A presidential split-screen

May 8, 2024

As Trump cursed under his breath in response to testimony by Stormy Daniels detailing his brutish behavior in a hotel room in 2006, President Biden was delivering an important speech raising the alarm about resurgent antisemitism in the US. (The video is here, commencing at the 51-minute mark: CSPAN.)

That split-screen moment reveals the essential character of each man.

Opening scene: Holocaust Memorial Museum at the Days of Remembrance Ceremony

President Biden’s remarks were somber but direct. He did not shy away from the historical parallels of antisemitism’s rise in Nazi Germany and the US. While I recommend the entire speech to your attention, President Biden said, in part,

Germany, 1933.  Hitler and his Nazi party rise to power by rekindling one of the world’s oldest forms of prejudice and hate: antisemitism.  His rule didn’t begin with mass murder.  It started slowly across economic, political, social, and cultural life: propaganda demonizing Jews; boycotts of Jewish businesses; synagogues defaced with swastikas; harassment of Jews in the street and in the schools; antisemitic demonstrations, pogroms, organized riots. [¶]

And as Jews around the world still cope with the atrocities and trauma of that day and its aftermath, we’ve seen a ferocious surge of antisemitism in America and around the world: vicious propaganda on social media, Jews forced to keep their — hide their kippahs under baseball hats, tuck their Jewish stars into their shirts. 

The speech was important, timely, and eloquent. Antisemitism resulted in the deaths of 6 million Jews under Germany’s rule because of the “indifference” of the world in the face of clear warning signs. Hitler left no doubt about who he was or what he intended. The parallels to antisemitism in the US today draw themselves.

President Biden’s remarks will be misinterpreted by some as an attack on college students demanding peace in Gaza—a statement that Biden did not make. Instead, his remarks condemned all hate speech “of any kind”—including antisemitism.

The speech was delivered at a time when any statement about the events in the Middle East would be criticized and condemned—no matter what Biden chose to say. But condemning antisemitism and urging the world to “never forget” the horror of the Holocaust is never wrong. Indeed, it is a moral imperative. President Biden demonstrated his moral character by rising to the occasion despite the inevitable criticism and political blowback for doing the right thing.

---

Cut to Courtroom 59, New York Supreme Court building at 100 Centre Street, Judge Juan Merchan, presiding

The scene before Judge Juan Merchan could not have been more different than Biden’s speech at the Holocaust Memorial Museum. Stormy Daniels provided a disturbing view into the sordid private life of Donald Trump ten years before he was elected president. See Talking Points Memo, Stormy Daniels Offers Grim Look At Transactional Trump

The prosecution called Stormy Daniels on Tuesday morning. Her testimony detailed Trump's creepy advances to Daniels, including his surprise appearance on the hotel room bed in his tee shirt and underwear when Daniels returned from the bathroom. Daniels testified about Trump's advantage in power and size, hinting at the inherent coercion in the situation when describing the events leading to their sexual encounter. See Slate, Stormy Daniels Trump testimony: imagine if this story had come out right after the tape. (“This telling described the interaction as sexual coercion bordering on assault.”)

The hints of coercion in Daniels’ testimony led Trump's attorneys to move for a mistrial—a motion denied by Judge Merchan. As Merchan noted in denying the motion, the defense failed to object to many of the statements by Daniels that Todd Blanche cited as the basis for the mistrial. Judge Merchan told Blanche that the defense could and should address any unfair prejudice during cross-examination.

Judge Merchan exhibited irritation with Stormy Daniels’ expansive answers to the prosecution’s direct examination. The judge objected on his own initiative on a few occasions (a rarity) and urged Daniels to constrain her answers to the questions asked. It was a rare moment of pique by Judge Merchan directed at the prosecution. Still, even in her excess attention to detail, Daniels painted a vivid picture of the encounter—likely to boost her credibility.

But Judge Merchan's dissatisfaction with Daniels’ expansive testimony was surpassed by the judge’s anger at Trump's facial expressions and mutterings in reaction to Daniels’ testimony. Trump sits less than ten feet from the jurors, who undoubtedly heard and saw Trump's reactions. See Huffington Post, Judge Warns Trump Attorney About Audible ‘Cursing’ As Stormy Daniels Testifies.

Judge Merchan called the attorneys to the bench for a sidebar and said the following to Todd Blanche:

I understand that your client is upset at this point, but he is cursing audibly, and he is shaking his head visually and that's contemptuous . . . I am speaking to you here at the bench because I don't want to embarrass him.

