The courts aren’t coming to save us—and that’s okay.

February 29, 2024

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court granted review of Trump’s presidential immunity defense. The surprise grant of review felt like a gut punch. Trump's presidential immunity defense is absurd and unworthy of extended consideration by the Court. Moreover, the Court is moving with a “business-as-usual” pace when many Americans are desperate to see Trump tried by a jury before the 2024 election.

It set oral argument for April 22, 2024. It is doubtful that an opinion will be issued before June 2024. In short, there is little chance that Trump will sit for trial in the federal election interference or defense secrets cases before the November election.

But the grant of review and attendant delay changed nothing. The courts aren’t coming to save us—and that’s okay. We were (and remain) in charge of our destiny and Trump's criminal accountability. Our remedy lies in defeating Trump at the ballot box. If we do that, Trump will be convicted and imprisoned. If we fail to do so, Trump will use the Department of Justice to delay and obstruct his criminal prosecutions.

Feelings of anger and disappointment are understandable and reasonable. The Supreme Court appears incapable of rising to a moment of constitutional crisis. Its glacial pace betrays contempt for the American people—or actual bias in favor of Trump. Either way, it is maddening.

The Court has lost its way. It has breached its trust with the American people. It won’t recover from this wound, regardless of how it rules on Trump's claim of immunity.

We must not expend needless worry calculating dwindling paths to a trial date before November 2024. It was clear long ago that no conviction of Trump (including appeals) would be final before the November election. Because finality (and imprisonment) would never be achieved before the election, obsessing over a trial beginning (and ending) before the election is pointless.

But what about the polls that show many voters would change their minds if Trump is convicted? We have little reason to believe those polls.

They would have us believe that voters would suddenly change their minds about Trump if he were convicted, even though they remained supportive of Trump despite being aware of the following:

• the events of January 6,

• the bribery of Ukraine,

• the Access Hollywood tape,

• the Stormy Daniels affair,

• the sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll,

• a civil fraud judgment for $350 million,

• the retention of defense secrets,

• the denial of reproductive liberty for women,

• the ban on travel from majority Muslim nations,

• the stigmatization of LGBTQ people,

• the slurs against immigrants and

• the mismanagement of a pandemic that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Would it be preferable to hold a trial of Trump prior to the November election? Sure! But that alone would not assure victory or prevent Trump from taking office if he wins.

And don’t forget that Trump will stand trial in New York on state criminal charges for federal election violations by concealing his hush money payments to a porn star over a sexual encounter that occurred while Melania was at home nursing Barron Trump.

So, while feelings of anger and disappointment are understandable and reasonable, the grant of review by the Supreme Court changed nothing. We control our destiny. We must defeat Trump in November. We cannot expect the courts to save us . . . and that’s okay.

If we accept that premise, we can observe and analyze the various court proceedings with the appropriate level of interest and detachment they deserve. We should be vitally interested in what is happening in Trump's criminal proceedings, but we should not hang on every development as if it will determine the outcome of the election. It won’t. Stop calculating whether Judge Chutkan can squeeze in a trial between June and November 2024, and get back to the hard work of winning the 2024 election.

Post-script: Do not mistake my focus on defeating Trump at the ballot box for acceptance of the Supreme Court’s decision. It was corrupt because Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself. It was reprehensible because it credits an absurd legal theory. It undermines the rule of law and expresses contempt for the American people. It exalts procedure over substance at a time of constitutional crisis.

The current Court is broken beyond repair. It must be enlarged so that a new majority of justices willing to uphold the Constitution can reform an institution that has been captured by the Federalist Society and MAGA extremists.

---

Trump fails to post required bond for appeal of New York civil fraud judgment

Trump is appealing his $350 million judgment in the New York civil fraud trial. With interest, that judgment is $450 million. A bond in New York must cover 110% of the judgment, meaning that Trump will have to post a bond for approximately $500 million to prevent the seizure of his properties to satisfy the judgment.

On Wednesday, Trump asked an intermediate appellate judge to permit Trump to post a bond in the amount $100 million (far short of the $500 million expected)—because Trump says (a) he can’t borrow from NY banks and (b) he would have to sell some of his properties to satisfy the bond.

In short order, an intermediate appellate judge denied Trump's request to reduce the bond but allowed Trump's sons to remain involved in the businesses and to borrow money from NY banks. It also set a hearing on March 18 for a three-judge panel to rule on Trump's request for a reduced bond. See Washington Post, Judge won’t delay Trump’s $450 million penalty in N.Y. civil fraud trial.

Trump's inability to post the bond indicates he is under significant financial stress. And he must also post a bond on the $83 million judgment awarded to E. Jean Carroll. See ABC News, Trump requests delay of $83.3 million judgment in Carroll defamation trial. Trump has requested a stay to avoid payment of the bond. A hearing will be held on March 2, 2024.

