Mediaboss Marketing

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

As Donald Trump and Joe Biden prepare to face off on the debate stage, Trump has previewed one line of attack against his Democratic opponent in a long-running feud over the former presidents attempts to tie Biden to his sons foreign business dealings.

Hunter Bidens struggles have been elevated in recent weeks by his felony conviction in a gun trial proceedings that led Republicans to take a victory lap when government witnesses confirmed the authenticity of his abandoned laptop computer, materials from which have stoked GOP claims that he spent years profiting off his proximity to his father.

Now, Biden and Trump are poised to face off for the first time since 2020 in a debate hosted by CNN at its Atlanta studio, with Trump suggesting he will reprise the attack line.

It wasnt Russian disinformation. It was a made-up story for election interference purposes, Trump said at a recent conservative conference. I assume were going to be talking about that at the debate.

There will be no in-person audience for the 90-minute debate, a dynamic that threatens to upend expectations.

Its telling you what is going on, indirectly, with applause or not applause, Trump said in an interview with the Washington Examiner. He acknowledged he interrupted Biden too often during the first debate against him in September 2020 and said he had learned from the experience.

Follow live updates on the Trump-Biden presidential debate

Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said there is a ready-made opportunity for the moderators to showcase a level playing field for Trump on Thursday.

If CNN wants to prove theyre fair and balanced, they should ask Joe Biden why he lied about the existence of Hunter Bidens laptop on the debate stage four years ago in 2020, Leavitt told NBC News.

In the October 2020 general election debate, after Trump mentioned the laptop, Biden responded that it was a "Russian plan."

Biden is preparing to face several possible Trumps on Thursday, including a grievance-filled Trump and a version who hews to a more disciplined message, with Bidens advisers combing through recent interviews to identify his trigger points.

Trump has shied away from attacking Hunter Biden over his addiction struggles, an attitude that some say lends itself to holding out an olive branch to the former presidents son. A Trump ally suggested he would be wise to offer a commutation of Hunter Bidens sentence if he wins.

There is evidence to suggest that Trump holds a softer outlook toward Hunter Biden than he does his father, whom Trumps allies expect he'll go after following Trumps conviction on charges related to a hush money payment.

Trump doesnt see Hunter Bidens struggles with addiction as a target, a former senior Trump administration official said. The animosity is towards Joe Biden, and theres the notion that Hunter wouldnt be in that position if it wasnt for his father.

At Camp David, Maryland, Biden has been preparing for how the debate could unfold. That includes the idea that Trump might raise the subject of Hunter Biden and his legal issues. Meanwhile, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, a top vice presidential running mate prospect, has challenged CNN to raise questions about the laptop, Trump's political action committee has floated potential lines of inquiry for the moderators, and Trump's own Truth Social posts seem to heighten the possibility that he'll mention the topic, a source familiar with debate preparations and discussions said.

But Biden's advisers don't think it will definitively come up in the debate or be a significant focus if it does, and aides have tracked public comments by Trump suggesting he might soften his tone.

Theres a chance Trump may sidestep the issue altogether. As Hunter Bidens recent trial on gun charges placed his spiral into drugs under a microscope, Trump has shied away from attacking him over his addiction. Instead, he spoke at length about his own brothers struggle with alcoholism in an interview with Sean Hannity while Bidens trial was underway.

You have sympathy for addiction I think most Americans do, Hannity said before he tried to direct the interview to what he called the bigger issues involving the Biden family.

Trump interjected. Excuse me, he said. Look, I feel very badly for them in terms of the addiction part of what they have right now, because I understand the addiction world. ... Frankly, it would be nice if people would do certain things and live certain ways, but youre not able to. Theyre just not able to break it.

Some Republican allies believe talking about Hunter Bidens conviction is bad politics for Trump because it risks placing a spotlight on his own legal issues.After a historic nearly two-month trial, he was convicted in New York City last month of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal that threatened to derail his 2016 campaign. His support among swing and independent voters appeared to falter in a recent poll by Fox News, in which Joe Biden took a slight lead over Trump in a general election match-up. That lead is within the margin of error.

It gets us off message, said a Republican consultant with ties to Trump. Who knows what happens if Biden says something that ticks him off? But the more we can talk about issues, the better off were going to be.

