Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Sunday Q&A
This weekend has inadvertently turned into "light duty." We're going to indulge for one more day, because we can use a semi-breather.
And don't forget that next weekend is non-politics questions. Please send your questions about film, sports, food, art, books, etc. to questions@electoral-vote.com.
Twenty Questions
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, asks: Let's assume for a moment that Donald Trump's Department of Justice does release the Epstein files, and whaddya know, neither Trump nor any of his pals are mentioned at all, Just some Democrats and RINOs. Scrubbing successfully completed. And then, let's assume that some third party releases their copies of some of those same documents, only theirs do mention Trump, and not in a good way. Obviously, Trump will scream "forgery!," just like he did with that 50th birthday card. But what happens next?
Not that this DoJ would ever prosecute itself for evidence tampering, but does Trump really think he can make this all go away? Or is this just the next step in his delaying game?(Z) answers: There are many things in life—the healthcare system, the automobile, most software, human anatomy—that would surely be different if you started the design process from scratch. But none of these things was designed from scratch; they were the product of incremental changes on top of incremental changes on top of incremental changes.
Trump's approach to Epsteinpot Dome is similar. He reacted to the problem, and then reacted to that reaction, and then reacted to that reaction, and so forth. If he had it to do all over again, knowing what he knows now, might he have done things differently? Perhaps, since the issue has spiraled beyond his control. Or perhaps not, since he has enormous trouble accepting short-term setbacks in service of long-term gains. In any event, all he's got now is delay and obfuscation. There's no way to know what's going on in his head, especially these days, but understanding his mindset isn't especially important, because his options are so limited.
Meanwhile, keep in mind that no matter how bad Trump's position gets, he won't resign. He lacks self-awareness or shame of any sort and, besides, he fears that once he's out of office, the criminal prosecutions against him will commence again. It is also very, very unlikely that he will be impeached and convicted. A week ago, we would have said "impossible," but the overwhelming vote on the Massie-Khanna bill now forces us to leave room for the very slim possibility of removal by Congress.
What this means is that all of this is almost certainly an exercise in, for lack of a better term, political capital. The more Trump appears to be lying, manipulating evidence, withholding evidence, etc., the angrier the voting public will be, with the result that they will register their disapproval in next year's midterms (and in 2028's presidential election). The more that other Republicans are convinced that the lame-duck president could take them down with him, the more they will resist him (even if that resistance is subtle and/or passive). So, that's the consequence if Trump is found to be cooking the books—his ability to impose himself on Congress and on his Party will be even further weakened.
P.S. in Atlanta, GA, asks: Will there be anyone who actually believes that Donald Trump and his administration released the full Epstein files? Even if Trump was visited by the Ghosts of Thanksgiving past, present, and future, had a true change of heart, and released the full thing, there will be sections of his base, and large swaths of Democrats, who will never accept that the full thing was released.
What would it take to show that the full files were released? Or is Epstein Mobilier destined to become the new Grassy Knoll?(Z) answers: The only conceivable way that people will believe the full collection of information was released is if the release contains information that is very damaging or is very humiliating to Trump. If that happens, people will say "If Trump was going to withhold information, why would he release the three e-mails talking about the 16-year-olds he had sex with?" or "If Trump was going to withhold information, why would he allow everyone to see the picture of himself wearing chaps, a ball gag in his mouth, spiked heels, and nothing else?"
There may not be something in there that reaches that level of damage/humiliation. And if there is, we cannot imagine Trump or his underlings allowing it to see the light of day. So, there is absolutely no way the administration will persuade the American public that they have released everything. And the Epstein story will continue to drip, drip, drip...
I.S. in Cap Ferret, France , asks: I read online that Jeffrey Epstein still has an estate worth over $100 million, which I find to be absolutely outrageous, given his death 6 years ago, and the conviction of his human-trafficking accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein did not leave any heirs.
