Court Urged to Require the Full James' Bond

Donald Trump needs to put up a bond for $454 million in order to stop NY AG Letitia James from beginning the process of seizing and auctioning off his properties next week. Trump's lawyers said that they talked to 30 surety companies and none of them were interested. So the lawyers proposed cutting the requirement to $100 million.

Yesterday, James responded by explaining the law to Trump's lawyers. First of all, the purpose of a bond is to make sure that if the defendant loses on appeal, the money owed can be paid out immediately. If the bond were only $100 million and Trump lost, James would have to go to court and fight for the other $354 million, Trump would resist, and it would go on for years. She's not interested in playing that game.

She also noted that all that is required is that $454 million is in the state's bank account by Monday. How he gets the money is up to him. Specifically, if he went to nine different surety companies and asked each one for $50 million, he could get to $450 million. Add in $4 million of his own money and he's there. His argument that no company will loan him $454 million is bogus. He doesn't have to get the entire bond from a single company. By spreading the risk, no surety company would be unreasonably exposed. All of them would require collateral, but he could offer this one a hotel, that one a couple of golf courses, a third one an office building, a fourth one an apartment building, etc. The properties need not be in New York or even in the United States. If some company was willing to take his firstborn as collateral, that's up to the parties themselves. New York State doesn't care where the money comes from as long as it is legal. Of course, getting a loan from Russia or Saudi Arabia might have political consequences, but not legal ones. So it looks like James is not going to budge, but it is the state Appellate Division's call.

Trump may have one other way out, but it is a bit complicated. A special-purpose acquisition company called Digital World Acquisition (DWAC) is planning to merge with the company that owns Trump's Truth Social platform. The DWAC shareholders will vote on the merger tomorrow. If it goes forward, Trump's shares in the merged entity will be worth about $4 billion, based on the current stock price of DWAC. However, Trump will be forbidden from selling his shares for 6 months and he needs the $454 million bond by Monday. Maybe he could try to offer the stock to a surety company as collateral. However, the surety company might question whether Truth Social was really worth $4.5 billion since it loses money year after year.

Full disclosure: We got the idea for the headline from Talking Points Memo, which used a variant of it. (V)

Judge McAfee Allows Trump to Appeal Decision to Allow Fani Willis to Stay

Judge Scott McAfee, who is presiding over the Georgia RICO case, ruled that Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis may stay on the case if her former boyfriend, Nathan Wade, resigns. Wade resigned, so Willis can stay. Trump wants to appeal and McAfee ruled yesterday that Trump may do so. Trump's theory was that Willis hired Wade and in return he paid for their joint vacations. Willis then testified that she makes over $200,000 per year and does not need to have some man pay for her vacations. Wade testified that he was making more money in private practice than he is making working for Georgia. He could have paid for her vacations more easily working as a private lawyer. The idea that Willis hired Wade to get free vacations makes no sense and, even if it was true, would not have a negative impact on Trump.

Trump's lawyers know that Trump will lose because Georgia law is fairly specific about what constitutes a conflict of interest and hiring your boyfriend or girlfriend doesn't clear the bar. What matters is whether the rights of the defendant are compromised in any way. Trump doesn't care if he loses. He just wants to stall and delay the trial until after the election. This particular delay may not actually do much because Willis needs to find a new lead prosecutor and get him or her up to speed and that can happen during the appeal process.

When Trump loses the appeal, we expect his lawyers to think of something else. Sometimes we have suggestions for Democrats, so it is only fair that we sometimes offer suggestions for Republicans. We suggest that after the appeal is lost, all of Trump's lawyers come to court barefoot. McAfee will instantly rule that is not allowed. Then the lawyers can file an appeal. Of course, they will lose, but winning is not the point. Delay is the point. After that, the lawyers could come in smoking smelly cigars and appeal that ruling, too. Then they could try to add a first-year law student who hasn't taken the bar exam to the team. There are endless things they could do that McAfee would smack down and which they could say they want to appeal. (V)

Why Aren't Voters Outraged by Trump's Behavior?

Different people have different theories of why people are not outraged by Donald Trump's outrageous behavior. Stephen Colbert thinks people have become numb from years of outrageousness so it no longer registers. Paul Krugman argues that Fox News and other right-wing media outlets have effectively brainwashed many people that the Democrats are Satan's spawn, that no matter what Trump says, he is still better than Joe Biden.

But the real reason is probably much simpler. Many voters aren't reacting to Trump's many outrages because they have never heard about them. "What?" you say. It's been all over the news for months and years. Yes, but a large fraction of the country does not follow the news. Not on TV, not in newspapers, and not on the Internet. They are busy living their lives and politics is simply not important to them. Political junkies (which probably includes most/all of our readers) can't believe this. But do you follow all the latest developments in sports, music, fashion, and business? Dedicated sports fans probably can't believe there exist people who don't have a clue who Caitlin Clark is and dedicated stock market junkies can't believe there are people who don't know whether the Dow-Jones index is closer to 20,000, 40,000, 60,000, or 80,000. But these folks exist.

One study shows that only about one-third of the population follows any news. Another study shows that until close to an election many people spend less than 10 minutes per week looking at political news. That's probably about the amount of time they spend brushing their teeth.

These data don't show that people are stupid. They just show that most people don't prioritize keeping up with politics. They have jobs, kids, and bills to pay. What politicians do and say isn't important until right before an election. Sometimes there is a big story, like a government shutdown that interferes with their lives, in which case they notice, but what Trump said in some rally in far-off Ohio does not register at all. Do you want to know what the biggest news event of 2023 was for most Americans? It wasn't the wars in Ukraine or the Middle East. It was the Chinese spy balloon.

And it gets worse. Only 47% know about the fraud case that NY AG Letitia James brought and won. Only 56% know that Trump has been charged with trying to overturn an election. Only 59% know that he has been charged with illegally keeping classified documents at home.

These low-information voters, as they are delicately called, aren't planning to punish Congress for not functioning because they don't know about it. Most don't know who the speaker is or even who their representative is. Their vote is determined by things that make pundits tear their hair out. In 1992, George H.W. Bush checked his watch during one of the debates, many viewers concluded that he was bored and wanted to get out of there, and then voted for Bill Clinton because he seemed more interested in debating than Bush.

Will the Senate trial of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas affect the election? No way. Nobody knows who he is or what he is alleged to have done wrong. But if Trump goes on trial, that will be such big news, that almost everyone will know. Many people will think: "If he is on trial, he must have committed a crime," even if they don't understand what the crime was. This is why Trump is so desperate to avoid any trials before Election Day. A trial would get everyone's attention, and not in a good way for him. And what if the Chinese sent a balloon to spy on the trial? And then Catherine, Princess of Wales, photoshopped the images the balloon captured? Which of the three would be the biggest news? We dare not guess. (V)

No Labels Has No Candidates

The No Labels group, which is funded by shady dark money, doesn't have any candidates but just keeps going, despite no one being interested in what they are selling. This fuels the suspicion it is funded by Republican billionaires with the goal being getting moderate Democrats to vote for their candidate, rather than for Joe Biden. So far, the plan is not going well. Currently, it is on the ballot in only 17 states and has a long list of high-profile people who have turned down the offer of leading their ticket. These include:

• Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
• Liz Cheney
• Chris Christie
• Mark Cuban
• Andrew Cuomo
• Mitch Daniels
• Geoff Duncan
• Larry Hogan
• Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
• Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)
• William McRaven
• Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA)
• Deval Patrick
• Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ)
• Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH)
• Andrew Yang

Democrats don't want the role because they know it will help Donald Trump. Republicans don't want it because it would infuriate Trump. Also, all of them know it is pointless, and third parties do "well" only when the candidate has a strong ideological base, like George Wallace in 1968, or the candidate is a billionaire with some appeal and unlimited funds, like Ross Perot in 1992.

The group is already at war with its own stated policy. It has repeatedly said that it will field a candidate only if it has a real chance to win. It doesn't want to be a spoiler, so the No Labels folks say. At the very least, if the group is not on the ballot in states with at least 270 electoral votes, it can't win, so if it follows its own principles, it should fold its tent and walk proudly into the sunset. But as it goes further down the food chain and starts interviewing county commissioners, town supervisors, and people who failed to win the election to be dogcatcher somewhere, the chances of winning even a single electoral vote are getting smaller and smaller.

The real reason No Labels keeps going is that the Republican megadonors like Allan Keen, Tom McInerney, and Michael Smith keep funneling in money to keep it alive in the hopes the No Labels candidate will hurt Biden. But if they can't find a candidate anyone has heard of, it will be money down the drain. If you want a more detailed report on what is really going on with No Labels, check out this long article in Mother Jones. (V)

The Veep War Is Raging

The race for being Donald Trump's running mate is on. The contestants are doing what they can to get Trump's attention. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) grilled three university presidents about whether calling for genocide of the Jews was a violation of university policy. As a result, two of them resigned under pressure. Taking on elite universities and winning is definitely a plus with Trump. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), another contestant, answered a reporter's question about whether she was interested in being on the ticket and she said: "Anybody would say yes," as if working closely with Trump was every woman's dream job. Other candidates are trying to win his favor in very different ways.

Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) really wants to get the hell out of South Dakota. There are persistent rumors that she has been sleeping with Trump insider Corey Lewandowski, presumably to get him to put in a good word with Trump about her... abilities. But now she has opened a new front in her campaign to impress Trump, the dental front.

Noem went to a famous cosmetic dentist in Texas to get her teeth fixed up. Then she tweeted a 5-minute video showing off her smile and praising the dentist, but also trying to get Trump's attention. After all, he has said repeatedly that he likes public officials who look like they came from central casting. In addition, Trump probably appreciated her for pitching herself as a product. Samantha Sheppard, a professor of cinema and media studies at Cornell called Noem "the perfect ornament for Trump." She also said Noem now exuded a "Miss America-like white femininity."

Noem's Trumpification has been years in the making. In 2010, her hairstyle was a cross between those of Jennifer Aniston and Hillary Clinton. Now it is long tousled waves. Her clothes changed from the khaki shirtdress she wore to CPAC in 2011 to a bright blue sheath. Her lips have gotten more prominent and her eyelashes are thicker. She looks like Don Jr.'s fiancee Kimberly Guilfoyle or a dark-haired version of Eric Trump's wife Lara Trump. Richard Ford, a law professor at Stanford who wrote the book Dress Codes: How the Laws of Fashion Made History, said: "It's absolutely strategic. She is signaling that she's going to be Trump's kind of woman. And, at the same time, she isn't going to challenge him. Trump has noticed her. At a Trump rally in Ohio, he said: "You're not allowed to say it, so I will not. You're not allowed to say she's beautiful, so I'm not going to say it." The transformation from cowgirl to Trumpgirl worked.

The speculation about whom Trump will pick has become a cottage industry but some people really don't understand him. Reuters ran this article by Tim Reid yesterday. Here are his picks (and our comments). Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) (Tim, sorry to break the news to you but too many Republicans don't like Black people), Noem (a real possibility), Stefanik (another real possibility), Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R-AR) (dubious; has a couple of minor scandals), Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) (Black and unknown), Vivek Ramaswamy (Trump may be dumb, but he is not that dumb, and he's already said it won't be Ramaswamy), Tulsi Gabbard (maybe, but not as white as Noem), Ben Carson (who knew he was still alive?), Kari Lake (a possibility, but that would complicate the Arizona Senate race), Nikki Haley (she's not interested), and last, but surely least, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) (the Democrats would give their eyeteeth for Trump to pick her). You would think that a major news organization like Reuters would have an experienced political reporter go over any list of the veepables to see if it makes sense. For example, Byron Donalds and Trump are both from Florida and the Constitution kind of frowns on that. And what about Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH)? He pretends to be Trumpier than Trump. Surely he is a possibility. (V)

Trump Is Thinking about a 15-Week Abortion Ban

Donald Trump knows he is going to be pressed on abortion so he is beginning to think of what to say. Usually he goes for a base-only strategy, but his advisers have no doubt told him that about two-thirds of the country would go haywire if he came out for banning abortion entirely. He can't afford that, so he is apparently toying with a ban on abortions after 15 or 16 weeks of pregnancy, possibly with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother afterwards.

We don't think it will go over well. The base wants a ban on abortions after week 0. They see it as murder and you don't allow murder some of the time. Maybe Trump is counting on the abortion zealots having nowhere else to go. They obviously can't vote for Joe Biden, and none of the third-party candidates are in the "no abortions, ever" camp. Still, he will take a lot of incoming fire for saying abortions in the first 4 months are fine. Such a position may also have a serious impact on his fundraising from small donors, many of whom are definitely not going to like this.

On the other hand, Democrats aren't going to like it either. They want abortions legal until the point of viability, which is around 24 weeks. They will scream that Republicans are first going for a 15-week abortion, then next year they will reduce it to 14. Rinse and repeat. This position is probably not going to get any Democrats to switch sides, but it might win a few independents.

Democrats are already planning to make abortion a key campaign issue. If Trump comes out for a ban at 15 or 16 weeks, Democrats in blue and purple states are going to go nuts, since it would take away rights they have now. Not only will they campaign hard, but money will flow to Biden and other Democrats. There is no "good" position for Trump, but he probably has to take some position or Biden will claim he is for a total ban and is just scared to say it. (V)

Abortion Measure on Montana Ballot Can Now Start Collecting Signatures

One of the many things the Democrats will do on abortion is try to get it on the ballot in as many states as possible. One of those is Montana, which has a critical Senate race this year. A pro-choice group proposed a ballot measure legalizing abortion, but Montana AG Austin Knudsen (R) opposes abortion, so he decided the measure was "legally insufficient." The group sued. Now the Montana Supreme Court has ruled that Knudsen was wrong and the measure has met all the legal requirements to be on the ballot. Six of the seven justices signed onto the opinion, which was written by Justice Ingrid Gustafson. She wrote that the measure does raise some unresolved issues, but so does every other provision of the state Constitution, and if anyone has any questions about what they mean, well, we're the constitutional helpdesk, ready to interpret them.

However, although this is good news for the pro-choice camp, it is just the starting gun. Now they have to finalize the language, send that back to the AG, get a legislative committee to review it, and then collect 60,000 verified signatures before June 21. It is far from a done deal, but the blockade has been broken and the next step can begin.

Montana is a fairly libertarian state and people generally don't like the government telling them what they can and cannot do. When foraging for signatures, a signature collector can approach a possible signatory and say: "Do you approve of the government telling people what they can do or cannot do with their own bodies?" Once the inevitable "No!" comes back, the response will be: "Me neither. Please sign here."

This is the second good development for the Democrats this week. Two Senate seats they must absolutely win are those of Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), who will be greatly helped if this measure is on the ballot since it will drive turnout among young people, and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who just got his dream opponent in Trumpist Bernie Moreno. If Tester and Brown both win, the Democrats have a decent shot at holding 50 seats. If a Democrat is elected vice president, that will be barely enough. (V)

For Thousands of Georgians, Traveling to Get an Abortion Could Land Them in Prison

Here is our third story today on abortion. There will be more in the coming months. Count on it. Georgia has a tough abortion law, outlawing the procedure after about the 6th week of pregnancy. Some women who need an abortion can travel out of state to get one. Currently, abortion is legal in Florida until the 15th week of pregnancy, although a law to reduce it to 6 weeks is now being disputed in the courts.

But there is a class of women who can't freely travel out of state for an abortion: those under court supervision (that is, those on probation or out on parole). Nationally, there are 666,400 such women. Georgia has 3.2% of the U.S. population, so about 22,000 women in Georgia are on probation or parole. If any of them get pregnant and don't want the baby, their choices may be limited to having a baby they don't want and possibly can't afford, or travel out of state and risk being sent to prison for violating the probation or parole rules. Some people under supervision must wear ankle bracelets so their probation or parole officer can track them at all times. A pregnant woman could ask her officer for permission to travel out of state for an abortion, but the officer is completely free to grant or deny the request. Lying about the reason risks prison if the officer learns the truth.

The possibility of being sent to prison for violating probation is not merely theoretical. In 2015, 55% of all prison admissions in Georgia were for probation violations. In 2019, 1,100 people were sent back to prison for parole violations. A report from Harvard on probation noted that "the largest alternative to incarceration in the United States is simultaneously one of the most significant drivers of mass incarceration." (V)

Blue States Are Protecting IVF as They Did Abortion

It's déjà vu all over again. After the Dobbs decision, blue states scrambled to pass laws that not only guaranteed abortion for state residents and visitors, but also made it illegal for doctors and state officials to send any medical information about residents and visitors out of state. That way, when prosecutors in other states who suspected one of their residents made a visit to a blue state for an abortion, the response would be: "I'm sorry, but providing the information you are asking for violates state law; therefore I am not going to give you anything."

With the Alabama Supreme Court decision that zygotes are little people and putting one in the medical waste bin is murder, we are getting the same reaction from the blue states. California, Illinois, and Massachusetts have already passed laws protecting IVF providers. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) has started an executive procedure to protect out-of-state patients. Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) has noted that both his son and daughter were conceived with the help of fertility treatments. Telling him he shouldn't have had them is not going to go over well.

All the Democratic governors know that actions on a deeply personal, pro-family topic like IVF could move voters, even those who oppose abortion. Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) said: "Republicans don't understand the storm that is coming." Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) said the Republicans are "really running scared on this issue." Democratic governors are also emphasizing the role of the state Supreme Courts in dealing with IVF cases and also emphasizing the role of the governors in appointing the justices. They are going to weaponize the issue against Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson (R-NC), who is running for governor and who has compared abortion to murder in the past. Robinson could be a drag on the ticket and might even help Joe Biden carry the state.

The media is helping out here a bit. Reporters are asking candidates if they consider embryos to be people. Most Republicans squirm when asked this. In fact, national Republicans have issued a memo telling candidates to support IVF or at least avoid answering questions about it. They understand that saying that putting a zygote in the medical waste bin is murder is not going to be helpful to their campaigns. (V)

Poll: Gallego Is Leading Lake by 4 Points in Arizona

Now that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) has dug her own political grave and isn't running for reelection, the Arizona Senate race to replace her has become a more normal progressive Democrat vs. Trumpy Republican race. We have seen this numerous times before and will see it again in Ohio this year. A new Emerson College poll of the race between Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) and Kari Lake (R) has 44% of the registered voters for Gallego, 40% for Lake, and 16% undecided. When the undecideds were pushed to make a call, it was 51% for Gallego and 49% for Lake.

The crosstabs are interesting. Voters under 40 are for Gallego 44% to 30%. Voters from 40-59 are for Lake. Voters in their 60s are split evenly, while seniors are for Gallego. With Sinema off the ballot, independents favor Gallego by 4 points.

Clearly, this is going to be a barnburner, with money flowing in from out of state like the Colorado River.

The poll also showed Donald Trump ahead of Joe Biden 48% to 44%, with 8% undecided or voting for someone else. This poll shows an unusual split ticket, with the Republican presidential candidate ahead along with the Democratic candidate for the Senate. (V)

Voting Is Easier than It Used to Be

Despite enormous attempts by Republicans to suppress the Democratic vote, since 2000, it has become easier, on the whole, to vote in much of the country. The big winner is the expansion of the number of states that have multi-day voting instead of the old-fashioned Election-Day-only voting. It has gone from 24 states in 2000 to 46 states in 2024. This year, 97% of all voting-age citizens will have one or more options for voting prior to Election Day.

These maps show the situation in 2000 and also in 2024.

The details vary enormously by state. In 36 states plus D.C. there are multiple days of in-person early voting and absentee ballots for anyone who asks for one. At the other extreme, in four states (Alabama, Delaware, Mississippi and New Hampshire) there is no early in-person voting and absentee ballots are only provided if the voter has a valid reason for not voting in person on Election Day. Reasons vary by state, but typically, inability to get to the polling place is one and being out of state for some valid reason on Election Day is another. (V)

E.U. Will Impose Election Safeguards

While Congress is doing nothing to combat disinformation on social media, the E.U. is taking action right now. There are elections for the European Parliament in June and the E.U. is expecting loads of disinformation to be posted to social media sites. The E.U. Commission wants to nip it in the bud and is going to issue what amounts to an executive order next week ordering social media companies to do something about it or else. The enabling legislation (the Digital Services Act) has already passed the European Parliament. This law authorizes the Commission to take action to order companies to tackle illegal and harmful content on their platforms. Claiming to be a common carrier that has no right to censor content won't fly.

What is expected is a series of voluntary guidelines that can be used as a kind of checklist. If a social media company adopts them all and enforces them rigorously, that will be a defense if the E.U. tries to fine it. If it chooses to ignore the guidelines, it can be fined up to 6% of its global gross income for violating the Digital Services Act. For Facebook, for example, its global gross was $134 billion, so the E.U. can fine it $8 billion. That is serious money, even for Facebook. Failure to pay up would probably result in being banned from operating in the entire E.U. Ex-Twitter loses money every year, but the fine is based on gross income, not profit. Its gross in 2023 was $3.4 billion, so the fine could be $200 million. Elon Musk can afford that, but he won't like it.

Guidelines will include things like requiring all AI-generated content to be clearly labeled as such. AI-content is especially dangerous since it is easy and cheap to produce and often believable, especially for unsophisticated voters who don't realize that a photo can be entirely fake. (V)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up in school, at work, etc., please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share some other way.

---The Votemaster and Zenger