Americans have long assumed that Donald Trump is an unrepentant sexual abuser. Indeed, he told us so. On Tuesday, a civil jury in the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial delivered a unanimous verdict finding that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll and then defamed her when she revealed his behavior. The verdict is another step in the long overdue and slowly unfolding reckoning for Donald J. Trump.
Before discussing the political ramifications, we should acknowledge that this measure of accountability is due entirely to the bravery of E. Jean Carroll in pursuing justice at great personal cost. Immediately after the verdict, Trump attacked Carroll again, using his Truth Social platform to claim that Carroll is lying, saying (in ALL CAPS), “I have absolutely no idea who this woman is . . . a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time.” E. Jean Carroll would be within her rights to sue Trump anew for defamation. All Americans owe a debt of gratitude to E. Jean Carroll for her determination and persistence.
Will the verdict matter? Yes, and no. It goes without saying that most Republican leaders have chosen silence or evasion in responding to the verdict. RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel said that American women are more concerned about “kids being used as pawns on TikTok” than about Trump being liable for sexual assault—a risible and insulting variation of “Look! There goes Elvis.”
Trump's GOP presidential rivals have demonstrated their cowardice by remaining silent. No surprise there.
And on the Christian Broadcast Network (CBN), there is no mention of the verdict finding Trump committed sexual assault. Instead, the headline on CBN is OK Gov Pulls Plug on PBS Funding: 'Indoctrination and Over-Sexualization of Our Children'. Got that? In the GOP/evangelical world, PBS is a threat, but serial sexual assaulter Donald Trump gets a pass. (The same applies to CNN, where the Trump-friendly town hall will proceed as planned on Wednesday evening.)
So, the verdict will not matter to those who have ransomed their principles and souls for Trump. But in that portion of the electorate where candidate character still matters, the finding that Trump committed sexual assault will matter. See Ryan Goodman and Norman L. Eisen in Just Security, Why the E. Jean Carroll Verdict Will Matter to Voters.
Goodman and Eisen explain,
As numerous empirical studies have shown, the American public has come to view sexual assault as a form of abusing power that can disqualify a perpetrator from holding public office. Trump may suffer significant political damage from this new majoritarian understanding.
A 2020 study in the journal Political Behavior found that “(1) a significant electoral penalty is likely to be assessed against politicians accused of sexual harassment; (2) the size of that penalty (in terms of lost votes and lower favorability) … is concentrated among co-partisans and, to a lesser extent, Independents.”
These results are no surprise when taken in context of recent social science studies. Rigorous empirical research shows that Americans generally consider sexual assault incompatible with serving in elected office or positions of public trust.
The jury verdict will hurt Trump—if only at the margins. In an evenly divided electorate, a marginal difference can have a disproportionate effect. The verdict—and the indictments to come—put Republicans in an untenable situation. As explained by reader Roger S. in an email,
My assessment of the mess that the GOP finds itself in is very simple: If Donald Trump is their candidate, they CANNOT win a national election. And if Trump is NOT the Republican nominee next year, the sizable chunk of nominal GOP voters who are deeply devoted to Trump (as opposed to the GOP) will most likely not show up to vote. And thus any conceivable GOP alternative will assuredly go down to defeat.
Republicans missed their moment to ditch Trump. As indictments and verdicts accumulate, Trump will become less electable but more entrenched with MAGA extremists who would vote for Trump if he murdered someone in the middle of 5th Avenue. While having an unshakable base can be a strength under the right circumstances, it is a poison pill for a party with a nominee who is experiencing a long overdue and slowly unfolding reckoning.
Debt ceiling developments.
President Biden and Speaker McCarthy met at the White House to discuss the debt ceiling. The parties made no progress in resolving the matter. After the meeting, Biden said that he was “‘considering’ the use of the 14th amendment as a means to circumvent the debt ceiling standoff.” See Politico, Biden says he’s exploring 14th amendment to diffuse debt ceiling standoff.
Biden is hanging tough. Good.
For a “first-person” account of the debt standoff, see the Substack blog by first-year Democratic Representative Jeff Jackson (NC-14), Three weeks to avoid default - by Jeff Jackson. Rep. Jackson explains that McCarthy may be secretly hoping for a “discharge petition” to resolve the stand-off without involving McCarthy.
Indictment of Rep. George Santos?
CNN is reporting that George Santos has been charged by the DOJ. See CNN, Rep. George Santos charged by Justice Department in federal probe. Despite a deluge of media coverage on CNN’s report, there is virtually no detail available beyond “Santos is expected to appear as soon as Wednesday at federal court in New York’s eastern district, where the charges have been filed under seal.”
If true, the indictment is another positive step in reining in the lawlessness that has become the GOP’s brand. Stay tuned.
Supreme Court is asked to invalidate all local bans of assault rifles.
A case on the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” could result in a surprise order invalidating local bans on assault rifles. See Ian Millhiser in Vox, A Supreme Court case seeks to legalize assault rifles in all 50 states.
Per Millhiser,
The Supreme Court could hand down a decision any day now in National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, a case that could legalize assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in all 50 states.
Should the Supreme Court accept that argument and overturn these laws, it would have sweeping implications for the entire country. That decision would need to be followed throughout the entire nation — which would most likely mean that neither any state nor the US Congress could ban assault rifles or high-capacity magazines.
That said, there is some uncertainty about whether the Court will issue a sweeping pronouncement right away on the legality of assault rifles. The Naperville case arises on the Court’s “shadow docket,” a mix of emergency motions and other expedited matters that the Court sometimes decides without full briefing or oral argument.
If the Supreme Court’s reactionary majority issues an emergency order invalidating local bans of assault rifles, ‘all of Neptune’s great oceans’ will not wash away the blood on their hands. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are not that stupid. They hear the footsteps of history gaining on their corruption and hubris.
More criticism of Post/ABC poll.
I criticized the Post/ABC poll in yesterday’s newsletter from a layperson’s perspective. Today, commentators with experience in polling raised serious questions about the methodology and conclusions of the poll. See Jeffrey Sonnenfeld in Time, What the New Poll Favoring Trump Got Wrong and the Pundits Missed. If you were alarmed by the Post/ABC poll, the Time article should reduce your anxiety.
First, the ABC-WaPo sample size of 1,006 adults surveyed is jarringly small, compared to the sample sizes of peers such as 6,000 at Morning Consult. Even other Trump-favoring polls such as the Harris Poll had a sample nearly twice as large, with 1,850 respondents, increasing accuracy and reliability. The Edelman Trust Barometer samples up to 35,000 respondents.
Even other pollsters have attacked the methods of this poll . . . pointing out that it strangely included all adults in its sample of 1,006, rather than just registered voters, and that breaking out registered voters brings the sample down to an even smaller 900. Furthermore, analysis of subgroups like young people, independents, Hispanics and Black Americans are so tiny they are not valid. Pollster Cornel Belcher commented “The poll really is trash, and I don’t say that lightly because I’ve had respect for their polling in the past.”
There is much more criticism about the poll available online, but I think the quote by Cornel Belcher really sums it up: “The poll really is trash, and I don’t say that lightly . . . .”
So, exhale.
Organizing to overcome voter suppression.
Yesterday, I made an impassioned plea for Democrats to buck up and have confidence that Joe Biden will win in 2024. To my surprise, I received about two dozen emails and Comments that said in response, “You can’t out-organize voter suppression.” That thesis is taken from a recent post by Marc Elias on Democracy Docket, We Cannot Out-Organize Voter Suppression.
As I explain below, that sentiment is wrong, dangerous, and demeaning to the hundreds of thousands of Democrats who are working hard every day to “get out the vote” by organizing—including in states where voter suppression is rampant.
Before I criticize Elias’s post, let me say that Marc Elias is a national hero who helped defeat sixty lawsuits in 2020 that sought to overturn election results. Every American owes Elias a personal debt of gratitude for his efforts (and results) in 2020. Elias’s organization, Democracy Docket, is a highly effective and does amazing work. Democracy Docket deserves our support. If you don’t already, you should subscribe to Democracy Docket’s newsletter. (I do.) Also, consider donating to Democracy Docket to support its important work.
I was puzzled and worried when I first saw Elias’s article with the headline, “We cannot out-organize voter suppression.” Elias’s point is that voter suppression tactics are having their intended effect. Oddly, however, he goes on to say,
“The myth that citizens can out-organize voter suppression is not just wrong, it is dangerous. [¶] Sadly, suggesting that citizens can use organizing to defeat voter suppression also fuels a false narrative too many are inclined to adopt. [¶] The way to defeat voter suppression is by defeating it head on, not by celebrating working around it.
Elias goes on to say that the way to defeat voter suppression is to (a) call voter suppression what it is: the deprivation of constitutional rights, (b) label those who support voter suppression as vote suppressors, and (c) challenge voter suppression everywhere it is found [by legislation, litigation, and protest].
Here’s my fundamental disagreement with Elias: The basic work of political parties is organizing to “get out the vote.” It is the life’s blood of campaigning. Telling Democrats to give up organizing in the face of voter suppression is to concede defeat in states where Republicans have the upper hand in the legislature. Is that the message we should send to grassroots organizers who are giving their blood, sweat, and tears to get out the vote? No.
Elias talks about organizing and legislating/litigating/protesting as though they are mutually exclusive. They are not!!
Organizing in the face of voter suppression works. Just ask Raphael Warnock in Georgia or Katie Hobbs in Arizona. Both won hard-fought campaigns in the face of newly enacted voter suppression efforts after the 2020 election. If they believed that “you can’t out-organize voter suppression,” they would have given up before election day. They did not give up in the face of voter suppression in Georgia and Arizona —nor did PostCardsToVoters, Sister District, Fair Fight, Senate Circle, Indivisible, SwingLeft, Markers For Democracy, and dozens of other groups dedicated to “getting out the vote” in those races.
Or what about the red wave that was going to give Republicans a 40-seat advantage in the House? Should we have given up in those congressional districts tainted by voter suppression? Or should we have continued to organize get-out-the-vote efforts despite voter suppression? The question answers itself.
Does organizing to “get out the vote” work 100% of the time in the face of voter suppression? Of course not, which is why organizing, litigating, legislating, and protesting are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary. Elias sets up a false dichotomy and straw-man argument by asserting that organizing is the only tool in our toolbox that does not work. Wrong.
If we accept Elias’s argument that “organizing does not work in the face of voter suppression,” what does that say about our efforts in Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi etc., where we have no hope of passing legislation in GOP-controlled legislatures? Do we say to Democrats in those states, “Sorry. We are giving up on you because organizing doesn’t work in the face of voter suppression, but we will tell everyone who will listen that voter suppression is a deprivation of your constitutional rights?”
I asked several readers who told me that “We can’t out-organize voter suppression,”
1. Do you believe that organizing efforts are futile?
2. If yes, should we just give up trying in places where voter suppression exists?
Only one reader answered those questions. The one reader who did respond acknowledged that she “wasn’t giving up” but wanted me to address voter suppression—a concern apparently prompted by Elias’s assertion that organizing cannot overcome suppression.
I don’t think Elias intended readers of his article to leave with the lesson that “We can’t out-organize voter suppression.” Indeed, Elias qualifies his criticism of organizing efforts by saying,
This is not to say that organizing is not important or that Democrats should not engage communities to get out the vote. I am a huge believer in the power and importance of organizing as a tool to build enthusiasm and turnout. At its best, organizing empowers voters to feel a connection with a candidate or cause. However, reducing it to a remedy to the indignity of voter suppression cheapens it.
But even in tempering his criticism, Elias resorts to a false dichotomy. No one has suggested that organizing by itself is a remedy to voter suppression—and Elias cites no source making that assertion.
Despite Elias’s qualified praise for organizing, the lesson that readers have taken from his essay is “organizing doesn’t work in the face of voter suppression.” That is what a half-dozen readers said in the Comments section of yesterday’s newsletter, and a dozen (or more) readers told me in emails. I am positive that is not Elias’s intended goal, but it is what he communicated.
Elias should modify his essay. The title should be something like, “Voter suppression is working. We must fight it every way possible.” And he should change his thesis to recognize that organizing can work in combination with other strategies—and may be a complete solution in close races.
But since it is unlikely that Elias will change his title or thesis, you can help minimize the misunderstanding created by the article: Do not repeat the demonstrably inaccurate thesis that “organizing does not work against voter suppression.” Organizing does work sometimes—enough of the time to matter, especially in close races. Just ask Raphael Warnock and Katie Hobbs.
Concluding Thoughts.
After my spirited defense of Joe Biden yesterday, some readers responded, “But what about Kamala Harris? Voters don’t like her and don’t want her to be president if Biden can’t serve his full term.” That analysis incorrectly focuses only on perceived challenges faced by Democrats and fails to consider the broader picture.
Assuming for argument’s sake that the reader’s concern about Kamala Harris is accurate, let’s think about vice-presidential choices in 2024. The Democratic ticket will be Biden/Harris. The most likely GOP ticket is Trump/Marjorie Taylor Greene. Given those choices, any concern about Kamala Harris would evaporate. I don’t mean to suggest that comparing V.P. Harris to Marjorie Taylor Greene is the appropriate analysis. My point is that concentrating only on V.P. Harris is a skewed and incomplete view that does not take into account all facts and circumstances.
So, as I did in yesterday’s newsletter, I again implore Democrats to stop looking for the dark clouds while ignoring the silver linings. We shouldn’t deceive ourselves about the challenges we face, but let’s not go out of our way to depress ourselves by assuming disaster and ignoring the problems faced by our opponents.
We have a better than fighting chance. Trump is weak and getting weaker. He has the GOP locked in a death grip from which it cannot escape. He will drag the GOP down with him. While we shouldn’t count on Republicans to defeat themselves, let’s not ascribe to them invincibility they do not have. We can beat them in 2024—just like we did in 2018, 2020, and 2022.
Talk to you tomorrow!
Baseball game announcer, “Next up to bat Fanni Willis from Fulton County Georgia and on deck in the batters circle Jack Smith from Washington DC”
I hope I am not the only one to point out that VP Kamala Harris is wildly popular with the single most important part of the Democratic base - Black women.
When Biden first selected her as his running mate, they raised a huge amount of money within two days.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-biden-fundraising/biden-campaign-raises-48-million-in-48-hours-after-naming-kamala-harris-as-vp-choice-idUSKCN25A0CU