Although “posting a bond” seems like a technicality, it imposes significant burden on Trump. It is a small measure of accountability that is a harbinger of more to come. And it is the first step in testing Trump’s ability to weather the rough seas ahead. The first wave almost swamped him—and may yet do so. Stay tuned!

---

Quick updates on reproductive liberty

Republicans are struggling (unsuccessfully) to squirm their way out of the absolutist positions they have adopted since the Court overruled Roe v. Wade. The issue has been fueling Democratic victories since 2022.

They continue to struggle to come up with a rational response to the Alabama IVF decision. See HuffPo, Republicans Wary Of Federal Protections For IVF

For example, Senator Marco Rubio could do no better than explain that the Alabama decision creates a quandary: “Unfortunately, you have to create multiple embryos, and some of those are not used, so you’re now in a quandary.”

Sen. Joni Ernst was asked if she considered frozen embryos children, she said, “I don’t want to say they’re not children.” Huh??

Meanwhile, Senator Lindsay Graham confirmed that Republicans will not rest until they have achieved a national abortion ban. Graham said that if Trump is elected, Republicans will pass a national abortion ban with an upper limit but allow states to impose more stringent bans on a state-by-state basis.

Republicans are not going to stop until they deny all women agency over their own bodies and reproductive choices. This message must get to all Democrats, independents, and persuadable Republicans to drive massive turnout against Trump and GOP legislators in November!

We have the momentum on this issue and cannot allow other events—like Trump's legal maneuvering—to overshadow the tremendous stakes for reproductive liberty on the ballot in 2024.

Opportunities for Reader Engagement.

Walk the Walk!

Please join Walk the Walk USA, Monday, March 4, 2024, 5:30pm Pacific/8:30pm Eastern for our 2024 kick-off zoom with special guests from Michigan People’s Campaign.  We’ll be diving into Walk the Walk’s proven, evidence-backed strategy for winning up and down the ballot this year.  And we’ll be in conversation with our long-time partner, Michigan People’s Campaign, which will play an outsized role across so many critical races this year – the U.S. presidency, U.S. Senate, U.S House, MI State legislature, and more.  

Walk the Walk is an all-volunteer initiative that raises funds for strategic voter empowerment in key geographies -- to realize the promise of an inclusive U.S. democracy.  Since Walk the Walk is run entirely by volunteers and has no overhead, every dollar raised goes to its effective grassroots partners.

Attendance is free – Register Today!

Check out a Letters to the Editor Toolkit from ReSisters.

The ReSisters, an activist group in Fairfield County, Connecticut, is concerned about the media's unfair reporting on President Biden’s campaign. They realized that a great way to act on their dual missions of education and action was to write Letters to the Editors (LTEs). They knew that writing LTEs can feel daunting to inexperienced writers. Where to start? What to say? How to post?

To help ReSisters express themselves, they put together the attached LTE Tool Kit. The LTE Tool Kit provides useful tips to write an effective LTE. They have asked me to share this helpful tool with my readers to encourage activists nationally to pick up their pens and push back against the media bias we are currently experiencing.

LTE Tool Kit

Concluding Thoughts.

My wife and I visited with readers in Memphis, Tennessee on Wednesday. (Picture below.) We had a great meeting—along with a great meal prepared by our host, Terry! Thank you!

We also spent much of the day at the Memphis Civil Rights Museum at the Lorraine Hotel, the site of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. My wife devoted her video blog to our visit. Day 8: The Civil Rights Museum in Memphis Tennessee (everydaywithjill.com).

It was awe-inspiring to see the generational determination and dedication of the descendants of slaves seeking full recognition under the Constitution. They repeatedly put their livelihoods and lives on the line. They understood that their lives were in danger yet pressed ahead. Indeed, Dr. King’s last speech—I Have Been to the Mountaintop—seems to anticipate his impending death the next day.

We face great challenges today. And yet, our challenges seem less daunting than those faced by the Black Americans in the 1950s and 1960s. Black women walking to jobs as maids and caretakers were arrested on the side of the road for refusing to take a bus on which they were denied seats. A young man (James Meredith) seeking admission to the University of Mississippi needed the assistance of federal troops to gain admission—only to be met by widespread rioting and arson by white students. The bus transporting the Freedom Riders was set aflame by the Ku Klux Klan. Police repeatedly beat Memphis sanitation workers. And more.

I left the exhibit with the sense that we can prevail over any challenges we face today if we exhibit a fraction of the bravery and dedication of the civil rights workers on whose shoulders we stand. We owe it to them to continue the sacred struggle they started and entrusted to us. We cannot let them down. We won’t—if we continue the activism that has become a part of our lives over the last seven years.

Talk to you tomorrow—from Jackson, Mississippi!