Almost a year ago I presented a probability decision tree (minus any explicit probability estimates) showing the different outcomes in Trump's attempt to avoid accountability for his involvement in the January 6th insurrection. Thanks to several Trump appointed and likely Trump loyalist judges, in his trial and on the Supreme Court, Trump's January 6th trial will not take place before the election and, in all likelihood, will never take place. So the bottom half of the full decision tree disappears.
Not only is his path to freedom now much simpler, SCOTUS has also changed the odds of his conviction by muddying the waters in its recent decision on presidential immunity. By asserting that a president cannot be indicted for "official acts" the door is open to classify his multiple attempts to overturn the 2020 election and then to encourage his MAGA army to "fight like hell" as part of his presidential duties. The flake slate of electors, the call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find 11,780 votes, which is one more that we have because we won the state", his inflammatory speech on January 6th and his cynical decision not to quell the riot; all are likely excluded from his trial and thus help shield him from legal accountability for his attempted election subversion. He played the long game, bending the judiciary to his side, and it looks like he won.Monday, July 8, 2024
I beg your pardon?
Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation initiative and a road-map for remaking US government, has been getting a lot more attention recently; and much of the reporting is far from complimentary. Worried that it might hurt his election, Trump tried to distance himself from it with this post: "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal".
If, as he claims, he knows "nothing about Project 2025" and has "no idea who is behind it", how is he able to "disagree with some of the things they're saying "?
Look forward, not back
Thursday, July 4, 2024
Subverting Democracy
The story of January 6th, as told by the left, is that of a groups of fascist vigilantes were goaded into storming the Capitol by Donald Trump, a mendacious, self-serving President trying by any means to remain in power. Trump had tried through both legal and illegal means to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election - and thankfully for democracy - failed.
The right seems to see things differently. There is a sense that the system is rigged. Elected representatives use their office to enrich themselves and have been utterly corrupted by the need to raise money for their campaigns.
One aspect of that corruption is the implied threat that without actively furthering the interests of those who financed their campaigns the funding would not continue at the next election. And the ludicrously narrow definition of corruption established by the Supreme Court precludes this devil's bargain from falling under our anti-corruption laws.
The second and related aspect of corruption is the outsourcing of drafting of legislation to lobbyists. Once representatives have agreed to support their donors' causes, it is a short step to agreeing that they should draft the legislation.
The end result is that a majority on the right (and probably many on the left, though they might not freely admit it) see our system of government as broken. If the system is corrupt and not working for those it is supposed to represent then actions to dismantle a system they consider to be illegitimate are therefore legitimate.
There are naturally numerous contradictions here; the right claims to be about supporting law and order yet is happy to break the law when it appears not to align with their goals. And the conservative Supreme Court which they installed is only weakening the guard rails that might keep government "honest". But the left's view that the right is a threat to democracy is only one perspective - the right does not consider what we have a democracy, so tearing it down is a necessary step in regaining accountability.
Monday, July 1, 2024
Hubris and its consequences
That may seem strange to many outside the USA, but might be attributed to three main factors. First is the relentless undermining of trust in national institutions from the political right, a campaign that has been waged for decades. Second is the effect of the fragmentation of the media, both the traditional television and now social, into almost completely isolated echo chambers. Finally, and perhaps most notably for Biden, is his age. Although Biden is only three years Trump's senior, he has for several years been showing signs of aging; Trump by contrast remains vital and vigorous.
The crushing weight of Biden's age on his poll numbers only worsened at last week's presidential debate. Trump's goal was simply not to appear like the childish bully he is, surprisingly, something he managed to accomplish. Biden's only goal by contrast was not to appear a doddering old fool: and in that he failed dismally. He came across as a demented old man no longer in command of his faculties; he appeared incapable of thinking clearly and seemed physically very frail. Anyone bar die-hard Democrats who watched his performance must, if they are being honest with themselves, have serious doubts about his ability to do his job now, let alone for the next four years. In a strange way that makes them as guilty as the MAGA Republicans, in being prepared to overlook their preferred candidates obvious and disqualifying flaws.
So here we are. Unless something unexpected happens (such as Biden becoming ill or, less likely still, stepping down as the Democrat's nominee) American voters will be faced with a terrible choice in November between a corrupt venal vengeful old man with no interest in policy other than that which enriches himself, and a frail confused octogenarian who will be lucky to live long enough to make it though his second term and seems incapable of dealing with the issues that will certainly confront him.
Biden's enablers will (and already are) arguing that in private he is much more coherent, more in command of his faculties than he appeared at the debate. That may be true (although I wonder if that's just spin) but is largely irrelevant. What mattered was how Biden appeared to some sixty million Americans last week - and that ship has decidedly sailed. No amount of spin or briefings or ad campaigns can undo the damage his appearance last week did to broad public perception. If Biden is serious about saving the country from another Trump term and a further decline into autocracy, he must make way for a younger, more vigorous and more capable nominee.