Mediaboss Marketing

It is well established that the road to power in the Republican Party runs past a toll booth named Donald Trump. Those seeking prominence and power have to offer the former president their fealty at a bare minimum; those seeking to travel further have to pay a higher cost.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R) is happy to pony up. Burgum rose to attention a year ago when he announced his extremely long-shot bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024. (Hes rich, which always helps.) He fared poorly, but that was probably more a positive than a negative: He never had to hit Trump too hard but still came to Trumps attention. Now hes being discussed as a contender for his partys vice-presidential nomination.

That brought him to NBC Newss Meet the Press on Sunday, where with a ping of his political E-ZPass he offered a neat articulation of the Republican response to concerns that Trump seeks authoritarian power: No, Democrats do.

Host Kristen Welker asked whether Trumps comments during last weeks presidential debate didnt have the effect of undermining peoples faith in democracy itself by raising questions about the fairness of the 2020 election. It didnt, Burgum replied, because both parties have done this. His evidence that Democrats had done so was both familiar and thin: asking for a recount in 2000 or grumbling about the outcome in 2016.

As a country, if we want to move forward, Burgum said, we have to have elections that both parties agree to.

On paper, this seems noncontroversial. In context, though, its anything but. The entire point of Trumps efforts to subvert 2020 was that he established and encouraged Republicans to reject the results of the election. A compromise to which both parties agreed, then, necessarily meant one in which the reality of Trumps loss was somehow undermined. Setting that standard moving forward means that partisanship should set the boundaries of acceptability, not math. Thats precisely the sort of thing that is alarming to those concerned about Trumps approach to democracy.

Welker pushed back, as you might hope she would: Wasnt Trumps failure to concede alarming?

Burgum didnt think so, given that, Trump, at the end of this term on January 20th, left the White House. We had a smooth transition.

Welker offered Jan. 6 as a counterpoint to that argument.

Well, I think we have to say that there was a smooth transition, Burgum replied, which we certainly dont. A second later, he got to the central point.

Going into 2024, I think both parties are going to be very focused on [the election], he said. I think the threat to democracy, as a governor in North Dakota today, Ive been living under what I call the Biden dictatorship because of all the rules and regulations.

Welker noted that Biden had introduced fewer executive orders than both Trump and Burgum himself, asking whether that made Burgum dictator of North Dakota. Burgum claimed that he was simply trying to get rid of red tape and changed the subject.

Again, though, this is the rhetoric: Democrats are the real threat to democracy. Its not always articulated in the manner Burgum used, but its routine. Violence that followed some protests against police brutality in summer 2020 was worse than the Capitol riot. The arrest of those who participated in the riot was not a response to an effort to subvert democracy but itself such a subversion. It isnt what Trump does thats the problem; its Biden and the Democrats and being woke and labeling social media posts as false and changing the rules around elections and so on. The problem isnt us, and it isnt Donald Trump. The problem is them, and it is Dictator Biden.

That Democrats and Republicans point to the threat to democracy as a significant problem has been established in polling for some time now. Last month, a Fox News poll found that members of both major parties saw the threat to democracy as being a function of restricted freedom rather than impaired elections, for example.

Over the weekend, polling from CBS News, conducted by YouGov, showed how pervasive the sentiment is. Most Democrats said democracy would only be safe if Biden wins in November. Most Republicans said it would only be safe if Trump did.

The net effect is that Americans overall are divided. A majority think that democracy will not be protected if Biden wins, and a (mostly different) majority thinks it will not be protected if Trump does.

As Welker noted to Burgum, the presentation of Biden as a dictator because he implemented executive actions is flatly ridiculous. It became only more ridiculous after the Supreme Court on Monday determined that Trumps efforts to subvert the 2020 election had broad protections against criminal prosecution. Its not even clear the extent to which Burgum believes it.

But it is clear that this is the sort of thing Trump wants to hear from a possible running mate. It is also clear that a lot of Republicans believe it, that they see Biden as dictatorial centrally because he uses the power he was granted by the 2020 election to enact his agenda.

If you think that election was illegitimate because Trump convinced you that it was, its not hard to see how this perception of Biden follows.

