When we chose "The Trial" as the headline here, we were even more on point than we realized. Not only does the judge in that song summarily find the defendant guilty, because the evidence is so overwhelming but, at the end, as reader A.M. in Brookhaven, PA, reminded us, an order is given to "tear down the wall." (Z) knows that song well, having heard it hundreds of times (the live version, featuring Tim Curry, Albert Finney and Thomas Dolby, is highly recommended), and can't believe he did not think of it.
In any case, the second day of the trial is in the books. Here are the most interesting storylines:
A man who is originally from Ireland and now lives in West Harlem. He works in sales and gets his news from The New York Times, the Daily Mail, Fox News and MSNBC. He will serve as the foreperson.Hm, an Irish immigrant. Undoubtedly, the part-Scottish xenophobe will be thrilled to be judged by such a person.
That's the news from Day 2. Today is a day off, and then they'll be back at it tomorrow. (Z)
Yesterday, we wrote that Michigan is a Democratic trifecta. That was not, strictly speaking, true. Thanks to two resignations from the state House, from members who had been elected to mayoralties, the lower chamber was actually tied 54-54.
Fortunately, we were only in error for about 12 hours. There were two special elections to fill the vacant seats yesterday, and the Democrats won both. This was expected, since both districts are very blue. That means it's now 56-54 and the Democrats' trifecta has been restored. There will now be peace and justice throughout the galaxy. (Z)
The Q1 numbers are in, and while the Democrats have a tough Senate map (a fact we might have mentioned once or twice), they've got to be happy with their fundraising. Here are the totals for the various races that are at least somewhat competitive:
State | Democratic | Republican | Dem Advantage |
Ohio | Sen. Sherrod Brown, $12M | Bernie Moreno, $1.8M | $10.2M |
Montana | Sen. Jon Tester, $8M | Tim Sheehy, $2.2M | $5.8M |
Wisconsin | Sen. Tammy Baldwin, $5.4M | Eric Hovde, $1.1M | $4.3M |
Arizona | Rep. Ruben Gallego, $7.5M | Kari Lake, $3.6M | $3.9M |
Nevada | Sen. Jacky Rosen, $5M | Sam Brown, $2.2M | $2.8M |
Texas | Rep. Colin Allred, $9.5M | Sen. Ted Cruz, $6.9M | $2.6M |
Pennsylvania | Sen. Bob Casey, $4.6M | David McCormick, $3.5M | $1.1M |
We often caution against reading too much into fundraising takes, since money translates into votes at a very inefficient rate, and since there are so many places that money might flow to (PACs, national committees, presidential candidates, etc.) that looking at any one candidate or set of candidates might be misleading.
That said, it's better to have more money than less, and the blue team's advantage is both sizable and consistent across races. That probably does mean something. Further, the DSCC has to be thrilled that its most vulnerable candidates (Brown and Tester) are doing the best job of leaving their opponents in the financial dust. In particular, do you know how far an extra $6 million or so goes in Montana? Tester could probably buy every ad spot on every station in the state for the entire month of October, plus a round of Rocky Mountain oysters for everyone, if he wanted. (Z)
There's barely enough news here to make it worth writing an item, but the House has finally delivered the Alejandro Mayorkas articles of impeachment to the Senate. So, the clock is now ticking.
The senators spent some time bickering about how they would handle the process. It appears that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and the Democrats, along with at least one Republican, want to dismiss the articles immediately. At least some Republicans want to have a "trial" that lasts a couple of hours, so they can perform some political theater. Either way, this does not figure to last beyond today.
As a sidebar, this is a pretty good example of a story where being "fair" in covering it actually introduces bias (or, at least, inaccuracy). For example, (Z) rarely listens to NPR, but happened to hear their report on the story, and they told listeners that Mayorkas has been charged with "willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law" and "breach of public trust." While true, they neglected to mention that the charges are lacking in merit, and that he's done nothing different from any other DHS or Cabinet secretary. Certainly nothing criminally different. Just listing the serious-sounding charges gives the impression that they have some meaningful amount of merit.
Similarly, the abcnews.com article has the headline: "Historic impeachment articles against Alejandro Mayorkas sent to Senate, but will there be a full trial?" It's true that this is historic, in that a Cabinet secretary has only been impeached once before. However, "historic" carries broadly positive connotations of "significant," "substantial," and "groundbreaking." None of these things apply here; within 24 hours this story will be well on its way to being the answer to a trivia question for political junkies.
Perhaps we are being nitpicky here, but we were struck by how inaccurate the impression conveyed by these two "fair" stories is. (Z)
And then there were two. Yesterday, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) announced that he agrees with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) must go. Massie is angry about the pending Ukraine funding bill, the bills that kept the federal government funded for FY 2023-24, and the bill that renewed part of FISA for 2 years.
This means that an inflection point has been reached. If all of the House Democrats, along with Greene and Massie, vote to get rid of the Speaker, that's 215 votes. As of Friday, when the resignation of Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) takes effect, 216 votes are all that will be needed to send Johnson packing. Massie implied yesterday that there are others among his Freedom Caucus colleagues ready to vote for Johnson's ouster, so maybe the Speaker is in deep trouble, despite Donald Trump's support.
That said, the Democrats' support for such a move is not a sure thing. There aren't that many weeks left before the election cycle really gears up, and they're not terribly enthusiastic about wasting 1-2 more weeks on speaker elections. Also, if the bills Johnson puts forward for funding Ukraine and Israel are acceptable, the blue team is inclined to save the Speaker's bacon as a reward.
Massie, incidentally, has his own solution to the problem of the House being speaker-less again. The Representative wants Johnson to resign, with the resignation to take effect as soon as a new speaker is chosen. This is how John Boehner ended his tenure as speaker, so that the office would not be vacant. Johnson described the suggestion as "absurd" and said he will most certainly not be resigning. So, if Greene and Massie are going to give him the boot, they're going to have to do it the hard way. (Z)
Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH) is ready to be done with his current job. And yet, he appeared on ABC's This Week over the weekend, where he wilted under questioning from George Stephanopoulos. Specifically, Sununu was asked about the hypocrisy of two publicly stated positions: (1) that Donald Trump is guilty of insurrection against the United States and (2) that he (Sununu) supports Donald Trump for president. The exact question was this: "You believe that a president who contributed to an insurrection should be president again?"
And here is how Sununu answered:
As does 51 percent of America, George. I mean, really, I understand you're part of the media. I understand you're in this New York City bubble or whatever it is. But you've got to look around at what's happening across this country. It's not about just supporting Trump. It's getting rid of what we have today. It's about understanding inflation is crushing families. It's understanding that this border issue is not a Texas issue. It's a 50-state issue, right? That has to be brought under control. It's about that type of elitism that the average American is just sick and tired of. And it's a culture change. That's what I'm supporting.
Stephanopoulos followed up with, and got answers to, several questions about whether Trump should withdraw from the race if he's found guilty of one or more crimes. After that sequence, which lasted several minutes, the host summarized thusly:
So just to sum up, you support him for president even if he's convicted for classified documents. You support him for president even though you believe he contributed to an insurrection. You support him for president even though you believe he's lying about the last election. You support him for president even if he's convicted in the Manhattan case. I just want you to say the answer to that is yes, correct.
"Yeah," responded Sununu. "Me and 51 percent of America."
Who knew Trump had the support of a majority of Americans? Strange that he lost the popular vote by millions of votes in both of his elections if that is the case. In any event, Sununu wouldn't be doing so much press if he was not planning a future run for office. And he wouldn't be threading the MAGA needle if that office wasn't president. So, his intentions are clear here.
The problem is that Sununu is never, ever going to be embraced by the MAGA crowd. He's criticized Trump. He's said there was an insurrection. He's said the 2020 election wasn't stolen. He endorsed Nikki Haley. That ship has sailed. And now, thanks to his performance on Sunday, the "sane Republican" lane is closed to him as well. Does he not know that, when it comes to questions like the ones Stephanopoulos was asking, you have to remember the five D's: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge? This interview was so bad, we don't believe the Governor can ever live it down or put it behind him. If he tries to run in 2028 or 2032, this clip is guaranteed to resurface.
As a guy from a small state, and one who is out of step with the national party, Sununu was already a longshot presidential candidate. But now, he's a no shot candidate. He, Mike Pence and Nikki Haley should form a "Republicans without a lane" club. (Z)
As we have noted, the Judicial Conference of the United States (JCOTUS) adopted a guideline that judicial circuits should assign cases at the district level rather than the division level. This would mean that any given case could land on the docket of any of the 12-20 judges in a district, as opposed to the numerous divisions where a case can only land on the docket of one or two judges. This was an effort to limit judge shopping, which undermines the integrity of the system. And the particular judge that everyone had in mind was Matthew Kacsmaryk, the staunchly conservative only-judge-in-his-Texas-division who is a popular choice for judge-shopping Republicans, particularly Texas AG Ken Paxton.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas took notice of JCOTUS' suggestion, said "Thanks, but no thanks," and indicated that business would continue as usual. However, it appears that may not be the end of it, as there is still relevant movement on two fronts.
The first front is the JCOTUS itself, which may take a second look at the issue, and may decide to make the guideline into a formal rule. The Chair of JCOTUS, Chief Justice John Roberts, would prefer that compliance be voluntary, but he also realizes this practice is seriously weakening the credibility of the judicial branch. So, he might bring the hammer. Well, the gavel. JCOTUS only meets twice a year, though, so it will be a while until we learn what they've decided.
Meanwhile, there are dueling bills in the Senate. Chuck Schumer has put forward a bill that would codify the JCOTUS recommendation. It's attracted 39 co-sponsors, but none from the Republican side of the aisle. So, it's not likely to become law unless the filibuster is abolished. Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has read the tea leaves and, interestingly, decided that his side of the issue might have a problem here, and could lose a key tool in their toolkit. So, he's offered up a "compromise" bill of sorts that would keep the judge shopping, but would forbid circuit judges from issuing national injunctions. So, for example, Kacsmaryk would be able to ban mifepristone in Texas, but not in Michigan. Thus far, McConnell's bill has attracted very little support, but it is an interesting sign that his spidey-sense (turtley-sense?) is tingling here.
So, this remains a question worth watching. (Z)
Our final set of predictions for 2024; better late than never. Here are the previous entries:
And now, 10 wildcard predictions:
If the readers get 'em all right, then they'll earn 1,000 points for 10 correct predictions, along with a nice, round 600 bonus points for degree of difficulty. The Pirates World Series prediction is judged, by the panel, to be the longest shot of all the predictions this year. Should have been the 13-win Bears, unless we're talking about how many games they're going to win this decade.
And there you have it. We'll be revisiting these in December to see how everyone did. (Z)
Donald Trump won Texas by 6 points in 2020 and 9 points in 2016. We continue to suspect that current polling is, by at least a bit, understating how much support Joe Biden will have by the time November rolls around. (Z)
State | Joe Biden | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
Texas | 36% | 48% | Apr 05 | Apr 10 | Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation |