Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Two political earthquakes in Arizona
Abbreviated Pundit Roundup is a long-running series published every morning that collects essential political discussion and analysis around the internet. We begin today with Yvette Wingett Sanchez of The Washington Post writing about the indictment of Republican “fake electors” in Arizona and Trump 2020 campaign officials that participated in the plot to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Arizona. Those indicted include former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman and Christina Bobb, top campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn and former campaign aide Mike Roman. They are accused of allegedly aiding an unsuccessful strategy to award the state’s electoral votes to Trump instead of Biden after the 2020 election. Also charged are the Republicans who signed paperwork on Dec. 14, 2020, that falsely purported Trump was the rightful winner, including former state party chair Kelli Ward, state Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, and Tyler Bowyer, a GOP national committeeman and chief operating officer of Turning Point Action, the campaign arm of the pro-Trump conservative group Turning Point USA. Trump was not charged, but he is described in the indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator. His campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The indictments cap a year-long investigation by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) into how the elector strategy played out in Arizona, which Biden won by 10,457 votes. Arizona is the fourth state after Michigan, Georgia and Nevada to seek charges against those who formed an alternate slate of presidential electors. As those cases slowly make their way through the legal system, Trump is again running for president, and officials in Arizona and other battleground states are preparing for another likely contentious election. Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic says that it about time indictments in Arizona’s fake electors scheme came down. That jolt you just felt was the political landscape roiling in Arizona as Republicans take their second haymaker of the day — the first being the trampling of House Republicans as three of their members joined with Democrats to overturn the state’s 1864 abortion ban. And now, the long-awaited indictment in the fake elector scheme. Did I mention it’s about time that these fine self-professed patriots who tried to steal Arizona’s vote in the 2020 election finally get their day in court … to explain how they were trying to make America great again by making democracy a thing of the past? [...] Arizona’s 11 Trump “electors” didn’t just spontaneously and on a whim decide to meet up at state GOP headquarters on Dec. 14, 2020, and declare themselves “duly election and qualified” to cast Arizona’s presidential vote for Trump. This, as the same wild idea just coincidentally occurred to Republicans in six other swing states won by Biden. Kylie Cheung of Jezebel writes that the battle for abotion rights in Arizona remains an uphill battle even if the 1864 abortion ban is eventually overturned by the Arizona legislature. There remains a decently uphill battle to save abortion access in Arizona before the 1864 law can begin to take effect on June 8. The state Senate is required to read the bill to repeal the ban on the floor on three occasions in three separate sessions, meaning the earliest it can pass is next month. At the same time that all of this is happening, Arizona reproductive rights organizers have successfully gathered enough signatures to put a measure on the ballot this November that would establish a constitutional right to abortion in the state—which is great! But a strategy document circulating among Arizona Republicans, which was leaked last week, shows they’re also plotting to put an anti-abortion measure on the ballot. And at a state House Rules committee hearing on Wednesday, Republicans voted to advance three resolutions without offering any explanation for what these resolutions entail, which Democrats expect to undercut abortion rights, per NBC. Still, Arizona Democrats are celebrating the passage of the House bill on Wednesday while acknowledging the challenges ahead. Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee National press secretary Sam Paisley called the bill’s passage “a clear victory,” but pointed out that even if the bill is ultimately successful, “an unpopular and dangerous 15-week abortion ban remains” in the state. Chris Geidner of LawDork looks at yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments of Idaho v. United States, a case involving Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) federal protections for women seeking abortion care. Combined, those four justices — Barrett and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — painted a stark portrait of the consequences of Idaho winning in its appeal, bringing a real-world approach to arguments at the high court that can often get hung up on
JoriPress
Abbreviated Pundit Roundup is a long-running series published every morning that collects essential political discussion and analysis around the internet.
We begin today with Yvette Wingett Sanchez of The Washington Post writing about the indictment of Republican “fake electors” in Arizona and Trump 2020 campaign officials that participated in the plot to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Arizona.
Those indicted include former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman and Christina Bobb, top campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn and former campaign aide Mike Roman. They are accused of allegedly aiding an unsuccessful strategy to award the state’s electoral votes to Trump instead of Biden after the 2020 election. Also charged are the Republicans who signed paperwork on Dec. 14, 2020, that falsely purported Trump was the rightful winner, including former state party chair Kelli Ward, state Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, and Tyler Bowyer, a GOP national committeeman and chief operating officer of Turning Point Action, the campaign arm of the pro-Trump conservative group Turning Point USA.
Trump was not charged, but he is described in the indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator. His campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The indictments cap a year-long investigation by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) into how the elector strategy played out in Arizona, which Biden won by 10,457 votes. Arizona is the fourth state after Michigan, Georgia and Nevada to seek charges against those who formed an alternate slate of presidential electors. As those cases slowly make their way through the legal system, Trump is again running for president, and officials in Arizona and other battleground states are preparing for another likely contentious election.
Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic says that it about time indictments in Arizona’s fake electors scheme came down.
That jolt you just felt was the political landscape roiling in Arizona as Republicans take their second haymaker of the day — the first being the trampling of House Republicans as three of their members joined with Democrats to overturn the state’s 1864 abortion ban.
And now, the long-awaited indictment in the fake elector scheme.
Did I mention it’s about time that these fine self-professed patriots who tried to steal Arizona’s vote in the 2020 election finally get their day in court … to explain how they were trying to make America great again by making democracy a thing of the past? [...]
Arizona’s 11 Trump “electors” didn’t just spontaneously and on a whim decide to meet up at state GOP headquarters on Dec. 14, 2020, and declare themselves “duly election and qualified” to cast Arizona’s presidential vote for Trump.
This, as the same wild idea just coincidentally occurred to Republicans in six other swing states won by Biden.
Kylie Cheung of Jezebel writes that the battle for abotion rights in Arizona remains an uphill battle even if the 1864 abortion ban is eventually overturned by the Arizona legislature.
There remains a decently uphill battle to save abortion access in Arizona before the 1864 law can begin to take effect on June 8. The state Senate is required to read the bill to repeal the ban on the floor on three occasions in three separate sessions, meaning the earliest it can pass is next month. At the same time that all of this is happening, Arizona reproductive rights organizers have successfully gathered enough signatures to put a measure on the ballot this November that would establish a constitutional right to abortion in the state—which is great! But a strategy document circulating among Arizona Republicans, which was leaked last week, shows they’re also plotting to put an anti-abortion measure on the ballot. And at a state House Rules committee hearing on Wednesday, Republicans voted to advance three resolutions without offering any explanation for what these resolutions entail, which Democrats expect to undercut abortion rights, per NBC.
Still, Arizona Democrats are celebrating the passage of the House bill on Wednesday while acknowledging the challenges ahead. Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee National press secretary Sam Paisley called the bill’s passage “a clear victory,” but pointed out that even if the bill is ultimately successful, “an unpopular and dangerous 15-week abortion ban remains” in the state.
Chris Geidner of LawDork looks at yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments of Idaho v. United States, a case involving Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) federal protections for women seeking abortion care.
Combined, those four justices — Barrett and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — painted a stark portrait of the consequences of Idaho winning in its appeal, bringing a real-world approach to arguments at the high court that can often get hung up on technical debates that elide the effects of the court’s decisions.
The case over the Biden administration’s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) was an obvious result of the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, and the women justices — including Barrett, who had joined the five-justice majority ending Roe — wrestled with the consequences of that ruling far more directly than the men did on Wednesday.
At the end of the two hours of arguments, however, it appeared that the decision in the case would come down to two of those men: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Heather Digby Parton of Salon points out that President Joe Biden is on a roll and the Republican Party is not.
I think we're all familiar with Biden's big legislative wins in the first two years: the American Rescue Plan, which set the table for a very positive economic recovery, a big infrastructure bill that is just now coming online all over the country, the first major gun safety bill in decades, capping prescription drug costs for seniors and much more. And it was all done with razor-thin majorities in both chambers. Most pieces of legislation passed with bipartisan votes despite what is arguably the most toxic political environment since the 1850s. It was a remarkable feat but I think most observers assumed that it was going to be the end of it when Republicans managed to eke out a tiny victory and flip control of the House in 2022. How could anything get done with Donald Trump pulling the strings and crazed right-wing extremists dominating the caucus?
House Republicans had their fun with the Hunter Biden farce and the various "investigations" into the so-called Biden Crime family which have gone nowhere. And immigration has been a genuinely vexing problem that the GOP has exploited as they always do. But as it turns out, while the House Republicans ran around in circles causing chaos on a weekly basis, the important sausage kept getting made. And despite all the drama, the Biden White House ended up getting most of what it wanted without having to give up much of anything in return, at least in part because the Republicans wouldn't take yes for an answer when concessions were offered.
The biggest achievement was avoiding a costly debt limit/government shutdown and I wouldn't have bet that would happen. But former speaker Kevin McCarthy and the White House negotiated a spending deal that served as the excuse to take down McCarthy. (As it turns out it was really about McCarthy refusing to stop an ethics investigation into Florida gadfly Matt Gaetz, but that's another story.) McCarthy's successor Mike Johnson kept the spending agreement in place and fought off another attempt to shut down the government. Just this past month, House Republicans passed the FISA extension backed by the White House and now the big national security package: the ugliest sausage-making extravaganza ever.
