Trump Legal News: Stressed Out

As expected, Donald Trump has filed an appeal of the Colorado decision kicking him off that state's primary ballot.

This one is different from the Maine appeal because the Maine appeal went to the Maine Superior Court, whereas this one went to the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS has already docketed the case, which just means that they will discuss whether or not to take it at their next conference. We remain convinced that they have no choice but to take it up, and in an expedited manner.

As is typical for a Trump filing, this one has a bunch of detritus that surely should not be there. Much of the filing asks the Supremes to consider the findings of fact made by the Colorado courts and/or to find that the Colorado judges applied state law incorrectly. These are, with only rare exceptions, not questions for the U.S. Supreme Court. As we note regularly, we are not lawyers, but putting that extraneous stuff in there seems to have at least three downsides, from where we sit:

1. It insults the justices by wasting their time.
2. It insults the justices by trying to "sneak one past them."
3. It makes Trump's counsel look amateurish; that they don't know exactly what SCOTUS does and doesn't do.

Perhaps one or more of our lawyer readers will write in and explain to us how this is actually sound strategy. In any event, the briefing does bring up the substantive issues, namely: (1) Is the Fourteenth Amendment self-executing?, (2) Does the Amendment apply to a president? and (3) If the Amendment does apply, did Trump actually engage in insurrection? In the end, if the important stuff is there, then the former president is probably getting his money's worth from his lawyers.

And speaking of his lawyers, one of them—namely Alina Habba—confirmed the reporting from The New York Times' Maggie Haberman that Trump is anxious, stressed, scared, etc. about what SCOTUS might do. Speaking of the possibility of Trump being kicked off the ballot, Habba told Fox that: "That's a concern he's voiced to me, he's voiced to everybody publicly, not privately. And I can tell you that his concern is a valid one." She also said that some of the conservative justices on the Court might vote against Trump because of Democratic pressure, even if those conservative justices think the law is on Trump's side. Uh, huh.

Meanwhile, while Habba was sharing her valuable insights with the Fox crowd, two more states saw motions filed to keep Trump off their ballots in 2024. The new arrivals at the party are Illinois and Massachusetts. This does not put any Trump EVs at risk, of course. And it's not probable that either state will rule before the Supremes step in and settle this once and for all. But if SCOTUS does punt, for some reason, then those two states have a little over 100 delegates. That's a big chunk, and if any non-Trump Republican has a real shot at challenging him, it would be the result of his being kicked off the ballot in a whole bunch of blue states. If you care to track the status of things, The New York Times has a map for all your Trump-ballot-eligibility needs. (Z)

Democratic Report: Don't Overlook the Emoluments Clause

Donald Trump is already in plenty of legal hot water, as outlined above. But Trump's problems seem to follow the same rule as do orphanages and Irish families: There's always room for one more. Yesterday, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a report based on several years' worth of investigation. According to the information they collected, Donald Trump and his businesses pocketed $7.8 million from 20 foreign governments while he was serving as president, all in violation of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause.

The biggest spender was China, with $5.5 million. Perhaps that helps explain why Trump's sanctions were less than efficacious. China was followed by Saudi Arabia, the current employer of First-Son-in-Law Jared Kushner, and by Qatar, which was just implicated in paying bribes to Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

Obviously, the Democrats could be making things up out of whole cloth, just like the Republicans with their various Joe Biden impeachment reports. However, it doesn't look that way. Most of the report is made up of spreadsheets subpoenaed from, and bearing the hallmark of, Trump's former accounting firm Mazars. If Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) & Co. were making up fake Mazars bookkeeping records, surely the firm would have spoken up, but they didn't. Plus, all things being considered, $7.8 million actually seems a little low to us (and indeed, House Democrats reiterated that the figure is "conservative").

Ultimately, there may not be too much the Democrats can do with this report, since they are in the minority in the House. They could hope the Senate Committee on Finance takes up the matter, and perhaps refers it to the Department of Justice. Or they could hope the DoJ downloads a copy and takes action of its own volition. Certainly, Jack Smith has not been shy about opening up new lines of inquiry.

Failing that, however, this is just going to be yet another hammer for Democrats to wield against Trump as part of the 2024 campaign cycle. (Z)

Haley on the Rise: Will Lightning Strike in New Hampshire?

There's a new poll of New Hampshire out from American Research Group (ARG) that has lots of people sitting up and taking notice. According to their results, the race in the Granite State is a statistical dead heat (±4% margin of error):

Candidate	Support
Donald Trump	37%
Nikki Haley	33%
Chris Christie	10%
Ron DeSantis	5%
Vivek Ramaswamy	4%
Asa Hutchinson	1%
Other	1%
Undecided	9%

Haley and Trump are both up 4% since the same poll in December; 3 of those 8 points came out of Christie's hide, 1 each from DeSantis and Ramaswamy, while the other 3 came from undecideds who finally made a decision.

Let us now run through the cautions: (1) It's only one poll, (2) It's a pretty small sample size of 600, (3) ARG is a mediocre pollster and (4) There's still plenty of time for things to change.

The primary reason we pass this poll along is not that we think it is meaningful. No, it's because it allows us a chance to review the situation in the first three states to cast ballots. What we mean by that is that it's at least possible that Haley (or some other non-Trump candidate) could win one (or more) of the opening trio. It's not likely, but it's definitely possible. The important thing to keep in mind is that those (hypothetical) victories will be discussed ad infinitum, because it will be the first serious presidential election news of the cycle. But those victories will mean virtually nothing. To wit:

1. Iowa: Iowa, of course, is a caucus state. That means that retail campaigning can have an outsized impact, so too can having a small but particularly dedicated cadre of loyalists. There's also a lot of potential for externalities to play a role; there have been recent Iowa caucuses where results were meaningfully affected by inclement weather in some parts of the state, and by computer glitches. Iowa also has a non-representative demographic profile (lots of evangelicals), but that's not likely to wonkify the results in 2024, as the demographic profile plays to Trump's strengths more than those of his (sorta) rivals.
   
   
2. New Hampshire: New Hampshire is far and away Haley's best chance for a win. Whereas the demographics of Iowa are Trumpy, the demographics of the Granite State are definitely not. Many Republicans in New Hampshire are latter-day-Rockefeller-Republican types—educated, urban, well-to-do, socially moderate-to-liberal, etc. On top of that, the state has a semi-open primary, which means independents can vote on either side of the aisle. And if you look at ARG's numbers, as well as the crosstabs in other polls of the state, you can see that the independents are really the ones keeping Haley in the fight. In other words, she's getting a good chunk of the Republican votes, and she's leading Trump among independents.
   
   
3. South Carolina: Of the early trio, South Carolina has far and away the best track record of backing the eventual Republican nominee. It's too big to be won with retail politics and skilled ground game and, more importantly, it's a Southern state. Soon after the Palmetto State votes, a whole bunch of other Southern states will vote. And guess what? Southern state #1 tends to be a pretty good bellwether for Southern states #2 through #15. Any Republican who wins the South is pretty much home free.
   
   In fact, since South Carolina took up its position as the third state to cast ballots (in 1980), it has given its support to the eventual nominee every single time, but for one occasion. That occasion was in 2012, where Newt Gingrich got the nod over Mitt Romney. In other words, South Carolinians have at least a little bit of a soft spot for native or near-native sons and daughters. You know, like Nikki Haley. Oh, and South Carolina is also an open primary state, so Democrats who might like to try to embarrass Trump could choose to participate in the GOP primary rather than the Democratic one. Some state legislators want to change this, but those efforts have not come to fruition.

Again, the point is that there's a path in each of these three states for a non-Trump candidate to win. In some cases, the path is very narrow, and in others it's a little wider. But even if Haley, or some other candidate, pulls off a miracle, it doesn't mean a thing until they can repeat that success in several, more typical, states. Also, don't forget that most Republican primaries are winner-take-all, so even if Haley's "momentum" gets her up to 40% of the GOP primary vote, well, that and $6 will get her a venti caramel frappucino with extra caramel and extra whipped cream in most states. Or, perhaps more usefully, a two egg breakfast at Waffle House. (Z)

Kennedy Jr. on the... Whatever: Political Venue Shopping

Everyone knows that plaintiffs who are looking for a friendly judicial audience engage in venue shopping, since a Fifth Circuit judge is going to be much more amenable to some arguments, while a Ninth Circuit judge is going to be more amenable to others. Well, if you're an independent presidential candidate, the same basic concept applies. It's not so easy to get on the ballot in all 50 states, so there's wisdom in first focusing one's resources on the states where one is most likely to have success.

So it is that the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. campaign announced that it has just qualified for its first ballot. And the state in which he did it is exactly the one we would have expected, namely Utah. Yes, we know the Kennedys have deep roots in Massachusetts, but that also means that residents of that state know full well the difference between Robert F. Kennedy Sr. and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And most of them are not buying what Junior is selling.

Utah, by contrast, is perfect. First, it's pretty easy to get on the ballot there; a candidate only needs 1,000 signatures. Further, there is no solid-red state that is more Trump-skeptical than Utah is. LDS Church members don't care for Trump's personal history, his hostility towards the less fortunate, or his general approach to life. Recall that in 2016, independent Evan McMullin got 21.54% of the vote there. If RFK Jr. can peel off a few more Republicans than McMullin did (admittedly, a tall order since McMullin is LDS and RFK is not), and if he gets some sizable chunk of "we're not going to win anyhow, so let's try to block Trump from winning" Democratic crossover votes, then Utah is one of the two states where we can squint our eyes and just maybe imagine him somehow winning. It's not likely, but it's not impossible. Oh, and the other state is Alaska, incidentally.

The Kennedy campaign says that it is now onward and upward, and that the other 49 states and D.C. are next. We shall see what happens; it is likely that they can get on the ballot in a couple dozen more states, but anything above 35 or so is a very tall order, because it's expensive to get enough signatures in the really big states. That said, RFK Jr. has now officially planted his flag, which means he's going to be a part of the conversation, albeit likely a very small one, through November. (Z)

Epstein Documents Unsealed: Are We Finally Finished with this Story?

Ever since the Jeffrey Epstein story became a matter of public interest, roughly 5 years ago (he was arrested July 6, 2019; that jail stay culminated in his suicide), there has been much whispering about secrets related to high-profile American politicians, particularly Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. Both men certainly knew and associated with Epstein and, it was supposed, they might also have joined him in some of his illegal sexual practices.

This week, two sets of Epstein-related documents, totaling over 1,000 pages, were were released. And when it comes to political figures, the documents show that... Donald Trump and Bill Clinton both knew and associated with Epstein, to the point of having conversations (Trump) or flying on Epstein's plane (Clinton). There is nothing salacious in there about any notable figure, excepting those whose names rhyme with "Brince Trandrew."

So, perhaps that is the end of this story, at least when it comes to political figures. That said, the release of the documents triggered a new sub-plot that, while it doesn't involve a political figure, does have a political dimension. Jimmy Kimmel is, of course, a late-night TV host, and is openly lefty, particularly when it comes to things like universal healthcare and vaccination. This has made him unpopular with those on the right, and with those who are anti-vaxx.

One such anti-vaxxer is NFL quarterback and well-known jerk Aaron Rodgers, who appears weekly on ESPN's The Pat McAfee Show, and who often uses the occasion to shoot barbs at pro-vaxx people, including Kimmel. This week, just hours before the first set of Epstein documents was released, Rodgers snottily remarked: "There's a lot of people, including Jimmy Kimmel, are really hoping that doesn't come out. I'll tell you what, if that list comes out, I definitely will be popping some sort of bottle."

The very clear implication is that Kimmel is a sexual predator, or a pedophile, or both. Kimmel has never been linked to Epstein, and there's never been any suggestion his name might be in the documents (and it wasn't). Naturally, the late-night host was not pleased by Rodgers' remark, and took to Ex-Twitter with the following:

Dear Aasshole: for the record, I've not met, flown with, visited, or had any contact whatsoever with Epstein, nor will you find my name on any "list" other than the clearly-phony nonsense that soft-brained wackos like yourself can't seem to distinguish from reality. Your reckless words put my family in danger. Keep it up and we will debate the facts further in court.

