A timetable for indictments.

April 25, 2023

          I will resist the temptation to start with Tucker Carlson’s unceremonious firing and begin with the most significant news of the day: Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis sent a letter to local law enforcement officials that effectively signaled her intent to indict Trump (and others) between July 11 and September 1, 2023. That is big news, indeed!

The development in Georgia received less attention than Tucker Carlson’s firing because the media ecosystem assumed long ago that Fani Willis would indict Trump. While the assumption was reasonable, Willis’s letter is the strongest statement yet that she intends to do so by a date certain. See Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Exclusive: DA says indictment announcement coming this summer in Trump probe.

          Per the AJC, Willis advised local law enforcement agencies:

In the near future, I will announce charging decisions resulting from the investigation my office has been conducting into possible criminal interference in the administration of Georgia’s 2020 General Election. I am providing this letter to bring to your attention the need for heightened security and preparedness in coming months due to this pending announcement.

I will be announcing decisions resulting from this investigation during Fulton County Superior Court’s fourth term of court, which will begin on July 11, 2023, and conclude on September 1, 2023.

Please accept this correspondence as notice to allow you sufficient time to prepare the Sheriff’s Office and coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies to ensure that our law enforcement community is ready to protect the public.

          The only reasonable interpretation of the letter is that Willis intends to indict Trump in the next eleven to fourteen weeks. After an excruciating two-and-a-half-year wait, those weeks will fly by. More importantly, we have a concrete date range during which the indictments will issue. That certainty is a welcome relief from the ever-receding mirage of accountability that has vexed and frustrated Americans since Trump descended on the golden escalator in 2015.

          While some may be frustrated over the unexpected delay, the NYTimes reports that the “timetable was delayed, in part, because a number of witnesses have sought to cooperate as the investigation neared an end.” That bodes well for the prosecution and is a bad sign for Trump.

          Nonetheless, the sooner Willis acts, the better. The first Republican primary debate will take place this August in Milwaukee. All things considered, indicting Trump before the first debate is preferable to indicting him after the debate. That point applies with equal force to special counsel Jack Smith.

          Indeed, Merrick Garland and Jack Smith should be chastened that a state prosecutor may be the first to indict Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election. The resources available to the DOJ exceeds those of Fulton County, Georgia, by orders of magnitude. To state the obvious, indicting Trump after the first GOP Iowa caucus in January 2024 would be tantamount to prosecutorial malpractice.

          DOJ policy discourages indictments “near the time of a primary or general election”—a marker that was overtaken when Trump announced his candidacy in January 2023. At the very least, the DOJ should decide whether to indict Trump at least 90 days before the Iowa caucus—in fairness to Trump, the GOP, and the American people. To paraphrase Richard Nixon, “People have got to know whether or not their presidential candidate is a crook.”

Fox dumps Tucker Carlson.

          Fox fired Tucker Carlson on short notice on Monday, surprising everyone, including Carlson. The termination was a victory for American democracy. Carlson’s vile brand of hate and disinformation undermined public confidence in the government and fellow citizens. Good riddance!

          Sadly, the precipitating cause of Carlson’s termination did not appear to be his constant lying, antisemitism, racism, or anti-LGBTQ stance. Instead, according to the LATimes, he was fired for dissing management in private texts and emails that came to light during the Dominion Voting Systems defamation case. In other words, Rupert Murdoch doesn’t care if you cause Fox Corp. to lose three-quarters of billion dollars but don’t dare talk trash about the boss.

          In truth, the Dominion settlement was a likely factor. Let’s assume that Fox must pay the entire $787 million without insurance recoveries or tax benefits. Tucker Carlson generated about $77 million in ad revenue per year. If Fox had a 30% profit margin (a generous assumption), the settlement wiped out 34 years of profit generated by Carlson’s ad revenue. ($787mm/($77mm*0.3))

          While Carlson wasn’t the only on-air entertainer responsible for the settlement, he was the most notable. And the pain isn’t over yet—the Smartmatic lawsuit is in the wings. In other words, keeping Tucker Carlson on the air would have been a long-term money-losing proposition for Fox. Add that fact to carping about Rupert, and you can see why Carlson was given an hour’s notice of his termination.