The defense cross-examination of Daniels is picking at small inconsistencies in her story, impugning her reputation, and arguing with her. Although the defense succeeded in scoring a few points, the cross-examination has devolved into a contest of wits between an experienced attorney (Susan Necheles) and Stormy Daniels—in which Daniels is holding her own. See New York Times analysis, Jonathan Alter, Stormy Daniels Stood Up Well to the Taunts of Trump’s Lawyer.

Per Jonathan Alter,

Strangely enough, Daniels stood up better under cross than her former attorney, Keith Davidson, did last week. In certain ways, she is doing even better on cross-examination — which continues on Thursday — than she did on direct examination by the prosecution in the morning.

So, what do we make of all this?

The first lesson is that there is no substitute for requiring Trump to answer for his actions in a court of law. When constrained by the rules of evidence and the threat of imprisonment, Trump cannot filibuster and lie with impunity.

Second, Trump is a creep, misogynist, and predator who cannot be trusted to be alone with women who are not his wife. It remains to be seen whether that lesson will pierce the consciousnesses of voters in 2024—especially women. Indeed, the very reason that Trump concealed his encounter with Daniels was because of his fear about its impact on women voters in 2016.

Finally, Trump continues to benefit from a double standard of justice available to no other defendant in the US. Judge Merchan should have called out Trump's muttering and head shaking by reprimanding him in front of the jury. The judge described the behavior as contemptuous but failed to hold Trump in contempt. (Because the behavior occurred in front of Judge Merchan, he could immediately find Trump in “direct contempt” and summarily order him into confinement.) By failing to warn Trump on the record and in front of the jury, the judge will likely feel the need to do so before jailing Trump for direct contempt.

Trump's status as a former president and current candidate has warped the judicial system to an unexpected degree. Although a democracy should act cautiously in charging and jailing its former presidents, there is no exception to the rule of law for former presidents.

---

Trump struggles in Indiana GOP primary

Indiana held its presidential primary on Tuesday evening. Although Nikki Haley dropped out of the race two months ago, she may garner more than 20% of the vote. See Politico, Unexpected warning signs for Trump in busy Indiana primary.

Per Politico, Haley won approximately 30% of the vote in metropolitan and affluent suburban areas:

Indiana delivered the former president double-point margins in 2016 and 2020. But on Tuesday night, even though Trump won all of the state’s 58 delegates, Nikki Haley posted above-30-point performances in places like Marion County, home to Indianapolis, and affluent Hamilton County, its suburb to the north.

Although Indiana is technically a “closed primary,” there is no way to enforce the party affiliation criteria. So, it is possible some Democrats crossed over to vote for Haley. But, as a point of reference, it appears that roughly the same number of Indiana voters participated in the GOP primary for governor as voted in the GOP presidential primary. So, it does not appear to me that Democrats tried to intervene in the GOP presidential primary in Indiana. (For election experts, my analysis is based on the WAG methodology.)

How meaningful is the apparent inability of Trump to convince 20% of Republicans to vote for him in an uncontested primary? A simple thought experiment will answer that question: What if Joe Biden was unable to break 80% in an uncontested primary? The NYTimes would “stop the presses” and print the headline in RED BLOCK LETTERS: “Biden struggles with base amid lack of confidence and lingering doubts.” The conclusion should be the same for Trump, even if the NYTimes can’t bring itself to state the obvious about Trump's electoral struggles.

---

Is it something I said?

Over the last month, I have avoided the temptation to make this newsletter “all Trump all the time.” This newsletter isn’t an “anti-Trump” newsletter, it is a pro-democracy, pro-hope newsletter intended to help people make it through challenging times.

Two things have happened since I have adopted the deliberate strategy of starting with stories related to President Biden rather than defendant Trump. “Daily views” of the newsletter have dropped, and the number of subscribers has declined (in absolute numbers). Neither decline is material, but the month-long trend runs against the otherwise slow, steady growth of the newsletter and subscribers over the last six years. While newsletter growth has never been an end in itself, given the pro-democracy mission of this newsletter, the more readers, the better.

I think my editorial approach is both right and healthy. We must have a positive message and promote our candidates if we expect voters to support them. At the same time, we cannot ignore the candidate who is telling us he will be a dictator if re-elected. The trial of a former president is significant and historic, so it deserves attention. But the decent, steady, positive governance of President Biden deserves to be promoted over the spectacle of Trump's legal troubles.