Why haven't the American courts taken control of Epstein's entire estate to be distributed to his victims? There are over 1,000 alleged victims of Epstein and Maxwell's abuses. I don't understand why there is still an estate worth millions when a court trial proved he was involved in a human trafficking ring with Maxwell.(Z) answers: The reason Epstein has an estate of over $100 million is that it's being held so that future victims can be compensated, as their cases are resolved. There's no equitable way to distribute it all until it's clear who might be entitled to what, and that requires the court process to play out.
The executors of his estate cannot take that money for themselves (except their legally mandated fees for serving as executors), and they cannot distribute the money to his chosen beneficiaries without a court order. In other words, the legal system has already imposed a pretty strong level of control on the funds.
There have been a couple of attempts to secure a court order freezing the funds, and thus taking away what little leeway the executors have. However, those attempts have run into two problems: (1) In one case, the entity asking for the freeze (the federal government) did not have standing to make the request, as it is not a direct party to the cases against Epstein, and (2) In the other case, the executors argued that Epstein's assets (stocks, some property) require active management, and freezing the funds would actually cause the assets to lose value, which would run contrary to the point of freezing the funds.
D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: I know that many of the criminal charges against Cheat-o while he is staging a home invasion of the White House have been stalled, but during this pause is the clock on the Statute of Limitations still running?
(Z) answers: That's the $TRUMP 1,000,000,000 question. If the Department of Justice or anyone else tries to resume a criminal prosecution of Trump for something where the statute of limitations has already run, then that entity will argue that the statute of limitations tolled (paused) while Trump was serving as president, and Trump's counsel will argue that it did not.
Both sides would have a case. The well-established bases for tolling the statute of limitations largely involve circumstances where the subject was somehow unavailable (mental breakdown, in prison, a minor, out of the country, etc.). So, the prosecution would argue that Trump serving as president is the same thing—he was effectively unavailable. The defense would argue that serving as president is not the same thing as, say, being out of the country, and is not an accepted basis for tolling the statute of limitations.
K.K in Simpsonville, SC, asks: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the President has no immunity against cases brought against him in a state court. If true, what is to prevent the congresspersons that the president recently threatened with arrest, trial, and death from suing Trump in their respective state courts? Each of them is likely to receive increased threats to themselves and their families as a direct result of his inflammatory rhetoric.
(Z) answers: The first problem is that they would have to show actual damages. It's not enough to say "I felt scared." It's probably not even enough to say "I felt scared, so I had to pay for a security system to be installed in my house." The second problem is that they would have to prove that any damages done to them were unequivocally Trump's fault, and that, but for his words, those damages would not have been inflicted.
There are a few other issues in play, but these are the big ones. And these are very, very difficult hurdles to overcome, especially since there is a vast body of jurisprudence when it comes to violent and threatening rhetoric.
D.B. in Carlsbad, CA, asks: At risk of getting to carried away with wishful thinking about how much of a lame duck the President is, I'm curious if you'd hazard a guess on the future of his Cabinet? Especially some of the more controversial or problematic members, like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, AG Pam Bondi, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and FBI Director Kash Patel (not technically Cabinet, but...).
Mostly stay the course, somehow shifting their loyalty to "MAGA" rather than the President himself? Do they start to distance themselves from the president? Do they resign in hopes of avoiding damaging congressional hearings (assuming a blue wave makes those hearings valuable)?(Z) answers: I do not think the people you name are going to adjust their approaches. They are all unserious people who are utterly unqualified for their jobs. The only place for them is in a Trump administration, and they will sink or swim with the S.S. Trump.
The question, then, is if Trump decides to jettison one or more of them. On one hand, he likes having fawning lackeys who will do whatever he says. And he's also sensitive to the optics of constant turnover, as happened during his first term. On the other hand, he likely has some dark days ahead, and he tends to find scapegoats when he's really upset. Also, there are credible rumors that he set a "one year before any firings" rule for Cabinet members, and that he will be much more willing to swing the ax once that year is up.
