Trump lawyers plan to subvert the presidential election, but they don't want to wind up being held accountable behind the cold steel bars of a prison cell

Trump vs. the Truth (NBC)

 

Lawyers associated with Donald Trump plan to obstruct the 2024 presidential election, but they don't want to be held accountable for their actions if they get caught, according to a report at Rolling Stone (RS). That sounds like a classic Republican plan, doesn't it?

Asawin "Swin" Suebsaeng, senior political reporter at RS, has details under the headline "Trump’s Lawyers Are Ready to Subvert the 2024 Election — But They Don’t Want to Go to Jail; “We don’t want to get indicted or arrested, like they were last time,” says one source involved with the vast Trump 2024 legal effort." Suebsaeng writes:

With Election Day 2024 less than a week away, both the Kamala Harris and Donald Trump camps are anticipating a historically close outcome, with the winner being decided by a small number of votes in a handful of states. Both sides have assembled their respective legal war rooms, deployed their legal muscle to a slate of swing states, recruited armies of local counsel in those battlegrounds, and devoted mammoth resources to prepping for a tense fight in the courts.

They’re all ready for, as one Trump adviser puts it, “total warfare,” should the post-election period devolve into madness.

The MAGA side, however, has a unique concern gnawing at its pro-Trump lawyers, to the point that some of these attorneys have felt the need to issue new guidance to staff. 

It all boils down to: How do we do this without maybe going to prison or being sued into oblivion? 

I have a simple answer to that question: Don't pull whatever stupid stunt you have planned. Trump isn't worth it. And besides, he is wildly unfit for the job. He already has one failed presidency under his belt, and we don't need another one. The Trump lawyers apparently are not clear-minded enough to think of my solution. But they would be wise to review what happened to Trump lawyers who tried to mess around with results of the 2020 election. Suebsaeng writes:

In the aftermath of Joe Biden’s clear victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential contest, the then-president and conservative figures embarked on a months-long crusade to overturn the election results — in an effort that culminated in the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. In the years that followed, Trump and his allies cemented into Republican Party orthodoxy the anti-democratic lies and conspiracy theories that fueled his election-denial effort. Still, the sprawling Trump-led operation to nullify his 2020 loss resulted in various lawsuits, Trump’s record-setting second impeachment by the U.S. House, a high-profile congressional probe, and state and federal investigations that brought criminal charges against a host of MAGAland luminaries including Trump himself.

Understandably, many of the current batch of Trump-aligned attorneys and staffers gearing up to do “Stop The Steal” all over again, if he loses a second time, aren’t too enthusiastic about the idea of going to prison. They are doing things a little differently this year.

“We don’t want to get indicted or arrested, like they were last time,” says one source involved with the vast Trump 2024 legal apparatuses — which are being spearheaded and overseen in this election season by the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign itself. Rolling Stone spoke to five lawyers and advisers involved in the planning and strategy.

One such attorney says they recently advised lawyers and other Trumpists working on the effort in Pennsylvania — perhaps the most crucial of the swing states, and where Harris and Trump are running neck-and-neck — not to put anything “in writing” that would, if publicly revealed, risk making it look like the legal team didn’t believe the merits of any of their, or Trump’s, claims or legal arguments. 

In the indictments of Trump and his associates, prosecutors have consistently painted a portrait of the then-president and his allies having corrupt intent — including in the notoriously scandalous fake-electors plot — because there was apparently ample evidence they knew what they were doing was based on lies, but did it anyway.

Others working on the Trump 2024-aligned legal teams, including in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona, say they’ve issued or been handed similar guidance, with another source describing a memo they’d received, with the message being — in one source’s paraphrase — “just don’t be stupid about it… and keep out the crazy,” especially in private written communications between fellow staff. (This source notes the irony of their colleagues issuing a written memo about not writing certain things in written memos.) 

A set of Trump lawyers who engaged in underhanded behavior on "The Orange Turd's" behalf four years ago have vivid memories of how they landed in doo-doo. Jenna Ellis is one of them:

“My biggest mistake was assuming everyone around me was operating in the same good faith and professionalism as I was,” Jenna Ellis, a former senior legal adviser to Trump who faced charges and legal consequences stemming from the former president’s post-2020-election efforts, tells Rolling Stone. “I would advise anyone involved in any post-election litigation to do their due diligence and especially to distance [themselves] from anyone who may be encouraging actual criminal conduct.”

I would offer this unsolicited advice to Ms. Ellis: You're first and biggest mistake was joining the Trump campaign in the first place. He is a bad candidate and an even worse person, so you should not have been surprised when he hung you out to dry. Further, you never should have depended on Republicans to keep Team Trump in line. They have shown they will let Trump do anything he wants, and the GOP has become so dysfunctional that it essentially has given up on anything that has to do with governing -- and they apparently make no effort to vet candidates who run under their banner. Bottom line: You associated with bad people, in bad organizations -- and you paid a high price for it. Much the same likely will happen to the 2024 Trump legal team. Suebsaeng writes:

Furthermore, different Republican Party organs have tried to establish a semblance of guardrails when it comes to keeping some of the more obvious lies and cartoonishly embarrassing conspiracy theories from dominating Trumpworld’s court documents and legal arguments, as they did in 2020 and 2021. As ABC News reported, for instance, “Republicans in Arizona have set up a team tasked with receiving and sorting through reported election issues from around the state, which one source familiar with the operation described as a ‘daily turn of frivolous problems.’”

