Insurrectionist-in-Chief Trump 2024 is Not Being Prevented: Joe Biden and Merrick Garland Still Hiding Under Their Desks
David Shasha
Joe Biden’s Absent Presidency
By: Alex Shephard
On Friday, amid mounting pressure to do something—anything, really—to respond in some material way to the threats to reproductive rights spurred by the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last month, President Joe Biden signed an executive action relating to contraceptive access and interstate travel. The president’s orders effectively act as bulwarks against potential laws that are likely to be passed in some states controlled by Republicans: One was aimed at efforts to restrict access to federally approved abortion medication, the second responded to the threat of Republican attempts to make traveling across state lines to receive an abortion illegal. Still, the most notable thing about these executive orders was that they were so late in arriving.
Samuel Alito’s draft decision overturning Roe leaked on May 3; it was widely known that when the decision became official, numerous “trigger laws” further limiting reproductive rights would snap into place all across the country and that Republican legislatures would get to work—on not just the next wave of abortion restrictions but the next fronts in the culture war. The White House—and, for that matter, senior Democratic leadership—has had two months to prepare for events that became inevitable the moment Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court in the fall of 2020. Charitably, the response from Biden and other senior White House figures has been passive at best. When they have said anything, it has been “vote”—a word Biden repeated several times in a row while signing the actions on Friday, seemingly without regard for the GOP’s well-funded voter-suppression campaign for which the administration has provided few countermeasures. Nevertheless, these admonitions were vastly superior to the word salad Kamala Harris offered during a Sunday appearance on Face the Nation.
VP Kamala Harris admits that the right to an abortion was taken for “granted,” but says Congress must now codify the “principles behind Roe,” similarly to what America did with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. pic.twitter.com/xI6XtetxAm
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) July 10, 2022
In a year of crises—Roe, Ukraine, inflation—Biden has been notably tucked away, his major communications coming in newspaper op-eds (another, Monday morning, detailed his goals for a diplomatic trip to the Middle East). With Roe, the situation is particularly galling, given the long lead time the administration was given. That Pete Buttigieg, the secretary of transportation, has recently emerged as the administration’s most effective spokesperson on a range of issues, is itself a damning indictment of the administration’s messaging. (Fox News keeps booking Buttigieg for appearances seemingly out of the desire to spar with someone with a pulse.)
On Friday, Bloomberg reported that the administration had considered declaring a public health emergency to protect abortion access but ultimately decided against it. It was more decisive on other matters: On the very same day that Roe was struck down, Biden reached a deal with Mitch McConnell to appoint an anti-abortion judge to the federal bench in Kentucky. When pressed about the administration’s lack of action regarding Roe, White House communications director Kate Bedingfield insisted that it was those who’d raised a hue and cry about the loss of reproductive freedom who were the real problem. “Joe Biden’s goal in responding to Dobbs is not to satisfy some activists who have been consistently out of step with the mainstream of the Democratic Party,” Bedingfield told The Washington Post. “It’s to deliver help to women who are in danger and assemble a broad-based coalition to defend a woman’s right to choose now, just as he assembled such a coalition to win during the 2020 campaign.” The message is clear: It’s your fault that we aren’t doing anything.
Biden’s absence is particularly striking because it’s so uncommon. “At least since Franklin Roosevelt, every president has in one way or another steered the national discussion or at minimum had a strong and impossible-to-miss voice in it,” wrote Robert Kuttner in The American Prospect over the weekend. “You almost have to go back to those mid-19th-century presidential nobodies—Franklin Pierce? Millard Fillmore?—to find a president who figured so little in the national discourse, or who so ceded leadership to prominent members of Congress.”
Biden appears to be trapped in a vicious cycle. With his approval rating plummeting, he and his advisers appear to be gripped with anxiety that doing anything will only make things worse. And so he says little and does nothing, hoping that voters will blame Republicans for what’s ailing the country—or at least recognize the existential threat they pose to American democracy—and vote for Democrats in November. It clearly isn’t working: In the most recent New York Times/Siena College poll, released on Monday, nearly two-thirds of Democratic voters say “they would prefer a new standard-bearer in the 2024 presidential campaign.”