I don’t keep track of people who unsubscribe or stop being paying subscribers. But if one of the reasons is that it is just too complicated to update your credit card number as a paying subscriber, watch this video: Video Tutorial: Update Credit Card.

There is, of course, one other possible explanation: Readers and subscribers disagree with my decision to avoid reporting on the war in Gaza and protests on college campuses. On that topic, read on!

---

Reader responses to reporting on war in Gaza and student protests.

Given the strong emotions surrounding the war in Gaza, Biden’s support for Israel, and related student protests, I have generally avoided reporting on those subjects. Why? Yesterday’s newsletter is an example.

Yesterday, I noted that the Biden administration has been working in the background to broker a peace agreement through Egypt and Qatar. I repeated widely reported facts about the attempt by Hamas to accept a peace deal and Israel’s varying reactions to that attempt. My effort at neutral reporting resulted in personal attacks on me from all sides. Several readers who support Palestinians said that I am (to varying degrees) “complicit in genocide” (a surprisingly common refrain from readers who disagree with my support for Joe Biden). Supporters of Israel accused me (variously) of being a “Hamas sympathizer” or lacking moral character or intelligence.

As noted previously, I unsubscribe and block readers who turn political dialog into an excuse for personal attacks. Many other readers sent emotional, sometimes angry emails attacking Israel, Hamas, Biden, Iran, and Netanyahu. I can handle those emails. I don’t always find them pleasant to respond to, but as long as we are discussing the substance, I respect and respond to readers who take the time to write to me about topics in the newsletter.

So, if the news cycle is turning readers off to this newsletter, I suppose there is little to be done. I opened today’s newsletter with the story about Joe Biden’s antisemitism speech with reluctance because of the anticipated criticism I will receive from those who support peaceful student protests and believe that Joe Biden maligned them in his remarks. (He did not. Read his speech.) But how could I not highlight the most significant action by President Biden on Tuesday—especially compared to the sordid actions by Trump on display in a Manhattan courtroom?

Do I have a point? Yes. As I told one reader before I unsubscribed him today, it is seldom an effective tactic to insult people who fundamentally agree with your point. That is good advice for us all as we try to navigate difficult issues.

I believe we will make it through this difficult time. I believe that Joe Biden will help negotiate a peace. I believe that Joe Biden will move the parties to a solution that grants Palestinians self-government, security, and prosperity. I believe that the same solution will make Israel more secure and peaceful. These issues have frustrated and defeated world leaders for centuries. Let’s give President Biden room to work on deals behind closed doors without ascribing to him callousness or lack of concern for the tragic deaths on both sides.

So, to the extent that it is responsible to do so, I will not include an editorial focus on the war in Gaza or campus protests, as explained above. I appreciate your understanding.  

---

Concluding Thoughts

In statistics, there are two primary ways to calculate probabilities. The first is the “frequentist” interpretation—count how many times something appears in a sample and extrapolate that frequency to the population as a whole. The second is Bayesian statistics which involves updating your degree of belief in an event based on new information. (I have now exhausted my knowledge of statistics. Please don’t write to me to tell me I have failed to use the correct terms. I am making a point here, so allow me some latitude!)

Political polling is based on the frequentist interpretation, e.g., 49% of respondents in a sample of 1100 voters say they support Biden, so that extrapolates to 49% support for Biden nationally. The same applies for Trump.

But what if Trump continually underperforms the polls by losing significant support in primaries where his opponent is no longer running? Under the Bayesian approach, you have new information that must be taken into account to update your degree of belief in the probability of a future event.

But there is no evidence that pollsters give any credence to the fact that Trump is losing a significant percentage of support among Republicans in uncontested primaries. A curious pollster would say, “Hmm . . . our models are broken. Perhaps we should update our beliefs.”

Why I am I telling you this given my rudimentary knowledge of statistics? Simply to make the point that the only polls that matter are elections and those have been consistently bad for Trump. Even though the trends in the polls are favorable for Biden, the results in actual elections suggest a reservoir of animosity toward Trump that isn’t being picked up in the polls.

None of this means we can relent. It does mean that we can ignore the polls as we focus on getting out the vote. Ignore the polls even on the day before the election. The pollsters are missing something about the resistance to Trump. Just ask the Republicans of Indiana.

Talk to you tomorrow!