In the Pink Floyd song of that name, the judge finds the defendant guilty without even bothering with the jury, because the evidence is "incontrovertible." If you're reading, Judge Juan Merchan, it's an interesting thought. Could save everyone a lot of time.
For now, however, they are going to proceed as if it's a normal trial. And here are the 10 most interesting storylines from the first day, in our view:
And so it begins. And now we wait to see what Day 2 brings. (Z)
As long as we're covering bad news for Donald Trump, let us move just a few miles north from Juan Merchan's courtroom (100 Centre Street) to NASDAQ headquarters (4 Times Square). As everyone knows, Trump Media &Technology Group (TMTG) is not making money. In fact, it is losing money which, as we understand it, is the literal opposite of making money. The company also has no real plan for reversing that trend. What it does have, however, is expenses that must be paid.
TMTG doesn't have a lot of ways to raise capital, and so it announced yesterday that it will turn to the one option it does have: issuing more stock. The plan is to sell 21.5 million more shares, so as to bring in some cash and keep the doors open. Well, keep the bits flowing, let's say.
This new issuance will water down existing stockholders' holdings, which did not make the markets happy yesterday, as the stock closed at a new low of $26.63/share. It could well go much lower, particularly if there aren't too many buyers willing to throw their money at what looks to be a sinking ship. It could also go the other direction, of course, if speculators and/or MAGA cult members jump at the chance to buy low. Still, the fact that the company is not profitable isn't going away. Forbes Senior Editor Dan Alexander appeared on CNN yesterday, and went so far as to say that the stock could go to zero eventually, forcing TMTG to declare bankruptcy. If so, that would be lucky number seven for the former president.
You may wonder why we give as much attention as we do to this story. It's not schadenfreude (although, admittedly, that doesn't hurt). But it is for two primary reasons. First, the profits Trump expected to realize from this venture might well have solved his money woes. But if there are to be no profits, then he's back to a situation where paying his lawyers and keeping his business empire intact or semi-intact will be a real challenge. At the moment, his TMTG holdings are worth about $2 billion, and of course there's no plausible way to liquidate that much and keep the price steady. So even now, if he was planning to cash out $450 million ASAP to pay his New York judgment, he might not be able to realize that amount.
Second, there could be political fallout here. Trump's whole image is built on the notion that he's a wildly successful businessman. It's one thing that some Atlantic City casinos went belly-up 20 or 30 years ago. It's potentially another thing if such a high-profile venture fails right in the middle of his reelection campaign. And it could make it even worse if a bunch of MAGA fanatics are left holding the bag, because they trusted their Dear Leader with some big portion of their life's savings. (Z)
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), a consortium of states that have agreed to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote, thus nullifying the Electoral College, got a little bigger yesterday as Maine joined the team.
The addition of Maine means that the NPVIC pledgees control 209 electoral votes. The Compact does not become binding until that total reaches 270, so barring some sort of miracle it won't have an effect on this year's elections. All of the states that have signed off on the pact are somewhere between "light blue" and "deep blue," so presumably the last 61 EVs would have to come from blue/bluish states that are not already participants.
Is it doable? Well, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona and Virginia are all blue-leaning, and all have an NPVIC bill under consideration at some level (often, pending consideration from a legislative committee). If we imagine that at some point in the next few years they all get Democratic trifectas (something only true of Michigan right now) and that they all take the plunge, then that would bring the total to 254 EVs.
There are five other states that have an NPVIC bill under consideration at some level, but they all have Republican-controlled legislatures: North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alaska and Kansas. North Carolina alone would be enough to put the NPVIC over the hump (again, assuming the four states in the previous paragraph all join), or South Carolina and Kentucky would be enough, or South Carolina/Kentucky and both Kansas and Alaska would be enough. We think any of these is very unlikely in the foreseeable future.
So then, one has to look at the map for blue/bluish states that aren't pondering an NPVIC bill, but might plausibly do so in the future. Wisconsin is a natural candidate, but its 10 votes would only take 254 to 264. Georgia is possible, and would take 254 to the necessary 270, but that state has a Republican trifecta and seems unlikely to make a move anytime soon. That leaves us with Pennsylvania, which has 19 EVs (bringing the total to 273) and may have a Democratic trifecta after this year's elections (three state Senate seats would have to flip).
And that leaves us with the likeliest path forward: Michigan, Nevada, Arizona and Virginia all adopt their pending NPVIC bills and then Pennsylvania decides to jump on board, too. It's a bit of a longshot, but one can squint and see the slight possibility of it happening by 2030 or so.
Alternatively, the government could announce that, 150+ years later, the request of the 11 Confederate states to secede has been granted. There would then be 513 EVs, since the size of the House is by law fixed at 435 members and there would be 78 senators, but the NPVIC members would get enough additional seats to just squeak past the 257 threshold. So, the next time you see a "The South Will Rise Again" bumper sticker, don't assume it's the property of some racist yokel. It could be a fan of the NPVIC. (Z)
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and his leadership team have apparently decided on a strategy when it comes to the various foreign aid issues that are currently languishing. He's going to put forward four separate bills:
Note that the Senate passed a bill many months ago that had all those things in one nice, tidy bundle.
So, what is the point of splitting up the bills? Well, since the contents are not yet public, it's hard to know. Johnson could be trying to cut some of the things Democrats want out of the package(s), like humanitarian aid. Alternatively, he could be setting it up so that some bills (Israel) succeed, while others (Ukraine) fail. Then he would be able to say, "Hey, I tried, but the votes just weren't there." Or, he could be setting it up so that the House Freedom Caucus has the power to kill the measures, but is unable to do it. Then he would be able to say, "You had your chance, and you couldn't find the votes. Don't blame me."
Will it work? Maybe, depending on what's in the bills. House Democrats, especially the moderates, say the need is acute enough at this point that they're willing to help the Speaker out, if the bills he proposes are acceptable (read: they include humanitarian aid). That said, there are also some problems for Johnson. The Freedom Caucus is, of course, furious, because they're always furious. And the White House made clear yesterday that a stand-alone bill for Israel, without any accompanying aid for Ukraine, is unacceptable. Oh, and Donald Trump hasn't weighed in yet, but of course he is capable of throwing a giant wrench into the works at any time.
In short: Good luck, Mr. Speaker. You're going to need it. (Z)
There's some pretty skilled statecraft going on right now, and it's getting very little attention from most media outlets.
As readers will recall, Israel killed a high-ranking Iranian general a little over a week ago, and did it without clearance from the U.S. or any other ally. Iran was certain to retaliate, and did so this weekend, sending 300+ missiles and drones at Israel.
The Iranian attack, despite being fairly massive, did very little damage. Indeed, most of the incoming armaments were shot down before reaching Israel, courtesy of a partnership between the Israeli Defense Forces, the U.S. Navy, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The attack was so ineffectual that it gave rise to speculation that the Iranians deliberately blew it, launching an offensive that allowed them to "save face" while not escalating tensions in the region any further. That is a little hard to accept, since wouldn't 20 missiles and drones be enough for that? Why 300? But either way, it's a feather in Joe Biden's cap. Either he persuaded the Iranians not to escalate, or he quickly put together an ad hoc alliance of anti-Iranian forces in order to defend very successfully against the attack.
And then, just as importantly, Israeli Cabinet minister Benny Gantz announced yesterday that there would be no "imminent" response to Iran's attack. This has Biden's fingerprints all over it; the White House demanded de-escalation. There was wisdom in it for the Israelis, as well, since they are not in a great position to be fighting multiple wars at once. But the White House's strong words sealed the deal.
In short, it appears that the Biden administration's diplomacy has managed to de-escalate a situation that could easily have spun out of control. The White House considered a presidential address, to let Americans know about the progress that has been made. And is there really any doubt that if Donald Trump had pulled this off, he'd be all over TV and social media crowing about it? But in the end, Team Biden decided that an address would be needlessly provocative and insulting to the Iranians, and risked undoing the good that has already been done. So, no address.
Again, that's what skilled statecraft looks like. And part of the deal, as president, is that you rarely get credit in the moment, because that's just not plausible. Maybe when you write your autobiography. Maybe. (Z)
The 2024 election cycle can officially begin, because the endorsement that everyone has been waiting for has finally dropped. Liz Truss, former Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has come out in support of Donald Trump.
Truss was on LBC, which in California means "Long Beach, California," but in Britain apparently means Leading Britain's Conversation. It's basically the Brits' version of NPR. And while being interviewed, she said: "I don't think [Joe] Biden has been particularly supportive to the United Kingdom. I think he's often on the side of the EU. And I certainly think I would like to see a new president in the White House." She added, for anyone who might think she means Cornel West, that "It has to be [Donald Trump]."
Most international leaders, even if they are out of office, have the good taste not to comment directly on other nations' elections. Everyone knows who Emmanuel Macron or Justin Trudeau or Tony Blair or Angela Merkel would like to win the election, but none of them says it openly. They have the skill to communicate their views without being too direct. Truss, on the other hand, is reminding everyone why she couldn't last in office longer than a head of lettuce.
Her endorsement probably won't have any impact, but if it does, it will likely be negative. After all, her party is currently a sinking ship, while her own premiership sank so fast it brought Titanic to mind. It's hard to think of an international leader whose endorsement would be less desirable, unless it's Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-Un, and Trump's already got those. (Z)
We hoped to get to this last week, but not so much. It's at least fortuitous that this will run on a day we have three foreign affairs items. Here are the previous entries:
And now, 10 reader predictions for foreign affairs:
If the readers go 10-for-10, then they'll earn 1,000 points for 10 correct predictions, along with 618 bonus points for degree of difficulty.
The final set of predictions will be a wildcard set. (Z)
Bullfinch returns, this time with a poll that looks good for Trump. Though, as you can see, this one was conducted before the abortion decision. So don't take it to the bank, would be our advice. (Z)
State | Joe Biden | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
Arizona | 38% | 44% | Mar 29 | Apr 03 | Bullfinch Group |