McAfee, recognizing that he's on the cusp of being party to a defamation suit, offered a weak apology on his show. Rodgers has yet to say anything.

Whether Kimmel sues or not, the damage is done. Henceforth, his name is going to show up in Google searches related to the Epstein case. And it goes beyond that. Everyone knows the old line that "A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can put its shoes on." Well, a guy on Ex-Twitter who likes to get attention by stirring the pot, used Photoshop to cook up the "evidence" that Kimmel is indeed named in the Epstein documents:

It's not too hard to figure out this is fake. Among other things, this was posted to Ex-Twitter about an hour after the first group of documents was released. That first group is about 900 pages. There is no "Page 1375."

Naturally, right-wingers who dislike Kimmel aren't going to let the truth get in the way of a good smear opportunity. So, countless right-wing pundits, bloggers, tweeters, etc., took this "proof" and ran with it. Consequently, the Internet is now chock-full of: (1) assertions that Kimmel was part of Epstein's circle, and (2) "proof" to back those assertions up.

It's hardly news that right-wingers are going to use fake evidence, created using computer tools, very liberally this cycle. This story just happened to afford an opportunity to watch the process play out, in real time and in short order, right in front of our faces.

Note, incidentally, that it is possible that left-wingers are going to use the same sorts of dirty tricks. That said, we are not as confident in that as we are that it will happen on the right. In general, today's lefty voters are less credulous than today's righty voters, so it's harder to get them to buy into total falsehoods. Plus, let's be honest, is there really any need to make stuff up about Donald Trump? (Z)

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer: Time to Go

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), who is in the midst of his eighth term in the House, has decided it will be his last. Yesterday, he announced his retirement, effective at the end of this term.

Luetkemeyer's signature issues, in some order, are promoting business interests and restricting LGBTQ rights. He was one of the members who signed the amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the 2020 election. So, we doubt this is a case of an old war horse who just can't tolerate the current direction of the Republican Party. Luetkemeyer somewhat implied that, at 71, he wants to spend more time with family. Maybe that is true, but we suspect another major factor is that Luetkemeyer really wanted to succeed Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) as chair of the House Financial Services Committee, and he decided that wasn't going to happen, either because he thinks the Democrats are going to retake the lower chamber or because he thinks he's going to be passed over in favor of someone closer to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), like Rep. French Hill (R-AR).

Luetkemeyer's district, MO-03, is R+16, so it won't be changing hands, even as an open seat. Meanwhile, we're up to 14 Republican retirements and 21 Democratic retirements in the House. That's a little on the low side, and January is usually "announcements month," so it's probable that some meaningful number of Luetkemeyer's colleagues will be following his lead in the next few weeks.

One more thing. Most readers, perhaps excepting some of those in Missouri, have never heard of Luetkemeyer. And now that he's leaving the House, he will quickly fade into obscurity, as all but a select few members do. If and when his name appears in any history book, even in a footnote or an appendix, it will be for one thing: signing that amicus brief. How sad that a three-decade career in public service will leave behind only that one, shameful remnant. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Buckle Up!

We had one theme in mind last week, but it turns out there were two valid ones (which are clearly related). Reader S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, got both:

They're all references to types of shoes or boots:

• We're Giving You the Boot: Boots
• Flip-Flops on Cause: Flip-flops
• Let It Slide for Too Long: Slide shoes
• Could be on Tap in 2025: Tap dancing shoes
• New Map Go-Go: Go-Go boots
• Galusha Grow's Galoshes: Galoshes
• Let It Snow: Snow shoes
• Day(s) in Court: Court shoes
• Good News from Around the Earth: Earth shoes

They're also references to types of dance:

• We're Giving You the Boot: Boot Scootin' Boogie Line Dance.
• Flip-Flops on Cause: The Flip-Flop, also Flip, Flop Fly line dancing.
• Let It Slide for Too Long: The Electric Slide
• Could be on Tap in 2025: Tap dancing
• New Map Go-Go: Go-Go dancing
• Galusha Grow's Galoshes: The Galusha Dance (This is a bit if a stretch, though I did find it.)
• Let It Snow: Snow Dance
• Day(s) in Court: Court Dance
• Good News from Around the Earth: The Good Dance (So is this.)

Thanks for laying that out, S.S., and very impressive that you unturned the second theme (the first was the one we had in mind, of course).

Here are the first 25 readers to get it right this week:

1. J.T. in Philadelphia, PA
2. N.S. in Los Angeles, CA
3. N.H. in London, England, UK
4. R.D. in Cheshire, CT
5. A.L. in Gainesville, FL
6. B.C. in Phoenix, AZ
7. M.J.S. in Cheshire, CT, who adds: "I really like these puzzles! They PUMP me up and get me JAZZed on mornings when I'd otherwise feel FLAT and be a LOAFER. Surely the detractors will continue to MOC you and try to drive a WEDGE between your readers, but you can CHUKKA them into the WATER for all I care."
8. R.C. in Eagleville, PA
9. J.H. in Sturbridge, MA
10. R.W. in Bensenville, IL
11. B.F. in Nashville, TN:
12. M.B. in Albany, NY
13. R.M. in Concord, NH
14. R.P. in Brooklyn, NY
15. N.B. in Eagleville, PA
16. B.W. in Phoenix, AZ
17. E.P. in Tillson, NY
18. J.H. in Lake Forest, CA
19. V.S. in Oak Bluffs, Martha's Vineyard, MA
20. A.B. in Plano, TX
21. S.K. in Drexel Hill, PA
22. K.S. in San Diego, CA
23. D.E. in Lancaster, PA
24. M.Z. in Sharon, MA
25. R.R. in Wiesbaden, Germany

As to this week's theme, it's much tougher. It would be in the category "Art and Literature" because that is where those Canadians tended to put language questions when they first created Trivial Pursuit. In each case, the theme is fulfilled by a single word in the headline (and, as always, only words to the right of the colon are in play). The hint this week is visual:

Good luck! If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with the subject line "January 5 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Oxman Offers Apology for Being a Plagiarist

Is there any aphorism that better captures the spirit of schadenfreude than "those in glass houses should not throw stones"? If there is, we can't think of it.

In any event, like many outlets, we have given a fair bit of attention to the ouster of Harvard president Claudine Gay. She badly fumbled her congressional testimony on antisemitism on campus, but appeared to be weathering the storm, up to and including a statement of support from Harvard's Board of Overseers. So, Gay's opponents/enemies changed tactics, and shifted the focus to her history of plagiarism. Low-level plagiarism, but plagiarism nonetheless. That did the trick, as she fell on her sword earlier this week.

As we have noted, the fellow who was orchestrating things behind the scenes was billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman (in partnership with right-wing provocateur Christopher Rufo). Ackman is not only angry about the antisemitism on campus, but he also has other grudges with Harvard, and also with MIT (whose president, Sally Kornbluth, was also raked over the coals by members of the House). Ackman's specific grudge with MIT involves his wife, Neri Oxman, who was not sufficiently promoted in her view and in the view of her husband, and so quit the school.

Ackman never produced a scholarly monograph, of course, as that is not a part of the career path he chose. But his wife certainly did. And guess who else turns out to have a plagiarism problem? Yup, as reader R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, brings to our attention, Neri Oxman has been caught, having plagiarized portions of her dissertation. The pattern is almost identical to Gay's plagiarism—not massive, just an occasional paragraph here and there.

We must admit that, as academics, we don't get it. Sure, you are more likely to get away with a dash of cheating rather than a heaping barrelful, but it's no guarantee (as Gay and Oxman have shown), and is it really worth the risk to spare yourself a few hours' work? Plus, who wants to use someone else's words to express what they are thinking? If you don't think YOUR words are the best option for expressing YOUR ideas, then you probably shouldn't be writing a dissertation in the first place.

In any event, we don't foresee an apology to Gay forthcoming from the Ackmans. Indeed, we don't even foresee Ackman getting off his high horse and ending his crusade, since he's already signaled he still wants to take down Kornbluth. (Hm. All his targets are women. Interesting.) Just remember that whatever line of attack he unveils in upcoming weeks, it's just a screen, and he almost certainly doesn't really care about whatever issue he claims to care about. Put another way, as The Guardian's Moira Donegan points out, the campaign against Gay had nothing to do with plagiarism.

And note that we think Ackman really does care about the antisemitism. However, attacking Kornbluth on that front hasn't worked, so he's going to have to invent something else in order to achieve the goals he wants to achieve and to settle the scores he wants to settle. That's going to be the phony stuff. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: A Fine Career Comes to a Close

We must admit, we were not familiar with Sidney Wolfe until reader M.M. in San Diego brought his obituary to our attention. Known as the "Ralph Nader of Prescription Drugs" and "The Scourge of the Pharmaceutical Industry," he passed away this week at the age of 86.

Wolfe's focus—some said obsession—was treatments that he did not think had been properly vetted, and that he thought caused patients more harm than good. He took his B.A. in chemical engineering from Cornell in 1959, and then his M.D. from Western Reserve University (since renamed Case Western Reserve University) in 1965. He remained associated with the latter institution throughout his career, as a researcher and eventually a professor.

Not long after finishing his residency in internal medicine, Wolfe met Nader, and they decided to work together to get the FDA to recall contaminated intravenous fluid bags made by Abbott Laboratories. Writing letters to the Feds, which they then generously shared with any news media outlet that would listen, the duo managed to get 2 million faulty bags recalled in short order. They were then inundated with tips from medical professionals about other problematic medical equipment and treatments. This led the duo to co-found the Health Research Group (HRG) in 1971.

HRG became Wolfe's life's work. He was willing to take aim at anything he found health-adverse, from contact lenses to tampons to cigarettes. That said, he was best known for his skepticism about various prescription drugs, particularly the opioid painkiller Darvocet, the birth control pill Yaz, and the statin Crestor. He was able to get nine different drugs pulled from the U.S. market, and to get warning labels attached to multiple dozens of others.

In addition to his lobbying, Wolfe was a prolific author. He produced a monthly newsletter, highlighted by the "Outrage of the Month." He also produced the book Worst Pills, Best Pills: A Consumer's Guide to Avoiding Drug-Induced Death or Illness, which sold over 2 million copies, and Pills That Don't Work: A Consumers' and Doctors' Guide to Over 600 Prescription Drugs That Lack Evidence of Effectiveness. His Questionable Doctors, a series of regional works that listed specific, problematic physicians by name, presumably wasn't too popular with his colleagues, but patients certainly embraced it.

In answering his critics, Wolfe always took care to point out two things. The first is that while "outrage" was his hook, the vast majority of what he wrote was just information, so people could make their own informed decisions. The second is that he never targeted life-saving drugs, particularly those targeting cancer or AIDS, because the benefits were almost certainly greater than the downsides. In any event, his work was highly regarded enough that he was named a MacArthur Fellow in 1990.

In 2013, Wolfe retired from HRG, though he remained active with Nader's larger umbrella group, Public Citizen. Observing that his energy level was not what it was, the doctor did cut his time commitment—from 60 hours a week to... 45.

We don't want to be TOO hagiographic here; as with any true believer, Wolfe certainly overshot his mark on occasion, and sometimes did more harm than good. On the whole, however, it was clearly a life well-lived. And it surely underscores his message that, on the day he died, a new study revealed that 17,000 people may have died from taking hydroxychloroquine during the COVID pandemic. Check the scholarly research before taking things, people!

Rest well, Dr. Wolfe, and have a good weekend, all. (Z)

---

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer on the site, please send it to questions@electoral-vote.com, and include your initials and city of residence. If you have a comment about the site or one of the items therein, please send it to comments@electoral-vote.com and include your initials and city of residence in case we decide to publish it. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at corrections@electoral-vote.com.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger