Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Don't lose sight of what's at stake in November
Abbreviated Pundit Roundup is a long-running series published every morning that collects essential political discussion and analysis around the internet. Washington Post: Top Republicans, led by Trump, refuse to commit to accept 2024 election results One possible vice-presidential candidate, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), repeatedly declined to say whether he will accept the outcome. Top Republicans, led by former president Donald Trump, are refusing to commit to accept November’s election results with six months until voters head to the polls, raising concerns that the country could see a repeat of the violent aftermath of Trump’s loss four years ago. The question has become something of a litmus test, particularly among the long list of possible running mates for Trump, whose relationship with his first vice president, Mike Pence, ruptured because Pence resisted Trump’s pressure to overturn the 2020 election. I’m not asking journalists to campaign for Joe Biden. I’m asking journalists to say clearly that there’s a right-wing plot to create a fascist dictatorship. Many journalists are afraid to say it even though it’s true. And their refusal to say it makes a dictatorship more likely.— Mark Jacob (@MarkJacob16) May 8, 2024 Dahlia Lithwick/Slate: How Originalism Ate the Law America is captive to a legal theory that dictates our laws on guns, abortion, and so much more. We need to act. Whatever the current flavor, originalism and its ever-growing progeny hold that judges and justices should ignore every interpretive methodology judges once used to understand a legal text in favor of free-floating feelings about history: What do we think the drafters of the text intended? What do we wish they had intended? What did the readers of contemporaneous public documents understand that text to mean? What did random dictionaries of the time reflect about … words? What—as cited by a lawyer for former President Donald Trump in arguing recently that presidents can occasionally order political assassinations without facing criminal consequences—did Benjamin Franklin announce at the Constitutional Convention? And also, how did the crowd react? Stephanie Scott, who’s now facing criminal charges for mishandling voter data, is listed as a candidate for Hillsdale County clerk on the county’s website. https://t.co/t8ZeB4Mdbt— Craig Mauger (@CraigDMauger) May 9, 2024 Liz Dye/Above the Law: Stormy Daniels Goes Off Script Although it's a script familiar to most women. The New York Times reporters liveblogging from inside the courtroom appear to think that Daniels risks engendering sympathy for Trump and is likely to be confronted on cross examination with the evolution of her story since 2018, when she took a decidedly more lighthearted tone. Daniels also testified that she didn’t care how much she got paid, something belied by her own messages with her manager as they haggled over the final sum. But in six years, she’s never once said that it occurred to her that she was allowed to say “no,” or even to ask that he wear a condom. (He didn’t.)… But if the point of putting Daniels on the stand was to establish that having her story out there in 2016 would have been disastrous for Trump’s presidential campaign, giving him every incentive to pay her to keep quiet, well … mission accomplished there. How did it go Thursday? It went like: Trail lawyer's rule #1 of cross examination: If your cross isn't helping you, then it's hurting you. Sit down.— Randall Eliason (@RDEliason) May 9, 2024 Trump is his lawyers’ worst enemy. The smart strategy would have been to *stipulate* that the encounter with Daniels took place so there would be no reason for her to testify. Instead, they’re heeding his wish, going after her hard on cross-examination. Jurors won’t like it.— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) May 9, 2024 Katie Phang/MSNBC: Why the ‘ick factor’ of Stormy Daniels' testimony is such a powerful force Even Trump lawyer Todd Blanche admitted, “You can’t unring that bell.” This is part of what has been so very interesting about Daniels’ testimony thus far: She has become somewhat of an (inadvertent) character witness for the prosecution who shows the bad character of Trump. Through her testimony, the jury is actually hearing about other “bad acts” by Trump, even though the evidentiary rules typically would not let that occur. Newsmax host Rob Finnerty: "I think the Nikki Haley factor is real ... you can't tell me Trump doesn't have a problem with Nikki Haley voters." pic.twitter.com/r9Zb7DTFoj— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 8, 2024 Monica Potts/ABC: Kristi Noem blamed shooting her dog on the realities of rural life. Experts say that doesn’t add up. As a rural dog owner, I know Noem's story is far from normal. So when South Dakota Gov. and potential Trump VP pick Kristi Noem shared a story in her new book about shooting her 14-month-old dog named Cricket, and later defend
JoriPress
Abbreviated Pundit Roundup is a long-running series published every morning that collects essential political discussion and analysis around the internet.
Top Republicans, led by Trump, refuse to commit to accept 2024 election results
One possible vice-presidential candidate, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), repeatedly declined to say whether he will accept the outcome.
Top Republicans, led by former president Donald Trump, are refusing to commit to accept November’s election results with six months until voters head to the polls, raising concerns that the country could see a repeat of the violent aftermath of Trump’s loss four years ago.
The question has become something of a litmus test, particularly among the long list of possible running mates for Trump, whose relationship with his first vice president, Mike Pence, ruptured because Pence resisted Trump’s pressure to overturn the 2020 election.
Dahlia Lithwick/Slate:
How Originalism Ate the Law
America is captive to a legal theory that dictates our laws on guns, abortion, and so much more. We need to act.
Whatever the current flavor, originalism and its ever-growing progeny hold that judges and justices should ignore every interpretive methodology judges once used to understand a legal text in favor of free-floating feelings about history: What do we think the drafters of the text intended? What do we wish they had intended? What did the readers of contemporaneous public documents understand that text to mean? What did random dictionaries of the time reflect about … words? What—as cited by a lawyer for former President Donald Trump in arguing recently that presidents can occasionally order political assassinations without facing criminal consequences—did Benjamin Franklin announce at the Constitutional Convention? And also, how did the crowd react?
Liz Dye/Above the Law:
Stormy Daniels Goes Off Script
Although it's a script familiar to most women.
The New York Times reporters liveblogging from inside the courtroom appear to think that Daniels risks engendering sympathy for Trump and is likely to be confronted on cross examination with the evolution of her story since 2018, when she took a decidedly more lighthearted tone. Daniels also testified that she didn’t care how much she got paid, something belied by her own messages with her manager as they haggled over the final sum. But in six years, she’s never once said that it occurred to her that she was allowed to say “no,” or even to ask that he wear a condom. (He didn’t.)…
But if the point of putting Daniels on the stand was to establish that having her story out there in 2016 would have been disastrous for Trump’s presidential campaign, giving him every incentive to pay her to keep quiet, well … mission accomplished there.
How did it go Thursday? It went like:
Katie Phang/MSNBC:
Why the ‘ick factor’ of Stormy Daniels' testimony is such a powerful force
Even Trump lawyer Todd Blanche admitted, “You can’t unring that bell.”This is part of what has been so very interesting about Daniels’ testimony thus far: She has become somewhat of an (inadvertent) character witness for the prosecution who shows the bad character of Trump. Through her testimony, the jury is actually hearing about other “bad acts” by Trump, even though the evidentiary rules typically would not let that occur.
Monica Potts/ABC:
Kristi Noem blamed shooting her dog on the realities of rural life. Experts say that doesn’t add up.
As a rural dog owner, I know Noem's story is far from normal.
So when South Dakota Gov. and potential Trump VP pick Kristi Noem shared a story in her new book about shooting her 14-month-old dog named Cricket, and later defended it as one of the tough decisions she'd had to make as a rancher — a regrettable but necessary part of country life — did that sound normal to me?
While Noem is right that country life can be different from city life for dogs (and goats), I still didn't find her story typical. And the information I've found and the reporting I've done shows I'm not alone. More than that, how Americans view and take care of companion animals has changed a great deal in the 20 years since Cricket's brief life unfolded, which might explain why the backlash to Noem's story has been so widespread.
Pay to play from Washington Post:
What Trump promised oil CEOs as he asked them to steer $1 billion to his campaign
Donald Trump has pledged to scrap President Biden’s policies on electric vehicles and wind energy, as well as other initiatives opposed by the fossil fuel industry.
Trump’s response stunned several of the executives in the room overlooking the ocean: You all are wealthy enough, he said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.
Giving $1 billion would be a “deal,” Trump said, because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him, according to the people.
A podcast with Greg Sargent and Barbara McQuade:
Stormy Daniels’s Brutal Mockery of Trump Makes Conviction More Likely
A former federal prosecutor explains how the porn star's testimony, which lampooned Donald Trump, also moved the trial in a good direction for the prosecution.
On Thursday, Stormy Daniels faced tough cross examination from Donald Trump’s attorneys in his hush money trial in Manhattan. By most accounts, she responded with humor and harsh mockery directed at Trump, which helped parry their assaults on her credibility. The ridicule, however, could serve another purpose: It could help convince the jury that Trump had a clear motive for committing crimes related to the hush-money scheme. We talked to former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade, who explains how Daniels’s testimony may have damaged Trump more deeply than it first appears.
Cliff Schecter on the election coverup trial. Well, and other things. As Jake Tapper noted when he read it on air, VonShitzenpants is in the court record now:
