Cromwell

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.

While America’s attention was focused on courtrooms last week, labor won two major victories that went almost unnoticed. The first was a vote to unionize an auto plant in Tennessee; the second was a federal decision to prohibit most noncompete clauses.

The decision on noncompete clauses in particular is an effort by the federal government to change the balance of power between ordinary workers and employers. The right, which claims to be pro-worker, is appalled. It promotes “freedom”–but not the kind that permits workers to move from one job to another in times of labor scarcity. For the GOP, “freedom” means the right of the powerful to oppress the less powerful without government interference.

Someone should ask Trump where he stands on these decisions. My guess is that he would refuse to answer.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, post-invasion blues.

You have to be aware of it; it’s all over the news.

There’s no point in negotiating; Putin would refuse.

He thinks he has us on the run and that we’re going to lose.

______________

I have to thank Mike Johnson for providing us with aid.

We can’t rely on getting more; of Trump’s wrath I’m afraid.

We have to hope Americans will vote for Joe to stay.

But if they don’t, we’ll soldier on; we have to find a way.

______________

I’ve got the blues.

The trench warfare blues.

The West just needs to give us more

For them, there’s no excuse.

We do the best with what we have;

We need those weapons now.

If they don’t come, we’ll find a way

But please, don’t ask me how.

From the perspective of a member of the blue team, nothing makes Trump look more ridiculous than his argument that climate change is a Chinese hoax. It would be both truthful and emotionally satisfying, therefore, to run commercials juxtaposing natural disasters with Trump throwing paper towels and making absurd statements about the weather. But is that an effective campaign strategy?

As a device to motivate wavering members of Gen Z to go to the polls, maybe. Most swing voters, however, are going to make their November decision based on self-interest. If you want to reach them, you have to explain concisely how climate change drives up their costs and risks, and how fighting it is consequently in their best short-term financial interests, not just an act of altruism for future generations.

If you don’t like the tenor of the demonstrations, the best way to deal with them, in my opinion, is to force the students to stare directly at the long term implications of their position, not to make them shut up. Here are some questions that should be asked of them:

1. Do you realize that a cease-fire, without more, only leaves Hamas in charge of Gaza? If that happens, what makes you think we won’t be doing this all over again a few years from now? And what makes you think Hamas, by engaging in terrorist activities and then hiding behind the populace, has any interest in the well-being of the residents of Gaza?
2. What is the kind of state you envision for the Palestinians? Is it a secular liberal democracy in which Jews and Arabs have equal rights? If so, how does supporting a group that supports a Muslim theocracy get you to Point B? And what examples can you provide of secular liberal democracies in Arab states anywhere in the Middle East? If you were an Israeli Jew, would you feel comfortable in such a state?
3. If you don’t support a secular liberal democracy in which Jews have equal rights, what are you proposing for the Jews? Are you saying that Jews should be killed or forced to leave Israel, and that a rancid, reactionary theocracy should replace Israel? How is that opinion progressive, and why isn’t it antisemitic?

If you don’t look too hard, 2024 can appear to be a rerun of 1968: the president is an old, unpopular Democrat; RFK is running against him; students opposing an ongoing war are demonstrating on campuses all over the country; the convention is in Chicago; and a veteran culture warrior will be the GOP nominee in November. Sounds familiar, right?

But 2024 is not 1968. The war in question is not being fought by Americans. Our cities are not burning. There have been no assassinations. RFK is an independent with a very limited following. There will be no police riot in Chicago this time around. Finally, while Trump has some clear Nixon associations (Roger Stone is hardly the least of them), he has very different strengths and weaknesses than Nixon.

History will not repeat itself. Whether that is a good or a bad thing remains to be seen.

After 19 long, long months, the reconstruction of our Florida home is finally done. It will never be “normal” again; the inevitable changes were too significant for that. But it is a new normal, and it isn’t bad.

Naturally, the end of the process came the same week we were planning to leave for the mountains, so we won’t have much of an opportunity to enjoy the fruits of our labors. It’s time to leave, however. It’s getting way too hot, and I can’t wait to get out of DeSantistan. North Carolina has its own issues, but at least the Democrat running for governor has a big lead in the polls.

Can we have a quiet hurricane season this once? Cross your fingers.