Main page    Aug. 22

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

Legal News, Part I: Once Again, Donald Trump Is above the Law

Well, now we know why it took so long. After 11 months of deliberating, a five-judge panel on the New York State appeals court finally issued a ruling in the fraud case against Donald Trump and his businesses. Actually, the judges wrote three separate opinions, ultimately affirming the trial court's finding of liability that Trump and his associates had committed fraud, upholding the injunction prohibiting Trump executives from serving as corporate officers or directors in New York for 3 years (2 years for Don Jr. and Eric), but throwing out the $464 million in damages.

It's clear that there was a stalemate for quite a long time, with two of the judges wanting a new trial and two agreeing to vacate the financial penalty, while upholding the fraud claim and the injunction. What broke the logjam was an agreement by the two judges who wanted a new trial to side with the other two in upholding the finding of fraud and the injunction to have some finality, so that the parties could appeal to New York's highest court (which is called the New York Court of Appeals). A fifth judge, David Friedman (Trump's contemporary at 75), would have reversed the trial court's findings and dismissed the case altogether. Friedman could have created a 3-judge majority in favor of vacating the judgment and ordering a new trial, but he worried (not unreasonably) about the disruption to a sitting president that such a trial would cause. Thus, we have this brokered outcome that gives each party a partial victory and the finality to bring an appeal.

Each opinion is over 100 pages. The main opinion reminds readers of the oranges... er, origins, of this investigation: Michael Cohen's testimony before a Congressional subcommittee that laid out how the Trump Organization would routinely inflate assets when applying for loans and devalue them for tax purposes. This is compelling evidence of fraud, and the New York Attorney General opened an investigation as a result.

In overturning the financial penalty, the judges found that because the award went to the state and wasn't to compensate any victims, it was a fine that could be analyzed under the excessive fine provision of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They concluded it was excessive and did violate both the state and federal constitutions. And they vacated the entire award rather than reducing it, because they held that profits from legitimate activity could not be separated out from the ill-gotten gains, so no disgorgement was appropriate at all. New York AG Letitia James has already vowed to appeal and she's got a good shot. Generally, on these types of factual issues, appeals courts defer to the findings of the lower court. It seems that this appellate panel decided to substitute its judgment for the lower court's. Such a big award may be reduced but it shouldn't be too hard to assign a percentage of the profits that were the result of the fraud.

Trump has already started crowing about "total victory," conveniently ignoring that the substance of the claims against his company were upheld, as well as severe penalties, including requiring a monitor for his New York companies. This will only embolden Trump's personal hatchetwoman Pam Bondi to continue her harassment of James, especially given the irresponsible rhetoric from Friedman. In his separate opinion, the Judge complained that the case should not have been brought because: (1) everyone does it; (2) if the super-rich want to rip each other off that's their business; and (3) Trump paid back all the money, so what's the big deal? He actually quoted someone he called a "well-known business executive" as saying: "[Y]ou might as well find guilty every real estate developer on Earth." Don't try that at home, kids—it doesn't work for us regular rubes. Based on his belief that this was much ado about nothing, Friedman concluded that James must have acted for partisan political purposes. Openly accusing an Attorney General of abusing her office because the judge disagrees with the trial results is unheard of, and demeans both his position and hers.

Oh, and Trump's defense attorney at trial—who is still listed on the caption as his attorney—was (is?) Alina Habba, currently serving as the Acting U.S. Attorney in New Jersey. More on her below. (L)

Legal News, Part II: Habba Suffers Major Setback

Lots of news out of the courts yesterday. As readers will recall, the White House has been grossly abusing the process for appointing U.S. attorneys, so as to be able to put loyalists in key positions. The highest-profile incident (among many) involves Donald Trump's former (?) personal lawyer Alina Habba. He installed her as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. After 120 days, as is their right, the judges of that district rejected her continuance in that job. The administration effectively ignored that, naming Habba as "acting" attorney, which would theoretically give her another 210 days. What all these machinations tell you is that Habba is so problematic that even the pliant U.S. Senate might decide she's a bridge too far.

A trio of defendants, whose cases are being prosecuted by Habba's office, filed suit back in July, arguing that her work since the judges rejected her is illegal and invalid. And yesterday, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Matthew Brann (a Republican appointed to the bench by Barack Obama) issued a 77-page ruling in which he said he agrees entirely. He found that Habba "is not lawfully holding the office of United States Attorney" and has been in the position without legal authority since July 1. This means that anything she has done since then "may be declared void." Since indictments from that office are generally issued in her name, that covers a LOT of territory.

Brann stayed his ruling so the Trump administration can appeal, which it is going to do very promptly. You never know what will happen with some of these judges, particularly the sextet of Republican appointees who sit on the Supreme Court. However, the case for Habba is extraordinarily weak. The arguments for her have been soundly rejected by a dozen judges at this point, starting with the group that refused to allow her to continue in her post. And the system is set up so that those judges, not to mention the U.S. Senate, get to be the deciders. If Trump can subvert that with bookkeeping tricks, that's a real problem.

Habba, for her part, responded to her defeat by running to Sean Hannity to whine. Trotting out a right-wing talking point that's now so old it's got gray hair, she blamed her misfortunes on "activist" judges. Habba also opined that they should "just be doing their job." And what, exactly, is "their job," you might ask? According to Habba, it is "respecting the president." Undoubtedly, this will be very helpful in illustrating that she's a fair-minded advocate for justice, and not a partisan hack who would be delighted to see the U.S. turned into a dictatorship.

If the White House loses its various appeals, it will have a real mess on its hands, for two reasons. The first is that there are several people "acting" as U.S. attorneys right now whose appointments would presumably be just as invalid as Habba's. The second is that if everything done by Habba (and the others) is not valid, then there will be an enormous mess to clean up. And every extra day means a bigger mess. The smart thing to do would be to tell Habba, et al. to take a nice vacation until everything is resolved. But, and maybe readers have heard about this, this administration is not exactly known for doing the smart thing. (Z)

Today in Gerrymandering: The Redistricting Derby Is Officially Underway

Up through yesterday, the plans to play around with the Texas and California district maps were just vaporware. But now they are as real as they can be in California, and are on the threshold of reality in Texas.

Starting in Texas—because they started it—the new, gerrymandered maps have been approved by the state House, and also by the relevant committee in the state Senate. The whole Senate was expected to sign off on the plan yesterday afternoon, but they apparently dragged their feet a bit. Presumably, they will make it official today.

Although the Texas maps aren't quite a done deal yet, one domino, and maybe two, have already fallen. Under the new maps, Reps. Greg Casar and Lloyd Doggett (both D-TX) would be shoved into the same district (the redrawn TX-37). Casar is young (36), Latino and progressive, while Doggett is more than twice as old (78), white, and more moderate. It would likely have been a brutal primary if they went head-to-head. However, Doggett said yesterday that if the new maps stand up to legal challenges, he will stand down. Maybe he's taking one for the team, but he's been in politics for 52 years and in Congress for 30 years, and so maybe he's just had his fill.

The other domino (maybe) is that Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) made official that he will run to replace Texas AG Ken Paxton (R). Roy's district, under the new maps, is going to pick up a handful of very Trumpy neighborhoods. That increases, at least by a little bit, the chances of a successful primary challenge from the right (particularly if Donald Trump endorses the challenger). So, it's possible the gerrymandering was one of the factors that pushed Roy into the AG race.

Meanwhile, California lawmakers officially approved Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D-CA) plan to temporarily gerrymander the California maps, until returning the job to the state's redistricting commission in 2032. Once the legislature had given its approval, the bill was rushed over to the governor's mansion, where he promptly signed it, remarking: "They fired the first shot, Texas. We wouldn't be here had Texas not done what they just did."

So, assuming that the Republicans, both in California and elsewhere, are not successful in challenging the move in court (and they have no strong basis for doing so), then folks in the Golden State will head to the polls on November 4 to vote on the measure. And the electioneering is already well underway. Readers M.M. in San Diego, CA, and R.S. in Cupertino, CA, both sent us a copy of the flyer (pamphlet?) that's already hitting voters' mailboxes. Here's the cover:

It has the title 'WEAKENING OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS: A Threat to California's Landmark Election Reform' along with a quote from Gloria Chun Hoo, who is president of the Callifornia chapter of the League of Women Voters

The document is carefully crafted to look like it's the work of left-leaning/good-governance activists. However, it's actually the work of Charles T. Munger Jr., who is a far-right Trumper. Munger's interest in redistricting efforts (which is longstanding) has nothing to do with good governance and everything to do with securing (and now, keeping) as many Republican-held seats in California as possible.

Newsom and his supporters, of course, are prepared to fight back. As regards Munger, he's donated money to anti-choice and anti-LGBTQ causes. So, that bit of information might get mentioned once or twice in the next few months. Meanwhile, Newsom is fundraising hard for his own PR campaign. In just the first week, he's brought in $6.2 million. That amount is not quite equivalent to how much the billionaire Munger can spend, if he so chooses. However, Munger's money came from one person, whereas Newsom's came from over 200,000 people. That is an early indication of which side has more enthusiasm behind it.

In the past half-century, there were few circumstances (if any) where money translated to votes more predictably than with ballot propositions, particularly ballot propositions in California. There was a period of time where "Which side spent the most money?" predicted which side triumphed in California over 90% of the time. However, that era may have come to an end. You know who actually reads the political literature they get in the mail? Politics wonks, who already know how they are voting. It was TV commercials that were the real driver of voting patterns, but those don't work so well anymore, since so many people don't watch linear TV. Maybe a targeted online campaign will work, but they're hard to execute. Oh, and Newsom and his operation are pretty darn savvy about online ads themselves.

Certainly, Munger and his ilk will explore all avenues. And, in the end, they'll probably be able to outspend Newsom. But will the anti-gerrymander forces in California be able to move the needle enough, since Newsom's side of the issue appears to be up by 20 points right now? We're skeptical.

All of this said, the various gerrymandering skirmishes are just the opening salvo. The Republicans desperately want to maintain power, and many of them, including the leader of the Party, have absolutely no scruples about how they do it. Donald Trump was on one of the endless galaxy of right-wing shows yesterday, and did some more prattling about the evils of mail-in ballots. In particular, the President made the utterly absurd claim that when he eliminates mail-in balloting, the Republicans will be able to flip a hundred seats in the House.

Trump is not going to be able to eliminate mail-in balloting, and even if he could, it would not flip 100 seats (or even 10 seats, or 5 seats, or 2 seats, for that matter). However, he is laying the groundwork to delegitimize wins for the Democrats, particularly if they retake either chamber of Congress. A blizzard of post-election lawsuits, filed by pliant lackeys in the Pam Bondi-led Department of Justice, is likely. They won't work, but they could gum things up for a while, and maybe deprive the Democrats of some political capital.

Meanwhile, some on the right, with Steve Bannon taking the lead, are urging a truly evil plan. The idea is to deploy Blackshirts ICE agents to polling places in immigrant-heavy states. This is also a plan that should die a quick death at the end of a judge's gavel (or many judges' gavels). However, Bannon is clever enough to know that just the possibility could keep some leery voters away, just in case. What a vile creature he is. (Z)

Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week, #29: Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

We try to get to these earlier in the week, but sometimes, it just doesn't work out. Anyhow, here are the folks we've already profiled:

  1. Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ)
  2. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
  3. Al Franken
  4. Jon Tester
  5. Jon Stewart
  6. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)
  7. Mitch Landrieu
  8. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA)
  9. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)
  10. Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ)
  11. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)

And now, the first of two consecutive Tammys:

Tammy Baldwin standing at a podium and speaking

Next week, it's #28, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL). If readers have comments about Duckworth running for president in 2028, please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com.

A Nation of Immigrants: Butchers and Bakers and Candlestick Makers

Today, we hear from S.B. in Los Angeles, CA:

Both sides of my family in the L.A. area originated from Mexico. My mother's side of the family originated with a soldier who served in the Spanish army, and who came to Alta California in the late 1700s or early 1800s. He was deeded a small land grant in what is now one of the regional cities in the Los Angeles Basin. I have direct ancestors buried in the historical cemetery at the San Gabriel Mission. They were born here when the area was still a Spanish colony. So, rather than crossing the border, the border crossed them! They stayed in their new country and it was related to me that through the decades, the "ranch" was the home of the entire family in various "casitas" (small cabins) and that they would have giant fiestas in the common area. The "ranch" was eventually lost to the government when oil was discovered, but I remember the last vestige of this holding when I was a child, and it was discussed around the family table about how my grandmother had limited mineral rights to the property in the late 1970s.

My father's side of the family originated in the Guadalajara region of Mexico where, I was told, my great-great-grandfather was a master baker in their village. One of his daughters, my great-grandmother, emigrated to the United States across the border into California in the early 1900s. Her husband was a butcher who worked in one of the large stockyards near San Diego at the time. Their son, my paternal grandfather, was born in San Diego in 1920. After he grew up, he moved to the Orange County area, which is a suburb of Los Angeles. He married and was serving in the Merchant Marine in the late 1930s as a crewman on a freighter. He enlisted in the U.S. Army when World War II broke out. He was a machine gunner in one of the units with General Patton's Third Army. My father was born in January 1943, but he never knew or met his father, because the elder was killed in action on December 31, 1944, at the Battle of the Bulge.

I have tried to instill my children with the pride, determination and hope shown by these people, our family, struggling to find a better life and prosper in the U.S.A.

Thanks, S.B.

And note that the early California ranchers raised cattle without benefit of refrigeration. That meant that the only marketable commodities were the things that could be preserved and shipped without benefit of cooling. That translates to products made with cow hides (e.g., leather boots) and products made with cow fat (e.g., soap and candles). Hence the headline. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Don't Forget to Buckle Your Truss

Due to the circumstances of last weekend, there was only one clue as to the headline theme last week. It was: "[W]e'll say then when you solve it, you might very well declare: 'It's about time!'" That proved to be enough, fortunately.

Here is the solution, courtesy of reader M.H. in Kirkland, WA:

Watch-related terminology:

A buckle, from this headline, is also part of a watch.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

  1. J.F. in Fayetteville, NC
  2. A.D. in Vass, NC
  3. T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts
  4. A.A. in Branchport, NY
  5. T.K. in Manchester, MO
  6. S.K. in Ardmore, PA
  7. G.W. in Avon, CT
  8. J.M. in Eagle Mills, NY
  9. T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT
  10. B.K. in Mystic, CT
  11. G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN
  12. L.H. in Manchester, England, UK
  13. C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL
  14. J.B. in Royston, England, UK
  15. S.A. in Clinton, WA
  16. M.B. in Denver, CO
  17. R.R. in Westborough, MA
  18. R.D. in Cheshire, CT
  19. J.G. in Truro, England, UK
  20. D.S. in Layton, UT
  21. R.E. in Birmingham, AL
  22. K.J. in Paw Paw, MI
  23. D.L. in Uslar, Germany
  24. M.S. in New York City, NY
  25. S.J.V. in New York City, NY
  1. J.N. in Zionsville, IN
  2. D.M. in Lexington, NC
  3. D.D. in Carversville, PA
  4. B.B. in Buda, TX
  5. S.F. in Pemberton Borough, NJ
  6. D.E. in High Springs, FL
  7. E.P. in Plainville, CT
  8. M.K. in Long Branch, NJ
  9. J.W. in York, England, UK
  10. N.H. in London, England, UK
  11. E.S. in Providence, RI
  12. I.B. in Victoria, BC, Canada
  13. M.K. in Maplewood, NJ
  14. M.M. in Dunellen, NJ
  15. M.F. in Norwood, MA
  16. M.Z. in Sharon, MA
  17. K.R. in Aliso Viejo, CA
  18. W.S. in Louisville, KY
  19. J.M. in Brookline, MA
  20. J.T. in Philadelphia, PA
  21. J.H. in Boston, MA
  22. T.T. in Conway, AR
  23. C.G. in Palo Alto, CA
  24. E.S. in Maine, NY
  25. M.W. in Chicago, IL

The 50th correct response was received at 5:37 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, it's in the category History, and the "Nation of Immigrants" item is not part of it. For a hint, we'll say that blood, toil, tears and sweat would be helpful in solving it.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line August 22 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: The British Know a Thing or Two about Petty Snubs

We don't think we are being insulting when we say that the Brits are masters of snubs, passive-aggression, and other petty behaviors. In fact, they pride themselves on it (at least, many of them do). As we were working on this item, for example, we encountered this message on Threads:

One thing I love about being British is the level of petty we go to. If JD thinks he's been wronged, wait till you see what we have planned.

There were lots of others along the same lines.

That quote also tells you that this item is about J.D. Vance, and his not-so-great vacation trip to the U.K. last week. The "big" story, in terms of things that gained real traction on social and news media, is that Vance and his wife Usha attempted to patronize a pub in Charlbury, Oxfordshire, called The Bull, and were turned away.

