Defense officials.

This is not a serious attempt to govern. Indeed, let us count the ways:

• If House Republicans were actually concerned about getting arms to Israel, they would be negotiating with Biden on ways to address his concerns. They are not doing so.
  
  
• The White House opposes the bill and has said it will be vetoed if it reaches Biden's desk. There are not enough votes in the Senate for a veto override. In fact, there is no indication that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will even bring the bill up for a vote in his chamber. He's not been a part of the conversation, either.
  
  
• The bill is of dubious legality. It may not be OK to freeze individual salaries, since there are laws requiring people to be paid. Similarly, dictating exactly how Biden implements military spending bills may infringe on his powers as Commander-in-Chief. Certainly, there's enough there that the administration could tie things up for months and months in federal court.
  
  
• Biden could also engage in malicious compliance, if he really wanted. Recall, the original bill speaks entirely of defensive weapons. So, he could announce that Israel will be sent $12.5 billion in materiel needed for their Iron Dome defenses, and... well, that's all the money! Sorry, Benjamin! Alternatively, most of the spending is done by signing contracts with American contractors, and THEN sending their product to Israel. So, Biden could announce that Raytheon has been awarded a contract to produce $10 billion in arms for Israel, deliverable on Jan. 1, 2027.

In short, this isn't going anywhere. It's just another attempt by the Republicans to divide the Democrats, and to highlight that Joe Biden isn't all-in on allowing Israel to do whatever it wants.

It is possible it could backfire on the GOP, of course, by highlighting which is the party of blank checks and which one maybe isn't. Also, surely someone will ask this question, at some point, of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) or some other high-profile Republican: "If it's so important for Israel to receive these arms in a prompt manner, how come House Republicans failed to move an Israel funding bill for many months? Because last I checked, many months is rather more than 15 days." (Z)

They Doth Protest Too Much, Wethinks

Continuing on with the domestic political impact of the mess in the Middle East, the Democrats are thinking about their 1968 convention (in Chicago), and are thinking about their convention this year (also in Chicago; bad luck!), and are sweating bullets. On one hand, they don't want shots of police officers and protesters in a state of open warfare, like what happened back in the 1960s. On the other hand, they don't want to seem like they are stifling dissent, fascist-style.

Back in '68, the Democrats had the assistance of Chicago's mayor, Richard J. Daley, which may or may not have been a good thing ("not a good thing" is really the correct answer here). This year, Chicago's newly elected Mayor Brandon Johnson has no interest in getting involved, one way or another. So, he won't be helping maintain order, but he won't be doing harm, either, the way Daley did.

The main solution that the Democratic bigwigs are planning on is... technology. While the party had the bad luck of choosing the worst possible city for this year's convention (given the circumstances and historical context), it has the inadvertent good luck that the 2020 convention was virtual, thanks to the pandemic. Much thought is going into replicating much of that, like having key speakers addressing the convention from in front of their state's Capitol building, or having the delegations announce their nominations on video, in an appropriate setting (e.g., Rhode Islanders announce at a clam bake, or Texans announce from the Alamo). The official explanation will be "it's now a tradition!" There may be some truth to that, but it's also a means of reducing the opportunities for disruption.

The Democrats might also move the actual counting of delegates to a different venue (they have reserved two in Chicago), and maybe even to a time a couple of weeks before the convention. Here, the Party might actually be helped by Ohio's ballot-rules nonsense. "We had to do it earlier," the DNC might say, "because Ohio just wouldn't change its rules, and we didn't want to risk it in court."

There are also some Democrats who advise putting the actual convention gavel in the hands of someone with a well-established reputation for having a spine of steel; a no-nonsense type who knows how to maintain order. The name of Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has been bandied about, as has that of L.A. mayor Karen Bass (D).

The Democrats might also have one other thing that breaks in their favor, relative to 1968. Back then, the Democrats got all the blame for the Vietnam War, and so their convention got all the protesters. The Republicans, by contrast, held their convention in Florida (the first time a Republican convention was held in a Confederate state after the Civil War), and relied on the services of the Florida National Guard to make sure order was maintained. So, there was a pretty sharp contrast between the two parties' conventions in 1968.

This year, on the other hand, there's no particular reason to think that only one party will attract protesters. And, by virtue of not holding the White House, the Republicans actually get to deal with that problem first. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has foreseen this problem, and wants the U.S. Secret Service to take responsibility for moving any and all protesters far away from the site of the gathering in Milwaukee. The letter McConnell wrote does not specify exactly where he would like the protesters moved to, but he's probably thinking something like... the Moon. It can be the first joint operation between the USSS and NASA. Time will tell if the GOP adopts the McConnell plan, or goes with something else. (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

We will have a full item about these polls tomorrow. For now, we'll just say that if you believe Siena, then Joe Biden needs to be thinking "northern route" rather than "southern route." (Z)

State	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	43%	49%	Apr 28	May 09	Siena Coll.
Georgia	41%	50%	Apr 28	May 09	Siena Coll.
Michigan	47%	46%	Apr 28	May 09	Siena Coll.
Nevada	38%	51%	Apr 28	May 09	Siena Coll.
Pennsylvania	45%	48%	Apr 28	May 09	Siena Coll.
Wisconsin	46%	47%	Apr 28	May 09	Siena 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