Our best guess is that, one year from today, Kennedy and Hegseth are gone, Patel is a coin flip, and Bondi is still on the job. A completely subservient AG is worth their weight in gold to Trump, and given how much he loves gold, that's really saying something.
P.N. in Indianapolis, IN, asks: The case against James Comey seems to be coming apart at every turn, and it appears a large part of the problem was Lindsey Halligan's inexperience. If the case against Comey and/or Letitia James are thrown out, do you think Trump will replace Halligan? He has no real loyalty, but Halligan is willing to follow orders without question or resistance. Also, it seems like he tolerates more mistakes from attractive women than he does from men. Though, I don't really have any evidence for that and trying to objectively determine it seems exhausting.
(Z) answers: He does have a much greater tolerance for fawning lackeys, and you're probably also right that being an attractive woman is a bonus with him.
That said, the demise of Halligan will likely not come because Trump grows weary of her. It will come because she cannot be sustained in her post, which she is almost certainly not legally entitled to hold.
J.M. in Eagle Mills, NY, asks: Could (L) expound a bit on Lindsey Halligan's law license being in jeopardy? What's the process? Who is in charge of it?
(L) answers: Every lawyer has to follow ethical rules and rules of professional conduct, which includes an obligation to follow the law and be truthful in court proceedings. Halligan's license to practice law is from Florida. Her conduct in front of the grand jury and her equivocations to the judge could prompt an investigation by the Florida bar association. It would be similar to the disbarment proceedings against John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.
C.P. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: You wrote: "[Trump] bulldozed the East Wing of the White House and then collected $350 million from big companies and rich people to have a gilded palace for his balls."
Did you have AC/DC on in the background as you wrote this?(Z) answers: "The Ballad of One Testicle," by Swamp Johnson.
B.H. in Frankfort, IL, asks: Never having served in the military, I have what may be a stupid question, but here it is: Who decides if an order is illegal?
(Z) answers: The specifics depend on: (1) which branch of the armed forces a person serves in, (2) whether they are an officer or not, (3) when they served and (4) how much their particular commanders made it a point of emphasis. However, all service members get some form of lecture or lectures on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and some indication that orders that violate the UCMJ, or that would run afoul of civlilian law, are likely illegal.
Soldiers are also allowed, by law, to ask for a legal opinion from their branch's Judge Advocate General's Corps. That is not practicable in many circumstances, so they are also allowed to discuss such concerns with the people above them in the chain of command (for example, a private might ask their platoon sergeant for guidance).
B.C. in Chippewa Lake, OH, asks: Why do people who rely on the ACA for health insurance need to "touch the stove" but those relying on SNAP don't?
(Z) answers: People relying on SNAP need some help with having enough food. The government steps in and fills that gap, at least for some people, and to at least some extent. It is hard to imagine what new and/or different approach to the problem might be better.
On the other hand, the American healthcare system is a pretty big mess. There are many people without access, there are many others with inadequate access, and there are people who have access and yet end up financially ruined nonetheless. Americans spend twice as much on healthcare as other industrialized nations, and yet get worse outcomes (for example, much higher infant mortality rates).
Since we know that other, reasonably similar nations are doing better, we can infer that the U.S. could do better. However, it will likely require big changes. Big changes require political will. Political will requires a clear mandate from voters. And a clear mandate from voters is likely only going to come if enough of them touch the stove.
D.R. in Kensington, MD, asks: Ok, so right now, it's 219 R to 213 D in the House, with 3 vacancies. Suppose the Democrats somehow flip TN-7. Once they have special elections in TX-18 (Sylvester Turner) and NJ-11 (Mikie Sherrill), and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) resigns, it's 218 R to 216 D, with one vacancy to be filled in April 2026. I know further resignations seem unlikely, but who expected Greene to quit? Is there any realistic chance House Minority Leader Hakeem Jefferies (D-NY) becomes Speaker BEFORE the midterms (even for just a short period before GOP vacancies are filled...)? Of course, I suppose we could expect the current speaker to delay swearing in representatives-elect.
