Dem
47
GOP
53
If you're still working on the headline theme, we'll tell you that there was supposed to be one more item yesterday, but we ran short on time and space. If it had run, the headline would have been "The Cabinet: Storm Clouds on the Horizon."
We are repairing a damaged mailbox, so the next round of Star Trek episodes will have to wait until next week.
G.R. in Carol Stream, IL, asks: Do you understand the logic of blocking the Strait of Hormuz? Isn't that the opposite of opening the Strait?
B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: "The big concern here is that Iran shut down the vital world shipping lane through the Strait of Hormuz. That's what is impacting Americans economically everywhere, and that's the concern of most nations. So, the U.S. response, having tried peace talks (half-heartedly), bombing, threats, bigger threats, war, more threats, and peace talks (half-heartedly), is to use a blockade to shut down the vital world shipping lane through the Strait of Hormuz."
How does that work? How does using our power to enforce what Iran already did somehow cause Iran to collapse? Did we lose the war, so now we're making war on ourselves and everyone else? I feel like I'm missing something. The media I've seen just report this as the next strategy with no explanation as to how we might open the Strait of Hormuz by blockading it.(Z) answers: The logic actually isn't misplaced. Iran's intent, apparently, is to create a version of an embargo meant to hurt the U.S. Effectively, they would allow oil through if it is going to American adversaries, and if the transaction is conducted in Chinese yuan (or in crypto), but that's it. The Trump administration does not want the Strait to be leveraged in that way, and so it announced a blockade.
The problem with the blockade isn't the logic of it. It's that a blockade is not an easy thing to pull off. That is especially true here, since it would be targeting non-Iranian ships, and in non-American waters. The U.S. doesn't actually have much legal basis to tell, say, a Chinese ship what it can, and cannot, do when that ship is in international waters.
W.F. in Chambersburg, PA, asks: Could you please discuss the logistics of how Iran is collecting tolls on oil tankers as they exit Hormuz? Is it similar to the E-Z Pass I have on the windshield of my car, for use on the Pennsylvania Turnpike? Sometimes the exit gate does not read my transponder. Do the oil tankers have similar tech glitches?
(Z) answers: The process is handled by a company that is under the control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The IRGC refers the ship's captain to the company, and the captain provides a bunch of information, both via a website and via a phone interview. Then there is a negotiation over costs, with the Iranians giving a better deal to countries whose interests are aligned with theirs. Once the approval process is complete, a ship is given a one-time permit code and an escort through the Strait.
D.M. in Roseville, CA, asks: For those of us with draft-eligible sons, do you think we should be concerned about the plan for automatic enrollment into Selective Service starting in December this year?
(Z) answers: No. Americans of draft-eligible age are already required to register, and there are some significant downsides to failing to do so. Automating it just makes things easier for both the enrollee and for the government.
One could argue that automating the process puts people's personal information at risk, to potentially be exploited by the administration, but that ship pretty much already sailed with DOGE and the Social Security databases. And if Donald Trump re-activates the draft—which would be political suicide—THEN would be a good time to get worried about your draft-eligible sons. But that would also be true if they enrolled the old way, so it's not the auto-enrollment that would be the issue, it would be the activating of the draft that would be the issue.
B.H.S. in Eau Claire, WI, asks: Did U.S. taxpayers pay for our vice president's trip to Hungary? If so, why?
(Z) answers: Yes. Anything the VP does in an official capacity, the government pays for.
You might argue that spending a week on electioneering in Hungary does not serve the interests of the American people, but the Trump administration thinks otherwise (or, at very least, SAYS it thinks otherwise). And presidential administrations have enormous latitude in these matters, to avoid partisan interference. If that is not agreeable, think about if the shoe was on a Democratic president's foot. What if the next Democrat to occupy the Oval Office sent the VP to, for example, attend a U.N. Conference on Trans Rights? Republicans would scream and say they don't want their money paying for that. Would you want them to be able to somehow sue the Democratic president and/or the Democratic president's party? Because that's the can of worms you would be opening if you wanted to see something done to Trump/the Republicans over J.D. Vance's trip to Hungary.
G.Z. in Charlotte, NC, asks: I guess I'm shocked that Viktor Orbán "lost"... I mean, I assumed he was going to fix every election. Is he not the monster I've been led to believe, and is he stepping aside like in a normal democracy?
(Z) answers: As a matter of political strategy, the autocratically inclined Orbán had two choices. The first would be to rule as an out-and-out dictator, with no pretensions to giving the populace a voice. The upside to that approach is that you don't have to worry about pesky things like elections. The downside is that the people know their only hope, if they don't like the government, is a revolution. So if this is the path you choose, you have to build a ruthlessly efficient means of controlling dissent. Not an easy thing to do, and if you try, particularly in a society that is not used to autocratic rule, it often works out great... right until it doesn't, and you find yourself on the wrong side of a firing squad or a hangman's rope. Get out your Ouija Board and ask Nicolae Ceaușescu or Saddam Hussein if you would like to know more on this point.
The alternative is to keep at least some of the trappings of popular rule, and to put your thumb on the scale to keep yourself in power. The upside to this is that you are much less likely to face violent rebellion. The downside is that if you become unpopular enough, and the resistance becomes large and active enough, your thumb on the scale won't be enough, and you'll lose your grip on power. Orbán could theoretically still TRY to become an out-and-out dictator, but building such a regime on the fly would be no small feat, and he would be absolutely guaranteed to commence his "absolute power" period with a massive revolution that would have to be suppressed. Further, in the likely event he failed to suppress it, then say hello to that firing squad or that hangman's noose.
This result should give Americans hope. Orbán was even more desperate to hang on to power than Donald Trump is, and Hungary was much farther down the road to authoritarian rule, and yet Orbán still couldn't hang on.
P.Y. in Watertown, MA, asks: Do Canadians, Europeans, Chinese, and other major trade partners expect dramatic changes in trade policy and a somewhat return to normal when Trump is gone (assuming a Democrat wins POTUS), or are they just moving on from the U.S. and expecting the worst while hoping for the best?
(Z) answers: I would say the answer is "yes" to everything you wrote here.
The nations of the world, particularly the ones that have been close trade partners of the U.S. for generations, hope that normality will return once Donald Trump exits the world stage. However, while one Trump election could be a fluke, two of them is a pattern. And even if he goes away for good, there is no certainty that the U.S. won't eventually elect someone like him in the future. So, even America's closest allies are clearly taking steps to make themselves less dependent, economically and militarily, on the United States. That is going to be a permanent change, and will rob the U.S. of at least some of the "soft" power it has enjoyed since World War II.
A.W. in Lincoln, MA, asks: ABC and CBS settled groundless defamation suits with Trump for $15 million and $16 million, respectively. Making lawsuits go away in general is fine and good, but why would ABC and CBS do this? I ask because doing so tarnishes their image, and because the legal fees they would pay to defend the suits (even assuming they weren't thrown out and went to trial) couldn't possibly add up to $15-$16 million... or could they? Not sure what corporate attorneys get paid these days, but sheesh. I mean, someone's gotta call this guy's bluff, so (I can't believe I'm saying this) good for Rupert Murdoch.
(Z) answers: ABC's parent company (Disney) and CBS' parent company (Paramount Global) both had pending mergers, mergers that had to be approved by the Department of Justice. $15 million or so is WAY more than the costs of fighting a defamation lawsuit, but it's WAY less than the money that might be lost if a billion-dollar merger falls through. So, the settlement was effectively a bribe to keep Trump from mucking around in the mergers (both of which are now approved). Fox/News Corporation, by contrast, has no pending mergers before the government. And you can tell that Trump knew he had no leverage, because he did not demand a "reasonable bribe" amount in the Fox suit, he demanded a comically large $10 billion.
A.A. in Branchport, NY, asks: What do you think happens to Melania and Don's arrangement... er, marriage, now that she's thrown him under the bus?
(Z) answers: I can only speculate, of course, because the exact nature of their arrangement is only known to the two of them.
To start, I think I am on very solid ground when I say this is a marriage of convenience. Maybe they once loved each other, but maybe they didn't—it may have been "trophy wife" and "sugar daddy" the whole time. In any event, they clearly have no meaningful romantic or other relationship now. Of course, they are not the first presidential couple whose marriage was primarily for show.
It is also beyond question that there is some sort of prenuptial agreement, one that was probably renegotiated at least once or twice. It is probable that the terms of the agreement require Melania to stay married to Donald at least until he's done being president. So, I don't foresee any meaningful change before January 20, 2029. At that point, who knows? Neither one of them is likely to be interested in pursuing a new spouse. And given that he's pushing 80 and in ill health, they might both be content to wait it out and let Father Time be the one to dissolve the marriage.
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, asks: In your writeup on the fragmented nature of modern political finance, you mention that ActBlue seems to be stepping into much of the role that was formerly filled by the DNC—with apparent success, looking at their numbers.
Is this why congressional Republicans are currently trying to sentence ActBlue to death by hearings? For the crime of meeting/exceeding expectations in their job performance?(Z) answers: That is exactly why Republicans are going after ActBlue. One way to win elections is to put forward a vision/political program that voters find compelling. Another way to win elections is to make it harder for the other side to be successful. Republicans have leaned very aggressively into Option 2 for at least the last 20 years.
J.R.A. in St. Petersburg, FL, asks: I've worked in a fair number of data centers and co-location facilities over the last couple decades, and I've done a little light Google research since this topic started to catch fire in the wake of the expanding popularity of generative AI, which hopefully has reached its peak and started to slide back down. (I am not fond of generative LLM/AI.)
And I know that it is possible to design data centers so that they do in fact consume water—essentially turning it into steam and dissipating it—or that they recirculate (most of) the water, but I admit that I was surprised to find out how small the percentage is of the latter design, when I got into an argument with somebody about this last month.
And so this leads me to the question: While there isn't anything you can do about the electricity consumption, and while I suspect it's more expensive to construct a data center that recycles the majority of its cooling water, are the people who are proposing all these expansion data centers really not designing for recirculation, or at least not publicizing the fact that they are doing so?
The public opposition to this stuff seems to be more on the side of the water than it is on the electricity, and that suggests to me that those people aren't designing for recirculation, but that would seem to be pretty foolish given that they haven't actually built the things yet.
There isn't anything that can be done about the ones that exist, obviously—well there probably isn't much that can be done—but if you're starting from scratch...(V) answers: Recycling the water is more expensive and they need a lot of water for cooling. The biggest complaint people are making is the electricity usage, not the water. An AI data center can consume 100 to 1,000 megawatts. A town of 100,000 people might consume 100 megawatts. So imagine all of a sudden, a new town of 100,000 people plunked down next door. Or maybe 500,000 people. Or a million people. There is no way to reduce power usage at present.
T.B. in Leon County, FL, asks: Further to your piece on data centers, someone told me that in Europe, data centers have to provide their own green energy. Is this true or is this just a goal? Are European data centers any good at water conservation? How about elsewhere in the world?
(V) answers: In some places, new data centers are providing some of their own power using solar panels on the roof. Not all do this and the amount of power generated is not always enough, depending on how big the data center is and local weather. European governments are starting to insist on data centers providing at least some of the power. A high-quality (expensive) solar panel can generate 300 watts/m3. To generate 100 MW, you would need 330,000 square meters of solar panels. That is 82 acres of expensive panels. That is a lot more than the roof of the building, but a company could buy a nearby farm and cover it with solar panels. A square meter of solar panels is in the $200-$400 ballpark, all in. Not cheap, but doable for a big, rich company.
Governments are increasingly insisting on recirculating water systems, using sea water, air cooling, and other methods, but it will take years before these things can be fully implemented. In some places, the hot water produced can be piped into nearby homes to provide floor heating, so the heat can be harvested and the cool water can be reused.
P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: Quite often we hear about how deep the bench is in terms of potential candidates for political office. One place I have always assumed would have a very deep bench for Democrats would be California. If that is true, why are the candidates so bad? Looking in from the outside, all I see is a rapist, a self-serving billionaire who doesn't have the courage to stand up and call out a rapist, and a very angry person who makes life miserable for their staff. Before we even get to look at qualifications and policy positions, none of these people are someone I would vote for. the Governorship of California seems to be one of the most desirable positions for a politician, so where is the A Team?
(Z) answers: It is possible this election is a fluke. After all, the current Democratic governor of California has plausible presidential ambitions and the previous one was a very effective politician who got elected governor four times. The state also produced Kamala Harris, who wasn't governor, but was a U.S. Senator and the VP.
It is also possible that you, like most voters, don't know the candidates well enough, and that once you do, you might find one or more of them to be more likable. After all, people are still trying to figure out exactly how they feel about Gavin Newsom (D-CA), and he's been governor for 6+ years.
That said, California is a large and diverse state. Most of the politicians have a very clear constituency, usually one that is geographical (Northern California vs. Southern California), or one that is ethnic (Mexican voters, Black voters, etc.), or one that is ideological (progressive voters, centrists, etc.). If you're a Democrat, and you can get your particular constituency ginned up for the primary, that can be enough to advance. And then, you'll win, because most of the state's Democrats will fall in line behind you.
Point being, the secret of success in statewide elections in California is not usually to be a leader who appeals moderately to a wide range of people, but instead to be a leader who appeals enormously to a more narrowly focused group of people.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: Something has been bugging me about the Eric Swalwell scandal. It's no secret he was a main target on the Republican side given his many media appearances, his grilling of Trump administration figures, and him being a manager at one of the Trump impeachments. It's also no secret he was kicked out of the House Intelligence Committee due to his alleged ties with a Chinese spy.
There were rumors that "FBI Director" Kash Patel was going to release damaging information right before the election. Gee, an FBI Director getting involved right before an election. Where have I heard that before?
In any case, it appeared to me that the red team was going to detonate a huge political bomb on Swalwell before his sexual transgressions came up.
With this and the possibility of being shut out in the general election, do you think it was possible someone on the blue team pushed for these sexual misconduct allegations to come out before Patel and the Republicans could do anything on Swalwell?(Z) answers: One cannot avoid the conclusion that someone was pulling the strings behind the scenes, so as to take Swalwell down. It is improbable that the responsible party was Patel or any other Republican, because I think that they just couldn't be that stupid. If they were sitting on information sure to destroy Swalwell, they would have waited until he advanced to the general, and the Democrats' hands were tied.
It is certainly possible that the Democratic pooh-bahs are the ones who spilled the beans. If they knew what was going on, and they foresaw disaster, then it was absolutely the right move, both tactically and morally, to out him.
It is also possible that one of the other aspiring Democrats was the responsible party. If so, it was almost certainly Tom Steyer. Steyer certainly has the resources to throw as much money as needed at oppo research, and he'd already been running ads trying to tear Swalwell down. This theory fits the fact pattern so well that, as we wrote earlier this week, some California voters are seriously considering voting against Steyer, just for this.
We actually had some questions as to why someone would hold it against Steyer, if he was responsible for outing a rapist. The answer is that if Steyer did it for moral reasons, then that is admirable. However, if he leveraged a rape (and the victims thereof) for political gain, that is really sleazy.
M.O. in Bremen, Germany, asks: Is a Kamala Harris candidacy for governor of California still possible?
(Z) answers: Yes, but she would have to run in the primary as a write-in candidate. The deadline to have your name appear on the ballot has passed, but the deadline for declaring as an official write-in candidate is May 19. So, she has a month if she wants to try it (there is no indication she does want to try it, however).
California's rules for write-in candidates are very complicated, such that we read them earlier this week, and got them wrong. You can only be a write-in for the primary, not the general. (We will probably run a letter about this tomorrow, as well.) But you can definitely be a write-in for the primary; the website for the California Secretary of State very clearly says: "Write-in candidates for voter-nominated offices can still run in the primary election. However, a write-in candidate can only move on to the general election if the candidate is one of the top two vote-getters in the primary election."
There are a few, more wacky, scenarios as well—reminiscent of the "third Trump presidential term" scenarios. For example, the Democrats running for governor and lieutenant governor could make it known that they are just proxies, and that Harris is the real candidate. Then, if and when they were elected, the lieutenant governor could resign. By law, the governor would choose a replacement, and could choose Harris. Then, the governor would resign, and Harris would succeed to the governorship. There is no way this would actually happen, but it's a theoretical possibility.
K.R. in Austin, TX, asks: To me, it seems that James Talarico and many other Democrats are gaining traction with an anti-billionaire message.
How do you think that message could be affected if a billionaire hedge fund manager like Steyer got elected as a Democratic governor of California?
(Note: I don't understand how poor Southern farmers became convinced that a billionaire real-estate developer from New York City who has gold toilets in his apartment had their best interests at heart.)(Z) answers: Your last paragraph gets at the heart of it. We are clearly in the era of populist billionaires, which seems like it should be a contradiction in terms, but apparently is not. Donald Trump is a populist billionaire. Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) has substantial populist elements to his message. And now it's Tom Steyer, whose campaign could, in many ways, be confused with that of William Jennings Bryan in 1896.
All I can say is that people are very good at creating mental exceptions to the rules, when they wish to do so, and that if I had a nickel for every time someone said, "Well, he's one of the good ones," I'd be very rich indeed. I don't think having Steyer in the California governor's mansion will hurt the Democrats any more than having Pritzker in the Illinois governor's mansion has hurt them. And it's not like the Republicans are in a position, right now, to argue that the Democrats are the party of the billionaires.
J.S. in Hightstown, NJ, asks: You had an item about Donald Trump's promise to pardon anyone who worked for him prior to leaving office. You talked about some of the possible issues and how a future AG could possibly ignore them or claim they were invalid because they weren't for a specific crime. Didn't Gerald Ford do the same for Richard Nixon and Joe Biden do the same for a large number of people in his family and administration? Wouldn't those have had the same issues?
(Z) answers: First, keep in mind that the pardon power has largely been untested in federal courts, excepting a few fairly narrow questions (like, for example, "Can you refuse a pardon?").
That said, Ford and Biden both pardoned specific people, by name, for unspecified crimes that had already taken place or that may have taken place. So, a president probably can get away with not naming the specific crimes, because Nixon and Biden both already got away with that. A president probably cannot get away with not naming the specific recipients of pardons, and so cannot say "anyone who set foot in the White House in the year 2028 gets a pardon." And a president definitely cannot get away with pardons for future offenses—only offenses that took place before the pardon was granted.
Again, little about pardons has been tested in court. Suppose Donald Trump goes up to the sky to use the great golden toilet there in early 2029 and one of his allies is indicted in mid 2029 and says: "Donald Trump told me I was pardoned." And suppose he can even produce a (not-terribly-reliable) witness. But the prosecutor doesn't buy the story. The Supreme Court is then going to have to decide what actually counts as a pardon. To avoid this kind of situation, it could well decide that the pardon has to be in writing, naming the pardonee and the crime, or something else. Otherwise there could be many false claims of a pardon.
J.W.H. in Somerville, NJ, asks: If Donald Trump pardons all of his key cronies towards the end of his term, but is clearly not in full control of his faculties, could those be later challenged on the grounds that he wasn't of sound mind? Or could other actions be challenged that way?
(Z) answers: Very, very, very doubtful. First, the Constitution does not limit pardons to "when the president was of sound mind." There has also been no legislative attempt to impose that constraint.
Even if you could get beyond the problem that there's nothing in the law about being of sound mind, you would still have to prove that, at the moment the pardon was granted, the president was not in control of his faculties. That is a very, very big hill to climb. Even if you can prove the president is not in control of his faculties TODAY (i.e., the day of the court hearing), that does not prove he was not in control of his faculties the day the pardon was issued.
E.D. in Saddle Brook, NJ, asks: This week's talk of pardons has caused me to think a little more about how we could possibly recover from Trump when he's gone. What would happen if the next President issued the following executive order: "A pardon for illegal actions ordered by the President or anyone appointed by him is to be considered incompatible with the rule of law. It is impossible for a system of law to function if the leaders can ignore it at will. Any such pardons shall be considered to be invalid and any crimes committed should be prosecuted."
I would assume this would quickly hit the Supreme Court. At which point my argument would revolve around "If the President is allowed to order people to break the law and then pardon them, then the President is also free to ignore this court's rulings and issue pardons for any actions that follow."
I do mean this very seriously. I don't see how the rule of law can continue if Trump is allowed to do whatever he wants for 4 years and then we just ignore it. I think the only chance of the U.S. as we know it surviving is if there are serious criminal consequences for everyone involved. Anything less is just opening the door wide open for someone else to take things even further.
Any thoughts on this? Or a better approach?(Z) answers: To start, an executive order would not be appropriate. The only thing an XO does is tell the executive agencies how to do their jobs. Yes, it is true that telling the Department of Justice to ignore pardons and move forward with prosecutions would be telling an executive agency how to do its job. However, with the exception of the current president, that has not been an acceptable use of presidential authority. The expectation is that presidents will allow the DoJ to be independent, and will not muck around in the Department's decision making.
Because of that problem, and because XOs can be canceled by any future president, the much more appropriate and meaningful approach would be for Congress to pass a law spelling out the exact nature of the pardon power. Such a law would inevitably be tested in court, eventually, but if the members of the Congress didn't overreach, and stuck to commonsense things like "A president can't pardon themselves" and "A president can't grant pardons in exchange for cash or other considerations," it would probably stand up.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Does Trump not understand that executive orders are instructions for executive branch offices? Is he engaging in performance art for his "low information" base, making it appear to them that he's a strong, decisive leader getting things done in their interests? I genuinely cannot tell whether or not he knows he's not issuing enforceable decrees.
(Z) answers: I try to figure out exactly what's in Donald Trump's mind all the time, and I fail far more often than I succeed, by all indications. So, take this answer with a grain of salt.
I would guess that part of Trump's motivation is performative, and that he knows that some (possibly many) of his XOs won't stand up. But I would also guess that this is a man who has spent his whole life barking out poorly articulated orders, only to have underlings clean up his mess and make his demands a reality. So, even if and when Trump knows he's pushing his luck with an XO, he probably expects that some lackey will try to make it work, and hopes that they might just succeed.
C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: Why doesn't the Democratic Party sue Fox and/or Megyn Kelly for saying "Democrats want to nuke our own country"? This would be extremely expensive to counter, but it is why so many people see the Democrats as "evil."
(Z) answers: First of all, it's not enough for a claim to be false, even if the person knew it was false. It is necessary to prove that actual damage was done. With public figures, that bar is very high, since negative rhetoric is a part of the game. With a public entity, like the Democratic Party, the bar is even higher. It would be exceedingly difficult to prove that not only did Kelly know she was lying, but that absent that lie, the Democratic Party would have won [X ELECTION] or would have collected [Y MORE DONATIONS].
On top of that, Kelly was indulging in a specific type of protected speech, namely rhetorical hyperbole. One could not reasonably think that she meant the Democrats literally want to drop a nuclear bomb on the U.S., just as one could not reasonably think that someone plans to drop a nuclear bomb on their TV dinner when they say they are going to "nuke" it in the microwave.
V.W. in London, England, UK, asks: You wrote: "One of the Democrats on the [House Oversight] Committee might just decide to ask each victim: 'Could you please give us the names of the people who assaulted you and the names of people who assaulted other Epstein victims?' Some of them might be brave enough to do that. If the perpetrators of the crimes sued for defamation, they would be exposing themselves to discovery and cross examination in court."
Can you sue for defamation on the basis of someone's testimony to Congress? Here in England and Wales (and in other common law jurisdictions where I'm legally qualified, namely Australia), which is generally regarded as having the more stringent libel laws (no First Amendment here), anything said in Parliament (which includes anyone's evidence to a parliamentary committee) is protected by absolute privilege. That goes right back to the 1689 Bill of Rights and before that to Magna Carta, so I'd be surprised if that principle hasn't survived in the United States. In some Australian states you can exercise a right of reply and have your response put on the parliamentary record, but that's it—you can't sue—and in England you don't even have that formal right of reply. Occasionally, someone challenges an MP to repeat the statement outside the house (where it won't be privileged) and try to spin it that way.
Very happy to be schooled on American law here!(Z) answers: Can you sue? Sure, you can sue for anything. Can you win? Very difficult.
People testifying before Congress do not enjoy absolute immunity from being prosecuted and/or sued for what they say. The Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution applies only to elected members, not to anyone else. And even then, it only applies to things they say in the course of doing their jobs.
With that said, whether we are talking about testifying before Congress, or testifying in court, the courts are not eager to do anything that would cause witnesses to be more reticent. That means that the courts give witnesses a very wide berth in terms of what they say, much wider than that person would enjoy if they were just, say, walking down the street.
There is also another issue. To lose a defamation tort, as we note above, it has to be proven that you knew you were lying, and that you told the lie nonetheless. The problem here is that if you lie on a witness stand, whether in court or in Congress, you are committing perjury. Perjury carries the risk of both prison time and heavy fines, and is usually easier to prove than a defamation claim. So, the risk of getting popped for perjury tends to keep people from lying (and, by extension, defaming) on the stand.
A few years ago, a woman named Tatiana Spottiswoode testified before Congress that she had been a victim of sexual abuse on the part of her boss, wealthy entrepreneur Zia Chishti. This revelation did much damage to Chishti's career, as well it should have, so he filed a defamation suit against Spottiswoode, demanding $500 million in damages. The suit went nowhere, because while Chishti was certainly damaged, his lawyers did not come close to proving that Spottiswoode knowingly lied. And a big part of the defense argument, beyond "two people can remember the same events in very different ways," was the observation that Spottiswoode was not likely to have risked perjuring herself with false testimony.
D.B. in New York City, NY, asks: You wrote, (referring to Donald Trump and lawsuits): "Whenever some media outlet publishes something he doesn't like, his first reaction is to sue the outlet for defamation." Electoral-Vote.com is a type of media outlet. I don't think you've ever been sued by the Trump Administration (because I am sure you would have written about it) but has anyone ever contacted you about any of your posts? Do you think that there is anyone in the current administration that might be following your site, even if just to see what you are writing about?
(Z) answers: We have not been sued, and we have not been contacted.
It is exceedingly improbable that we would ever be sued. First of all, we're too small to be on the administration's radar, especially since we're not a part of the media ecosystem the White House pays attention to (i.e., right-wing propaganda). Second, we don't report new information, we comment on and analyze information that was first reported by others. It would be difficult to prove that The Wall Street Journal knew the Epstein card was fake, printed it anyhow, and that Trump was specifically damaged as a result. It would be even harder to prove that we knew the WSJ's reporting was fake (because how could we possibly know that?), and maybe even harder still to prove that we somehow damaged him with our alleged falsehoods.
I think it is unlikely that anyone in the administration is following this site. First, they favor laudatory coverage of Trump, which they aren't going to get here. Further, and I regret if this sounds self-serving, but it is what it is, I think that our site is beyond the intellectual capabilities of a fair chunk of the Trump administration. We write at a fairly high level. On top of that, our items are full of references to political, historical, and other concepts that we are counting on people to know. A lot of those references, while second nature to our readers, would fly over the heads of many members of the administration. Like, to take one example, what percentage of people in the Trump White House would know what "the Full Sherman" is? Or would grasp our meaning if we wrote, "It's been seven lifetimes since Trump first started bombing Iran"? Or would get the joke when we write something like "The Primate of Italy does not approve of the primate at Mar-a-Lago"? I think the percentage is probably pretty low.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: Are local authorities obligated to enforce federal laws?
(Z) answers: Nope. The federal government has tried many times, has gone to court many times, and has lost every time. This is called anti-commandeering doctrine, and was affirmed, in particular, in 1992's New York v. United States (states cannot be forced to take possession of toxic waste on the government's orders) and 1997's Printz v. United States (states can't be compelled to conduct federally mandated background checks for gun owners).
D.S. in Fort Collins, CO, asks: At this point, I don't think there's any doubt that the current president is the worst in U.S. history. (If you disagree, I'd be curious to know why.) So my question is: When did this happen? What do you think pushed this president over into "undoubtedly worst ever" territory? And, I suppose, if you still think he's not quite met that standard, then what would it take?
(Z) answers: I was just discussing this with several colleagues, and we all agreed he is now the undisputed "worst ever," leaving even James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson in the dust. If I had to pick a moment where Trump became the undisputed champion, it would be when he commenced with the imperialistic foreign policy that included the killing of Venezuelan civilian fishermen, the invasion of Venezuela and toppling of its leader, and the Iran War. That said, I am open to the argument that Trump crossed that line upon the implementation of his city-invading "border security" policy in Los Angeles/Minneapolis/Chicago, or when he made an utter mockery of the emoluments clause with his crypto scams and Qatari jets and the like.
C.A.J. in Fort Worth, TX, asks: How would you place Clarence Thomas in a historical ranking of the most corrupt Supreme Court justices?
(Z) answers: If this was the Olympics, then Thomas would be on the medal platform with Roger Taney and Abe Fortas, though each "earned" the honor in a different way. Taney's corruption was entirely political; he very inappropriately decided to use his position as a means to enact sweeping political change on the country (namely, the legalization of slavery everywhere), and he conspired with James Buchanan and several justices to try to pull that off. Fortas' corruption was partly political, in that he was in Lyndon Johnson's hip pocket, and partly financial, in that he took "extra benefits" in terms of phony honorariums and book royalties (though the amounts he took were modest compared to what's going on today). Thomas' corruption is almost entirely financial. Yes, he is a staunch partisan, and that is the vantage point from which he makes his rulings, but this is true of many justices. On the other hand, the RV, and the luxury vacations, and the other benefits totaling millions of dollars—there's no precedent for that on the Court.
When it comes time to award the medals, I'd probably give the gold to Thomas (since his behavior is what is conventionally meant by the term "corruption"), the silver to Taney (since his corruption did enormous harm to the country) and the bronze to Fortas (since his political corruption was not especially impactful, and his financial corruption was far smaller in magnitude than Thomas').
R.H. in Sydney, NSW, Australia, asks: I have often wondered why at some police funerals, and some other funerals in the United States, why the bagpipes are played since it is primarily a Scottish thing. I note, of course, that many immigrants came from Scotland and Ireland; is it a holdover from that? Also I note that many police forces in the early years were primarily staffed by the Irish.
(Z) answers: Part of it is that Scots, Irish, and Scots-Irish heritage are common for Americans. Part of it is that the bagpipes produce a particularly mournful and melancholy sound. And part of it is, for lack of a better term, copycatting. People hear "Marry You" or "Signed, Sealed, Delivered (I'm Yours)" or "Thinking out Loud" at someone else's wedding, and they want it at THEIR wedding. Similarly, the songs "Highland Cathedral" and "Amazing Grace," played on bagpipes, are now closely associated with funerals for many Americans, and so are requested all the time, even by people whose only contact with Scottish culture is that they once owned a plaid blanket.
D.B. in Mountain View, CA, asks: You described George Washington as "a bad person who did important things that were not evil." Care to comment on why you believe Washington was a bad person?
(Z) answers: He was one of the largest slaveowners in America. And he spent his days, for many years, defending a document that declared that "all men are created equal" and his nights managing his enslaved labor force.
It is true that Washington was at least somewhat uncomfortable with slavery, and that he pondered manumission of his laborers. It is also true that he was more humane than most of his fellow slaveowners. Finally, it is true that slavery was not illegal in his place and time. Nonetheless, his status as a slaveowner is still a black mark against him.
T.L. in San Francisco, CA, asks: In the slides for your Mexican-Americans lecture, was there a time machine involved for pickup trucks to be factors leading to the 1943 Zoot Suit Riots?
(Z) answers: When lecturing, it is wise to draw parallels to the present, when possible. It is also wise to make things a little interactive, when possible.
So, as part of that lecture, students are asked to consider either a hypothetical Texas-born American named John, or a hypothetical Mexican-American immigrant named Juan, and are assigned to suggest either: (1) an article of clothing their assigned person might wear, or (2) a vehicle they might drive, or (3) a food they might particularly enjoy, or (4) a style of music/a musician they might enjoy. I put together pictures representing the most popular answers, and then I observe that it's entirely plausible that a John and a Juan could live next door to each other in the present day. Under those circumstances, as the months and years go by, the cowboy hat/country music/BBQ ribs of John would not even be noticed by Juan. And the Mexican cowboy hat/corrido music/tamales of Juan would not even be noticed by John.
On the other hand, in a segregated society, instead of being unremarkable, those things would be a reminder and a symbol of how THEY are different from US, and how THEY don't fit in. And in the context of the segregated 1940s, the thing that emerged as that symbol was not pickup trucks or tamales or corrido music, it was zoot suits. This is followed by the observation that the fashion choices of young people are constantly a source of tensions, in part because fashion choices are very noticeable, and in part because young people's fashion choices are deliberately intended as an act of rebellion against older people.
P.M. in Port Angeles, WA, asks: This is a baseball question for (Z): I wonder how many packs of "Bazooka" bubblegum did you buy as a youngster? For me, that was the main mechanism for obtaining trading cards, and I spent far too much on that chewing gum, trying to gather complete teams of the time. Of course there were fewer teams in the 50's and 60's, so the task was less daunting than in the 70's and forward. But gum is some better than chewing tobacco, I guess.
(Z) answers: Well, by the time I was buying baseball cards, the connection between them and Bazooka gum was gone, and the connection between them and gum of any type was almost gone. I might have gotten a few packs of Topps in the early 1980s that came with the (very poor quality) stick of gum, but even that ceased by the mid-1980s.
That said, I quite like Bazooka, and have purchased many packs of the gum on its own, no baseball cards needed. In fact, there's a pack of Bazooka in my car right now.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, asks: I need to understand why blackout of games to a local audience is still a thing.
I grew up in the Detroit area in the '70s and '80s and recall that the NFL had a blackout rule where any game not sold out within 72 hours of kickoff would be blacked out to the local audience. I think their rationale was to drive ticket sales with the threat of not being able to see the game. The Lions were terrible and rarely sold out the cavernous 80+K seat Pontiac Silverdome. Sometimes, if there was a significant game coming up, a wealthy local business owner would purchase the remaining tickets and give them away to [CHARITY X—OFTEN, SICK KIDS] so that the local audience could watch their team and, once again, experience disappointment and sadness.
Fast forward to today and change sports to hockey. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'm still a Red Wings fan and I can watch (stream) every game that is not on the NHL Network on ESPN+. I still hold lingering animosity towards my local team, the San Jose Sharks, dating back to the '90s and '00s when the Red Wings were good, played in the Western Conference and had many heated playoff rounds versus the Sharks. At the same time, they are my local team and I secretly root for them to succeed. This season, a very young Sharks team is surprising everyone in the hockey world by actually having a shot at making the playoffs (all while at the same time, my beloved Red Wings are in the process of tanking, having sat in a playoff position for most of the season, but now sitting on the outside, looking in).
My problem is that I can't watch the Sharks. (To be fair, this is a made-up problem. Real problems include—waves hands wildly—everything else). Every game is blacked out on ESPN+. Can you explain the logic in this? Wouldn't it make more sense for more games to be available? Wouldn't it help the Sharks to grow their fan base beyond the South Bay if proto-fans like me could watch all the games? Help me make sense of this.(Z) answers: My answer here may not be universally true, but it is generally true.
Back in the 1970s, the main source of revenue for all leagues, including football, was ticket sales. So, they would not let you see the game for free until such point that all the tickets were sold. They hoped this would encourage some people who might otherwise stay home to suck it up and attend the game in person.
Today, the main source of revenue for all of the really significant leagues is television revenue. That is most true for the NFL, but it's even true for leagues where teams have a lot more home games and sell a lot more tickets, like MLB, the NBA, the WNBA and the NHL.
In the last 15 years, and particularly in the last 5 years, the leagues have learned that the very best way to maximize TV revenue is to sell "exclusive" rights to broadcast the games, either nationally, or locally. And the more broadcast partners to whom you can sell "exclusive" rights, the more money you can make. For example, imagine that Fox is scheduled to broadcast 12 Packers games this season. The network would certainly be pleased to have a 13th, but that 13th game is not markedly more valuable to them than the other 12, so they'd only pay 8% or maybe 10% more money than they are already paying, if they had the opportunity. On the other hand, if you offer that game to Amazon, such that the only way Packers fans can see all the games is to sign up for Prime, Amazon will pay as much as Fox pays for 4-5 games, because Amazon hopes (and knows) that some of those new subscribers will stick around, and Amazon will make its money back and more.
So, the point of blackouts today is to protect those exclusive broadcast contracts. In the case of regular-season hockey (and regular-season basketball, and regular-season baseball), some local concern usually has the exclusive right to local broadcasts. In Los Angeles, for example, Spectrum owns the local broadcast rights for the Dodgers and the Lakers, and so if you want to watch any of those teams' games that are not being nationally televised, you have to get Spectrum cable. Those games are blacked out on MLB.tv and NBA.tv, respectively, in the Los Angeles area (unless a person knows how to use a VPN). Sometimes, particularly in the case of MLB, the blackout rules are kind of nutty. For example, Iowa does not have a Major League team, but it's sorta close to half a dozen MLB teams. So, in that state, the Cubs, Cardinals, Twins, Brewers, White Sox, Reds and Guardians are all blacked out on MLB.tv.
I have had this conversation many times, and I believe strongly that the teams are selling out long-term health for short-term gain. If you require your fans to pay for five or six different subscriptions to watch your games, a lot of them are not going to do it, and are going to find other things to do with their time and their money. You are also going to struggle to develop new fans.
A.E. in Lexington, KY, asks: Where would you place Ernie Banks in the pantheon of MLB greats? He did have the misfortune of playing for the Cubs.
(Z) answers: In the history of baseball, there are two shortshops that stand above all others. Those two are Honus Wagner and Cal Ripken Jr. You can potentially add Álex Rodríguez to the list, too, if you are willing to overlook the steroids and the fact that he played nearly as many games at 3B as at SS (though not by choice).
After them, there is a group of shortstops who could be #3/#4 to #12 in nearly any order. That group includes Banks, Derek Jeter, Barry Larkin, Ozzie Smith, Arky Vaughan, George Davis, Luke Appling, Alan Trammell, Robin Yount, Pee Wee Reese and Lou Boudreau. I would probably slot Banks in around #5 among shortstops, but I would not argue much if you put him a bit higher or a bit lower. That, in turn, means that Banks is certainly Top 100 all time, and maybe sneaks into the Top 50, but he's not Top 10 or Top 20.
The thing that Banks really illustrates is that you just can't make the postseason a core part of a player's case. Phil Rizzuto has seven rings. Banks never played in a single playoff game. But there is no world in which Rizzuto is a better shortstop than Banks. Rizzuto was a fine player, but one who was also lucky to be signed by the dynastic Yankees. Banks was a much better player, but one who had the misfortune to spend his entire reserve-clause-limited career with the hapless Cubs.
L.S. in Richland, WA, asks: Where would you rank Satchel Paige? Not all the information about him is reliable—I understand that—but doesn't he deserve a mention?
(Z) answers: Maybe the toughest player of them all to evaluate. We cannot know what he would have done, but for the color line. Although, we also can't know if he might have broken down under the greater pitching load of a 154-game season as compared to the much shorter schedule of the Negro Leagues.
If we were somehow holding a draft of all the pitchers ever, I would take Roger Clemens, Walter Johnson, Randy Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Pedro Martinez and Tom Seaver ahead of Paige, because they are known commodities. Then, he would be in the next "tier" of pitchers, with Grover Cleveland Alexander, Lefty Grove, Greg Maddux, Warren Spahn, Bert Blyleven, Gaylord Perry, Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan and Cy Young. I would likely draft Paige very early in that tier, since I believe he can equal those pitchers, but because he might also have the potential to move into the top tier with Clemens, et al.
What this means, then, is that I would rank Paige as the #7 or #8 pitcher of all time, but with the understanding that it's possible (but not knowable) that he was actually even better than that.
D.O. in Houston, TX, asks: I have seen quite a few states start to release Senate polling. I was wondering when you would start adding them to the database and updating the map? For instance, the Democratic candidate is known in Texas and, based on polling, the state should be either "likely GOP" or "Barely GOP."
I understand that some states still need to hold primaries (and that Texas still has a runoff, for instance) but wanted to know your thoughts on when we could start seeing the races and map updated.(Z) answers: For a number of reasons, we generally wait until all, or nearly all, of the primaries are over. This year, there are a bunch of primaries in May and June, then none at all in July, then another 12 in August and September. Most of those August and September primaries, with the exception of Michigan, are not really in doubt, however. Polling is hard enough when everybody is home and tuned in, and even less reliable when people are at the beach in the summer. We'll probably begin after the August primaries.