Once again, The Boston Globe’s Kimberly Atkins Stohr chastises that U.S. Supreme Court because of its apparent desire to run out the clock in the Trump presidential immunity case.
The only way the court’s ruling can actually matter is if it is handed down in time for Trump to be tried and sent to a jury before Americans vote in the presidential election. The clock is ticking. But the justices know that.
And that could be the endgame for conservatives on the court who, for obvious reasons, don’t want to make a ruling in Trump’s favor that obviously flies in the face of the Constitution’s words and history but who also don’t want to set Smith on a fast track to convicting him. They can block Smith’s prosecution while hiding their hands, giving Trump the victory he wants by taking their sweet time. [...]
We can speculate as to why time does not seem to be of the essence to the court’s majority. Is it selfish reasons, like the desire of some of the court’s most senior justices to retire soon, but only if a Republican is in the Oval Office? Is it their wish for more conservative federal judges to be appointed to protect their recent jurisprudence on issues from abortion to voting access and gun rights for generations to come? Is it their desire to reverse more precedent — perhaps revisit the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, contraception, and privacy protections, as Thomas has stated his eagerness to do?
Charles Blow of The New York Times predicts that this summer’s Democratic National Convention, to be held in Chicago, could be 1968 redux.
Antiwar groups are already planning large protests at the convention. Hatem Abudayyeh of the U.S. Palestinian Community Network recently told The Chicago Tribune: “We’ll be marching with or without permits. This D.N.C. is the most important one since 1968, also in Chicago, when Vietnam War protesters and the Black liberation movement organized mass demonstrations that were violently repressed.”
[...]
There seems to be a sense in the Biden campaign that it can simply wait the protesters out, that passions will eventually fade and that Democratic voters will fall in line when we get closer to Election Day and the choice between Biden and Donald Trump becomes more stark.
That is a reckless gamble. The protesters and many voters are upset about something more than a regular matter of foreign policy. Many believe that they are witnessing a genocide aided and abetted by an American president whom they supported. They feel personally implicated in a conflict in which the death toll continues to rise, with no end in sight. This is a moral issue for them, and their position won’t be easily altered
Adam Serwer of The Atlantic calls out Tom Cotton and other Republican politicians that consistently and unnecessarily call for the deployment of the U.S. military in American cities.
On Monday, the Arkansas senator demanded that President Joe Biden send in the National Guard to clear out the student protests at Columbia University against the Israel-Hamas war, which he described as “the nascent pogroms at Columbia.” Last week, Cotton posted on X, “I encourage people who get stuck behind the pro-Hamas mobs blocking traffic: take matters into your own hands. It’s time to put an end to this nonsense.” He later deleted the post and reworded it so that it did not sound quite so explicitly like a demand for aspiring vigilantes to lynch protesters.
This is a long-standing pattern for Cotton, who enjoys issuing calls for violence that linger on the edge of plausible deniability when it comes to which groups, exactly, are appropriate targets for lethal force. During the George Floyd protests of 2020, Cotton demanded that the U.S. military be sent in with orders to give “no quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters,” insisting unconvincingly in a later New York Times op-ed that he was not conflating peaceful protesters with rioters. Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who had raised a fist in apparent solidarity with the mob that assaulted the Capitol on January 6 before fleeing through the halls to avoid them once the riot began, echoed Cotton’s call for deploying the National Guard to Columbia. (Both men, as it turns out, are in favor of some quarter for “insurrectionists” who happen to be on the right side.)
What Cotton and Hawley are doing is simple demagoguery. When Donald Trump was inaugurated president, he spoke of an “American carnage” that he would suppress by force. Trump’s attempts to apply the maximum level of violence to every problem did not solve any of them. Migration at the southern border surged in 2019 until a crackdown in Mexico and the coronavirus pandemic brought it down; Trump’s presidency ended with a rise in violent crime (another likely pandemic effect, among other factors) and with widespread civil-rights protests.
Finally today, Jess Bidgood of The New York Times milks yet another Siena/NYT poll and observe that a majority of men feel that Donald Trump respects women. (Women do not feel that way according to the same poll.)
Trump, a man known for bragging about grabbing women’s private parts — and on trial in connection with the cover-up of a sex scandal involving a porn star — has long symbolized a kind of machismo that to many people reads as misogyny.
But that disparity is important to understand in an election that already seems primed to turn on the question of just how big the gender gap between Trump, who draws more support from men, and President Biden, who leads among women, is going to be. Our poll found that Trump had a 20-percentage-point lead among men, while Biden had a 16-percentage-point lead among women.
[...]
“The formula for any Democrat in a close race is to win women by more than they lose men, and frankly, right now we’re behind,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster for Biden’s 2020 campaign. “Having women become as intensely anti-Trump as men are pro-Trump is really, really important.”
Have the best possible day everyone!