          Worse for Fox and Carlson, both are defendants in an ugly discrimination lawsuit brought by Amy Grossberg, who claims that Fox and Carlson ran a “poisonous” newsroom with an “entrenched patriarchy” that permitted “abuse of female staff.” Some of the texts sent by Carlson are so vile I won’t quote them in a family-friendly newsletter, but let’s just say that if Carlson ever goes before a jury on a hostile workplace claim, he should bring his checkbook to the witness stand. See Business Insider, Lawsuit Says Fox News Execs Ordered Staff to Spy on Maria Bartiromo.

          There is the possibility of another ticking timebomb relating to Tucker Carlson that has yet to emerge. Something seems amiss, but we shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth. If Rupert Murdoch believes it is a good idea to fire on-air talent with the highest-rated cable show, who are we to second-guess? As one commentator noted, Carlson’s firing is

only the latest in a string of reasons for cautious optimism. Two and a half years ago, if you had predicted the sort of outcomes we’ve seen since, it would have seemed hopelessly, almost absurdly, naive.

          No one woke up Monday morning believing that Fox would fire Tucker Carlson. The unexpected development is a bracing reminder that our minds like to create rational narratives about the future unfolding in an orderly fashion (which is undoubtedly a healthy outlook on life). In truth, the future is filled with surprise and randomness that can reverse fortunes in the blink of an eye. Just ask Tucker Carlson.

Ron DeSantis’s “Yeehaw!” moment?

          Readers old enough to remember the Dukakis presidential campaign will recall that his campaign collapsed soon after he donned an army helmet and took a joyride in an M1 Abrams tank—looking like Snoopy chasing the Red Baron. And remember when Howard Dean celebrated his third-place finish in Iowa with an overly enthusiastic “Yeehaw!” that ended his presidential aspirations?

          Ron DeSantis may have had his “Yeehaw!” moment in Japan. A reporter asked DeSantis if he was concerned about falling behind Trump in the polls. In response, DeSantis appeared to turn into a bobblehead caricature of himself. His head wagged oddly as he said, “I’m not, I’m not a candidate, so we’ll see if and when that changes.” A video clip is here: Ron DeSantis completely MALFUNCTIONS during live interview and it’s WEIRD - YouTube.

          To be fair, five-second clips should not change the course of a presidential election—but I don’t make the rules. If someone isn’t already manufacturing a bobblehead of Ron DeSantis saying, “I’m not, I’m not a candidate,” they are missing a million-dollar opportunity.

          Seriously, though, there is something weird and off-putting about DeSantis’s affect in the response. If that is his game face, he should never formally declare his candidacy.

More on the Florida study regarding myocarditis and Covid.

          There is a scandal brewing in Florida that is flying under the radar. DeSantis appointed a Surgeon General known for associating with an anti-vaccine group of doctors. The Surgeon General, Joseph Ladapo, released a highly suspect “survey” that claimed to show young men were at higher risk of myocarditis from the mRNA vaccine than from Covid. The study was highly criticized when it was released. It was not peer-reviewed, listed no authors, and did not include the underlying data.

          Several Florida newspapers filed public records requests for drafts of the study. They discovered that it was edited so that the public version reported a conclusion that was the opposite of the findings in the study. In other words, the study showed that young men were at higher risk of myocarditis from Covid than from the mRNA vaccine.

          Today, Politico reported that the Florida Surgeon General, Joseph Ladapo, made the edits that reversed the study's conclusion. See Politico, Florida surgeon general altered key findings in study on Covid-19 vaccine safety.

          Per Politico,

The newly released draft of the eight-page study, provided by the Florida Department of Health, indicates that it initially stated that there was no significant risk associated with the Covid-19 vaccines for young men. But “Dr. L’s Edits,” as the document is titled, reveal that Ladapo replaced that language to say that men between 18 and 39 years old are at high risk of heart illness from two Covid vaccines that use mRNA technology.

          This situation should be a scandal of national dimensions. The chief health officer of Florida is accused of personally reversing the findings of a survey about the risks of mRNA vaccines, and it is being treated like a parochial dispute over data interpretation.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Apart from the glee over Tucker Carlson’s firing, the surprise development provides a hopeful lesson as we head into 2024. The future will bring unexpected developments that will knock everyone off balance. What should we do to prepare for such surprises? Exactly what we are doing—building a solid base from the ground up. A motivated base voting for a better future will be more resilient, cohesive, and adaptable than a grievance-fueled, single-issue base loyal to a candidate who cares only about himself.

Democrats are on the right side of the issues and the right side of history—guideposts that provide a moral compass to navigate changeable seas. Let’s keep our eyes on the horizon and stay the course!

          Talk to you tomorrow!