Republicans Defending Joe Biden
President Joe Biden delivers remarks at the inaugural convening of the White House Council on Supply Chain Resilience, Monday, November 27, 2023, in the Indian Treaty Room of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building at the White House. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)
The Republican former lieutenant governor of Georgia is endorsing Joe Biden and Republicans don’t like it. In an op-ed in the Atlanta Journal, Geoff Duncan takes to task those Republicans who have criticized Donald Trump but pledged to “support the ‘Republican ticket.’” (If you don’t subscribe to the Journal, you can listen to Duncan’s interview on the AJC’s “Politically Georgia” podcast for free.”)
Erick Erickson was one of the most coherent critics of Duncan’s article. In his response, Erickson lamented in his piece, “When Republicans Defend Joe Biden,” “I like Geoff and understand the concerns about Trump as well as anyone. As I write this, Donald Trump is in court with a pornstar testifying against him. I get it.”
“But what Geoff is missing is that he’s asking Americans to vote for a man whose policies are simply not working for the average American voter,” Erickson added.
He cites as examples “Instead of betting on the free market to innovate after it was clear the country was not headed towards a depression following COVID, Biden spent obscene amounts of money and created inflationary pressures that are outpacing wages and killing middle-class Americans” and that “Biden’s biggest donors fund antisemitic protests on college campuses. He also adds “Biden’s war on affordable energy, assault on reliable appliances, [and] his complete disregard for the safety and dignity of women’s sports.”
Let’s take a closer look at this list. First, I’m a critic of government overspending, but the link between recent spending and current inflation is not firmly established. The fact is that inflation came on after the pandemic and was a worldwide phenomenon.
Further, much of the “obscene amounts of money” were spent by Joe Biden’s predecessor. Although Donald Trump campaigned on reducing the debt, he was the biggest spender since… well, since the president before him. The truth is that, for the past few decades, each president has outspent the last, regardless of party. Republicans had the opportunity to cut spending under Trump. Instead, they added nearly as much to the national debt in four years as Barack Obama did in eight, an increase in the debt of 40 percent. In case anyone doesn’t remember who signed off on the massive bailouts to farmers and COVID stimulus payments, Donald Trump made sure his name was on the stimulus checks. (Admittedly, he is better remembered for other checks.)
Erickson’s second point is not a Biden policy at all. Instead, he cites the actions of “Biden’s biggest donors.” Biden himself has been critical of the anti-Semitic protests and made several statements condemning anti-Semitism while maintaining support for Israel’s retaliatory attacks on Hamas despite a split in the Democratic Party over the war that has impacted his approval with his base.
Biden’s “war on affordable energy” isn’t going well if it is a real initiative. Politico notes that oil, natural gas, and renewable power are all setting records under Biden. Oil and electricity prices are near historic averages, internet memes touting pandemic gas prices notwithstanding.
As Politico points out, Biden’s “all of the above” energy strategy is drawing fire from both sides. Republicans don’t like the green energy initiatives and progressives don’t like the record-breaking domestic oil production. The progressive anger has also affected his approval rating.
As far as an “assault on reliable appliances,” the Biden Administration is not “coming for” your gas stoves and old appliances, as some on the right have suggested. The truth is that the Department of Energy has proposed new efficiency standards for appliances, but this will not affect old appliances in homes or models currently on the market. It will also not eliminate new gas stoves, as some Republicans claim.
Per the DOE press release, the changes were “congressionally mandated” and received support from a “broad coalition of appliance manufacturers and advocates for consumer protection, water and energy efficiency, and climate action,” and “align with recommendations from a diverse set of stakeholders, including manufacturers.” The release further notes that the new standards will save American households $2.2 billion annually.
The Washington Post reports the standards closely follow the terms of a deal reached between consumer advocates and manufacturers last year. The majority of cooking products currently on the market already meet the new standards, which affect only three percent of gas stoves and 23 percent of electric stoves. Low-end models may become slightly more expensive to meet the new standards.