(Z) answers: Is there a chance? Sure, when the margins are so narrow.
Not to be macabre, but the likeliest way this happens is if several Republican members die. In the last decade, there has only been one year in which no members of the House passed away (2017). There have been several years in which three members passed away. That includes 2022, when three Republicans all succumbed, two of them unexpectedly. If it happened before, it could happen again.
C.S. in Waynesboro, PA, asks: Seeing pictures from the funeral of former Vice President Dick Cheney, I see that all five living former vice presidents were in attendance, but only two presidents—one the president he served under (George W. Bush) and the other a former vice-president himself (Biden).
It got me thinking: What is the protocol for vice-presidential funerals? Do all former VPs show up? Are the presidents limited to just the one he served under? Can any of them show up? Do they have to be invited? Or is there no protocol at all and it just varies funeral by funeral?(Z) answers: The general protocol for presidential funerals is that all the living presidents and vice presidents, current and former, show up.
The protocol for vice-presidential funerals tends to be some loose variant on the presidential protocol, at the discretion of the family. For example, when Walter Mondale died, the sitting president (Joe Biden) attended, but the other dignitaries were all notable Minnesota politicians, not presidents or VPs. When Nelson Rockefeller died, there were three presidents at his funeral, but that was because sitting president Jimmy Carter attended, while two-thirds of the living VPs (Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon) just so happened to be presidents as well. Among living ex-VPs at that time, only Spiro Agnew was excluded, presumably because he was disgraced and because he and Rockefeller did not get along. When Agnew himself died, there were no presidents or VPs at the funeral; only Pat Buchanan. Some consolation prize.
That actually covers every VP funeral since 1956; all the other VPs who died were also presidents, and so their funeral followed the general presidential protocol. The bottom line, and what you are presumably getting at, is that it's pretty unusual for a VP funeral to exclude the sitting president. And so the Cheneys' decision not to include Donald Trump was most certainly a snub (and one that Trump certainly earned).
The next time a president dies, their family is going to have quite the decision whether or not to include Trump, since he's insulted all of his living predecessors, over and over. This problem would be solved, of course, if Trump himself is the next president to die.
M.E. in Stanwood, WA, asks: I find it interesting to see the difference in how today's GOP is handling Dick Cheney's passing as opposed to Charlie Kirk's. Kirk's death was treated as this huge rally-round-the-cause with an almost beatific (I think I am using that word right) drive to honor him. Meanwhile, Cheney's passing was more like a whisper. Do you think there is a difference and, if so, why?
(Z) answers: Kirk meant something to the Republicans currently in power, and to the people who voted them into office. So, part of the response to Kirk's death was genuine emotion, and part of it was that Kirk's death offered an opportunity to do some grandstanding for the benefit of the base.
Cheney meant something to the previous generation of Republicans in power, but was roundly disliked by the current generation. There was no emotion on the part of the people in power. Further, his version of Republicanism (neocon) had somewhat limited currency even while he was in power, and has virtually none anymore, so there was nothing to be gained, politically, by grandstanding.
L.S. in Richland, WA, asks: You wrote:
Quite a few readers e-mailed in to let us know why the Internet was broken yesterday. Cloudflare, which provides a great many websites with defenses against malicious attacks, was down. It is not probable that anyone will make a public announcement, but one wonders if some sites were compromised while their protective shield was offline.
In any event, all we can say is this: Thanks, Obama.Just wondering about the reasoning behind this comment. Did the USA Freedom Act make the Cloudflare outage more likely by limiting the NSA's ability to collect metadata on domestic phone communications? Or make it more difficult to discover the cause (or perpetrator) of the outage? Or something else entirely?