Original post:
Analysis | The 'Biden dictatorship': How the right reframes the threat to democracy - The Washington Post

The Supreme Courts belated decision this week regarding presidential immunity is a defeat for presidential accountability, leaving Donald Trump, the only former president for whom the question of criminal immunity has been pushed this far, escaping legal consequences before the general election for his actions involving efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The decision carves out absolute immunity for core presidential functions, including ominously questionable interactions with the Justice Department alleged to be illegal in the indictment from the special counsel Jack Smith. The court also creates a presumption of immunity for other official actions alleged in the Smith indictment.

By not deciding the case more than six months ago, when Mr. Smith first raised the issue to the court, it has also provided Mr. Trump de facto immunity. The court clearly believed that it had to weigh in on the scope of criminal immunity for a former president. But it could have weighed in then; the court has kept the criminal case on hold since December.

But all is not lost. A trial might not happen, but a legal proceeding that will give voters some of what they want and need could still take place.

A full trial before the general election in November is surely off the table, but Judge Tanya Chutkan of U.S. District Court in Washington is now authorized to hold, in short order, an evidentiary hearing, replete with important witness testimony. That hearing would not replace a full trial and verdict but at this point it is the best and last means to make public crucial evidence for voters to hear before Election Day.

With the stay lifted by the Supreme Court, Judge Chutkan can hold a prompt hearing on the key issues left open by the ruling: what allegations in the indictment are core official functions entitled to absolute immunity and which are not.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Continue reading here:
Opinion | How to Get Voters the Facts They Need Without a Trump Jan. 6 Trial - The New York Times

Last month, YouGov conducted a poll for CBS News that included a question focused specifically on the Supreme Court case for which a decision came down Monday. Should American presidents, the pollsters asked, be granted broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions they took in service of their presidencies?

Most Americans more than two-thirds, in fact said no. There were differences by political affiliation, with Democrats overwhelmingly rejecting the idea that a president should have such power. Among Republicans, a majority disagreed with offering that sort of protection, but only a relatively narrow one.

That's not entirely surprising, given the genesis for the question. Donald Trump, indicted on state and federal charges for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, had argued that he (and every president) had a tacit protection from prosecution for engaging in those actions. Republicans were more likely than Democrats to support this sort of immunity, we can assume, because some portion of them recognized that it was Trump that we were really talking about.

But we dont need to guess here. YouGov asked half of respondents specifically whether Trump should have that sort of immunity. Again, most respondents said he shouldnt. This time, though, most Republicans about two-thirds said he should.

On Monday, that Republican minority got its wish largely because of the systematic advantages Republicans have enjoyed in the Senate and thanks to the electoral college.

There are nine members of the court. The longest-serving member is Justice Clarence Thomas, nominated by George H.W. Bush and confirmed in 1991. The newest member is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, nominated by President Biden and confirmed in 2022.

But theres a difference between the confirmations of those two justices. Thomass deeply controversial nomination earned him 52 Senate votes. Jacksons far-less-controversial nomination landed in the modern era, when bipartisan approval of Supreme Court nominations has been abandoned. She got 53 votes.

Because of the way that power is allocated in the Senate, though, Jackson got support from senators representing far more of the country than Thomas did. Rural, lightly populated states get the same two senators that more-urban, densely populated ones do, meaning that to use the standard example Californias 39 million residents get the same number of senators as Wyomings 580,000.

If we allocate half of their state's population to each senator, Thomas got the support of senators representing just under half the population. Jackson got the support of senators representing 57 percent of the population.

Using that same calculus, three other sitting justices also got support from senators representing less than half of the country: Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, all of whom were appointed by Trump.

Trump, of course, won the presidency thanks to another power structure that has often benefited Republicans: the electoral college. He lost the popular vote in 2016 but became president anyway, earning the right to fill a vacancy on the court immediately and then two more over the course of his presidency.

That he had the right to fill that vacancy immediately, of course, is itself a function of the imbalance of power in the Senate. Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) rejected President Barack Obamas 2016 nominee, Merrick Garland, something he was able to do given the Republican majority in the chamber. That majority represented about 47 percent of the countrys population. (When another court vacancy emerged in 2020, McConnell used his partys majority to fill it immediately.)

Two other justices, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito, benefited from these advantages in another way. Alito was confirmed by senators representing barely more than half the countrys population, despite receiving 58 votes in the Senate. But he, like Roberts, was nominated by George W. Bush, who had been first elected in 2000 thanks to the electoral college. He was reelected in 2004 with a popular vote majority the first Republican to do so since his fathers election in 1988. But had the popular vote determined the winner in 2000, its not clear any Republican would have been elected four years later.

As defenders of Trump and the Supreme Court will immediately note: This is how the system works. And that is true. It is. Five members of the nine-person Supreme Court can be nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote when they first ran, and four of them can be confirmed by senators representing less than half the country. Then they can decide, against the views of two-thirds of the country, that a president who lost the popular vote should have immunity from criminal charges for having attempted to subvert the results after he lost the popular vote again.

Its how the system works.

Here is the original post:
Analysis | The minoritarian power imbalance that gave Trump immunity - The Washington Post

The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trumps classified documents case said on Thursday that she intended to look anew at a hugely consequential legal victory that prosecutors won last year and that served as a cornerstone of the obstruction charges filed against Mr. Trump.

In her ruling, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, said she would hold a hearing to reconsider another judges decision to allow prosecutors to pierce the attorney-client privilege of one of Mr. Trumps lawyers under what is known as the crime-fraud exception.

That provision allows the government to get around the normal protections afforded to a lawyers communications with a client if it can prove that legal advice was used to commit a crime.

Depending on how Judge Cannon ultimately rules, her decision to redo the fraught and lengthy legal arguments about the crime-fraud exception could deal a serious blow to the obstruction charges in the indictment of Mr. Trump. Even if she ends up confirming the initial judges findings, holding yet another hearing on the issue will take more time and play into Mr. Trumps strategy of delaying the case from going to trial for as long as possible.

Judge Cannons decision, contained in an 11-page ruling, came two days after Mr. Trumps lawyers and prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, held a sealed hearing in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., to discuss whether to relitigate the battle over the crime-fraud exception.

At the hearing, according to the ruling, Mr. Smiths deputies told her that a new proceeding on the question would devolve into a mini-trial that might subject some of their witnesses to cross-examination before the actual trial began.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Read this article:
Judge to Revisit Key Legal Finding in Trump Classified Documents Case - The New York Times

Last week I had the time of my life at the Tony Awards introducing a song from Suffs, the Broadway musical I co-produced about the suffragists who won women the right to vote. I was thrilled when the show took home the awards for best original score and best book.

From Suffs to Hamilton, I love theater about politics. But not the other way around. Too often we approach pivotal moments like this weeks debate between President Biden and Donald Trump like drama critics. Were picking a president, not the best actor.

I am the only person to have debated both men (Mr. Trump in 2016 and, in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary race, Mr. Biden). I know the excruciating pressure of walking onto that stage and that it is nearly impossible to focus on substance when Mr. Trump is involved. In our three debates in 2016, he unleashed a blizzard of interruptions, insults and lies that overwhelmed the moderators and did a disservice to the voters who tuned in to learn about our visions for the country including a record 84 million viewers for our first debate.

It is a waste of time to try to refute Mr. Trumps arguments like in a normal debate. Its nearly impossible to identify what his arguments even are. He starts with nonsense and then digresses into blather. This has gotten only worse in the years since we debated. I was not surprised that after a recent meeting, several chief executives said that Mr. Trump, as one journalist described it, could not keep a straight thought and was all over the map. Yet expectations for him are so low that if he doesnt literally light himself on fire on Thursday evening, some will say he was downright presidential.

Mr. Trump may rant and rave in part because he wants to avoid giving straight answers about his unpopular positions, like restrictions on abortion, giving tax breaks to billionaires and selling out our planet to big oil companies in return for campaign donations. He interrupts and bullies he even stalked me around the stage at one point because he wants to appear dominant and throw his opponent off balance.

These ploys will fall flat if Mr. Biden is as direct and forceful as he was when engaging Republican hecklers at the State of the Union address in March. The president also has facts and truth on his side. He led Americas comeback from a historic health and economic crisis, with more than 15 million jobs created so far, incomes for working families rising, inflation slowing and investments in clean energy and advanced manufacturing soaring. Hell win if that story comes through.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

View original post here:
Opinion | Hillary Clinton: I've Debated Trump and Biden. Here's What I'm Watching For. - The New York Times