“It was quite a process, but we’re very supportive of where we got with the package of standards,” said Jill Notini, vice president of communications and marketing at the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.
It’s reasonable to criticize the new standards, but they do not appear to represent “an assault on reliable appliances” when they don’t affect most models currently on the market. An assault on the cheapest appliances, maybe.
How about the claim that Biden is attacking the “safety and dignity of women’s sports?” I agree with the majority of Americans that biological males should not compete in women’s sports, but PBS points out that transgender athletes are not mentioned in the new rules, although there originally was a proposed rule that would have banned bans on transgender athletes.
The rules do add protections for LGBTQMNOP students, however, as well as reversing a Trump Administration rule that raised the bar for complaints about sexual harassment and required live hearings with the opportunity to cross-examine. Republicans say that Title IX rules were not intended to protect on the basis of gender identity, a statement that I agree with, but the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock that sex discrimination under Title VII included gender identity and sexual orientation. That 2020 ruling seems pretty close to the Biden Administration’s new rules and is probably pretty close to where the majority of Americans stand as well.
The courts will have to determine what the rules actually mean, but I see no evidence that they undermine the safety or dignity of women’s sports. With regard to protection from sexual harassment, they seem to enhance the safety of female athletes.
Moreover, I disagree with Erickson that the election will be about issues. I think it will be a referendum on Donald Trump. Even if we do have an issues election, Trump’s platform and legislative history are not great. The Former Guy’s platform for this campaign is skimpy so far but includes consists almost entirely of three things:
I can also add, as my friend Steve Berman recently noted, that Trump and MAGA have led the GOP into a long string of policy failures. In addition to losing elections, they have failed to repeal Obamacare, failed to build a border wall, failed to impeach Joe Biden, and perhaps most egregiously, failed to pass a long-awaited immigration compromise authored by Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.). Part of the reason for killing the bill was that it contained aid to Ukraine (it was originally a foreign aid bill; the border money was added later due to Republican demands.) The aid passed. Trump and MAGA killed the immigration portion.
Is MAGA tired of winning yet?
In contrast, Biden’s platform looks almost Reaganesque. That’s especially true in a few key points. First and foremost, Biden wants to support our allies, particularly Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. President Reagan was staunchly anti-communist and a harsh critic of Russia. Reagan funded numerous groups of freedom fighters struggling against Russian and communist aggression. I’m sure that he would be a proud supporter of the defense of Ukraine.
Second, Biden and his Fed are Reaganesque in their approach to inflation. I’ll give Jerome Powell more credit here, but the current economic leadership is taking the same approach to fighting inflation that Ronald Reagan and Paul Volcker (a Carter appointee) did in the early 1980s. Raising interest rates is the key to reining in inflation, and it looks as though Biden-Powell may be able to pull of the soft landing that Reagan-Volcker could not.
Additionally, like Reagan, Biden has a mixed record on free trade, but he is the more conservative of our two current choices on the issue. One of my big disappointments was Biden’s preservation of so many Trump-era tariffs, but David Henderson of the Hoover Institution points out that Biden’s trade advisors are more open to free trade than Trump’s. I remain hopeful that Biden will remove Trump’s trade taxes as inflation and the economy cool.
I still believe that the election will be about Trump’s lack of character and unfitness to lead. The Former Guy is unchanged from the person who tried to steal the 2020 election. He’s not only unchanged, he’s defiant.
Trump is too dangerous to return to power. That is THE issue of the 2024 election.
As a conservative, I have plenty of disagreements with Joe Biden, but he’s a typical politician. He is not a radical, no matter how much Republicans try to paint him as one. In fact, Biden is the most conservative Democrat who could get elected. That still leaves him to my left, but the Republican Party is now also to my left on a lot of issues.
That is especially true now that Trump is showing his truer colors. Trump can be most easily understood as the caricature of what a New York liberal thinks a conservative Republican is. And his portrayal is so convincing that he has won over a majority of the party.
But not everyone. Thank goodness for a few stalwarts like Geoff Duncan who see that Trumpism a dead end. Trump has killed conservatism within the Republican Party, leaving only a trail of destroyed conservative careers and dried-out husk of a party akin to the empty shells of cicadas that currently litter the South
On the other hand, Erickson and many others decry Trump but then fall in line. I suspect that Erickson is following his previous pattern of attacking Trump for four years and then endorsing him in an election year. It’s worth remembering that Erickson and most other Republican Trump critics have opposed every attempt to rein in Trump (with the exception of the 2024 primaries), including both impeachments and the criminal indictments. Personally, I think this is disingenuous and not good for the country or the party.
If Trump is bad, put your money where your mouth is, and don’t support him. I’d say the same to Paul Ryan and other Republicans who say they will write in a Republican rather than vote for either Trump or Biden.
Liz Cheney put it best when she said, “We can survive bad policy, we cannot survive a president who torches the Constitution.”
That is what this election is about. That is our choice.
Remember how you felt when you watched the MAGA mob attack the Capitol on January 6, because that is what you will be voting for if you vote Trump.
I applaud your analysis and principle, well done.Report
You’re giving Biden way too much credit on inflation. The ARP was a huge dose of stimulus to an economy that didn’t need it, and this was mildly but totally unnecessarily aggravated by Biden repeatedly extending the student loan payment pause long past the point where there was any even remotely plausible justification for doing so. Inflation started taking off almost immediately after the ARP checks went out.
Yes, many other countries had inflation, but many other countries also overspent during COVID, and Europe was hit harder by the war in Ukraine. Japan had 2.5% inflation in 2022, and Switzerland 2.8%, compared to the US’s 8%.
No, Biden and the Democrats were not solely responsible for high inflation. There were a number of other factors, including supply-side factors, the Fed waiting too long to raise rates in 2021, and also people going out to spend excess pandemic savings after getting vaccinated (but we knew this, which strengthens the argument that the ARP was an unforced error). But Biden’s mismanagement was a significant contributor, likely adding 2-3 points to peak inflation.
Yes, the Trump administration spent more in 2020 than the Biden Administration spent in 2021, but you should know better than to fall for such a transparently disingenuous talking point. 2020 was a very different situation that called for a very different response. As there were no COVID vaccines at the time, there was a (somewhat) bipartisan consensus that a planned partial shutdown of the economy was called for, during which unemployment spiked to nearly 15%, and a large burst in spending was needed to support people affected. IMO there should have been less spending, but a Democrat with a trifecta definitely would have spent as much or more.
By March of 2021, unemployment was down to 6.1% and rapidly falling, vaccines were rolling out, and, as noted above, there was already a tremendous amount of latent stimulus embedded in excess savings from 2020. There was no economic justification for an additional stimulus round, or for extension of the student loan payment pause or expanded unemployment benefits past, say, June of 2022 (when vaccine uptake went from supply-constrained to demand-constrained), and these were all economic blunders (and/or cynically political ploys) that contributed to excessive inflation.
Also worth noting that continued excess spending has forced the Fed to raise rates more than they would have otherwise, and that approximately 100% of the persistent inflation (i.e. the fact that prices are still 10-15% above the pre-COVID trend, and will remain there) is attributable to excess fiscal and monetary stimulus. Inflation attributable to supply-side factors goes away when the supply problems are resolved.
This is not to say that Trump was not also a terrible President, but I’m not going to argue with anyone who has nothing nicer to say about Biden than that he has not been a significantly worse President than Trump.Report
Biden has attempted to be much worse on economic policy than he has actually been able to be, but has been held back by Congressional Republicans and the most moderate Democrats.Report
This to me is the more effective approach to actually move someone who thinks that both candidates are horrible — rather than making tenuous arguments about who’s the least worst, talk about the likely population of Congress and which one is likely to be held more in check based on the expected balance of power.Report
One candidate promises to destroy democracy and the rule of law, the other has poor economic policies.