What’s odd is that with Roe, the administration considered an option that would have helped its larger problems. Declaring a public health emergency would have led to a lengthy court battle. This is one reason why it was rejected out of hand. But right now, everything Democrats want to do will be subject to judicial review. Sometimes you need to pick the fights; in this case, it would have signaled an unfaltering commitment to battling for reproductive rights. Instead, Biden has essentially signaled that the fight cannot be enjoined until voters go to the polls in November. Voters, of course, understand the reality of congressional majorities. At the moment, however, they’re receiving little reason to be optimistic. Much of Biden’s current polling slide can be explained by diminished support among Democrats: More aggressive action—even more aggressive statements—could help stem the tide by providing a jolt of enthusiasm.
Doing something at this point is a tall order for an administration that seems intent on doing as little as possible to rock the boat. But for most of this year, as Biden has shrunk from the presidency, the enthusiasm for his presidency among ardent Democrats has waned. To achieve their electoral goals, Democrats need to give voters reasons to believe, and the only way to reverse Biden’s sliding popularity is for him to step forward and start providing these reasons.
The bully pulpit is not perfect. It is notoriously ineffective at persuading the masses to adopt policies that are broadly unpopular. But a large canon of political science research has found that it is effective at “facilitating change in a favorable environment”—that is, galvanizing the public behind popular ideas and breaking through the typical inertia of our politics. Abortion rights are very popular. This is very favorable terrain. It’s very reminiscent of a moment in May 2012 when a vice president went on television and said, of marriage equality, “The good news is that more and more Americans have come to understand that what this is all about is a simple proposition. Who do you love?” And the world spun forward.
From The New Republic, July 12, 2022
Joe Biden Is Too Old to Be President Again
By: Michelle Goldberg
I can’t help feeling very sorry for Joe Biden. He’s wanted to be president for most of his life, first running 34 years ago. Had his son Beau not died in 2015, Biden might have entered the Democratic primary then; as vice president he would have been a favorite and likely would have beaten Donald Trump.
By the time he finally achieved the office he longed for, he was far past his prime. Trump had left the country in ruins, its institutions collapsing, much of the population gripped by furious delusions, and millions traumatized by the pandemic. Biden was elected to bring back a normality that now appears to be gone for good.
Many of the crises driving down Biden’s approval numbers are not his fault. If an 8.6 percent inflation rate were due to his policies, then it’s hard to see why the rate is even higher in Britain, at 9.1 percent, or why it’s 7.9 percent in Germany. The mulish attachment to the filibuster by Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema makes most legislation impossible. Even if Biden had more activist inclinations, there’s not much he could do about the Supreme Court’s cruel reversal of Roe v. Wade or the increasing tempo of massacres that punctuate American life.
Nevertheless, I hope he doesn’t run again, because he’s too old.
Now, I didn’t want Biden to be the Democratic nominee in 2020, partly for ideological reasons but even more because he seemed too worn-out and unfocused. In retrospect, however, given the way Republicans outperformed expectations, Biden may have been the only one of the major candidates who could have beaten Trump; voters showed no appetite for sweeping progressive change.
So I recognize that I could be wrong when I make a similar argument today. But the presidency ages even young men, and Biden is far from young; a country in as much trouble as ours needs a leader vigorous enough to inspire confidence.
As a recent New York Times/Siena College poll found, 64 percent of Democrats want a different presidential nominee in 2024. Those Democrats cite Biden’s age more than any other factor, though job performance is close behind. Their concern isn’t surprising. Biden has always been given to gaffes and malapropisms, but there is a painful suspense in watching him speak now, like seeing someone wobble on a tightrope. (Some of his misspeaking can be explained by the stutter he overcame as a child, but not all.) His staff often seems to be keeping him out of view; as The Times reported, he’s participated “in fewer than half as many news conferences or interviews as recent predecessors.”
Certainly, there’s something nice about a president who doesn’t torment the country with his vampiric thirst for attention. And by most accounts, Biden is still sharp and engaged in performing the behind-the-scenes duties of his office. But by receding so far into the background, he forfeits the ability to set the public agenda.
You can’t spin away a bad economy, but you can draw attention to its bright spots, like a 3.6 percent unemployment rate. Americans overwhelmingly sympathize with Ukraine, and with a rousing enough message, some might be willing to accept the pain of high gas prices as the cost of standing up to Vladimir Putin. To rally them, however, it’s not enough for the administration to repeat the phrase “Putin’s price hike.” Like the rest of us, the White House had ample notice of the Supreme Court’s intention to overturn Roe v. Wade, but it somehow wasn’t ready with an immediate executive order and public relations blitz.
There’s a problem here that goes beyond a shortage of presidential speeches and media appearances, or even Biden himself. We are ruled by a gerontocracy. Biden is 79. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is 82. The House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, is 83. The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, is 71. Often, it’s not clear if they grasp how broken this country is.
They built their careers in institutions that worked, more or less, and they seem to expect them to start working again. They give every impression of seeing this moment, when the gears of government have seized and one party openly schemes against democracy, as an interregnum rather than a tipping point. Biden’s Democratic critics come from different places on the political spectrum — some are infuriated by his centrism, others worried by his listlessness. What links most of them is desperation for leaders who show urgency and ingenuity.
If there’s one consolation in Biden’s age, it’s that he can step aside without conceding failure. There’s no shame in not running for president in your 80s. He emerged from semiretirement to save the country from a second Trump term, and for that we all owe him a great debt. But now we need someone who can stand up to the still-roiling forces of Trumpism.
There are plenty of possibilities: If Vice President Kamala Harris’s approval ratings remain underwater, Democrats have a number of charismatic governors and senators they can turn to. Biden said, during the 2020 campaign, that he wanted to be a “bridge” to a new generation of Democrats. Soon it will be time to cross it.
From The New York Times, July 11, 2022
We should worry what happens if Trump never faces justice, not if he does
By: Jennifer Rubin
NBC News host Chuck Todd asked Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) on Sunday: “Do you think the country can handle prosecuting a former president?”
The implication seemed to be that Americans should be afraid to hold Donald Trump responsible for the worst betrayal of the public ever committed by a president. Why? Might his supporters start (another) riot? Will Republicans later bring spurious charges against an innocent former president?
Hogan’s answer started badly. “I’m not sure they can,” he said, apparently meaning some subset of Americans could not tolerate the proper functioning of the judicial system. But he swiftly recovered: “I think, you know, no man is above the law,” Hogan said solemnly. “So if that’s where the facts lead, that’s what has to happen.”
Phew. At least one Republican has the temerity to demand justice, regardless of whatever the violent mob might say about it.
Of course, if the facts and law do not support a conviction, Attorney General Merrick Garland’s choice is no choice at all. He must decline prosecution.
But if charges against Trump are well founded, the notion that Garland should be afraid to indict him for, say, seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to incite a riot or conspiracy to commit fraud against the United States presents a false choice.
Should Garland fear acquittal from a jury unable to process the mound of evidence against Trump? This would suggest the jury system is so corrupt that justice against a powerful, rich White man is impossible.
Is the argument that Americans cannot stomach the idea that “no person is above the law” because holding some individuals in positions of power accountable for their crimes would result in innocent people being prosecuted? Again, one wonders if we should declare democracy’s failure inevitable.
The question the media, politicians and voters should be asking is this: After seeing the compelling evidence that the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection already has presented (with more coming on Tuesday and Thursday), how could we afford not to press charges against Trump? One of the committee’s major accomplishments has been to demonstrate that virtually all the compelling evidence against Trump has comes from his closest associates, demolishing the argument that the investigation is a partisan witch hunt.
Put differently, the Jan. 6 committee presents a case almost entirely dependent on Republican witnesses who had the courage to step forward. To ignore their conscientious effort would tell witnesses in future investigations not to fulfill their obligation to tell the truth and defend the Constitution. Is there anything that could undermine the sanctity of oaths and promote spineless obedience to a lawless president than that?
Consider the nonviolent aspects of the coup plot: Trump’s demand that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger “find” just enough votes to swing the state; the letter that Trump wanted the Justice Department to send to state officials falsely declaring the existence of fraud and soliciting fake electors; the wholly baseless objections to electors raised by members of Congress. Wouldn’t declining to prosecute be seen as ratifying these actions? Even a party with some notion of right and wrong would be tempted to deploy these tactics in the future.
