Going “all in” for Biden.

July 20, 2023

          In the first few months of Trump's administration, he signed three executive orders that gutted unions representing federal workers. He appointed three “anti-union” members to the Federal Labor Relations Board and a General Counsel who consistently issued anti-union rulings when advising the FLRB. Trump undermined OSHA protections and methodically implemented ten “requests” from the pro-business US Chamber of Commerc designed to weaken unions. See Trump’s Anti-Worker Labor Board | Labor Notes.

          Twenty-three minutes into Joe Biden’s administration, Biden fired the anti-union FLRB General Counsel appointed by Trump. That same day, Biden replaced the FLRB anti-union Chair with a Democratic board member with a career of service on union issues, including as Ted Kennedy’s chief lawyer on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in the Senate. On Biden’s second day in office, he reversed Trump's three anti-union executive orders.

          On Wednesday of this week, President Biden met with the United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain to discuss the status of UAW negotiations with the Big Three automakers. The meeting took place as the UAW is withholding its endorsement of Biden because of the UAW’s unhappiness over Biden’s support for electric vehicles. See The Hill, Biden meets with United Auto Workers president while group withholds 2024 endorsement.

          UAW president Shawn Fain explains the union’s decision not to endorse Biden by saying that he wants a “just transition [to electric vehicles] where the workers who make the auto industry run aren’t left behind.” The ambivalence of the UAW regarding Biden’s candidacy will likely result in some union members believing they have been given tacit encouragement to vote for Donald Trump—increasing the possibility of another round of union-busting efforts under Trump. That cannot be the result that Shawn Fain wants, but it is the result that his actions promote.

          I hesitate to quote myself (I always cringe when other writers do so because it has a patina of “I told you so), but my comments yesterday apply directly to this story. I wrote:

          We do not have the luxury of demanding perfection from Joe Biden before granting him our vote. He cannot be everything to everyone and still run the nation better than any president in a generation (at least). If a GOP candidate burdened with four indictments, two impeachments, and a multi-million-dollar civil judgment for sexual abuse can command near unanimous support among Republican faithful, we must be able to clear that bar for Joe Biden.

          The UAW’s strategy of withholding support for Biden is self-defeating. Other more colorful descriptors come to mind, but I will restrain myself because I do not seek to encourage union-bashing in the Comments section. My point is to use the UAW as an example of widespread hesitancy and indecision about Biden’s candidacy that may elect Trump. The UAW is worried about jobs for its members—a laudable concern. So are concerns about the environment, the war in Ukraine, Supreme Court reform, student loan forgiveness, or dozens of other issues where Biden has not adopted the most aggressive (or most lenient) positions advocated by some in the Democratic Party.

          On most of those issues, Biden has made some progress—even great progress. If we want to see all that progress reversed, the surest way to do so is to withhold support from Biden because he has not done more. We must get over ourselves, folks. We must pull together in recognition that the choice in 2024 is between Biden and tyranny, Biden and chaos, and Biden and full implementation of MAGA’s extreme agenda. Support Joe Biden, now. Unequivocally, unambiguously, and without qualification or mental reservation. Biden may be old(er), but Trump is depraved. Those two things are not alike.

Developments in Trump criminal and civil liability.

          Trump's legal jeopardy continues to worsen at an accelerating pace. His favorability ratings in the Republican party defy gravity. But in an evenly divided electorate, a marginal difference of a couple of percentage points can tip an election. Developments today include the following:

NY state prosecution for hush-money payments to remain in state court.

• Trump attempted to remove the Manhattan state court prosecution to federal court. The federal district judge who considered Trump's removal petition denied the request on Wednesday. Accordingly, state court judge Juan Merchan will preside over the hush money trial, which is expected to commence in March 2024. Judge nixes Trump’s bid to move hush-money criminal case, keeping it in New York state court (msn.com).

• This is a positive development. Judge Merchan presided over the New York state trial “of two Trump Organization companies that were found guilty of 17 counts related to criminal tax evasion.” In other words, Judge Merchan has seen Trump's antics in court before and should be prepared for what Trump will do when he is tried for the hush money payments.

Federal judge denies new trial for Trump in the first E. Jean Carroll defamation suit.

