Trump grants himself a stay.

December 8, 2023

          Trump filed an appeal from Judge Chutkan’s order denying his motion to dismiss on grounds of presidential immunity. He simultaneously filed a motion to stay all proceedings before Judge Chutkan during the pendency of the appeal and claimed the unilateral right to disregard current trial deadlines:

[A]ll current deadlines must be held in abeyance until, at minimum, this motion is resolved. President Trump will proceed based on that understanding and the authorities set forth herein absent further order of the Court.

          Trump has told Judge Chutkan he will not obey existing orders of the court that have not been (and may never be) stayed. Judge Chutkan should issue monetary sanctions against Trump's lawyers, refer them to the D.C. Bar Association for disciplinary proceedings, and hold Trump in contempt when he fails to comply with a court deadline. Or revoke his pretrial release and allow him manage his defense from a jail cell.

          Sounds harsh, I know. But Trump has crossed a line. He told a federal judge that he is above the law—that he alone can determine whether and when he is subject to the jurisdiction of the court and which orders he must obey or is free to disregard. That is dangerous thinking. It is an assault on the authority of the court.

          Judge Chutkan’s response was to order the government to file an opposition by Sunday at 5:00 PM and Trump to file a reply by Tuesday at 5:00 PM. Hopefully, Judge Chutkan will issue an order denying Trump's motion at 5:01 PM on Tuesday.

          Trump may be entitled to the relief he has unilaterally granted himself, and he may obtain a stay from the D.C. Circuit pending his appeal. But as Andrew Weissman noted, Trump obtained the full benefit of discovery from the prosecution before filing his motion for stay. Under equitable doctrines (of fairness), Weissman believes that the motion for a stay should be denied. And Jack Smith will ask the D.C. Circuit to grant an expedited hearing on Trump's appeal.

          The potential for delay of trial until after the 2024 election is real and maddening. But not dispositive. Regardless of the order of the trial and the election, the trial will be meaningful (whenever it occurs) only if Trump is defeated at the ballot box. Otherwise, he can dismiss the charges before final judgment or pardon himself after a final judgment. The election will determine the outcome of the criminal proceedings, not the other way around.

          Still, Trump has insulted Judge Chutkan and—by implication—the authority of the federal judiciary to control his actions before and during trial. A strong response is warranted.

Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff addresses failure of university presidents to condemn genocide of Jews as violative of university code of conduct.

          Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff took the opportunity at a ceremony to light the National Menorah to criticize the failure of three university presidents to condemn a call for genocide of Jewish people as violative of their university’s code of conduct. See NPR, Emhoff says 3 college presidents lacked 'moral clarity' in antisemitism hearing.

          At a congressional hearing on Tuesday of this week, the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, and MIT evaded answering a question put to them (repeatedly) by GOP. Rep. Elise Stefanik: Would they discipline students calling for the genocide of Jews? Rep. Stefanik even suggested the answer—“Yes.” As the question was starkly framed by Rep. Stefanik, that answer was self-evident.

          But neither of the presidents could find the moral compass to guide them to that answer. Each in their own way said, “It depends on context.”

          There is no context that excuses or mitigates a call for genocide of Jews—or any people or race. By definition, genocide calls for the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. That alone should have provided moral clarity to the university presidents. Here, any possible ambiguity should have been dispelled by the living memory of the Holocaust.

          Doug Emhoff said,

Seeing the presidents of some of our most elite universities literally unable to denounce calling for the genocide of Jews as antisemitic — that lack of moral clarity is simply unacceptable

Let me be clear. When Jews are targeted because of their beliefs or identity, and when Israel is singled out because of anti-Jewish hatred, that is antisemitism. And it must be condemned and condemned unequivocally and without context.

          Two of the presidents have engaged in an effort at damage control by releasing statements condemning calls for genocide against Jews, but those heavily lawyered statements seemed insincere or—as one commentator said—like a statement read by a hostage.

          The collective moral failure of the three presidents has led to widespread condemnation and criticism. Professor Laurence Tribe wrote, “[Harvard President] Claudine Gay’s hesitant, formulaic, and bizarrely evasive answers were deeply troubling to me and many of my colleagues, students, and friends.” Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro called the statement by the U Penn president “absolutely shameful.”

          There are indications that U Penn president Liz Magill is in the process of being fired and calls for the firing or resignation of the president of Harvard abound.

But the MIT governing body issued a statement late Thursday saying that the president has the “full and unreserved” support of the board after her testimony.

          The inability of three university presidents to condemn a hypothetical call for genocide of Jews is shocking and shameful. The real problem, however, is that their lack of moral leadership in the defense of students subjected to antisemitism is putting those students at risk—physically, emotionally, and morally.

          Many Ivy League universities discriminated against Jewish students—some as late as the 1960s. See WaPo, A brief history of antisemitism in U.S. higher education. (Accessible to all.) Apparently, sixty years is not long enough to wring the vestiges of antisemitism from those institutions—because it has been found lurking inches below the surface after the terror attack of October 7.

And Islamophobia is wrong, too.

          It is a feature of this moment that condemning wrongful behavior of one type results in angry responses that say, “What about . . . .?” Condemning antisemitism does not equate to condoning Islamophobia. The congressional hearing was about antisemitism, and the university presidents failed to condemn a call for the genocide of Jews—hence my discussion of antisemitism.

          Islamophobia is wrong—as I have said on many occasions, especially when the Trump administration attempted to convert Islamophobia into an official government policy. The terror attack of October 7 and Israel / Hamas war has resulted in increased instances of antisemitism and Islamophobia in the US (and across the world). See The Guardian, Islamophobia and antisemitism on rise in US amid Israel-Hamas war | US news | The Guardian.  

          Both forms of hate are wrong and should be condemned. Indeed, a request to condemn either or both should not be met with quibbling or reservations or “whataboutism.” Both are wrong. Period. No context needed.

Addendum.

          Michelle Goldberg of the NYTimes has written an op-ed that defends the three university presidents in general (but not their specific answer to the genocide question). Goldberg’s thesis is that the better response to hate speech on campus is to expand the right of expression rather than restrict it. I disagree with her conclusion and her logic, but I recognize that many people may agree with Goldberg, so I include her opinion here: At a Hearing on Israel, University Presidents Walked Into a Trap. (Accessible to all.)

Hunter Biden indicted on tax evasion.

          Hunter Biden was charged with three felonies and several misdemeanors on Thursday for failing to timely pay taxes of $1.4 million on his income. In two subsequent years, Hunter filed false tax returns that concealed his non-payment. He has since paid to the government all delinquent taxes, penalties, and interest.

          Most of the press on Thursday is reporting on the facts in the indictment or the potential political complications for the 2024 election. Here is the thesis of a story from the WSJ’s supposed independent newsroom:

The charges could lead to a politically embarrassing trial for the younger Biden amid next year’s campaign. A tax trial would likely include details about Hunter Biden’s lavish and sordid spending habits, which contrast with President Biden’s working-class political brand.

Here is what the media should be writing about:

          Special counsel—David Weiss—caved to Republican pressure to apply a different, harsher standard of justice to a private citizen because his father is President of the United States. The indictment is another abject failure of the Garland Justice Department. Garland’s primary mission seems to be that of protecting the tarnished image of the Department of Justice rather than pursuing justice without fear or favor.

          If Merrick Garland agrees that the charges are appropriate, he should tell the American people that he supports the decision of the special counsel to prosecute Hunter Biden. Otherwise, he can overrule the prosecutorial decision of the special counsel and so inform Congress. 28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability. | General Powers of Special Counsel. That is exactly what Merrick Garland should have done in this instance.

Texas abortion case.

          Developments in Texas today reminded women (and men) across America what is at stake in the 2024 election. In short, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is telling hospitals to refuse to honor a court order granting a woman the right to an abortion. The order was granted because her fetus has a genetic abnormality “incompatible with life” and continuation of the pregnancy will threaten the life of the mother. But Texas AG Ken Paxton wants to force the woman to continue a doomed pregnancy that threatens her life. See WaPo, Texas judge allows abortion in Cox case as AG Paxton threatens legal action. (Accessible to all.)

          The heartbreaking and horrific details are included in the WaPo article. But the important point is that American women have no reason to trust legislators and public officials in red states who pretend that they are enacting “reasonable” restrictions on abortion. They are not. They seek to place white men—usually religious fundamentalists—in charge of women’s bodies. And if they take the presidency and the Senate in 2024, they will seek to impose their religious fundamentalism on all Americans. We cannot allow this issue to fade into the background.

Federal employees and retirees: Make a donation to VoteRiders through the Combined Federal Campaign.

          If you are a federal employee or retiree, you can make a regular contribution to a qualified charity through the Combined Federal Campaign. I received a note from VoteRiders encouraging federal employees and retirees to direct their charitable giving to VoteRiders—a non-partisan organization that helps people obtain Voter IDs that allow them to vote in their respective states. Check out VoteRiders: Voter ID Help.

          Here is the note from VoteRiders:

If you are a federal employee or retiree, you have an exciting opportunity to donate to VoteRiders through the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC).

It’s as easy as 1-2-3:

• Choose VoteRiders as your charitable cause. Our CFC designated code is #56746.

• Make your pledge. Visit the CFC’s online portal at givecfc.org to make or renew your pledge via payroll deduction, credit/debit card, or e-check/bank transfer.

Change the world! Your generosity fuels our efforts to ensure every eligible voter has the knowledge, documents, and confidence to vote — no matter what the voter ID laws are where they live.

Get started by clicking here: CFC | An OPM Initiative.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Oh, boy! My attempt to promote the good news of Biden’s economic accomplishments earlier this week was a failure. I quoted another writer who discussed a “perception gap” between the improvement in the economy and popular sentiment about the economy. The specific point I was making is that the US economy is outperforming the European economy (by a lot) but Europeans feel better about their economy than do US citizens.

          But the US vs. Europe comparison got lost in the message, and what most people heard was “perception gap.” I received dozens and dozens of responses that were a variation of “Here’s the reason for the perception gap: the grocery store.” One reader said it appeared that I was “blaming the victims”—i.e., middle class and working poor—for not being grateful for Biden’s accomplishments.

          So, let’s forget the whole perception gap thing. Instead, let’s focus on what Biden is doing—or trying to do—to help people who are struggling because of the economy. As one reader noted, the reason people do not feel good about the economy is because of the lack of childcare, affordable healthcare, food security, retirement security, housing costs, and educational costs.

          All fair points. There are undoubtedly other concerns, but those concerns cover a lot of ground, so let’s accept them for purposes of argument.

          Assuming those factors are primarily responsible for making people feel bad about the economy, which party is trying to help expand benefits relating to childcare, affordable healthcare, food security, retirement security, housing costs, and educational costs?

          Conversely, which party is trying to cut benefits relating to childcare, affordable healthcare, food security, retirement security, housing costs, and educational costs?

          You get the point. Democrats are trying to help Americans with the economic issues that concern them the most. Republicans are trying to pull the rug out from under Americans on those issues. We must communicate that message clearly and forcefully. One point in our favor is that the facts are on our side—always a good start.

          I hope that clears up any confusion.

          Talk to you tomorrow!