The consultant said it risks setting off a tit-for-tat that is unlikely to do Trump any favors.

Hell say youre a convicted felon, and its going to turn off the independents; its going to turn off those swing voters, the consultant said.

Biden's aides feel that he had a "very strong" moment when, in 2020, Trump swiped at Hunter Biden on the debate stage, an exchange they would be glad to see repeated, a source familiar with the preparations and discussions said, noting that the president is happy to reiterate his support for his son in his recovery from addiction.

The source said Biden is prepared to restate what he has already said publicly: that he has no plans to pardon his son or commute his sentence.

Trump, meanwhile, has been advised to focus on the issues and is being prepped on policy.

The more Donald Trump can talk about issues, can talk about his accomplishments and can talk about his vision for the country, the better off were going to be, this person said.

A source familiar with some of the strategies being discussed echoed that sentiment, saying, Trump will focus on the issues that people know and love him for.

The danger, this person said, is you bring up Hunter, [Biden] brings up the New York court verdict, meaning Trumps recent conviction on charges related to the hush money payment stemming from the 2016 campaign.

Republican leaders in the House this month sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department recommending charges against Hunter and James Biden, the presidents brother, claiming statements they made before the Oversight and Judiciary committees implicate Joe Biden in what Republicans say was an effort to profit off his familys business dealings while he was vice president. Biden has denied wrongdoing, and GOP investigations have yet to deliver evidence implicating him.

But hammering the issue wont matter unless Biden faces criminal penalties.

We proved this with Trump, a former Trump adviser said. The allegations didnt hurt until he was convicted.

During the first debate in 2020, Biden said Trumps allegations that his son took payments from foreign business associates when Biden was vice president were totally discredited. When the two faced off in a second debate weeks later, Trump returned to the issue, seeking to tie Biden to materials allegedly pulled from a computer Hunter Biden had abandoned at a Delaware repair shop during his spiral into drug addiction.

If this is true, then hes a corrupt politician, Trump said before he turned to Biden. So dont give me the stuff about how youre this innocent baby.

In response, Biden cited a letter from 51 former intelligence officials who claimed the files on the laptop had the classic earmarks of Russian disinformation. It was an allegation poised to draw Trumps ire after he faced a special counsel investigation over his campaigns ties to Russia and was deemed a would-be puppet of Russian President Vladimir Putin by Hillary Clinton four years earlier.

The White House has denied that Biden had any involvement in his sons business deals.

Furthermore, while Trump has continued to raise money off of his conviction in New York, a former adviser said the frequent reminders risk damaging his appeal to independent and swing voters.

Right now, hes Richard Nixon with two fingers up saying, 'Im not a crook,' the former adviser said.

And there are other pitfalls. If Trump attacks Bidens age, he brings up that they are the same age, the ally said.

Another source familiar with Trumps planning said: I told him to stay away. But no one tells Donald what to do.

More:
Trump previews attacks against Hunter Biden ahead of presidential debate - NBC News

Mother Jones; Julio Cortez/AP; Getty

Like many Americans, I am dreading the first presidential debate of the 2024 election, an event thats all but certain to feature a litany of vile lies by one candidate and awkward, if not painful stumbles by another.

But Thursdays high-stakes 90-minute encounter will also see an exceedingly rare moment: Donald Trump onstage with a mic mutedat least when its President Bidens turn to respondafter the two candidates agreed to CNNs rules. An audience wont be present for the event either, another key departure from previous presidential debates.

The new rules appear to be an attempt to avoid the incoherent mess American voters witnessed during the 2020 debates, with Trump spewing toxic rhetoric, lies, and vicious personal attacks at a relentless clip. But will guardrails prove to be enough to shut up a man who, during countless moments, seems genuinely incapable of even the slightest restraint?

I was surprised that Trumps people let them agree to the muting of the microphone issue, Will Baker, director of New York Universitys Debate Fund, told me. Its going to be interesting to see how that actually plays out.

For decades, Baker has coached some of the countrys top college debaters and I reached out to hear his thoughts ahead of Thursdays rematch. He offered some insight into what strategies Biden could employ to win over a serial liar, what he about those absurd cocaine insinuations, and what Trump could do to circumvent the mic-muting.

Lets start by reflecting on the 2020 debates. What was your reaction at the time?

