Jan02




Previous | Next

Trump Legal News: Born under a Bad Sign

It flew under the radar a bit, thanks to the holidays, but Jack Smith filed another motion with Judge Tanya Chutkan on Dec. 27. And it's yet another one that makes clear that Donald Trump is up against a real pro.

The focus of the motion is exactly what "evidence" Trump can, and cannot, introduce at trial. In short, what Smith is asking is that Chutkan proactively prohibit the defense from introducing "irrelevant political issues or arguments," such as "the deep state is behind this" or "1/6 was the fault of Nancy Pelosi" or "George Soros is paying for the government to conduct this trial." Smith observes that such assertions are invalid, and unsupported with evidence, but could still be prejudicial with the jury.

It is already against the rules for attorneys to make claims in court that they conjured up out of thin air; Smith knows this and Chutkan knows this. What Smith has done is comb through Trump's public statements, and identify 10 lines of attack that Trump has raised and that are not legally valid. What the Special Counsel wants is for the judge to preemptively warn the defense that those 10 subject areas are a waste of the Court's time, and will not be tolerated.

This is a very shrewd move by Smith, since it's likely Chutkan will make a pre-trial ruling in support of his position. And even if she doesn't, then everyone involved is nonetheless on notice as to exactly what "distractor" arguments the defense is likely to make. That will tend to make those distractor arguments less effective, and harder to get away with. It is also the case that even though the Washington trial is technically on hold, while the question of presidential immunity is dealt with, Smith is still making progress.

And as long as we are on the subject, let us point out once again that for the next several months, Trump's calendar is going to constantly jump back and forth between court dates and primaries/caucuses. And we're only talking cases where he is the defendant; not the procedural matters that the Supreme Court will be dealing with. A rundown:

• On January 15, the second E. Jean Carroll defamation trial will commence. This is the same day as the Iowa caucuses.
  
  
• On January 29, Trump will face a civil suit related to his endorsement (and alleged masterminding) of a scammy multi-level marketing firm called ACN. This is less than a week after the New Hampshire primary and about a week before the Nevada primary and caucuses and the Virgin Islands caucus.
  
  
• On March 4, assuming the calendar holds, Trump's Washington trial will begin. This is just days after Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, and D.C. hold their primaries, caucuses or conventions. It is the same day that North Dakota holds its caucus. And it is the day before 16 Super Tuesday primaries/caucuses, and about a week before the Wyoming conventions on March 10, and the March 12 primaries/caucuses in Georgia, Hawaii, Mississippi and Washington.
  
  
• On March 25, assuming the calendar holds, Trump's hush money trial in New York will commence. This is between 2 and 10 days after the eight primaries/caucuses scheduled for the second half of March, and is a week before the five primaries set for April 2, in Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

What it amounts to is that if the current trial schedule holds, we'll get to nominating contest #47, Missouri on April 6, before experiencing a greater-than-10-day gap between the start of a Trump trial and people casting ballots. In the case of Missouri, the gap is... 12 days. And the whole time, or nearly the whole time, he'll have one or more trials ongoing. If the classified documents trial moves forward in May—the current plan, though it's not looking like Aileen Cannon will stick to that—he will spend the entire primary season, or nearly the entire primary season, on trial in at least one venue.

There is not much that can pierce Trump's teflon. However, if any voters are having doubts about the former president because of his legal woes, those doubts are going to be reinforced on a daily basis by headlines about this trial or that one. (Z)

DeWine Vetoes Anti-Transgender Bill

This is a little bit of a surprise, though it's surely not a coincidence that the news broke during the time people are least likely to be paying attention to the news, namely the week between Christmas and New Year's. After receiving a bill from the Ohio legislature that banned gender-affirming care for transgender minors, Gov. Mike DeWine (R-OH) vetoed it.

In the press conference where he announced the decision, DeWine observed that he has talked to many parents of transgender children, and has been told that, but for gender-affirming care, their children would be dead. So, the Governor concludes that vetoing the bill is the pro-life position. He also expressed his view that, as a small-government conservative, he doesn't think this is an appropriate place for government interference, and that these sorts of decisions should be made by patients, their parents, and their doctors.

For a period of time, particularly at the start of the pandemic, DeWine often presented as a Midwestern Chris Sununu or Phil Scott—a conservative, yes, but one willing to buck the party line when he felt it necessary. Then, for several years, DeWine went full MAGA. Maybe, now that he's term limited, he's done with Trumpism. Or maybe he just rebelled on this one issue. Or maybe he sees that these gender-affirming-care bans invariably get struck down in court, and he wanted to spare Ohio the time and expense. In any event, we pass it along because in addition to the liberal argument against these bans ("people should be allowed to express who they are without interference or prejudice"), there is a conservative/libertarian argument, as well. (Z)

Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republicans

Every decade or so, Syracuse University's Newhouse School of Public Communications does a survey of the demographics of America's journalists. The latest version is out (it's 2022 data for a late-2023 release; academics tend to work slowly), and the finding that is getting all the attention is that just 3.4% of journalists are now registered Republicans.

Here are the numbers for the current study as well as the past five iterations:

The trendline is pretty clear when it comes to Republican-registered journalists over the past 50 years.

As you can presumably guess, this is being held out as proof of anti-Republican bias in the media. To take but one example, Fox contributor Kevin Bass complained: "As with most professions, conservatives have been increasingly excluded or purged from the ranks of journalists." Most professions? Really? Seems like there are still plenty of Republican stockbrokers, lawyers, bankers, media moguls, truckers, farmers, etc. That said, journalists are generally hired by other journalists, and people tend to prefer to work with simpatico colleagues, so it's probably true that it's a little harder for a Republican applicant to get hired at, say, The New York Times than it is a Democratic applicant. Probably not THAT much harder, though—it's not like they ask to see your party registration during your interview. Plus, let us recall that many high-profile outlets, including the Times, hire high-profile right-wingers all the time, in the name of "balance."

Anyhow, the truth is that the disparity between Republican and Democratic journalists has many causes, most of them non-conspiratorial. Among them:

• Given that Republican journalists have been in the minority for half a century, it's pretty clear that Republican philosophy meshes a little less well with a journalistic career than Democratic philosophy. The same thing is true in academia. More specifically, Democrats tend to place more value on education, ideas and public service in a non-religious context.
  
  
• Speaking of education, in the last half-century, it's become nearly impossible to get a job as a reporter without a college degree. Democrats are more likely to have degrees than Republicans.
  
  
• Journalists are supposed to value facts and the search for the truth. It's pretty hard to resolve the cognitive dissonance between that and the fantasy world that many Republicans inhabit today.
  
  
• That "independents" column is probably doing a lot of heavy lifting, and a lot of journalists who would otherwise be Republican have jumped there, either out of disdain for the current GOP, or to protect their professional prospects, or to resolve the aforementioned cognitive dissonance ("I'm still conservative; I'm just not a Republican").
  
  
• If someone is looking to be a journalist, and is on board with modern MAGA Republicanism, there are lots of jobs with outlets like Fox, The Daily Wire, WND, The Blaze, etc. There, a person can do writing AND advocacy. But those people aren't journalists anymore and wouldn't be included in the survey. There are fewer left-wing propaganda mills, and the ones that do exist, like the DailyKos, tend to prefer a model built around reader submissions. So, the lefty sites are sucking up fewer would-be journalists so as to turn them into political influencers than the righty sites are.

We think this list is pretty good, but it's also not exhaustive. There are undoubtedly other factors we've overlooked. In any event, there's a very good chance that at some point in the future, you'll hear about this finding. We just wanted to point out the situation is more complicated than MAGA Republicans—who are, after all, America's most oppressed group—make it seem. (Z)

Questions for 2024

A couple of weeks ago, we had a list of 10 questions—known unknowns—that will shape the 2024 election. NPR had the same idea, so we thought we would pass their list along:

1. Do perceptions of the economy improve?
2. Does abortion retain its salience?
3. How do the situations in Ukraine and Israel change?
4. Do younger voters rally to Biden's side despite misgivings—or not?
5. Do third-party candidates gain real traction and become the 2024 wild card?
6. Can Haley or DeSantis actually give Trump a run—or does Trump wrap up the primary quickly?
7. Do Trump's trials wind up mattering—if not for Republican primary voters but for persuadable ones in a general election?
8. How will attrition among election officials affect vote counting in states?
9. Do democratic institutions again hold?
10. Which winds up mattering more: frustrations with how Biden is doing his job (and his age), or the negative views of Trump?

Some overlap with our list, but some stuff we didn't have. That tells you there are a LOT of known unknowns. Add to that the unknown unknowns, and it's going to be a wild year. (Z)

E-V Presidential Tracking Poll, 2024 Edition

We experimented with this concept in 2023, and now we're going to get disciplined about it and make sure to run it once a month, through November. And so, near the start of each month, we'll do two tracking poll items, one presidential and one senatorial. Each will have three questions: the unchanging question about the presidential race/the Senate races, a serious sub-question about the presidential race/the Senate races, and a lighter question about the presidential race/the Senate races.

Here are the questions for the January edition:

1. Who do you think will be elected President of the United States on Nov. 5, 2024?
2. Who is Donald Trump going to choose as his running mate?
3. What song should Joe Biden choose as his 2024 campaign theme song? (And why?)

The survey is here. We provide options for the first two questions, but for the third, you're on your own. Of course, you can skip that one if it doesn't interest you. (Z)

2023 In Review, Part I: The Questions

We will be spending much of the month looking back at 2023, and then looking forward to 2024. However, we are going to need a lot of help from readers to do that. So, this week, we're going to ask for your participation on at least four questions:

1. What was the worst thing that happened in 2023? (And why?) Send your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "Worst of 2023."
   
   
2. What was the best thing that happened in 2023? (And why?) Send your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "Best of 2023."
   
   
3. Who was the most deplorable person of 2023? (And why?) Send your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "Most Deplorable." And note that we are granting Donald Trump "Immortal Deplorable" status, so he is not a valid response.
   
   
4. Who was the most admirable person of 2023? (And why?) Send your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "Most Admirable."

We're also going to try something, and see if it works out. No promises. But maybe we can put Electoral-Vote.com under the lens. Here are two questions:

1. What item that we produced this year was, in your view, the strongest? (And why?). Send a link to the item, or a description, along with your feedback to comments@electoral-vote.com with the subject line "Good Job."
   
   
2. What item that we produced this year was, in your view, the weakest? (And why?). Send a link to the item, or a description, along with your feedback to comments@electoral-vote.com with the subject line "Bad Job."

Finally, we're still in need of predictions for 2024. If you have 'em, send 'em to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "Predictions."

We realize that this is a lot of homework. We'll tell you we plan to run the worst thing responses tomorrow, the best thing responses on Friday, and then we'll be working on the predictions over the weekend. The rest will run next week. So, you can triage accordingly. We look forward to your responses! (V & Z).

Back to the main page