(Z) answers: "Thanks, Obama," is an old meme/joke making fun of Republicans' propensity to blame the 44th president for everything under the sun.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: I've been enjoying Ken Burns' Revolutionary War series, and I was reminded that George Washington, as a young man, sought and was refused a regular British Army commission. What if he had received it? Do you think he would have made his career there? Would he have fought for the Crown against the Rebels? Or would he have pulled a Robert E. Lee and switched sides to support insurrection? If Washington was a high-ranking British commander, do the Patriots lose the war? Imagine, George Washington, post-war Royal Governor! Is any of this plausible, or am I just entertaining myself with cheeky speculation?
(Z) answers: As chance would have it, I met a different reader for dinner Friday night, and this same exact question came up. Not having seen the series, I didn't/don't quite know how Burns framed it, though he does have a propensity to hint at "What if?" questions.
Ultimately, Washington did receive a commission, as a colonel in the Virginia militia. While this was not the regular British Army, that's a distinction without much of a difference. Officers in the Virginia militia were appointed by the governor of the colony, the governor of the colony was an appointee and representative of the monarch. In other words, the authority is flowing from the same source as with the regular army.
Had Washington really wanted to pursue a military career in the British army, he was certainly in a position to do so after the French and Indian War (aka the Seven Years War, for European readers). But he didn't want that because he was a successful planter who had aspirations as a capitalist and entrepreneur. So while the "What if?" Ken Burns seems to be hinting at is interesting, it's not especially meaningful. Washington's choices were not about a relatively subtle difference in bureaucratic procedures (regular army vs. militia), they were about his plan for his own life. And his dislike of the Crown's policies, and ultimate choice to join the rebellion, would surely have been the same whether he was a military officer or a civilian businessman.
That said, if you imagine Gen. Washington commanding British forces during the Revolutionary War, he would not have made a difference as a battlefield commander. He was not better at battlefield tactics than the guys who actually did command the Brits during the war—Charles Cornwallis, Thomas Gage, William Howe, Henry Clinton, John Burgoyne, etc. The key is whether the Americans could have come up with someone else with the strategic vision to accept that winning battles was nowhere near as important as keeping the army in the field (and thus keeping the rebellion alive), and that he who fights and runs away lives to fight another day. I suspect that some of the possible alternatives, like Israel Putnam, could have figured that out. I am less optimistic about, say, Charles Lee.
O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: I don't quite get how the Dred Scott decision accelerated the Civil War. Wouldn't Dred Scott have made the South more at ease with the status quo rather than more anxious? Lincoln never said he would ignore the decision, did he? Was it because the backlash against the decision in the North freaked out the South? But if this is the case, anything short of the Court's actual ruling would also have freaked out the South, so...
(Z) answers: There are two answers here. The first is that the decision persuaded the North that the South had corrupted the government in service of its pro-slave agenda, while at the same time persuading the South that the North would never abide by any law or court decision or other development that provided strong protections for slavery. This was not good for sectional relations.
The second answer is that people had tried to "solve" the slave issue by ignoring it and hoping it would go away. That didn't work. People had tried to solve" the slave issue by offering to buy back the slaves and send them back to Africa. That didn't work, either. People had tried to "solve" the slave issue by having Congress come up with clear rules for the creation of new slave and free states. People had tried to "solve" the slave issue by putting the question in the hands of voters. Dred Scott meant that the third and fourth of these had both failed, since it struck down the Kansas-Nebraska Act—which was a congressional act (solution three) that put the decision in the hands of voters (solution four)—on the basis that this was none of Congress' business. The broader implicaton of this was that there were no remaining solutions to be tried, and so many Americans concluded there could be no compromise position, and their section's ideas on slavery would have to be imposed nationwide.
As to Lincoln, he didn't explicitly say he would ignore the decision. But he did say it was bad law, and implied that maybe it was not possible to honor the decision.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: What would have been the likely outcome of World War II if Hitler had been killed by Georg Elser's bomb on November 9, 1939?