It was disappointing. It fell apart so dramatically and voters were ultimately deprived of any debate on real issues. It sadly felt much more like watching a couple of teenagers that I needed to discipline than an actual presidential debate.

Going into tonight, who would you say has the advantage?

Its fascinating because the advantage really comes down more to the performance of the night, rather than innate skills. Its going to be about momentum tonight. On policy though, I think Biden has the advantage because thats always where hes most comfortable. Hes got the track record of the past few years and also a chance to correct any misperceptions.

As for Trump, his biggest advantages are connection and charisma. Again, very surprised he agreed not to have an audience there because thats always been shown to be a huge benefit for him. If Biden has any type of slip-up on the policy front, getting a date or event wrong, Trump can pounce on those things in the moment.

He might take the opportunity to literally walk over to Bidens face and talk through Bidens mic.

Do you think Trump is going to stick to the mic rules? Because I can totally see this man just shouting anyway.

I have been wondering about that. He might take the opportunity to literally walk over to Bidens face and talk through Bidens mic. Trump could even say at the outset, Hey, yeah, dont cut off my mic when I start telling the truth about Biden. There are lots of ways that [Trumps team] could play that, so Im fascinated to see how it goes. My assumption is that they agreed to it because [Trumps team] has a strategy. So Ill be interested to see that play out.

Wow, thats both fascinating and horrifying. What about Trumps record of lying? How do you debate someone known to straight up lie on stage?

In some forms of debate, you have protection because the judges are looking at evidence. But in an environment like the one Biden will be in, the lying is already baked into the calculus, right? So Bidens strategy has to be to identify overarching themes where the lies dont change things. For example, if Trump says, Look, youve broken far more laws than I have, or, you know, your sons done XYZ, Biden needs to have a compelling, quick, catchy phrase. Not a long explanation of all the felonies. Like, I hope his team wont have a listing of these charges because thats going to bore the audience.

He should prepared to say something like, Only one of us has a sentencing hearing in two weeks for 34 felonies. Or, You can lie to the American public but the courts dont lie. That would change the pace. Its all about rhythm. Everyone knows that Trump is going to lie. What they dont know is, how will Biden handle it and demonstrate that hes presidential and has leadership.

A few weeks ago, Trump was mocking Joe Bidens debate skills. Now hes claiming, without evidence of course, that Biden is going to be getting a shot in the ass to enhance his debate performance. What are we to make of that?

I was stunned that they went back to performance-enhancing drugs because they did that both in 2020 and 2016 against Hillary Clinton. This is just an old trick that hes that hes bringing back up. Seeing it come up again was sad to me because its a sign of desperation, rather than something new or innovative around that. Its also an indication that Trump is trying to lower expectations. If your strategy is that your opponent cant remember anything, that they cant function in public and those types of things, youve already lowered that bar and you have to raise it if you want your guy to have a shot at winning the debates.

Is there a drug of choice among college debaters?

Not to my knowledge. But as directors, our students would hopefully keep that away from us over plausible deniability concerns. Ive never had a student come and say, Hey, what do I need to take thats illegal? Stay awake? A lot of them instead have had way too much coffee or Red Bull. But I dont know of any kind of amphetamines or drug of choice in the college circuit.

Not even beta blockers?

No. Im going to be in five different debate director meetings over the next week and were not having a drug epidemic conversation.

Trump seemed to imply that Biden would be using cocaine during the debate. From a professional perspective, would the use of cocaine even be a good strategy?

That is a horrible idea. Cocaine creates hyped-up reactions, right? The whole thing about a debate is that you dont have a list of the questions beforehand. So if you get ahead of yourself, thats how people often make the most mistakes.

So being coked-up for a presidential debate is probably the worst idea ever.

Aside from drugs then, what is your best advice for debate prep?

Sleep is a weapon. Most of the time, when people make mistakes during debates, theyre tired or not focused. I tell my debaters that when they are getting ready for a debate, they should do things that help them stay focused and relaxed. For some people that might be coffee, for others, it might be a 20-minute walk. For some people that might be meditation. There isnt one magic elixir.

Originally posted here:
A Renowned Debate Expert on How Biden Can Beat Trump's Lies in Real Time Mother Jones - Mother Jones