The exact circumstances of the pub saying "Thanks, but no thanks" are somewhat in dispute. It was very widely reported that the staff of the pub rebelled, and said they would not report to work if forced to serve the Vances. The pub's management refuses to confirm or deny this, and it's possible that the problem was merely that the Vances and their entourage would have effectively shut the pub (and its profits) down for the night. Whatever happened, it is worth noting that Kamala Harris showed up at the same pub last month, Secret Service entourage in tow, and was seated.

Whether Vance was denied service for practical reasons, or personal ones, there was certainly plenty of unambiguous Vance disdain on display during his trip. For example, signs like these:

One sign says 'Fascists not welcome here,' another says 'Stop funding genocide,' and a third says 'Vance you are not welcome.

There were also protests:

A sizable group of people carrying sarcastic signs, like one that says 'J.D. Vance's Netflix Password is 'Password'

And this van was driving around:

A box truck with video screens on three sides, all of them showing the photo of vance as a bald man with bulging eyes

The owner of the house that the Vances rented even went so far as to send apologies to all his neighbors.

You may be left with the impression that Vance is not too popular on that side of the Atlantic. And the fact that these stories and photos spread like wildfire in the U.S. and Canada is pretty strong evidence that he's not too popular on this side of the Atlantic, either. It's a pretty potent blend of loathing and scorn (and don't forget that he's been denied service at U.S. eateries, as well).

It is possible to overcome a blend of loathing and scorn, if the 30% or 40% who feel that way are counterbalanced by 30% or 40% who are fanatically supportive of you. This is the Trump model. Vance's problem is that he engenders Trump levels of loathing and scorn from one side, but little in the way of fanatical support from the other side. This does not presage good things for his presidential ambitions. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Solar May Make up Half of U.S.' New Capacity in 2025

Donald Trump has managed to arrange several "worst of both worlds" situations for himself. And it's increasingly looking like renewable power is going to be one of the things on that list.

It's not a secret that Trump disdains most sources of renewable energy, particularly solar and wind. Is this because he's been bought and paid for by Big Oil? Is it because Barack Obama and Joe Biden were big on renewables, and Trump reflexively opposes anything they supported? Is it because someone built a wind farm next to his golf course in Scotland, and that hurt his fee-fees? Truth be told, we'd guess it's all of these things.

Still, Trump's efforts to slay the renewable beast, primarily by killing Biden-era funding for these technologies via executive order and the BBB, is not having a lot of success. Yes, he may have slowed things down, but he most certainly hasn't stopped the forward march of solar power, in particular. This week, the Energy Information Administration issued a report predicting that the U.S. will add 33 gigawatts of solar power capacity this year. If so, that would be a little over half the 65 gigawatts of power from all sources that will be deployed in 2025.

We've written it before, and we'll write it again, but the fundamental problem for Trump (and Big Oil) is that renewable sources are simply a smarter investment these days. Even now, they are competitive with (and sometimes even superior to) fossil fuels in terms of profitability. And then, on top of that, power-generating projects are built to be used on a timeline measured in decades. Most of the world, and one of the two major parties in the U.S., is moving towards eco-friendly energy sources. A major investment in a new oilfield or a new coal-burning plant could turn into a real turkey within a decade... or less.

Now, we said something about "worst of both worlds." Well, here's the other half of that. Trump has managed to slow development of renewables, which means he's managed to slow overall development of new energy sources. The problem is that demand for electricity is up, up, up, due to cryptocurrency mining, population growth and, in particular, the promulgation of AI. The dynamic here is so simple, even Peter Navarro should be capable of understanding it: There's going to be more demand for energy, and not enough supply, which means higher energy prices.

To be more precise, a new analysis from Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan energy and climate think tank, predicts that the failure of new supply to keep up with new demand will increase household energy prices by 18% over the next decade, or about $170 a year for the average household. Along with that, about 750,000 jobs will be lost by the failure to fully commit to renewables.

Trump cares little about what happens after January 20, 2029. But, with 3+ years left in his term, there's still much time for American families to at least start to feel the energy pinch. And that's in service of a political program that is doomed to failure, sooner or later. Meanwhile, add the energy costs to normal inflation and the effects of the trade wars, and things could actually get pretty ugly pretty fast for the President and his party. But at least there won't be any trans girls playing high school volleyball. (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones