Answer: The United States and Israel generally avoid influencing each other’s domestic politics, so this was quite a shock to some. Coming from a devoted friend of Israel, Schumer’s powerful remarks should resonate with Israelis, who are overwhelmingly expressing dissatisfaction with Netanyahu. Even more noteworthy, President Biden praised the speech. (“He made a good speech, and I think he expressed a serious concern shared not only by him but by many Americans.”) Whether Schumer’s or Biden’s comments will help hasten Israeli elections is another matter. Still, it is a long-overdue expression that Netanyahu’s tenure jeopardizes Israel’s relationship with its most critical ally.
A reader asks: In your latest Green Room podcast, your guest starts by mentioning tribalism and polarization, which I interpret as equality on the two sides. There may be excesses on the left, but they are much fewer and not so dangerous. I see it as one side trades in disinformation, and the other attempts to be rational, objective and willing to consider evidence. I am immediately frustrated when there is a trivialization of the difference under the rubric of “balance” or “fairness.”
Answer: Thanks! As I have written, the term “polarization” denotes a false equivalence. Only one party has tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, supports a four-time-indicted nominee, gives cover to Vladimir Putin and unabashedly displays racism. Let’s be blunt: The problem is the severe radicalization of many Republican elected officials, which has transformed a once-illustrious party into an authoritarian cult of personality.
A reader asks: How to bring in young voters who may stay home in November over what’s happening in Gaza? They are disaffected by governance by old White men, and have little knowledge of what Biden has done since they get most of their news from TikTok, Twitter and Instagram.
Answer: It is far from clear that eight months from now Gaza will be uppermost in the minds of younger voters (the vast majority of whom don’t attend rallies or elite colleges where anti-Israel sentiment runs high). However, getting them to focus on the things Biden has done — a historic investment in green energy, massive student debt forgiveness and securing the Affordable Care Act (that allows them to stay on their parents’ plans until 26) — will be key to turning them out to vote. Moreover, Democrats must work hard to explain what a Trump presidency will bring (e.g., a national abortion ban, climate change denial, targeting LGBTQ+ students, deploying the military to suppress dissent, rounding up and expelling Dreamers).
A reader asks: If Trump truly thought he was innocent, and had the facts on his side, he would be eager to go to trial to receive a “not guilty” verdict. That would be more valuable to him than a dozen rallies.
Answer: Too rational! If one insists “it is all rigged,” then even an “innocent” man might get “railroaded” by a “Democratic judge” and “left-wing juries.” His cult followers invariably treat his hypocrisy as strategic cleverness.
A reader asks: With reference to the E. Jean Carroll verdicts, I understand that rules of evidence standards differ between civil trials and criminal trials. But I don’t understand the rationale of the MAGA cult in clinging to those differences as if Trump wasn’t really found guilty. Can you explain?
Answer: This is a cult. The leader can do no wrong. No bad information can be taken at face value.
A reader asks: Now that Trump has affected his takeover of the RNC, how do you see this affecting other races, including elections for the Senate and House, governorships, and other state and local races? Trump obviously feels he will only give money to supporters who might advance his agenda, but he also wants to funnel the funds to his defense costs and personal upkeep, and it’s questionable whether there will be enough to go around.
Answer: Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute … er … for anyone who does not benefit Trump personally. If there is anything left over after paying Trump’s legal bills, he might reward his closest allies. Most down-ballot Republicans should not expect to get a cent from the RNC.
A reader asks: In an alternate universe, with Trump impeached and not running, who would be the Republican candidate? Larry Hogan? Chris Sununu? Glenn Youngkin? And would they beat Biden?
Answer: I love alternate history! If Trump had been impeached, that would have meant the GOP had come to its senses. In such a universe, former vice president Mike Pence would have been the hero and might well have rallied the party. (Talk about an alternate reality!) If Trump were out of the picture, Biden might have been comfortable letting the party have a free-ranging primary. That could have given Democrats a fresh face, such as Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, as their nominee. In a Pence vs. Whitmer race, Democrats would have the edge, especially if MAGA Republicans stayed home in a funk.
Many readers expressed frustration over the seemingly endless delays in Trump’s criminal cases. I hear you. Sometimes, prosecutorial blunders (e.g., Attorney General Merrick Garland’s foot-dragging, the Southern District of New York’s document dump) cause delays. Sometimes, sloth from the bench gums up the works (e.g., Judge Aileen M. Cannon slow-walking the Mar-a-Lago document case). And sometimes, this is just how due process operates, affording defendants every available argument to preserve their liberty.
Keep in mind three things. First, it has always been up to the voters to end Trump’s political career, thereby forcing him to confront the legal consequences of what he has done. Voters should recoil from the notion that the Oval Office can provide sanctuary from justice. Second, judges’ discretionary power has never been clearer. If Trump is elected, there will be scores of Judge Cannons on the bench to thoroughly corrupt the federal bench. And lastly, voters must understand Trump’s absolute immunity defense is legalese for “I’m above the law.” That attitude toward the presidency by itself should be reason to reject him.
Salon, one of the few outlets to take Trump’s cognitive decline seriously, displayed this headline: “‘Experts are desperate to warn the public’: Hundreds sign Dr. John Gartner’s Trump dementia petition.” The article’s description reads, “They see the signs of Trump’s cognitive decline through the eyes of years of training and experience.” That succinctly spelled out the basic facts surrounding a petition signed by hundreds of mental health professionals, pointing to obvious signs of Trump’s mental dysfunction.
Reviewing his recent verbal difficulties and breaks with reality, Gartner told Salon:
We had more examples where Trump couldn’t complete a sentence and strung the fragments together incoherently. It’s worth noting that his demeanor changes dramatically at these moments. At one point, Trump was making nonsense sounds, struggling to form even a single word. At one of his events, he said “We’ll re-ve-du. Ohhhh.” At that moment, Trump took a long-defeated sigh, and looked up at the ceiling blankly, looking confused and de-energized. Finally, Trump is sometimes reduced to simply vocalizing nonsense sounds that are not words at all like an infant. For example, at a recent rally Trump said “Gang, boom. This is me. I hear bing.” Trump is literally babbling nonsensically and his followers at these rallies, or interviewers on right-wing media, are nodding their heads in appreciation like he makes sense. This is deeply disturbing.
Maybe there is some benign explanation for these episodes. But the failure of so many media outlets, Salon excepted, to even inform readers about these episodes and discuss Trump’s mental function is inexcusable.
The D.C. Circuit Court made quick work of former Trump adviser Peter Navarro’s last-ditch effort to stay out of prison on contempt charges for refusing to respond to the House Jan. 6 select committee’s subpoena. Reeling off a list of reasons why his arguments were meritless, the three-judge panel observed:
Even if executive privilege were available to appellant, it would not excuse his complete noncompliance with the subpoena. Appellant makes no claim of absolute testimonial immunity, nor could he. A properly asserted claim of executive privilege would not have relieved him of the obligation to produce unprivileged documents and appear for his deposition to testify on unprivileged matters. In fact, appellant has forfeited any challenge to the district court’s ruling that he was obligated to appear and (i) to invoke any relevant privilege in person in response to specific questions, as well as (ii) to answer questions seeking information outside of the asserted privilege’s scope.
The judges thereby sent an important message to Trump and his cohorts: Notwithstanding their self-delusion that they could snub their noses at the law, there are consequences for lawless conduct.
Next week I’ll have my online chat, so please submit your questions. Questions submitted after next Wednesday will go to my next mailbag newsletter.
Credit: Source link