(Z) answers: It is hard to see that anything would have changed substantially.
By the time that Elser tried to kill Hitler, Hitler had already played the most important part of his role in history, causing the German government to be overthrown and replaced by a fascist dictatorship. He had also already designated Herman Göring as his chosen successor. So, Göring would have taken over what was already an absolutist government and a high-functioning war machine.
Perhaps Göring would have done less mucking around in military affairs than Hitler did. Perhaps he would have done more. Hard to say. It is also possible that Göring would have made smarter decisions as regards the U.S.S.R.; in partcular, not trying to attack in two different directions in Fall/Winter of 1942.
In the end, however, there was no possible way that the Soviets and the Nazis could co-exist. And there was no possible way the Germans could withstand the kind of manpower and firepower the Russians could bring to bear, particularly once the Nazis also had to deal with the Brits and the Americans in the south and the west.
So, I conclude that the war in Europe might have ended 6 months sooner with a Göring-led reich, or it might have lasted 6 months longer, but I see no reason to think the outcome would have been materially different. I concede that Göring was nowhere near as antisemitic as Hitler was (or as other top Nazis were), but the Final Solution was substantially the work of non-Hitler Nazis operating from their own, personal power centers (e.g., Adolf Eichmann, Reinhard Heydrich, etc.). It was politically useful for Göring to go along with the antisemitism and with the mass murder, even if he wasn't a True Believer, so I do not believe he would have put a stop to it, even if he ascended as Führer.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, asks: You've written a fair bit about sports, teams, and athletes, ranking them in various ways. My question is whether you have an opinion (as a fan or as a historian) about who the single greatest athlete of all time is. Of course this is question cannot be answered with any certainty and to a large extent depends on the parameters chosen.
My proposed answer is Alex Honnold. His free solo climb of El Capitan in 2017 is more than just a great climbing achievement. It is more than just an incremental improvement on the performance of those who came before him. The climb was a feat of athleticism, skill, emotional control, and daring far beyond what anyone had ever considered within the realm of possibility for a human being. I think it marks him as the greatest athlete in any sport in all of human history.
That said, it seems statistically unlikely that someone would achieve that status in my lifetime in one of my personal favorite sports, so I wonder what other candidates I don't know about.(Z) answers: I think there are different ways to define athletic greatness.
The first of those is, for lack of a better term, physical prowess. Someone who is a freakish specimen, and is skilled at many different pursuits. Think Bo Jackson or Jim Thorpe.
The second of those is dominance relative to one's peers. Think Babe Ruth or Wayne Gretzky, who outclassed the rest of their leagues by a large margin.
The third of those is ultimate success—titles won, medals claimed, etc. Think Bill Russell, who won 11 championships in 13 years, or Michael Phelps, with all his Olympic medals.
The fourth of those is historical impact, the extent to which the athlete changed their sport. Think Don Hutson, who became the prototype for the modern wide receiver, or Caitlin Clark, who appears to be reinventing the WNBA (and the business of the WNBA) right before our eyes.
There is no athlete who ranks at the top of the list in all four categories. However, there is someone who was freakishly athletic and excelled at many sports (#1), who did win both a team championship and some key individual awards (#3), and who changed not only his sport, but arguably all American sports (#4). That person is Jackie Robinson, of course, and he would be my answer to the question.
D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: To what extent does Morse code persist today?
(Z) answers: It's used by some people in the military (like Navy pilots), it's used for automated beacons and radio signals, it's used by ham radio operators, it's used by some disabled people in order to communicate, it's used by some puzzle-makers, and it's used to sneak messages past repressive regimes in some places (e.g., China).
It's also used in my lecture in World War I when I talk about the Zimmermann Telegram, and it's used by Jim and Pam to play mind games with Dwight Schrute.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones