Even without a Trial There Was Trial News Yesterday

God waited until the seventh day to rest, but he didn't have to put up with Donald Trump. Judge Juan Merchan couldn't take it and had to rest after just 2 days' work.

OK, not entirely. Merchan decided that for the rest of Trump's trial, there will (probably) be no session on Wednesdays, just to give him time to deal with other cases on his docket. There could be other important matters that can't wait the 6-8 weeks Trump's trial is expected to take. Merchan will use Wednesdays to deal with them. However, if Trump's lawyers gum up the works with frivolous motions, the Judge has reserved the right to continue the trial on Wednesdays, if need be. He is clearly a no-nonsense judge and wants to move things along. It is not unusual for judges to reserve one day a week for other matters during a long trial.

The judge wants to keep the jurors' identities secret, but nosy reporters want to know. So far seven jurors have been chosen, and ABC News has compiled what it knows about them as follows:

• Juror 1 is a middle-aged salesman originally from Ireland. He lives in West Harlem and will be the jury foreman. He gets his news from The New York Times, The Daily Mail, Fox News, and MSNBC. Clearly he is open to multiple viewpoints, which makes him an ideal juror. He used to be a waiter but has worked in sales for the last 30 years. In his spare time, he likes doing outdoorsy things. He is married but has no children. When asked if he knew about Trump's other cases, he said he had heard about them. If we were trying to fake it, this would be our profile.
  
  
• Juror 2 has worked as an oncology nurse at a big hospital on the Upper East Side for 15 years. She lives with her fiancé and her dog. She is a native New Yorker. She gets her news from The NYT, CNN, Google, and Facebook. She was surprised she was called for this case. When asked if she had an opinion of Trump, she said: "I really don't have one." Good answer! She also added: "No one is above the law." A bad omen for Trump.
  
  
• Juror 3 is a corporate attorney who used to live in Oregon and moved to New York 5 years ago. He has worked at two major white-shoe law firms in New York. He gets his news from The NYT, Wall Street Journal, and Google, but says he doesn't follow the news closely. In his spare time he likes to run and hike. When asked about the case, he felt like he was able to infer Trump's state of mind. He could be trouble for Trump. A lawyer, even a corporate one, is going to understand the charges—falsifying business records to hide a crime—and will be impossible to mislead. During deliberations, he will be able to explain the nature of the charges and evidence to other jury members who don't quite follow it. We suspect that a high-end lawyer who reads both the Times and WSJ knows exactly what is going on, what is at stake, and what is likely to be persuasive in the jury room. Maybe Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanche, was hoarding his peremptory challenges, but if we were Blanche, we wouldn't want this guy on the jury. He is no dummy.
  
  
• Juror 4 is one that the prosecution could be worried about, but only a little. He is an older Puerto Rican with two grandchildren who finds Trump to be fascinating and mysterious. Juror 4: "He walks into a room, and he sets people off one way or another. I find that really interesting. Really, this one guy can do all of this. 'Wow,' that's what I think." So he is impressed with Trump's magical powers. He is a self-employed IT consultant who attended college for one year. His hobby is spending time with his family. He was on a jury once in a civil case long ago, but has forgotten what it was about. He reads The New York Daily News and the Times, but also gets news from Google.
  
  
• Juror 5 is a life-long New Yorker who lives in Harlem with her brother, who is a basketball coach. She is a woman of color who teaches English in a charter school. She is the only potential juror who raised her hand when the jurors were asked if they hadn't heard about Trump's other cases. She gets her news from Google and TikTok and listens to inspirational podcasts and the Breakfast Club radio show. She said she doesn't care for the news. Two of her family members have worked in law enforcement, one of whom was a homicide sergeant with the NYPD. In her spare time she enjoys writing and theater.
  
  
• Juror 6 is a software engineer who works for the Walt Disney Company. She grew up in NYC and lives in Chelsea with three roommates. She reads the Times and watches TikTok. When asked, she said: "I will be fair and impartial." Way to go! In her spare time she enjoys plays, restaurants, dancing, and watching TV.
  
  
• Juror 7 is a second white-shoe lawyer. He works as a civil litigator. New York is full of lawyers. He lives on the Upper East Side and likes to play with his kids. He reads the Times, The Washington Post, and the WSJ. He has never served on a jury. He supports some of Trump's policies and not others. He also said: "I don't know the man and I don't have opinions about him personally." We think he is full of B.S. A high-end corporate lawyer who reads the three most important papers in the country knows exactly what the score is. All three are full of news about Trump's indictments practically every day. And it is hard to believe that a lawyer reads three papers just to keep up with the Yankees and the Wizards. If this guy and Juror 3 decide that Trump broke the law, they are going to reinforce each other and probably will exert a major influence on the other jurors. To us, it is inconceivable that a lawyer who reads three major newspapers packed daily with Trump's legal problems doesn't have an opinion of him. But again, each side gets only 10 peremptory challenges and this guy knew exactly what to say to keep the judge happy, so he couldn't be challenged for cause. That issue doesn't come up so much in corporate law, but he undoubtedly went to a good law school and knows how the game is played. As an aside, Trump apparently thought each side got an unlimited number of peremptory challenges and was angry when his lawyers told him, no, each side gets only 10.
  

Our take: Juror 4 finds Trump mysterious, but we doubt he will fight the two lawyers to the death in order to get a hung jury. So far, there is not a lot to cheer Trump, but another five jurors are yet to be selected, plus six alternates. We think the chance of an acquittal on all charges is basically zero, so Blanche's game has to be going for a hung jury.

Former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori is worried that the public could figure out who some of the jurors are, based on this information and some other information that has been made available. He is worried about the jurors' safety. Based on the above information, that might not be enough, but it's still a concern. Of course, if one of the jurors writes a book about the trial later, it will be harder to stay anonymous, but that is the juror's own choice.

Jury selection is not the only thing that happened yesterday. Merchan ruled that Trump may not attend oral argument for the Supreme Court immunity case. He is required to be in Merchan's courtroom for the entire trial. There is no particular reason for Trump to attend the Supreme Court argument, though. His lawyers will make the best case they can and there is no special reason why he needs to be there. After yesterday's session, Trump said that Merchan thinks he is more important than the Supreme Court. That is patent nonsense. There is a good reason to be in the courtroom when you are on trial on a criminal charge, but no real need to be at the oral arguments. The lawyers can handle that perfectly well. (V)

Mayorkas Impeachment Dismissed

If you were expecting a full-blown Senate trial of the impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas with lots of fireworks and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) leading the fight, sorry to disappoint you, but it didn't happen. The Senate quickly took a vote on the first article, which accuses Mayorkas of failing to enforce the nation's immigration laws. Every Democrat voted to dismiss it on the grounds that Mayorkas had not committed any high crimes or misdemeanors. Every Republican but one voted against dismissal of the first article. Who was the one Republican with the spine to effectively say, that no, Mayorkas didn't commit a crime? It was Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who voted "present." Note that Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), who is retiring and has nothing to fear from Donald Trump, couldn't get up the nerve to at least vote "present," like Murkowski. Romney knows very well that policy disagreements are not crimes. He also knows that from now on, whenever the president's party does not control the House, meaningless impeachments will flow like water. Using the impeachment power to annoy your political rivals is not exactly what James Madison had in mind when he threw in that provision.

Shortly thereafter, there was a vote on the second article, breach of trust. This time Murkowski lost her mojo and voted with the Republicans, even though she knows very well that "breach of trust" is not a crime. The second vote was thus 51-49. That ended the trial.

Originally, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offered the Republicans a deal in which there would be a small amount of debate, but only if all of them agreed to it. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) refused, so Schumer moved directly to the votes. Consequently, the impeachment managers never even got to make their case, on account of Schmitt.

A number of Republican senators made motions along the way. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) wanted to move the whole thing to a closed session. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) wanted to adjourn the Senate until April 30. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) moved to table a point of order made by Schumer. They all failed.

Many of the senators appeared bored during the whole proceeding. Maybe they figured that since Donald Trump fell asleep several times during his trial, sleeping during a trial was now de rigueur. (V)

Republicans Are Playing Hardball in Ohio

Ohio law states that parties must file the names of their candidates 90 days before the election. This year that is Aug. 7. However, the Democratic National Convention doesn't begin until Aug. 19, so Joe Biden can't be the official nominee until then at the earliest. This situation happens all the time for the party with the August convention, but normally the state legislature grants that party a waiver.

This year, however, the Republicans are playing hardball and want to keep Biden off the ballot. Ohio AG Dave Yost (R) said that provisional approval is not allowed, nor does Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) have the authority to do anything about this. An attorney on Yost's staff, Julie Pfeiffer, said: "No alternative process is permitted."

This is where the parties differ. The Republicans will use every trick in the book to pick up votes by suddenly enforcing a long-dormant rule or changing the rules during the campaign season, as they tried (and failed) in Nebraska, where they tried to make the state winner-take-all. Democrats don't do that, which puts them at a disadvantage.

Biden will probably lose Ohio even if he is on the ballot, but his absence could hurt Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and this is probably what the Republicans are gunning for: to defeat Brown. It is virtually certain that Democrats will sue Ohio. They will make the case that Ohio didn't seem to have a problem in 2020 putting Donald Trump on the ballot, even though he didn't formally accept the nomination until Aug. 27, 2020. We don't know what the Ohio Supreme Court will do when/if it gets the case, but Yost is going to have to explain why the law can be violated when it is a Republican who is threatened with being left off the ballot but not when it is a Democrat. (V)

Leading Democrats Are Worried about Prison if Trump Wins

Some Democrats are keenly aware of Maya Angelou's famous line: "When people show you who they really are, believe them the first time." Donald Trump has repeatedly said that he will arrest and imprison the members of the Jan. 6 House Committee and there is no reason to believe he was kidding when he once tweeted about Liz Cheney: "She should go to Jail along with the rest of the Unselect Committee!" Impeachment managers for both of Trump's impeachments are likely to be targeted as well. It shouldn't be hard for him to find an AG who will do that.

High-profile Democrats are already worried. Soon-to-be-Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said: "My wife and I have had conversations about what life would look like if the worst happened. You can't avoid the conversations about 'What if?' And I have to think about my own personal safety." Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), who was also on the Jan. 6 panel, said: "I take that lesson to heart. When he says various things, I think that's what he means he'll do."

Art. I, Sec. 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution reads:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

What about during a congressional recess? Could the AG order the FBI to arrest congressional Democrats when they are on a break? Or what if Trump orders the AG to have the Democrats arrested and put in jail while Congress is in session, Constitution or no Constitution? Maybe a few months later the Supreme Court will rule that the arrest was illegal, but by then the person will already have been punished.

Going after witnesses who testified before the Jan. 6 committee will be child's play since they don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. Maybe the judge who gets the case will be so incensed that he or she throws it out immediately, but we have already seen how Trump-appointed judges sometimes behave, Aileen Cannon being the poster girl here.

Even if the people Trump has arrested are sprung fairly quickly, they will need to hire expensive lawyers and the whole process will be traumatizing. It will certainly inhibit many people from speaking out against Trump, even when he clearly breaks the law.

If the Democrats capture the House, one thing that might inhibit the AG from arresting people willy-nilly is that doing so will almost certainly get that AG impeached. If the Democrats also hold the Senate, there will be a full-blown trial with law professors and former federal prosecutors denouncing the AG as a criminal who needs to be prosecuted in due course of time. While the two-thirds vote for conviction might not be there, public opinion and the history books won't be kind to the AG, so the AG in question might take a chance and refuse to follow Trump's orders.

Also, if the Democrats hold the Senate, during the confirmation process they may ask if the nominee is willing to state under oath that Trump's enemies will not be arrested just because Trump wants it. If the candidate refuses, the consequence could be rejection by the Senate. If the candidate says that won't happen and does it anyway later, that could be a basis for a subsequent criminal charge of lying to Congress. Of course, if the Republicans control both chambers, all bets are off. (V)

Now Biden Is Also Calling for Tariffs on Chinese Products

One of the things Donald Trump did that was popular with some voters is slap tariffs on imports from China. Joe Biden knows that and has decided adopting Trump's China policy might be a winner. So yesterday in Pittsburgh, in a speech to steelworkers, Biden said he wants to triple the tariffs on some steel and aluminum products from China to protect American manufacturers and their workers. Biden is also planning to tackle those Chinese companies that first ship their products to Mexico and then import them tariff-free from Mexico. Many of these products are highly subsidized by the Chinese government, something that U.S. companies have long complained about.

If both Biden and Trump announce that they will increase tariffs on Chinese products, that will sort of cancel out and make it less of a campaign issue. If Biden actually does it before the election, it will be clear he means it, too. That will be popular with not only steelworkers, but with workers in any manufacturing industry that has to compete with Chinese imports. (V)

Supreme Court Appears Divided about Law Used to Jail Rioters

Many of the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, have been convicted of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding, in this case the counting of the electoral votes. But what does that really mean? The law specifically states that destroying or mutilating an official document is covered, but does showing up and running rampant through the Capitol also count? That is what the Supreme Court will have to decide. This is the first case the Court has had dealing with the fallout of the attempted coup.

On Tuesday, the Court held oral arguments on a case in which the petitioner claimed that he didn't "obstruct" an official proceeding. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued: "The fundamental wrong committed by many of the rioters, including petitioner, was a deliberate attempt to stop the joint session of Congress from certifying the results of the election. That is, they obstructed Congress' work in that official proceeding." Justice Elena Kagan seemed to agree, but several of the conservative justices were concerned that the law is too broad and could be used against people engaging in a peaceful sit-in demonstration. Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), who pulled a fire alarm to force the Capitol to be evacuated last year. Did Bowman obstruct an official proceeding (Congress' voting on a bill)? Even Justice Samuel Alito agreed that what happened on Jan. 6 was serious, but he is concerned with how far the statute reaches.

The case is being closely watched, not only because if the law is overturned, many of the rioters could be set free, but because two of the charges against Donald Trump in the D.C. case are also about obstructing an official proceeding. If the law is thrown out as too broad, those charges will have to be dropped. (V)

DeSantis Backs Down on Banning Books

In case you missed it, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) isn't running for president anymore, so he is trying to recover some of the red meat he tossed at his supporters earlier this year. In particular, when he was a candidate, he was a big supporter of banning woke books in school libraries. That turned out to be a logistical nightmare for Florida schools, as the law he signed allowed just about anyone to challenge any book at any school, and lots of people did. Even some conservatives now think the law went too far as it required books to be pulled within 5 days of being challenged, long before it was determined if they could be permanently banned under Florida law.

An enormous range of books were challenged, including classics like For Whom the Bell Tolls. According to the free-speech advocacy group PEN, some 1,406 books have been banned in Florida. Under a new law just signed by DeSantis, Florida residents who don't have a child in school will be limited to one challenge per month. It's not clear, though, why people with no skin in the game get any challenges. It could matter though. In Clay County, one person, a representative of a group called "No Left Turn in Education," was responsible for 94% of all challenges. The new law does not limit how many books a parent of a schoolchild may challenge.

Many people in Florida feel that the new law does not go nearly far enough to stop books from being banned just because one parent doesn't like them. One parent in Broward County objected to the Bible, since it has many passages dealing with sexuality. The challenge was defeated, however, and the Bible remains on the list of legal books in the county's schools. (V)

Fox Continues to Pretend Trump Is Not on Trial

On Monday, we noted that Fox didn't seem to be terribly interested in the upcoming trial of Donald Trump. Today we have proof of it. Here is a screenshot of the top of yesterday's Fox website:

As you can see, none of the top 19 stories even mention the fact that Trump is on trial. Trump does get a mention, though. The #3 story is that former AG Bill Barr, who had recently rediscovered his spine in an attempt to rehabilitate himself, has decided to put it in storage again as he endorsed Trump. There is also big news that some student in North Carolina used the term "illegal alien" and got suspended for 3 days. There is also a story about how to avoid potholes and one about how Molly Ringwald thinks her 1980s movies were too white. With big news like that, there is obviously no room for an item on the trial.

While just about every normal media outlet had a story near the top yesterday about Day 2 of the trial, Fox didn't think it was newsworthy. Editorial decisions like this have consequences, though. For people who get their information exclusively from the Fox website, they are probably unaware that Trump is on trial. If challenged, they are probably going to defend the position that he was not on trial and stories about a trial are all fake news. (V)

Steve Garvey Has Big-Time Tax Problems

Adam Schiff doesn't need a lot of help defeating Republican Steve Garvey in November, but he got some anyway. It has now come out that although Garvey made a lot of money as a baseball player and then as a pitchman afterwards, he lived the good life and spent much more than he had. He also neglected to pay his taxes. He has been named in 40 tax liens and owes the feds and California almost $4 million in back taxes. A Garvey spokesman said that the candidate is working to pay off what he owes.

So now, if Schiff wants to bother running ads, he can talk about his opponent as a deadbeat tax cheat, a far cry from his former image as baseball's "Mr. Clean." After his baseball career was over, Garvey got involved with a number of somewhat iffy schemes, selling autographed baseballs, working as a motivational speaker, and pitching dubious health products. He also sold personalized Cameo videos for $149 each. That brought in some cash, but he didn't bother to pay taxes on it. It eventually caught up with him and now he is deep in debt, in addition to the back taxes he owes. He owes his lawyers hundreds of thousands and he owes his gardeners, handymen, and housekeepers, mere hundreds.

Garvey is not like Trump. Many of Trump's cons actually work and bring in lots of money. Garvey's have been much less successful. Will his financial problems be a problem in the Senate race? Under almost all conditions, a Republican running against a well-known and popular Democrat statewide in California would have almost no chance, but if Schiff really goes after him as a weak loser, that will seal the deal. How about a slogan: "Garvey may have been a Dodger, but he's no Angel?" (V)

Today's Presidential Polls

We are still in the lets-send-them-a-message season. The Marquette poll of Wisconsin first gave the respondents many choices. It was Trump 41%, Biden 40%, Robert Kennedy Jr. 13%, Jill Stein 4%, and Cornel West 2%. When they were forced to choose between only Biden and Trump, it was 49% to 51%. This tells us that there are still a lot of protest votes out there and we don't know how they will really come down in the end. If Kennedy is still at 13% by October, the Democrats are going to ask some friendly billionaire to start running ads saying "If you don't trust vaccines, vote for Kennedy." There is plenty of footage of Kennedy to back that up. That will attract Trump voters. If Kennedy is really running to help Trump, he hasn't thought this out very carefully.

State	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Michigan	36%	42%	Apr 08	Apr 11	Marketing Resource Grp.
Wisconsin	49%	51%	Apr 03	Apr 10	Marquette Law School

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

---

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, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger