An upset in the making!

October 12, 2022

          There are many paths to success for Democrats seeking to maintain control of the Senate in 2022. One of those paths runs through Ohio, where Rep. Tim Ryan is tied with J.D. Vance to succeed retiring GOP Senator Rob Portman. See USA Today, J.D. Vance, Tim Ryan virtually tied in new Ohio Senate poll. Democrats did not expect the election to succeed Portman to be competitive and have left Tim Ryan to fend for himself in a state Trump won in 2020 by eight percentage points. See NBC News, Tim Ryan ‘all by his lonesome’ as national Democrats ignore close Ohio Senate race. The decision of Democrats not to go “all in” to support Ryan reflected a judgment about which Senate races they believed they were most likely to win. But Tim Ryan’s surprising showing in Ohio raises questions about whether those initial judgments were correct.

          Ryan’s GOP opponent has effectively raised all of his money from three sources: Mitch McConnell ($30 million), billionaire Peter Theil ($15 million), and a $600,000 loan that JD Vance made to his own campaign. Tim Ryan has relied on individual donations to keep up with Vance’s dark money juggernaut. And yet, with four weeks to go until the election, Tim Ryan has a reasonable chance of pulling off an upset (with all of the usual caveats). If that happens, it will effectively ensure that Democrats maintain their razor-thin majority in the Senate—and leave open the possibility of expanding their margin of control.

          On Monday evening, Tim Ryan gave his campaign a big boost with an outstanding performance in his first debate with JD Vance. Although both sides are claiming victory, the consensus is that Tim Ryan delivered a shellacking to Vance. See, for example, Jennifer Rubin in WaPo, Tim Ryan shows Democrats how to beat MAGA candidates in debate. Per Rubin:

Ryan’s performance should be mandatory viewing for Democratic contenders. They should pay attention to Ryan’s tone and demeanor. He repeatedly took down his opponent without appearing nasty. His tone was more incredulous (Can you believe this guy?) than angry. Ryan looks like a regular guy. He appeared totally at ease, often standing with one hand in his pocket. His entire persona reinforced his message that he’s part of the “exhausted middle class,” as he put it.

          Ryan’s takedown of Vance on several topics resulted in multiple “viral” clips of the debate featuring Ryan taking Vance to the woodshed. In one exchange, Ryan reminded voters that Trump said, “J.D. is kissing my ass, he wants my support so much.” The viral video clip is here, in which Ryan states:  

We need leaders who have courage to take on their own party, and I’ve proven that, and he was called an ass-kisser by the former president. Ohio needs an ass-kicker, not an ass-kisser.

          Tim Ryan challenged Vance’s supposed support for police by reminding voters that Vance had paid into a defense fund of a January 6th rioter who was part of the crowd that beat, wounded, and killed police officers. The candidates also tangled over economic issues, where Tim Ryan emphasized the accomplishments of Biden and the Democrats over the last two years. Ryan is effectively promoting a populist economic message—something that other Democrats should emulate!

          After the debate, JD Vance disappeared, sending a mid-level staffer to answer reporters’ questions, while Tim Ryan stepped up to the post-debate podium to answer questions from the media. That speaks volumes about how Vance views his debate performance.

          Although the race between Tim Ryan and JD Vance is effectively tied, the “undecided voters” can swing the result either way. And Vance is running non-stop negative advertising with his dirty money from McConnell. If you are interested in hearing from Tim Ryan to consider supporting his campaign with much-needed donations, please join me and my Managing Editor (Jill Bickett) as we interview Tim (with reader-supplied questions) on Tuesday, October 18, 2022, at 5:30 PM Pacific / 8:30 PM Eastern.

          As noted yesterday, Tim’s campaign has agreed to make this event broadly accessible to readers of this newsletter. So, donate any amount to RSVP, and you will receive a Zoom link after registering. Donate and register here: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/na101822virtual.

          Space is limited, so please register early! And if you can give generously to Tim, please do! We have a fighting chance to achieve an upset victory. Let’s make the most of it!

The DOJ responds to Trump’s request for Supreme Court to intervene in special master review.

          Last week, Trump asked the Supreme Court to overrule the 11th Circuit’s order exempting classified documents from review by the special master appointed by Judge Cannon. The DOJ responded on Tuesday to Trump’s application to the Supreme Court. By universal acclamation, the DOJ brief eviscerated Trump’s request for relief. For example, Professor Laurence Tribe wrote,

The Justice Department’s response opposing the emergency application Trump’s legal team filed in the Supreme Court . . . is utterly devastating. It pulverizes all of Trump’s arguments and leaves none standing.

          The opening lines of the DOJ’s brief highlighted the insanity of the situation created by Judge Cannon’s nonsense order. The DOJ wrote:

[Judge Cannon] restrict[ed] the Executive Branch’s use of its own highly classified documents in an ongoing criminal investigation and direct[ed] the dissemination of those records outside the Executive Branch for a special master review.

The DOJ’s brief is here: DOJ Response to Trump Application to Vacate 11th Cir. Stay. See also Joyce Vance’s excellent explanation of the nuances of the procedural posture of Trump’s application and the DOJ’s opposition in Civil Discourse, DOJ Responds to Trump--Joyce Vance (substack.com).

          Assuming that the Supreme Court appropriately applies the law to the facts, it will summarily dismiss Trump’s application for relief.

The finger-pointing begins on Trump’s legal team.

          The DOJ is moving its investigation ever closer to Trump. Recent reporting indicates that Trump lawyer Christina Bobb is cooperating with the DOJ. Other Trump lawyers (including Evan Corcoran) convinced Bobb to sign a declaration for the FBI attesting that all documents had been returned to the National Archives. That declaration was patently false, and Bobb is now telling investigators that she relied on Evan Corcoran as the source of the false statements. She has also apparently revealed conversations that she had with Trump regarding the storage, handling, and (non)return of the documents to the National Archives. See NBC News, Trump lawyer Christina Bobb speaks to federal investigators in Mar-a-Lago case and Talking Points Memo, New Details On Lawyer’s Promise That Trump Had Returned Everything.

          Stepping back from the details of who said what to whom in the circular firing squad that is Trump’s legal team, all of this means that the day on which Trump will be indicted is drawing nearer. The inevitability of an indictment against Trump is the subject of a detailed and cautious analysis by Franklin Foer in The Atlantic, The Inevitable Indictment of Donald Trump. I can’t do justice to Foer’s lengthy analysis, but the thesis of the article is that the events of the last two years have shaped Merrick Garland in a way that effectively ensures Garland will indict Trump. Foer writes,

I have also come to see that the Garland of 2022 is not the same man who was sworn into office as attorney general in March of the previous year. At the age of 69, his temperament is firmly fixed, but a year and a half on the job has transformed him. [¶] [H]is sparring with Trump over the documents at Mar-a-Lago escalated quickly. The former president is no longer a figure on television, but his adversary in court. Garland approached him with an aggression that suggested he was prepared to do the very thing that critics said he didn’t have the guts to do.

          Commentators like Laurence Tribe, Andrew Weissmann, and Joyce Vance have agreed that an indictment seems likely on the basis of the factual record at this point. The only questions remaining are “when” and “how expansive” the indictment will be. While indicting and prosecuting a former president will be harrowing, not doing so would be devastating to our democracy.

Concluding Thoughts.

          I received a lot of reader reaction to yesterday’s newsletter regarding the antisemitic comments by Doug Mastriano and Kanye West. Many readers recommended Dan Rather’s blog Steady, Antisemitism Is Evil - by Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner. Rather and Kirschner conclude as follows:

What can we do about it? We can start by being allies to those under attack. In the case of antisemitism, it’s especially important that the burden for raising this issue does not fall on only Jewish Americans. It’s the same for racism, homophobia, and misogyny. We all must speak out. We must use whatever platforms we have to spread messages of support and outrage, to share history, and to elevate voices of healing and understanding.

          Jamie Lee Curtis also spoke out—while doing a promotional tour for her latest “Halloween” franchise horror film. When Curtis saw Kanye’s tweet about starting “death con 3” for Jewish people, Curtis responded on Twitter,

The holiest day in Judaism was last week. Words matter. A threat to Jewish people ended once in a genocide. Your words hurt and incite violence. You are a father. Please stop.

          The words of Rather and Curtis stand in stark contrast to the ongoing silence from Republicans about Kanye’s antisemitic statements. So, too, do the actions of President Biden in response to a recent incident involving members of the Los Angeles City Council. In short, when three members of the LA City Council believed no one was listening, one member used ugly racist stereotypes to describe the Black adopted son of a white council member. When Biden’s press representative was asked about the incident, she responded for the president by saying,

The President is glad to see that one of the participants in that conversation has resigned, but they all should. He believes that they all should resign. The language that was used and tolerated during that conversation was unacceptable and it was appalling. They should all step down.

          Press secretaries do not make statements like the above without the express approval of the president. Biden’s strong stance against racist language stands in stark contrast to the feigned ignorance and silent complicity of Republicans faced with more egregious examples of racism and antisemitism. Biden’s response was motivated in part by his decency and humanity. But also, by his natural instinct to rise to the defense of targets of hate speech as Dan Rather suggests, “by being allies of those under attack.”

          The willingness of Democrats to rise to the defense of others is sometimes dismissed as “identity politics.” It is not. If we do not challenge hate speech, it becomes normalized and accepted. From there, it is a short leap to discrimination, persecution, and violence. Yes, it is difficult, enervating, unpleasant, and (sometimes) distracting to condemn the latest hate speech by Republicans. But we must do so to prevent its spread and to reassure those targeted by hate speech that they are not alone or defenseless.

          Talk to you tomorrow!