That so many people seem to want to pause before prosecuting the leaders of the insurrection for fear of a violent reaction of retaliation signals that moral nihilism is on the rise. Unless Garland puts aside such political calculation, our democratic system might collapse entirely.
From The Washington Post, July 11, 2022
Prosecute Trump? Merrick Garland is prosecuting cautiously
By: Doyle McManus
The House committee on the Jan. 6, 2021, insurgency, whose hearings resume this week, has produced impressive evidence that could allow prosecutors to argue that former President Trump committed crimes as he tried to overturn the 2020 election.
Thanks to the hearings, we now know more clearly that Trump tried to bully Vice President Mike Pence into blocking Congress’ count of electoral votes, tried to bully Justice Department officials into declaring the election fraudulent even though they knew it wasn’t and stood by with seeming approval while his armed supporters sacked the Capitol.
All of which has led many ordinary citizens — and not just Trump-haters — to wonder: Why isn’t Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland prosecuting this man?
The answer is both complicated and simple. Indicting a former president for trying to subvert a presidential election is harder than it looks.
“It’s definitely not a slam-dunk,” Paul Rosenzweig, a former federal prosecutor (and anti-Trump Republican), told me last week. “It will require tough decisions.”
The problem isn’t lack of evidence. The former Trump aides who have testified before the House committee and been interviewed by the FBI have taken care of that.
“We know from the polls that about 30% of the American people think Trump did nothing wrong on Jan. 6,” Rosenzweig said. “Thirty percent of a jury is three or four people. I think getting a unanimous conviction will be nearly impossible, even in the liberal District of Columbia.”
And a trial that ends in Trump’s acquittal, he warned, would backfire.
“It would not only have the effect of giving Trump impunity,” he said, “it would give him impunity and an aura of invincibility.”
Others disagree. Donald B. Ayer, another Republican former prosecutor, thinks a conviction would be possible. “Trump was ready to have Mike Pence be killed,” Ayer said. “You tell that story to a jury, and I think you win.”
But Ayer notes that Justice Department regulations require that prosecutors believe they have a high probability of winning a conviction before they can indict. By that standard, what Garland is doing is both correct and by the book. He’s investigating aggressively — but prosecuting cautiously.
Justice Department lawyers have served subpoenas on Rudolph W. Giuliani and John Eastman, lawyers who advised Trump on his schemes, and on pro-Trump activists who organized bogus slates of “alternative electors” in swing states like Arizona and Georgia.
Last month, FBI agents searched the Virginia home of Jeffrey Clark, a former top Justice Department official who pushed colleagues to endorse Trump’s claims of voter fraud.
And prosecutors have indicted leaders of the right-wing Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militias on charges of seditious conspiracy in connection with Jan. 6.
All of which suggests that the Justice Department is pursuing a traditional organized-crime model in its investigation: prosecuting small fish to build cases against the higher-ups.
Even so, Trump will be able to argue in his defense that he lacked criminal intent, by claiming either that he genuinely believed the election had been stolen or did not know that interfering with Congress could be against the law.
The most likely charges against Trump are conspiracy to defraud the United States, a broad statute that covers almost any illegitimate interference with government operations, and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.
There is also a broader policy question surrounding a decision to indict a former president, an action no prosecutor has taken before: Would it be in the national interest?
“Indicting a past and possible future political adversary of the current president would be a cataclysmic event,” Jack Goldsmith, a former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, warned last month. “It would be seen by many as politicized retribution. The prosecution would take many years to conclude … [and would] deeply affect the next election.”
Others lawyers, both Republicans and Democrats, disagree vigorously.
“It’s essential that Trump be prosecuted, if only to deter him and future presidential candidates from trying to do this again,” Norman Eisen, a former Obama administration official, argued. “It would do terrible damage to allow a former president to walk free after committing acts for which anyone else would be indicted.”
Those debates don’t amount to a conclusive argument against prosecuting Trump. But they do add up to a list of reasons why Garland should avoid a rush to judgment while his investigators do their work — and that, to all appearances, is precisely what he’s doing.
From The Los Angeles Times, July 10, 2022