And yet, it is not like frivolous and outrageously false claims have trouble breaking through — including to the leader of the Republican Party, as he prepares for another possible set of post-election legal battles.

Trump has shown that he is unable to guide his staff with any hint of discipline, and we recently saw signs that he is heading down the wrong path in 2024. From the RS report:

Earlier this week, The New York Times reported that Trump has been privately speaking again with Kurt Olsen, an attorney who aided Trump in his attempt to steal the 2020 election. “Mr. Olsen has insisted to Mr. Trump that it’s important to make legal demands before Election Day related to the preservation of data from voting machines in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia,” according to the Times.

The false idea, pushed by then-President Trump and many Republican figures, that Dominion Voting Systems machines played a key role in rigging the 2020 election against Trump quickly became one of the most consequential far-right conspiracy theories of that entire election. The conspiracy theory, which helped fuel Trump’s attempted coup, led to a massively expensive lawsuit for Fox News.

According to two sources familiar with the matter, within the past several months, Trump has indeed been asking close confidants about Dominion machines and other common American voting tech, in the context of the bitterly fought 2024 race. It’s not much of a surprise, given that some in the Trumpland upper crust are revving the Dominion conspiracy theory back up, and publicly putting it front and center.

“There’s always this question of, say, the Dominion voting machines. It is weird that, I think, they were used in Philadelphia and in Maricopa County [in Arizona] but not in a lot of other places. Doesn’t that seem like a heck of a coincidence?” billionaire Trump backer Elon Musk said as he rallied for the former president in Pennsylvania this month. 

Dominion very quickly pushed back on Musk’s remarks. ”Dominion is closely monitoring claims around the Nov. 2024 election and strongly encourages use of verified, credible sources of info,” the company posted last week on X, which Musk owns. “We remain fully prepared to defend our company & our customers against lies and those who spread them.”

Elsewhere, both presidential contenders and their parties have plowed extensive legal and professional resources into getting ready for what may prove a brutal election aftermath, particularly if the winner is not known for days.

“It has been very important to make sure that in every aspect, we are going to have a fully professional operation,” RNC chair and close Trump ally Michael Whatley recently told the Associated Press. “What we have seen in court over the course of the last six months and as we’ve ramped up to these 130-plus lawsuits is a testament to making sure that we’re working with the states and working with the courts to get a really, truly, responsible program up and running.”

What does the opposing side, the Democrats, have to say about all of this? Kamala Harris says she and her team are ready for anything that comes their way. Suebsaeng writes:

On the other side of the aisle, Biden and the Democratic Party elite spent years building out a legal “superstructure” (which Vice President Harris inherited) across the country, and have war-gamed an array of nightmare scenarios in which Trump would again try to steal an American election in a blisteringly close race. 

“The veteran lawyers who fought and won in 2020 have been preparing for dozens of scenarios, drafting thousands of pages of legal briefs, and working directly with hundreds of lawyers and experts on the ground in battleground states so we are ready for whatever the other side throws our way,” a 2024 Harris campaign internal memo reads, according to ABC.

Trump and Mike Johnson share a "little secret," but any notion they can gain an advantage by refusing to seat a certain number of Democrats will run afoul of procedural rules that make Johnson a non-factor

Donald and Melania Trump, with Mike Johnson (Getty)

The biggest question in American politics at the moment is this: What "little secret" did Donald Trump share with House Speaker Mike Johnson at the Madison Square Garden rally, and what could it mean? The Cato Institute shines significant light on the question via a blog post titled "There Is No “Little Secret” Speaker Power over the Electoral Count."Andy Craig, director of election policy at Cato's Rainey Center and an adjunct scholar at Cato, focusing on election law, electoral reform, and political incentives, writes:

At his rally in Madison Square Garden on Sunday, Donald Trump offered an aside to Speaker Mike Johnson about a “little secret” concerning the election and the House of Representatives. “[W]e can take the Senate pretty easily. And I think with our little secret, we’re going to do really well with the House, right?” Trump said to Johnson. “Our little secret is having a big impact. He and I have a secret. We’ll tell you what it is when the race is over.”

Many took this as a nod to possible efforts to obstruct the joint session where electoral votes are counted on January 6. It’s not entirely clear what Trump might have meant, and Johnson has been evasive about whether he would seek to lead, as he did among House members four years ago, with ill-founded objections to a possible Democratic victory. 

But because the topic is attracting concern, it’s worth putting to rest the idea that the Speaker has any procedural tools to change the outcome of the presidential election.

How limited is the speaker's authority when it comes to possibly changing the outcome of the 2024 election? Craig spells it out with clarity, reaching the conclusion that the House speaker is a non-factor in this scenario. Craig writes:

The Speaker’s role during the electoral count is, in fact, nearly non-existent. There are no lawful mechanisms for the Speaker to derail the joint session of Congress without the backing of concurrent majorities in both the House and the Senate. The job of the Speaker is much more constrained here than in his usual authority over the House. 

To start, the statutory rules in the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECRA) are in place as the default unless both chambers concur in any deviation by means of a concurrent resolution. Normally, both chambers also adopt a concurrent resolution simply reiterating the statutory rules. But the statute, which directs that both chambers convene in joint session in the House chamber at 1 p.m. on January 6, and lays out detailed rules for what then follows, is valid and binding of its own force. It has, after all, already been adopted by both houses and in many respects it simply reiterates what is already commanded by the Constitution. While Congress could by its internal rule-making power adopt some theoretical changes, should unexpected circumstances arise, doing so for the joint session would require the House and Senate to agree. The Speaker alone has no such power, and neither does the House alone.

Those aren't the only shortcomings that essentially would hamstring Johnson in this scenario. From the Cato report:

Nor does the Speaker preside over the joint session, a task falling to the vice president as President of the Senate, who happens to be Kamala Harris. (She would not be the first VP to preside over certification of her own victory or defeat). The President of the Senate has no power to make decisions about the electoral count itself, about rejecting or accepting votes, but as presiding officer she will still have the “power to preserve order” as specified in 3 USC § 18. 

Though the electoral count might take place in the House chamber, the space is not, for that time and purpose, the House’s alone or the Speaker’s to control, as it would be in the course of normal business. It is under the control of Congress as a whole with the President of the Senate tasked with maintaining, if need be, literal physical control of the room, directing the sergeants at arms and however much backup is necessary to that end. 

The only scenario in which the Speaker retakes the gavel is if an objection to a state’s electoral votes is made by at least one-fifth of each chamber, or at least 87 representatives and 20 senators. In that case, the Senate will withdraw to its side of the Capitol and both chambers will separately consider and vote on the objection, with the agreement of both chambers required to sustain it. 

This period of debate and vote is limited by ECRA to no more than two hours. During that time, the Speaker (or as always, another member they designate) would preside over the House debate but not have any lawful power to postpone the reconvening of the joint session after those two hours expire.

One possible factor has received quite  a bit of online attention. But Craig finds it is way off target, and he puts the squash to it in a hurry:

One of the more outlandish ideas some have suggested is that Speaker Johnson could, when the newly elected House convenes on January 3, refuse to seat some number of Democratic members-elect—even, potentially, if Democrats have regained the majority at the election. 

However, the speakership does not automatically carry over into the new Congress. Rather the position is initially vacant unless and until the members-elect choose a Speaker in the process of “organizing” the House on the first day of their terms. After the election of a Speaker, there is a procedure for objections to a member-elect’s qualifications to be seated, with the rest of the House excluding that member then voting on the question.  But such objections made on a blatantly partisan basis could quickly escalate into a rather absurd tit-for-tat spiral. Baseless objections to seating Democratic members could be met in-kind with retaliatory objections to seating Republicans. The whole thing would spiral into a farcical deadlock, inviting almost philosophical debates about who “the House” really is on January 3. In any event, the Speaker alone does not decide, having no individual power to simply refuse to let members take their oaths.

More substantively, such a lawless purge of Congress on spurious grounds would not be constitutional. At that point, the rump “House” would only be destroying its own constitutional legitimacy, rather than making a feasible play for control of the White House. While it would be a grave constitutional crisis, it is not one the putative Speaker, with a dubious claim to that office under the circumstances, would be in a position to win.

Any attempt by the Speaker of the House to subvert the electoral count might observe a hollow pretense of following lawful procedures, but it would not be lawful. Hopefully, we will not face such a senseless confrontation. And it’s worth emphasizing these are extreme worst-case scenarios.

Craig makes it clear that the Constitution and the rule of law would click in to thwart any efforts Trump and Johnson might make to drive the train of state wildly off the tracks:

Again, who knows what Trump was really talking about, or what Johnson might have in mind in the event Trump loses the election. It is very unlikely that the needed majorities of both the House and Senate would go along with this hypothetical coup attempt, even in the event Republicans have narrow majorities. 

But if such a thing was nevertheless attempted by the Speaker acting unilaterally, the legally and constitutionally required course would be for other actors and institutions—including the members of the House, the Senate, the vice president, the courts, and the executive branch—to treat such actions as null and void. 

There is no one neat trick or magic words the Speaker can use to reverse the outcome of a presidential election, forcing everyone else to accept an illegitimate power grab. The law and the Constitution remain the law and the Constitution,  even in the face of a rogue officer’s attempt to violate them.

Trump and Mike Johnson share a "little secret," but it might be a huge nothing burger, based on Trump's ignorance of how the law and government work

Mike Johnson and Donald Trump (Getty)

 

Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson have a "little secret," which probably involves Johnson working in cahoots with Trump to help him steal the 2024 election -- much as Johnson tried to do four years ago, according to a report at The New York Times. Under the headline "Trump Hints at ‘Little Secret’ With House Republicans, Setting Off a Panic; The former president seemed to delight in fueling speculation about what he is cooking up with House Republicans, prompting Democrats to worry about election fraud. Speaker Mike Johnson refused to explain." The Times' Annie Karni hints at what might be going on. She writes:

Speaker Mike Johnson was taking in former President Donald J. Trump’s grievance-fueled closing rally at Madison Square Garden on Sunday afternoon when the main actor onstage turned to him and drew him into the drama.

“I think with our little secret we’re going to do really well with the House, right?” Mr. Trump said, addressing Mr. Johnson directly. “Our little secret is having a big impact. He and I have a little secret — we will tell you what it is when the race is over.”

This aside, delivered with a small chuckle, set off a frenzy among frightened Democrats who have been living with something akin to post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the last two presidential election cycles, and who are now primed to fear the worst.

In this case, the worst is very bad: It is a scenario in which Mr. Johnson, who worked with Mr. Trump to undermine the 2020 election results, would again be in cahoots with the former president to steal the election and stop the certification of the results on Jan. 6, 2025, should Vice President Kamala Harris win.

In a statement provided to The New York Times, the mild-mannered Mr. Johnson did nothing to alleviate those fears. Instead, he seemed to confirm that there was, in fact, a “little secret” — and that he planned to keep it that way.

“Speaking of secrets,” Mr. Johnson said, “Harris knew Biden was physically and mentally impaired and kept it a secret. The F.B.I. knew the Hunter Biden laptop was real and kept it secret. They also knew Russia collusion was fake and kept that a secret, too.”

Mr. Johnson added: “It appears that all those secrets didn’t matter to the media because they all helped Democrats. But this one might help Donald Trump, and now they care? By definition, a secret is not to be shared — and I don’t intend to share this one.”

Mr. Johnson’s blustery statement was striking not just for its groundless claims presented as facts. It also seemed to validate that Mr. Trump was actually referring to something specific, and not just speaking with his regular vagueness that allows listeners to hear whatever they want.

Karni was quick to add that this "secret" might be no big deal, just "Trump being Trump." She writes:

Some people familiar with Mr. Trump’s tactics shrugged it off as a riff that meant very little — or possibly nothing at all. They said he was most likely referring to so-called tele-rallies with Republican members of Congress that he has been participating in regularly, like one he held ahead of the Madison Square Garden rally, hosted by Representative Elise Stefanik of New York and attended by eight G.O.P. incumbents and candidates from her state.

They also noted that he liked to poke his detractors and might have enjoyed the frenzy the comment created among Democrats.

“President Trump has done countless tele-rallies reaching millions of Americans across the country in key regions that also help bolster Republicans in congressional races,” said Steven Cheung, a Trump spokesman, when asked about what the “little secret” comment meant.

Either way, the episode was a reminder of how difficult it can be to determine whether Mr. Trump’s musings are insignificant chatter, serious statements of intent or something in between.

Mr. Johnson, for his part, has contemplated the uncomfortable position he might be in, in the unlikely scenario that he is re-elected speaker of the House, Ms. Harris wins the presidency and there are threats of violence around the Jan. 6 electoral certification by Congress.

“I don’t think we’ll see anything like that. I certainly pray and hope that’s true,” he told CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan earlier this month. “There’s a lot of great work that’s been done at the federal, state and local level to prevent the chaos that ensued after 2020, the Covid election year, when all the states were changing their laws and regulations.” Mr. Johnson added that he was praying for a “free and fair, legal election across the board.”

Is it possible this "secret" is part of a Donald Trump con game, the kind of thing at which he seems to excel? Is it possible that Trump thinks he and Johnson have something clever up their sleeves, when in fact, he knows nothing about the law that might throw a hurdle in their scheme's path? Based on our reporting of the Trump campaign, which includes a number of posts that show his clear ignorance of how the law and government work, that is a strong possibility. We will address these questions and more in our next post. 

Trump's rally at MSG -- filled with bigotry and racism -- might have been designed to shock or entertain, but it could prove to be an act of brazen political suicide

Trump at the current version of Madison Square Garden (Reuters)

 

Donald Trump's over-the-top rally Sunday at Madison Square Garden (MSG) in New York City will likely prove to be an act of political suicide, according to at least one knowledgeable observer. Under the headline "Donald Trump's racist NYC rally was vile. It also was political suicide; The Madison Square Garden rally, operatic in its repulsive bigotry, will almost certainly alienate more voters who might have voted for Trump," the Daily Beasts' David Rothkopf writes:

To all those Republicans who shed crocodile tears because their feelings were so hurt that people were calling Donald Trump a fascist: Stop.

To all the MAGA defenders who said it was over-the-top to compare Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally to that held by the German-American Bund in an earlier incarnation of Madison Square Garden: Shush.

To all those who were falling once again for the bought-and-paid-for narrative that Trump somehow had the momentum going into the final week of campaign 2024: Nope.

On Sunday at MSG, Donald Trump engineered what will be seen by political analysts and later by historians as the coup de grâce that killed forever his prospects of being president and may well have set him on a post-election course on which he finally may be held accountable for his actions.

The interminable rally concluded by an interminable, disjointed, incoherent and yet clearly vile speech by the former president, might have been touted by Trump’s son Don Jr., one of his warm-up acts, as the “King of New York returning to reclaim his crown.” But Trump was never the King of New York. (Sorry, Lara, your father-in-law did not “build” New York. Immigrants did. But we’ll get to that in a minute.)

Trump never has been a popular figure in his home city, and the "Mess at MSG" is not likely to help his standing. Rothkopf writes:

Trump has always been loathed in New York City, especially in his former home borough of Manhattan where the vote against him was and will be dependably over 80 percent. But if he was hated before, rest assured he will be more despised after tonight.

That was clear early on when Tony Hinchcliffe, a man invited by Trump to give one of the introductory speeches—who in true MAGA fashion alleged without providing a shred of evidence that he was a comedian—offered a KKK buffet of nauseating slurs. He called Puerto Rico “a floating island of garbage.”

The “joke” was as stupid as it was repulsive because there are almost 600,000 Puerto Ricans in New York City and many more spread across regions of vital importance in the upcoming election. It also happened to come on a day when Vice President Kamala Harris announced her detailed and thoughtful plan for Puerto Rico, an island Trump wanted to trade to Denmark in exchange for Greenland.

But this loser did not stop there. He offered unfunny commentary about his view that Latinos “love making babies” and a reference to how his Black friends liked carving watermelons. 

You might think that a few super-racist comments from one speaker might not warrant comments that compared the Trump rally to the Nazi meeting 85 years ago. But his comments were hardly the worst. And the racism and the hate and incitement to violence and the promise of an increasingly authoritarian state continued from the very beginning of the event to the very end.

One speaker said that Harris was managed by “pimp handlers” and said of Democrats that “we need to slaughter these other people.” Disgraced and destitute former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said, as did several others, that Democrats were behind attempts to kill Donald Trump. Another speaker called Harris “the devil” and “the antichrist.”

The verbal sleaze fest trickled down to what you might call "Trump officialdom," including a number of individuals who have been around long enough to know better. From the Daily Beast report:

Former Trump aide Stephen Miller, as is his habit, went directly for the Nazi playbook saying, “America is for Americans and Americans only.” Tucker Carlson came out to offer more racist slurs about Harris. Hulk Hogan ripped his shirt off while declaring he saw no Nazis in the audience (thus proving that steroid abuse can not only shrivel up your junk but that it’s not really good for your eyesight either).

Elon Musk was there, acting strangely and promising to slash the size of the government (except, presumably, the parts that are subsidizing his businesses).

As an aside, it is worth noting the irony of Musk appearing at a rally condemning illegal immigration when recent revelations seem to confirm that he himself was an illegal immigrant. That’s not just hypocrisy. If he lied about any aspect of his citizenship status or journey when filling out the forms required to get the Top Secret clearance that this phone pal of Vladimir Putin has, it’s a felony and could not only cause his clearances to be revoked it could be bad news for his businesses and frankly his ability to stay in the United States. No wonder he is all in for the only “politician” in America who would pardon his crimes in a heartbeat.

What about the head "Macho MAGA," Trump himself? He showed no more class than his sycophants had, Rothkopf reports:

Trump attacked the media, and egged the crowd on to boo journalists in the crowd. He said migrants had taken over Times Square (which is nine blocks uptown from where the rally was held). He called the U.S. an occupied country which, while bad, may be better than his reference to it as a garbage can the other day. He called Harris a “low-IQ individual.” He offered so many lies that cable networks tuned him out because it was impossible to keep up with fact-checking him. He returned to old themes like the bizarre notion that Harris would reinstate the draft and start World War III.

Most importantly from the perspective of confirming his fascism he reiterated at length his assertion that his opponents were “enemies of the people.” (You know the ones against whom he promised to unleash the U.S. military.) He called them “the most sinister and corrupt forces on Earth.”

In other words the entire event, despite its marathon length and hodgepodge of z-list speakers, delivered over and over again a very focused message. The Trump campaign is about retribution and revenge. It is about the white supremacist desire to purge America of all their neighbors of different colors and beliefs. It is about Trump’s desire to seek out his enemies and punish them. And over the course of its Wagnerian length (and resonances) it singled out group after group that would be deported or punished.

"The Mess at MSG" proved to have deeper and darker roots than it first appeared. Rothkopf made that clear in his conclusion:

From a political perspective the strategy is pure suicide. The rally will almost certainly alienate more voters who might have voted for Trump and it is hard to imagine it has earned him one single new vote. (Unless there is a Franz Liebkind somewhere who has been too busy writing “Springtime for Hitler” to have paid attention to the campaign until now.) It was a play to the base when the biggest problem Trump has in this election is breaking through his rock-solid ceiling of around 47 percent of the electorate.

But worse still, unlike the Bund rally, Trump’s was not a fringe affair. It was led by a former President of the United States on behalf of very nearly half of the American people.

Its threats of authoritarianism were supported by efforts during the first Trump presidency to sidestep the rule of law and by crimes including a coup attempt we all saw with our own eyes. Its future plans for concentration camps in the U.S. and for mass deportations and the use of the military against the American people have been carefully developed, and there is a plan to put them in place.

That is why Trump’s Sunday rally at Madison Square Garden was, as it turned out, far more ominous than its predecessor. It should chill Americans to the bone. But, I expect it will do more than that. I believe it will mobilize more voters to take action on Nov. 5 to stop the 21st-century fascism of Trump and MAGA.

Trump may be thinking the rally will help him mobilize thugs to violence when he contests his loss and we should be wary of that. But he has provided on the eve of the election the best case why he must be defeated that has ever been presented. In the end, because what unfolded was so foul and so offensive and threatening to so many of us, I believe that is why we will someday conclude that for all intents and purposes Trump’s final political act occurred on the biggest stage in America’s biggest city, a couple of blocks from Broadway.

 

Nazis fill the original Madison Square Garden in 1939 (AP)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With boosts from Hispanics, Blacks, and suburban women, Kamala Harris regains much of a lead over Donald Trump that had slipped, per ABC/Ipsos poll

Kamala Harris has regained much of a lead that had slipped recently in the 2024 presidential race with Donald Trump. That's from an ABC News report on the most recent ABC/Ipsos poll. From the ABC report, which also can be found at the Microsoft Network (MSN):

Vice President Kamala Harris has regained a slight lead among likely voters nationally in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll, albeit with the race close enough to leave the outcome of the 2024 presidential election to the uncertainties of the Electoral College.

 Turnout is key. Just 2 percentage points divide Harris and Donald Trump among all registered voters, 49-47%. This goes to a slight Harris advantage among likely voters, 51-47%, with some pro-Harris groups showing a bit more propensity to vote.

Compared with earlier this month, Harris has regained a more customary Democratic advantage among Hispanic people and widened her advantage among suburban women, while remaining strong in core groups including Black people. Trump pushes back in rural areas and among non-college White men, and runs competitively among younger men.  

How do respondents view the candidates' "strengths" on certain issues? (Note: Responses on that question do not always square with reality. In short, quite a few would-be voters are not well-informed about the candidates or the issues. More on that in an upcoming post.) ABC has more details on how poll-takers view candidates' ability to handle issues of particular importance:

The candidates divide the pie in trust to handle top issues. Trump's best include immigration, with a 12-point advantage over Harris among registered voters; the economy overall, +8 points; inflation, +7; and the conflict in the Middle East, also +7. Harris responds with double-digit leads in trust to handle abortion rights  (+15) and health care (+10); she's also 8 points ahead in trust to handle "protecting American democracy" and +6 on helping the middle class.

The economy and inflation continue as prominent concerns, with 90% and 85% of registered voters, respectively, calling these highly important in their vote. But this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, with fieldwork by Ipsos, finds a shift in intensity: The shares assigning topmost importance to the economy or inflation, calling them "one of the single most important issues" in their vote, have declined by 7 points apiece since September.

What about issue importance, and the trust would-be voters have in the candidates? This is an area where Harris gets high marks:

Any shift from economic concerns likely would aid Harris, given her shortfall in trust to handle the issue and dissatisfaction with the Biden administration's economic performance. President Joe Biden labors with just a 36% job approval rating; differentiating herself from him has been a challenge for Harris. She has 95% support among registered voters who approve of Biden's job performance, compared with 16% among the majority who disapprove.

Notably, as well, protecting democracy ranks nearly as high as inflation in importance, cited by 81%. That's well above the importance of immigration, which Trump has been hitting hard, and abortion, a central focus for Harris. But these reflect partisan realities: Democrats are far more apt than others to pick abortion as a top issue; Republicans, to select immigration.

What about issue importance by partisanship (party affiliation)? Democrats were most concerned with abortion rights and health care, protecting American democracy, the economy, and looking out for the middle class. Republicans were most concerned with immigration (on the U.S.-Mexican border), crime and safety, inflation, and the economy. 

Ironically, 81 percent of Republicans (compared to 90 percent of Democrats) were concerned about protecting democracy, while it appears they plan to vote for Trump, who is widely considered the greatest threat to democracy in modern American history. 

Here are insights from ABC on personal attributes of the candidates and voter groups. Again, Harris generally scores well on personal attributes:

While they battle on issues, Harris continues to lead Trump on most personal attributes. Assessed head-to-head, Harris leads Trump by 11 points, 49-38%, in being seen as having the mental sharpness it takes to serve effectively as president -- a measure on which Trump had led Biden by 31 points.

Harris' advantage widens to 29 points on having the physical health to serve effectively; she's also more apt than Trump to be seen as honest and trustworthy, by 15 points; to understand the problems of people like you, by 10 points; and to share your personal values, by 8 points.

That said, there is a remaining personal attribute on which Trump runs essentially evenly with Harris, one that may matter in an unstable world: being trusted in a crisis. Forty-three percent pick Harris on this, 41%, Trump.

These aren't the only differences in views of the candidates' attributes. As reported Friday, registered voters are twice as likely to call Trump a fascist as to say this about Harris, and 16 points more likely to think he often says things that are not true. But they're also 5 points more likely to think Harris rather than Trump makes proposals just to win votes, not that she intends to carry out. (This doesn't make much sense. Would-be voters seem to be saying they see Harris as honest and trustworthy, but they think she becomes dishonest when she talks about her policy proposals.)

Eight percent of adults (and 10% of registered voters) say they've already voted (as of early last week); a disproportionately Democratic group, they went 62-33% for Harris.

This poll finds a notable shift in vote preferences among Hispanic people, 12% of likely voters and a potentially important group given the close contest, especially in the battleground states of Arizona and Nevada. Biden won Hispanic people by 33 points in 2020, per the ABC News exit poll, and Harris leads in this group by a similar 30 points now, 64-34% -- compared with 55-43% in early October.

Trump has some offsets to Harris' gain among Hispanic people. He now is +41 points among white men without college degrees, essentially matching his showing in this group in the 2020 ABC News exit poll, and also +41 points among rural voters.

Additionally, men younger than 40 were +6 points for Harris early this month; now they're +5 for Trump. This change is not statistically significant, nor is the difference between the candidates, given sample sizes. Nonetheless, the result stands in striking contrast to preferences among women younger than 40, who favor Harris by a 34-point margin.

Trump is a slight +6 among men overall, Harris +14 among women – almost exactly the average gender gap in presidential elections since 1996. This includes a 19-point lead for Harris among suburban women, vs. a slight 10-point margin for her in this group earlier in October.

The longstanding gender gap in presidential preference reflects the fact that women are more apt than men to be Democrats -- by 13 points among likely voters in this poll. This also appears in issue importance, with women more apt than men, by double digits, to pick both abortion and health care as top issues in their vote choice.

Many of these results among groups are similar to those in the 2020 exit poll. In one difference, Harris outperforms Biden four years ago among college-educated white women. She's also strong among college graduates overall. 

Another difference, though, is an important one for Trump: He's essentially even with Harris among independents, a group Biden won by 13 points in 2020, vs. a scant Harris +1 now. The candidate who's won independents has won nine of the last 12 presidential elections.

Overall vote preferences are essentially even among the general population (Harris +1) and registered voters (Harris +2) alike. As noted, this inches to a slight Harris +4 among likely voters.

The shift toward Harris among likely voters relies in part on consolidated support among Democratic base groups, notably Black people and liberals. While Harris has a 70-point advantage among all Black people, that widens to 83 points among Black likely voters, 90-7%. Ninety-six percent of liberal likely voters support Harris, vs. 91% of liberals overall. Additionally, she goes from 53% support among all suburban women to 59% among those likely to vote. Trump, by contrast, doesn't see significant bumps in support among likely voters.

Identifying likely voters entails estimation, and it can be a moving target as the campaigns work overtime to motivate turnout for their candidate and demotivate it for their opponent.

In one potential indicator of turnout, the candidates are close in voter enthusiasm -- 88% of Harris supporters are enthusiastic about her, as are 85% of Trump's about him. In another, Harris maintains a slight edge in voter contact, with Americans overall 5 points more apt to have been contacted by her campaign than by Trump's. In the seven battleground states, though, it's a non-significant 4 points -- and the 50-47% race there remains the equivalent of a dead heat.

Here is information on methodology used in the poll:

This ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® Oct. 18-22, 2024, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,808 adults, including 2,392 registered voters and 1,913 likely voters. Partisan divisions among all adults are 29-29-30%, Democrats-Republicans-independents; 32-32-29% among registered voters; and 35-35-27% among likely voters.

Results have a margin of sampling error of 2 percentage points, including the design effect, for the full sample and for registered voters, 2.5 points for likely voters and 5.5 points for likely voters in the battleground states, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls. 

The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, with sampling and data collection by Ipsos. See details on ABC News survey methodology here.

Donald Trump, for reasons known only to him, puts Arnold Palmer's "manhood" in the spotlight, as journalists struggle to describe the ensuing nuttiness

Donald Trump and Arnold Palmer (Facebook)

How weird was Donald Trump's recent weekend on the campaign trail? It was so weird that journalists struggled to find words to describe it.

Emily Chang, in a joint report for NBC and Yahoo! News, describes how people who deal with words for a living found themselves grasping for words to report on the zaniness of Trump World.  Under the headline "Arnold Palmer’s daughter calls Trump’s remarks about her father 'disrespectful'," Chang writes:

Arnold Palmer's daughter, Peg Palmer Wears, reacted to former President Donald Trump's vulgar comments about her late father, calling them "disrespectful," "inappropriate," and "unacceptable."

"Being at the airport, which is named for my dad, where he flew out of to go to work every day or every week, you know, to come there and talk about … hackneyed anecdotes from the locker room … seemed disrespectful and inappropriate to me," she told ABC News Monday afternoon.

Not only was Arnold Palmer a renowned American golfer with a popular beverage named in his honor, he also has a regional airport named after him in his hometown of Latrobe, Pennsylvania. Campaigning at that airport on Saturday evening, Trump kicked off the rally with a long-winded story about Palmer, who died in 2016, specifically referring to the golfer's genitals.

"When he took showers with the other pros, they came out of there. They said, 'Oh my God. That's unbelievable,'" Trump joked.

Wears failed to find the humor in it. Chang writes:

According to Wears, Trump was "appropriating someone he admires to bolster his own image," and that "people deserve better."

"The people coming to these rallies deserve substance about plans Trump has as a candidate, if he could elucidate on some of the threats he's made to people," she continued. "I mean, these are important issues that should be discussed for people when they're getting ready to vote, and using my dad to cover over the important things just seems unacceptable to me."

Wears also confirmed to ABC News that she will be voting in the presidential election, though she did not disclose which candidate she plans to vote for.

An unaffiliated North Carolina voter, Wears plans to cast her ballot from one of the seven critical battleground states that could impact the election.

According to 538's polling averages, Trump is leading in North Carolina by 0.8 points.

In an article at The Independent, Ariana Baio reports this was not the first time Trump had shared the Arnold Palmer story in a public setting. Baio writes:

“There are countless stories attesting to Trump’s prurience, indulging in gossip and obsessing over others’ looks. In one of the most memorable, as he prepared for a trip to Latrobe, Pennsylvania, for a rally in late 2020, Trump recounted for Oval Office guests the time he had seen hometown golf legend Arnold Palmer disrobed at the Latrobe Country Club, and the size of his genitalia.”

Trump retold the story to rallygoers over the weekend, claiming when Palmer showered with other golf pros “They came out of there they said, ‘Oh my God. That’s unbelievable’.”

“This is a guy that was all man,” Trump added – an innuendo about Palmer’s genitalia.

The former president an avid golfer, has always expressed admiration for Palmer. He once called him, “a very good friend” and recalled playing golf with him. 

Trump often praised Palmer in his social media posts on X, formerly Twitter. He wished Palmer a happy birthday in 2014 and paid tribute to him after he died in 2016.

Trump’s Saturday anecdote is the latest in a string of strange, rambling stories he’s shared with his supporters while on the campaign trail. In recent weeks, Trump has significantly ramped up his number of rallies – focusing on swing states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Arizona.

In each city or town, Trump tries to relate to voters by sharing a story of his previous time there or bringing up a significant aspect of the area. For Latrobe, that was admiring Palmer.

But Palmer’s family did not find the remarks endearing. Peggy Palmer, the daughter of the late golfer, told The Independent she thought it was “an unfortunate way to remember my dad.”

“My father was very modest,” Peggy continued. “We’ve lost our sense of outrage in this country over just about everything, and I’m not sure that’s OK… There are other things about my dad that would be better to focus on.”

Trump's comment sparked so much nuttiness that a CNN host and a prominent Republican got into an argument over it. Under he headline "CNN host gets into awkward argument with top Republican about Trump’s bizarre Arnold Palmer comment," The Independent's Greg Evans writes:

CNN anchor Jake Tapper got into an awkward argument with Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson about the odd comments that Donald Trump made about former professional golfer Arnold Palmer during a rally on Saturday.

With just days to go before the election on 5 November, Trump used a campaign rally in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, Palmer’s birthplace, to speak for 12 minutes about Palmer’s manhood.

“This is a guy that was all man,” Trump said. “He took showers with the other pros, they came out of there, they said, ‘Oh my God, that’s unbelievable.’ I had to say it.”

“I had to tell you the shower part because it’s true,” he added.

Speaking to Johnson after the rally, Tapper questioned why Trump used a good chunk of his rally to talk about Palmer in such a manner, asking the Speaker of the House: “Is this really the closing message you want voters to hear from Donald Trump, stories about Arnold Palmer’s penis?”

Johnson tried to ignore the question and attempted to pivot to a debate about Kamala Harris, but Tapper refused to let the issue go.

“I’m sure that you think that a policy debate would be better than a personality debate, but if President Biden had gone on stage and spoke about the size of a pro golfer’s penis, I think you would be on this show right now saying you were shocked and appalled and you would suggest it was evidence of his cognitive decline,” Tapper propositioned Johnson, asking: “Why is he talking about Arnold Palmer’s penis in front of Pennsylvania voters?”

“Jake, you seem to like that line a lot,” retorted Johnson.

Tapper protested this, claiming that he didn’t like talking about Trump’s comments but that he had to because “Donald Trump is out there saying it.”

Johnson did eventually address Trump’s comments about Palmer, saying: “ I get it. There are lines in a rally. When President Trump is at a rally, sometimes he’ll speak for two straight hours.”

Johnson then went on to attack Biden and Harris again and put forward why he believes Trump will win in November.

The 52-year-old concluded by saying: “He says things that are off the cuff. But I’m telling you, I’ve been in those events. I’ve been in those arenas, and people have a great time at those arenas.”

Social media users were quick to mock Trump for his Palmer anecdote.

“According to the most recent NYT/Siena poll, the top three issues for swing voters include: 1. Inflation 2. abortion 3. The size of Arnold Palmer’s schlong,” podcast host Dan Pfeiffer wrote on X.

“But don’t call them weird,” author Jennifer Taub posted, alluding to Kamala Harris’s moniker for the former president and his running mate, JD Vance.

Ex-Trump officials release a letter supporting John Kelly's warnings that their one-time boss is a fascist and Hitler admirer who would rule as a dictator

Donald Trump and John Kelly (Getty)

 

Thirteen former aides to Donald Trump have signed a letter backing Gen. John Kelly's stark warnings that the former president is a fascist and admirer of the late Nazi leader Adolph Hitler and hopes to govern as a dictator if re-elected this year.

The letter was shared exclusively with Politico, which broke the story under the headline "Ex-Trump aides emerge to back Kelly’s harsh warnings; The letter from former White House officials comes as Harris is leaning into her closing argument that Trump is a threat to democracy. Meredith McGraw writes: 

More than a dozen former Trump administration officials on Friday came out in support of former chief of staff John Kelly, who went on the record this week to say the former president fits the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator, and has no concept of the Constitution.

In a new letter, shared exclusively with POLITICO, the former Trump administration officials — some of the officials have been outspoken Trump critics for years — stated, “this is who Donald Trump is.”

“The revelations General Kelly brought forward are disturbing and shocking. But because we know Trump and have worked for and alongside him, we were sadly not surprised by what General Kelly had to say,” the letter states.

Like Kelly, the former aides now see Trump as a danger to the United States, its government, its citizens' way of life, and perhaps world stability. They add that Kelly's warning should be taken seriously. McGraw writes:

“We applaud General Kelly for highlighting in stark details the danger of a second Trump term. Like General Kelly, we did not take the decision to come forward lightly. We are all lifelong Republicans who served our country. However, there are moments in history where it becomes necessary to put country over party. This is one of those moments” the letter states. “Everyone should heed General Kelly’s warning.”

The letter was signed by Trump administration officials, including Kevin Carroll, former senior counselor to Kelly; former deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews; former assistant secretary of homeland security Elizabeth Neumann; former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci; former chief of staff at the Dept. of Homeland Security Miles Taylor; former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham; former press secretary to the vice president Alyssa Farah Griffin; and former national security adviser to vice president Pence, Olivia Troye.

Taylor was the author of Anonymous, a book warning about Trump, and Troye and former press secretary Stephanie Grisham spoke at the Democratic National Convention.

The letter comes as Vice President Kamala Harris is leaning into her closing argument that Trump is a threat to democracy and poses a distinct threat if he’s re-elected. It’s a message she and her campaign staff believe resonates with independents and Trump-weary Republicans who are concerned about the former president returning to the Oval Office.

On Wednesday night, Harris’ campaign conducted a focus group with undecided voters in a battleground state, where the participants found Kelly to be credible and trustworthy and his criticism of Trump, according to a campaign official, granted anonymity to discuss the findings, made some of them think twice about the former president.

According to a campaign official, the Harris campaign learned that persuadable and undecided voters in recent battleground state polling, their target group, said that the former president’s pursuit of “unchecked power with no one to stop him” is one of their top concerns. They also found that one of the concerning messages for them on this point is that “those who worked closest with Trump while he was President have left and said he should not be President again because of the risk he poses to national security.”