Category: Uncategorized

Ron DeSantis has just signed a bill outlawing the production and sale of lab-grown meat in the state of Florida. In part, this is obviously a reward to Florida agriculture for its political support, but is there something else going on here?

Yes, there is. The GOP claims to be the party of freedom and the deregulation of business, but here, as with Disney, other reactionary values are taking priority. Republicans often accuse Democrats of interfering in the free market and picking winners, but in this case, the right is doing the same thing. The real issue here is that Democrats want to pick winners that will be viable in the future, while Republicans prefer to invest in the economy of the past. Lab-grown meat is to DeSantis as electric cars are to Trump.

King Lear would approve.

Personally, I would have called the bookkeeping people after, not before, Michael Cohen, because he’s going to need all of the corroboration he can get. Putting him on last runs the risk of leaving the jury with a bad impression of the case if he performs poorly on what figures to be a difficult cross. If he shines, however, the gamble will work. We will just have to see how it works out.

In the meantime, the NYT is insisting that the prosecution is going to call Stormy Daniels in its case-in-chief. Since it is not necessary for Daniels to testify to prove the existence of the payment, I would view that decision as a horrible mistake. Daniels is best used as a rebuttal witness, and only if Trump denies knowing her. Under those conditions, she could be devastating.

The right is critical of Biden because he won’t give unconditional support to the Israelis in their war, as they see it, against the Palestinians (not just Hamas). The left is critical of him because he doesn’t value the lives of Palestinian civilians over his ultimate goal of a peaceful and prosperous Middle East with a moderate Palestinian state. The center generally agrees with his objectives, but wants to see more immediate protection of innocent civilians through the use of leverage. Since nobody is satisfied with the current approach, why won’t Biden change it?

I am convinced Biden believes that putting conditions on the use of American resources will damage his credibility with the Israeli public–not the current government, which is beyond redemption–when it comes time to talk about a reasonable political solution to Gaza. In the long run, he might be right, but in the short run, it is doing a lot of damage to him at home. The current policy, barring some conspicuous successes in the immediate future, is unsustainable. He is going to have to make some sort of dramatic statement about protecting civilians if he wants to keep the convention under control and the left on his side.

Members of the right frequently accuse Biden of having no coherent plan for victory in Ukraine. Is the criticism fair?

No. It is quite clear that Biden defines “victory” as the survival of Ukraine as a viable state; this does not require the retaking of all, or even much, of the land currently possessed by the Russians. The problem is that the Ukrainian government at this point is still demanding the return of the invaded territory, and Biden is not going to force them to accept less ambitious objectives against their will. As a result, he has to continue to talk about a Ukrainian “victory” even though his actions indicate that he doesn’t believe in the Ukrainian version of it.

I think the failures of the past year are starting to make an impression on the Ukrainians. If Biden wins the election, Putin will know that he can’t swallow all of Ukraine, as well. The possibility of a peace of exhaustion could, therefore, re-emerge after November. That’s the realistic end game here–the Korean solution.

Both John Bolton and William Barr are talented hard right ideologues who thought they could separate the reactionary “good” Trump from the narcissistic man on golf cart who pursues nothing but his own whims and interests. Both of them were proved wrong and left the administration on bad terms. Both of them have been deeply critical of Trump since January 6. Bolton has remained so; Barr, on the other hand, says he will support Trump for president in spite of his innumerable shortcomings and his appalling record. Why the difference?

Personalities matter here, of course, but I think there is a deeper reason. The Trump critics who focus on his foreign policy have, with one glaring exception, continued to oppose him because they know there are no meaningful checks and balances in foreign affairs. If Trump wants to embrace dictators and surrender Ukraine, no one is going to stop him. Barr, on the other hand, probably believes the legal guardrails in the system will hold again. He is probably wrong about that.

In case you were wondering, the exception is Lindsey Graham, who values golf outings with Trump over support for democratic regimes overseas.

A: The given name of the porn star who was at the center of Trump’s hush money trial.

Q: Who is Stephanie Clifford?

Donald Trump doesn’t believe in the truth; he believes in his truth. And what, you wonder, is that? He thinks Donald Trump is the great man in history. He can’t be held to the same standards as mere mortals. Anything he says to further his own interests, regardless of the facts, is consequently consistent with a higher form of “truth.” This is the case whether he is selling Trump steaks or running for president.

With that as background, imagine how he will perform in the courtroom, where the truth is defined as an objective standard, to be reached through an open, fair, and adversarial process. He will be aggressive and angry. He will complain over and over again that he is being persecuted for partisan political purposes. He will try using salesman tactics–“truthful hyperbole”– on the jury. He will consistently give evasive answers to questions on cross-examination. When confronted with clear evidence of past lies and misconduct, he will simply lie and deny everything rather than trying to excuse himself, which is, of course, beneath the dignity of such a great man. None of this will escape the attention of the jury.

That is why Trump’s attorneys will do everything in their power to keep him off the stand. Will they succeed? TBD.

The Republicans know a wedge issue when they see one, so they have been grinding on antisemitism in elite colleges to split Biden Democrats from progressives. Then up pops Marjorie “Jewish Space Laser” Taylor Greene to remind America that there are plenty of antisemites on the Republican side, too, and their views, unlike those of the people who simply oppose Zionism, are unambiguous. They say it is a central tenet of their faith that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn’t get any more antisemitic than that.

Thanks, MTG. Nobody brings clarity to partisan politics more than you do.

Months ago, I predicted that Kristi Noem would be Trump’s VP choice. That was before she talked about shooting her dog and made a number of ridiculous misstatements in her book.

I have two reactions to this. The first is that Trump hates dogs and lies all the time, so in a sense, these statements should stand her in good stead with the man on golf cart. On the other hand, Trump desperately needs to win the election, so choosing a VP with some of the same personality weaknesses and issues with the electorate is probably not in the cards.

I’m changing my prediction. My money is now on Elise Stefanik.

Trump’s attorneys appear to be setting up an argument that their client was the innocent victim of a team of sleazy blackmailers and their enablers. For the average person, this approach might work, even if it isn’t technically responsive to the elements in the alleged crime. Is it likely to work for Trump?

There are three problems that are unique to this defendant. First, he was an enthusiastic participant in tabloid culture, not an innocent; second, he made a public display of his sex life back in the old days; and third, he wants to portray himself as the omniscient boss in “The Apprentice” to make the base happy. How is arguing that you were manipulated by Stormy Daniels, her attorney, and Cohen going to square with that image?

A column in today’s NYT makes the point that Trump’s narrative of the outlaw fighting for the people against the corrupt establishment has a history that goes back to Robin Hood. That is true. It is also true, however, that Trump has never shown any sympathy for populists on economic issues, and that he wants to use the military and law enforcement to crack down on dissent. In other words, he wants to be both Batman and the Joker.

These two narratives cannot exist at once. Biden needs to exploit the contradiction.

There was never the slightest chance that Columbia, or any of the other universities, would give in to the demands of the pro-Palestinian students for divestment. Even if they had, so what? The Israeli government wouldn’t care. It won’t even listen when Biden threatens them with a loss of diplomatic and military support.

The students have, however, succeeded in damaging their future prospects. They have convinced the people who watch Fox News that DeSantis is right about the need to tame our woke universities. Finally, they may have persuaded some swing voters that we need a strongman–Trump, of course–to bring order to a country dissolving in chaos.

Was it worth it? Next time, stick to defending free speech and leave out the trespassing, the vandalism, and the antisemitism.

Having (wisely, from his perspective) skipped all of the GOP debates, Trump is eager to mix it up with Biden. Based on his previous performances, we know why; he’s planning to be as aggressive and obnoxious as possible to prove that Biden is old, weak, and senile. He won’t answer any of the questions he is asked; he will simply bellow over and over about “Crooked Joe,” crime, and the border. With that in mind, should Biden agree to debate him?

Yes, but only under the right conditions. Biden is behind, and he wins more than he loses if Trump raves like a lunatic in an effort to dominate him, so he has lots of incentive to debate even if the experience figures to be highly unpleasant. He should not give in to any of Trump’s unusual procedural demands, however. In addition, he should try to force Trump to admit in public that the election is not rigged against him before he takes the plunge. In practice, Trump would never feel himself bound by any such statement, but it could be used to embarrass him and discourage his more militant supporters if he loses in November.

Trump likes to compare himself to Al Capone, only half in jest. Is the analogy appropriate?

Yes. He has many of the attitudes of a mobster, and he’s being prosecuted for an offense that is pretty similar to the one that brought down Capone. If it does the same to him, all the better for America.

From a legal perspective, the odd thing about the Trump case is that the most egregious and practically significant conduct–the alleged hush money payment–is only essential background information; the actual misconduct revolves around business records. The prosecution will be required to prove: that Michael Cohen made a payment to Stormy Daniels; that the payment is intended to buy her silence for political reasons; that Cohen was reimbursed by the Trump Organization at Trump’s direction; that the reimbursement was falsely identified as a legal expense on the TO’s books at Trump’s direction; and that the false statement in the business records constituted a felony–either a campaign finance or a state tax violation. The last of these elements is the one that is the most legally questionable.

You will have noticed that whether Trump actually had an affair with Daniels is not one of the elements of the case. As a result, I strongly suspect that the prosecution will not call her in its case-in-chief. If Trump orders his team to let him testify, and he insists that there was no affair or hush money, however, the prosecution will have to put her on the stand in its rebuttal case. That could be a legal and political disaster for the man on golf cart.

Trump doesn’t just want a hung jury, or a finding of guilt on a misdemeanor charge; he wants vindication. I think he will overrule his attorneys and testify. If my reading of his character and motives is right, that’s when the fun will begin.