We live in a "34-guilty-verdict" universe

June 3, 2024

Based on emails from worried and confused readers, I start with a few additional reflections on the 34 guilty verdicts against Trump.

We now live in a universe in which the laws of physics are based on 34 guilty verdicts. Within that framework, the only “newsworthy” stories (sadly) are ones that discuss why the guilty verdicts might be overturned on appeal or why they were allegedly secured by illegitimate means. Hence, in the “34-guilty-verdict universe,” we should anticipate (and ignore) the deluge of stories raising doubts about Trump's convictions. Henceforth, such negative stories will always receive preferential treatment in all media outlets. “Trump is guilty” is old news and will not drive the same number of clicks as “Trump might overturn the convictions on appeal.”  Do not confuse the frequency of stories with their merit.

The MAGA propaganda machine was prepared for the guilty verdicts and had a PR offensive at the ready. (It also had PR plans for alternative scenarios, but we don’t live in those alternative universes.) To their credit, the RNC responded quickly with vengeance, cynicism, and an ugliness that surprised everyone. Again, don’t confuse their unbridled hypocrisy with truth. We know from long experience that nearly everything in MAGA daily talking points are lies. So, too, with the MAGA propaganda response to the guilty verdicts.

For example,

• Trump allegedly raised $53 million after the guilty verdicts. Don’t believe it. He had billionaire donations sitting in the queue waiting for any outcome—guilty, hung jury, acquittal--so he could make exaggerated claims of an outpouring of support in response to whatever verdict the jury announced.

• Guilty verdicts supposedly increased his popularity and support. Don’t believe it. Early polling shows the verdicts had an immediate, negative impact on his support. See The Guardian (“A Reuters poll found one in 10 Republicans are less likely to vote for Trump following the conviction. A Morning Consult poll found 49% of independents and 15% of Republicans think Trump should end his presidential campaign as a result of the conviction.”)

• Republican leaders are supposedly rallying to defense. Don’t believe it. Trump is using Mafia-like tactics to enforce loyalty. The truth was revealed when Larry Hogan, GOP candidate for US Senator from Maryland, issued a statement before the verdict saying that “we should respect the verdict.” A key Republican strategist responded, “You just ended your campaign.” On Sunday, the co-chair of the Republican National Committee declined to say whether the RNC will support the Republican nominee in Maryland for US Senate! See Politico, Lara Trump declines to say if RNC will support Larry Hogan after trial comments. (“Lara Trump added. “[Hogan] doesn’t deserve the respect of anyone in the Republican Party . . . .”)

Media outlets are peddling and repeating questionable narratives about political motivation for the prosecution. For example, Senator Susan Collins said the verdicts were illegitimate because Alvin Bragg ran for District Attorney on the promise he would indict Trump. Collins’ statement is false, but that mischaracterization of Bragg’s campaign comments has gained widespread currency. See Talking Points Memo, Collins Needs to Retract and Apologize for her Falsehood.

So, relax (a bit). Over the weekend, Republican surrogates were roughed up by interviewers no longer willing to put up with their lies. The GOP surrogates looked silly and stupid. The same will happen with vulnerable Republicans forced to attack true verdicts delivered by honest citizens engaged in a civic duty.

The Biden campaign was slow to leverage the verdicts into a campaign issue. That decision was appropriate and shows a respect for the rule of law and due regard for Joe Biden’s position as the chief law enforcement of officer in the nation. And the American people have already figured out that having a convicted felon for president is not a good thing. Trust most Americans to get it right. That’s all we need for Democrats to win in 2024.

---

Hunter Biden trial will take place next week

On Monday, Hunter Biden will be tried on three felonies for purchasing a handgun that he possessed for eleven days. Hunter Biden is not an elected official. He is not running for president. His single offense was to falsely declare on a gun purchase permit that he was not using illegal drugs.

While Hunter Biden should be treated like every other gun purchaser who lies about using illegal drugs, the trial is not comparable in any manner to Trump's conviction for election interference. Unfortunately, major media outlets everywhere are treating the trials as comparable. See the front page of the NYTimes, Hunter Biden to Go on Trial in Gun Case, Days After Trump Was Convicted.

---

Justice Roberts refuses to meet with Senators Durbin and Whitehouse

Two weeks ago, Senators Durbin and Whitehouse sent a letter to Justice Roberts in his capacity as Chief Justice and Chair of the Judicial Conference to discuss the ethics scandals on the Supreme Court. Their letter is here: Letter to Chief Justice Roberts from Durbin and Whitehouse

Last Thursday, Justice Roberts refused to meet with the Senators. His response is here: Letter from Chief Justice Roberts to Durbin and Whitehouse. Justice Roberts wrote, in part,

Separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence counsel against such appearances. Moreover, the format proposed — a meeting with leaders of only one party who have expressed an interest in matters currently pending before the Court — simply underscores that participating in such a meeting would be inadvisable.

At any other time under any other circumstances, Roberts’ response would not be unreasonable. Here, because he has abdicated his responsibilities as Chief Justice and as Chair of the Judicial Conference, his refusal to meet is another abdication of his duties. (The Judicial Conference is the administrative body that runs the federal judiciary; it is chaired by the Chief Justice and includes the chief judges of each circuit.)

If Justice Roberts were doing anything—including a simple acknowledgment that Alito’s display of insurrectionist flags raises serious ethical issues—his response might be sufficient. But in the face of Roberts' yawning silence regarding the scandals, the refusal is in bad faith.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse posted this reply on his website:

It is frustrating that the Chief Justice of the United States refused to address the aspect of our letter addressed to him as chair of the Judicial Conference.  Close reading of text is an attribute of a good judge.  Simply ignoring text is often a sign that there’s not a good answer.

In this case, there’s not a good answer: the Judicial Conference is a body created by Congress and funded by Congress, enforcing laws passed by Congress.  It is an administrative body, not an adjudicative body. Even if there were a proper separation of powers argument here, which I don’t believe, it would not extend to the [Judicial] Conference. 

Roberts could bring this crisis to an end quickly. He could issue a statement calling on Alito to recuse himself. He could join with other justices in an opinion declaring that Alito’s continued participation in cases involving Trump violates federal law. See op-ed in NYTimes, Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases.

The Supreme Court will issue 31 opinions in the next month. See Chris Geidner on Substack, Enter June: The SCOTUS rush approaches. Geidner notes that in addition to the presidential immunity case,

We also are still awaiting — and likely will be for a couple more weeks — decisions in six other major cases: the abortion access cases relating to mifepristone and emergency care, gun cases challenging the federal law banning firearm possession by those with a domestic violence order out against them and the federal rule banning bump stocks, and a pair of administrative state cases that could upend the powers of executive agencies.

The next month will rival the overturning of Roe v. Wade in terms of significance to the American people. And there is a stench emanating from the Court that Roberts is ignoring. We, the people, must impose a cure: Enlarging the Court and demanding that Congress impose an enforceable code of ethics in which the individual justices are not the final arbiters of their alleged impartiality.

---

Concluding Thoughts

When Rick Perry was running for the GOP nomination for president in 2012, he was nearly forced out of the race when he couldn’t recall the name of a federal agency he wanted to abolish. Ah, such simple times!

Over the weekend, Trump said during a Fox News interview that he would abolish the Department of Education and not a single major outlet reported the threat. Nor did they report that Trump reiterated his threat to deport 10 million immigrants, that he mocked global warming by saying “it will create more beachfront property,” or that he called people who oppose him “evil” and “the enemy from within.”

I could go on, but you get the point. Trump's strategy of wearing down the media has worked. They have become numb to his unprecedented and outrageous threats that have no place in a democracy.

We can’t let that happen to us. Why? Because it creates an asymmetry that is unfair to Biden. If we tune out Trump—through emotional weariness or exhaustion—any criticisms of Joe Biden are necessarily one-sided and out-of-context.

If we are unhappy with one of Joe Biden’s policies—e.g., immigration--the appropriate question is, “Compared to what?” If the answer is, “Compared to the US military rounding up, detaining, and summarily deporting 10 million immigrants and thousands of US citizens caught up in the mass deportation,” Joe Biden’s policies look a lot better in comparison.

So, let’s be fair to Joe Biden when criticizing him. While criticizing our president is the right of every citizen, we can’t fall victim to Trump's “flood the zone” strategy, which is designed to make us look away from his faults and focus only on those of his opponents.

By any measure, Joe Biden has been one of the most successful presidents of the last seventy-five years. Not perfect. But no president has been or ever will be. We should be campaigning for Joe Biden based on a field of vision that encompasses all the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates on equal footing. If we do that, the contest is not close. We must carry that perspective into our discussions with others. Joe Biden has been a great president; we should be proud to have him as our nominee. Let’s start acting like it!

Talk to you tomorrow!