• The federal judge who presided over the civil defamation suit by E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump denied Trump's motion for a new trial. In denying Trump's motion, federal district Judge Lewis Kaplan concluded that Trump raped E. Jean Carroll within the colloquial and legal meaning of the term “rape.” Judge denies Trump's request for new trial in E. Jean Carroll case - ABC News.

DOJ clears way for second E. Jean Carroll defamation suit to proceed against Trump.

• Trump defamed E. Jean Carroll on numerous occasions—including while he was president. The DOJ (under Bill Barr) originally claimed that Trump was acting within the course and scope of his duties as president when he defamed Carroll in 2019. The DOJ intervened on behalf of Trump and sought to dismiss the case. After multiple appeals, the DOJ has now reversed its prior position and said that it will not seek to intervene on Trump's behalf. See Letter to Judge Lewis Kaplan from DOJ dated July 11, 2023.

• As a result, E. Jean Carroll can proceed to trial on her claim that Trump defamed her by denying (in 2019) that he raped her in 1996. E. Jean Carroll’s second defamation case against Trump will be tried by the same judge before whom the first case was tried (Judge Lewis Kaplan, who just denied Trump a new trial in the first defamation case!)

How did Judge Aileen Cannon do in her first hearing in the defense secrets case?

• Judge Aileen Cannon held her first hearing in the defense secrets case. The hearing was largely devoted to the issue of when the trial would occur. Commentators are split on Judge Cannon’s handling of the hearing. For an excellent summary, see Judge Cannon Holds a Hearing | Lawfare. Bottom line, Cannon came across as inexperienced and indecisive.

• But the real test will be her written order, which should be issued in the next few days. I will withhold further comment until the order is issued. But remember, what happens in Judge Cannon’s courtroom is on a separate track from the presidential election. The only way to ensure that Trump is held to account is to beat him at the ballot box in 2024, and thereby prevent him from dismissing the federal prosecutions against himself.

GOP donors and financial self-interest fuel RFK Jr. and Joe Manchin/No Labels.

          The most recent federal campaign report confirms what we all believed—GOP donors are providing major support for RFK Jr.’s run for the Democratic nomination. See Popular Information, GOP donors fuel RFK Jr's presidential campaign.

          And as Dennis Aftergut explains in The Bulwark, Joe Manchin and No Labels share a common interest—promoting their financial self-interest.See What Joe Manchin and No Labels Share: Financial Self-Dealing (thebulwark.com). Although the details are complicated, the theme is the same: The financial beneficiaries of Joe Manchin’s political career and the nascent No Labels effort are Joe Manchin’s family and family members of the founders of the No Labels party, respectively.

No, the pandemic is not over.

          Yesterday, I wrote in Concluding Thoughts that the “excess death rate” had fallen to “normal” for the first time since Covid began. Several readers took exception to my note, saying that “the pandemic is not over.” I never said it was, but to the extent that a clarification is needed, a good place to go for clarity is Katelyn Jetelina’s Substack blog, Your Local Epidemiologist, Covid-19: Catch up quick

          Jetelina notes, “Since late January 2023, excess deaths have reached pre-pandemic levels. This has been a massive reprieve.” But the virus is not gone, and infection rates are picking up in the Southwest and West. It seems likely that SARS-CoV-2 will be with humans indefinitely. But preventing new deaths from the virus is a major milestone that deserves recognition.

Concluding Thoughts.

          You may have seen a headline about the first polling relating to Issue 1 on Ohio’s August 8th ballot. See Ohio Issue 1: Poll finds most Ohio voters oppose August ballot issue (cincinnati.com).  Issue 1 is the GOP’s cynical attempt to prevent citizens of Ohio from passing a constitutional amendment to protect reproductive liberty—an amendment that will be on the ballot in November 2023. Democrats must defeat Issue 1 in August in order to have a decent chance of passing the constitutional amendment in November.

          I know this is a bit confusing, so just remember this: VOTE NO on Issue 1 on August 8, 2023.

          BUT . . . the deciding factor on August 8th will be turnout—which can be as low as 7% in special elections in Ohio. So, do not be lulled into a false sense of security about Ohio’s August 8th election. To win, Democrats need a substantial turnout. If you are writing postcards, calling, texting, or canvassing, do not stop! GOTV efforts are vitally important to defeating Issue 1 on August 8th. Tell a friend!

          Talk to you tomorrow!