Decisions, decisions.Report
Omigod, a partisan Democratic is positive the Democrat is the better choice! That sure convinces me!Report
Good to know you remain in the destroy democracy camp.Report
“We’re the Democrats! Anyone who votes against us is anti-Democracy! IT’S IN THE NAME!!!!”Report
You really need to get out of your bubble man. Because here in the real world, one party is STILL claiming the last Presidential election was STOLEN from them despite the evidence. And they are ACTING On those claims legislatively at the state and federal level. That actually is a danger to democracy, and while you might be insulated from the initial fallout in purple Colorado, you actually should be concerned about this.Report
I understand why they believe that the election was stolen (even if I think that they are wrong about it).
If the election *WAS* stolen… democracy *WAS* subverted.
You know that Georgia is trying to pass a law saying that all mail-in ballots *MUST* be counted by 8PM on election night, right?
Do you know why that is? I know why that is.Report
The election wasn’t stolen. That you continue to argue from the counterfactual actually smears you the Big Lie.
They believe the election was stolen because someone won it they oppose. And for a number of years they had been lied to that any outcome other then their person winning could ONLY happen because of illegal and immoral actions – namely theft. They chose to believe the lie because it comforted them emotionally.
And so they pass silly laws that will hamstring voters and force the USPS to be the bad guy (because the USPS can’t actually deliver 100% of anything on time), all because they are afraid of loosing political and economic power.Report
See, that’s not what I said. I didn’t say that the election was stolen.
I do understand why they believe that the election was stolen, though.
That’s not the same thing.
They believe the election was stolen because someone won it they oppose.
If that’s how you see it, it must be infuriating.Report
Nice try sir, but I don’t deflect that easily.
Report
Yeah, you can’t even see how someone else would see things differently.
Seeing them believe something that you can’t comprehend must really piss you off.Report
Phillip, like the rest of us, has a very good grasp of how and why the Trumpists refuse to accept the reality of a free and fair election that they lost.
Like, we all have a very good understanding of how and why masses of people cling to delusional beliefs. There are entire sections in the library documenting this phenomenon.Report
Eh, I’m in “show me, don’t tell me” space right now.
But thank you for telling me.Report
If I’m not mistaken, Chip, you used to be a Reaganite, probably grew up among such folks. I grew up among people who are now Trumpists. As a matter of life experience, we have plenty of data on which to base an understanding of why such people see things the way they see them. Your understanding and my understanding of why may differ from their self-understanding of why, but that merely raises a question of who’s right, not some general inability to understand.Report
This is all true and Trumpists especially are not some mysterious and enigmatic group; They are maybe the most overstudied and overindulged group in America today. We know exactly who they are and how they think and what they believe.
My original comment:
“One candidate promises to destroy democracy and the rule of law, the other has poor economic policies” is no longer an opinion upon which reasonable people can disagree.
It is just a plain English black letter recounting of what the Trumpists themselves are saying.
Likewise, Phillip’s comment “They believe the election was stolen because someone won it they oppose” is also not something that people “can see differently” any more than “some people believe the earth is flat and reasonable people can see it that way.”
As someone once said, “Facts are stubborn things”.Report
Not as stubborn as assertions, sadly.Report
Did you know that the theory of evolution is just a theory?
Big, if true.Report
Arguing against Lamarckianism does not a Creationist make.Report
Chip: Did you know that the theory of evolution is just a theory?
So is the theory of gravity.
The James Webb telescope has found a lot of data which is a massive F.U. to existing theories.
We seem to have galaxies that are older than the big bang.Report
It was a mistake for me to have responded to Chip — I should’ve thought ahead about the likely consequences.Report
Really? You’d rather not engage then have to clarify or defend your position? Fascinating.Report
I voted for Trump last time and he attempted to overthrow democracy.
If Trump is elected he needs to dismantle rule of law because if he doesn’t he’ll go to prison.
We’re in “dictator” and “traitor” territory. Right there I need to vote against him if Team Blue has anything even slightly sane.
Joe has had issues, but he’s no where close to Trump and he’s not with the lunatic Left. I haven’t paid a lot of attention but my impression is he’s fine by Blue standards and that’s their big issue with him.Report
That’s fine…I just think maybe y’all didn’t really read my comment, which was about persuasion strategy and not my personal opinion on Trump.Report
Maybe – like Jaybird – you ought to reread your own stuff and use your theory of mind to see if that’s what you actually wrote. Because if Dark and I can come to the same conclusion about something, perhaps a mark was missed.Report
That’s what he actually wrote. It was one sentence. It made a narrow point about the election without denouncing Trump. You and Dark Matter both react emotionally to any sentence about Trump that doesn’t denounce him.Report
Correct – because my experience shows me that conservatives refusing to denounce him are either living in underpants gnome territory, or are willing to tolerate him because he won’t hurt them. That aside, the election is down to Trump and Biden. So if you are writing derogatorily about Biden then you have included Trump.Report
Can you think of any potential downsides to responding with emotion rather than reason?Report
His point was that we aren’t convincing him.
We get it. We aren’t trying to convince him. We are trying to convince normal people of the threat posed by Trump.
And honestly, our best ammunition is just clips and transcriptions of Trump’s comments and actions.
He just says straight up that he wants to be dictator. No fancy arguments are needed.Report
It’s not an emotional reaction. My cold, logical opinion is that Trump should be in prison as a traitor to the country.
I don’t say that lightly. I think Blue/Red constantly claiming [current President] is a [whatever] is a misuse of language.
But we have the problem of what to call a President who refused to step down and attempted a violent insurrection to stay in power.
I refused to vote for Trump in ’16 for calm reasons. Then I voted for him in ’20 for calm reasons. Now I think he should be in prison for breaking serious laws and can’t be trusted to be in office.
He could have accepted defeat gracefully and then successfully ran in 2024 but we are where we are.
You attempt to overthrow Democracy just once and you’ll never hear the end of it.Report
I think it’s fair to discuss this without turning it into the larger issues around Trump. As I said in my below comment the Biden admin overshot, and while I guess reasonable people can differ as to whether overshooting is worse than undershooting, if you care about inflation, Trump is by far the worse candidate. To the extent he has stated any plans it is a combination of (i) 10% tariff on all imported goods, (ii) (apparently?) unfunded tax cuts and (iii) possible threats to independence of the fed. All right when things are starting to slowly get back under control under existing policy.Report
Yeah what few policies Trump has proposed would make Erdoğan blush.Report
Pretty much. I mean on one hand the best kept secret in politics is what Trump would actually attempt to do from a policy perspective if put back in office. But it isn’t like that which has been shared indicates some sort of mastery of technocratic government.Report
That’s a pretty questionable conclusion in context of the last 15 or so years of history and the political situation of the moment. The administration was clearly motivated to avoid what we had coming out of the great recession (i.e. a lost decade of sluggish growth and higher unemployment) and overshot the mark. Whether that happened because the admin set a low (or high really) anchor for the American Rescue Plan in anticipation of having to negotiate it back, or they really thought the numbers were correct, is anyone’s guess.
Either way it’s important to remember that when the plan was crafted everyone thought the Democrats were about to lose the Senate, but then unexpectedly didn’t due to Trump backed candidates losing winnable races. The result was the plan being passed much closer to original ante.
We will probably never know the truth of what happened behind the scenes. But the argument that there was no case for additional stimulation seems pretty well countered by the US’s performance versus the rest of the developed world. The worst you can say is that the administration fell short of perfect, but still managed a (nearly unheard of after the shock we had) soft landing, has us at full employment, and outperforming the rest of the rich world. All things considered that’s pretty good coming out of a once in a 100 years pandemic.Report
Square this
With this
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/19/us-inflation-caused-by-corporate-profitsReport
Corporations aren’t big enough to create inflation. They’re all slaves to the market.Report
They can certainly sustain it though . . .Report
This is like claiming fish sustain water.
Oil is one of the big sources of inflation.
Oil companies don’t set the price of oil.
Companies report inflation, they don’t create it.Report
Oh really? So if Texaco, and BP and Chevron and the lot stopped drilling and decided not to pay OPEC’s set price, the price would come down? Really? That’s funny right there.
And to be clear – you are repudiating the deeply reported data that corporations continuing to profit gouge prices has nothing to do with sustaining inflation? Interesting.Report
Philip: So if Texaco, and BP and Chevron and the lot stopped drilling and decided not to pay OPEC’s set price…
Three Fortune 50 companies collectively commit suicide… why?
The only way that happens is if the gov makes them, so we’re back to the gov.
Philip: deeply reported data that corporations…
This is about the dozenth time I’ve heard politicians claim corporations are setting the market rather than being slaves to the market.
In all of the previous investigations, we found nothing and it was politicians blame shifting.Report
I don’t consider reporters at the WSJ or Fortune or Business Week politicians but whatever.Report
I’m a simple person I reckon.
From dog catcher to president, whatever office I’m voting on, I go with the person I think is most capable and qualified to fill the position. If there is no one on my ballot that is capable for the position, I do not.Report
Good to know you’re a banked Biden vote then.Report
The below link details the various efforts to keep Trump in power.
We are well past “corrupt politician” territory. He attempted to overturn an election. His efforts failed, not because he wasn’t serious, but because various institutionalists refused to go along with that. Pence, the Justice Department, and most of the hundreds of GOP officials he talked to didn’t cooperate.
Putting someone like that back in power is nuts.
He has learned he needs to select people for personal loyalty ahead of time. So Pence won’t be VP and the Justice Department will be purged. He’s even talked about the upcoming purges if he’s elected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_electionReport
The fcuk it is.
I suspect I agree with David Thornton on a lot of issues of substance. But unfortunately this piece, and much or most of what he writes here, is embarrassingly small-minded and tedious.
And oblivious. The world is a different place than it was on Jan 6, or even last year at this time. Since then, we’ve had the terror attacks on Oct 7, the substantive failure of the various legal cases against Trump, the persistence of inflation and the obvious continued deterioration of President Biden’s energy and mental capacity. And in this world, it’s getting more and more difficult to say that America’s biggest priority ought to be keeping former President Trump out of power.
The David Frum/Jennifer Rubin/David Thornton/Chip Daniels theory is becoming less and less relevant every day, and frankly out of the four of them only Frum really even tries to argue a case for it, as opposed to the other three who just put down sill platitudes and banalities as if nobody could actually argue anything else.
No, this is a real election coming up and we’ll have a real choice. If lib wants to win it, they’ll have to find a way out the sterile confines they have put themselves in. And they if they don’t want to win it, well I guess that works for me too.Report
“we’ll have a real choice”
True. The thing that’s killing me is, I think it’s the choice we deserve.Report
Yeah. Unfortunately, I suspect that’s probably true.Report
Koz: the substantive failure of the various legal cases against Trump
Trump has been successful at delaying some of them past the election. The inexperienced Trump appointed Judge has been a problem in the documents case.
Where the system is somewhat “failing” is he’s saying things that would get normal people arrested. By the normal rules you’re not allowed to attack witnesses and the like.
However there is a good chance Trump will be found guilty in some or all of them.
Some of his lawyers are apparently breathtakingly bad. Even the ones that aren’t have the serious problem that Trump is apparently insisting they make political arguments.Report
No no. There’s that too, but I’m talking about something different. I’m talking about Donald Trump either straight out winning on the merits, like the 14th Amendment case. Or, losing legally but demonstrating his substantial innocence, or the corruptness of his adversaries or both. That’s what happened in the Jean Carroll civil case, the Tish James civil case, the Georgia case, and maybe the Alvin Bragg case as well.
Over the last year or three, we’ve all heard a lot from the media and the pundit class talking a big game about how bad Trump is and how much legal trouble he’s in. And things are looking a lot different now that they have to put some cards on the table.
With Trump’s situation as it stands today, it’s weak to say that he can’t or shouldn’t be President because of his legal problems. And without that, the case against Trump is much weaker than the libs thought, or think.Report
In nearly every case you outline, there is no jury verdict yet, nor a judges ruling that vindicates TFG. E. Jean Carrol has now won two multi-million dollar judgments against him in civil matters, and the NY AG has won a several hundred million dollar judgement against him. He has successfully used both verdicts to bloviate and fundraise, but he has in no way “won” anything form those cases. His current NYC case presents a LOT of evidence that he managed to do things that were in the very least illegal, never mind immoral. And when the federal courts – slow as they are – begin hearing his criminal cases I don’t think it will go well for him either.
That aside, as recently as two weeks ago he was openly asking oil company executives for a bribe – specifically $1Billion for his campaign and in exchange he will erase regulation of the oil industry. That alone disqualifies him from the Presidency.Report
“That alone disqualifies him from the Presidency.”
Is that your opinion or does that statement have some basis in black letter law?
And how is that materially different from what politicians do all the time?Report
“They all do it” is a lazy lie.Report
LIe? No, but an exaggeration, yes. And that was not the point of my comment/question–and you know that.Report
I suppose you have privileged insight into what you think the point of what you said was. Or even whether there was one. The rest of us have only what you say to go on. And you said what you said.Report
Often one hears what they want to hear.Report
If there were something I wanted that you were in a position to provide, you might have a point.Report
Bob Menendez starts a federal trial today as a sitting Senator for receiving bribes. Call me nuts, but the idea of TFG receiving a billion dollars for his campaign on a promise to roll back oil industry regulations is at least as bad if not worse. I’d also remind you that after years of having the full force and resources of the U.S. Congress, the GOP has found . . . checks notes . . . zero criminally referable actions by the current president that would be equivalent.
But sure, lets BSDI so we don’t have to worry about accountability or ethics. I mean, both sides HAVE to be bad right?Report
So let’s break this down a tad:
Trump:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/09/climate/trump-oil-gas-mar-a-lago.html
This is the first paragraph:
“Former President Donald J. Trump told a group of oil executives and lobbyists gathered at a dinner at his Mar-a-Lago resort last month that they should donate $1 billion to his presidential campaign because, if elected, he would roll back environmental rules that he said hampered their industry, according to two people who were there.”
Farther down, we get some more details:
“Mr. Trump did not request money in exchange for killing Mr. Biden’s climate regulations, the two people in the room maintained. Rather, the former president told executives that he was determined to squash what he considered anti-business policies, and that the oil industry should therefore want him to win and should raise $1 billion to ensure his success.”
That’s not exactly an overt bribe solicitation. But you hate the guy, so sure, why not. The last thing I want to see is this idiot back in the presidency, but sheesh….
Based upon CBS news, Menendez did a hell of a lot more then what you’re alleging Trump did.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bob-menendez-trial-new-jersey-senator-corruption-case/
I’m not seeing how these are the same thing, nor am I seeing how your original statement is definitively true.Report
I lump that last into “fiscally compromised”.
He desperately needs money to keep his empire alive and is openly asking for “help”. Realistically we should expect a nation state to try to step in because he needs “that” much “help”.Report
The oil folks can easily do that. What with the continued ongoing massive profits they are raking in.Report
Exxon gave $394,114 this cycle and they have $6 million budgeted for lobbying.
Spending millions, much less hundreds of millions, wouldn’t be legal.
Trump needs someone who can burn hundreds of millions of dollars and doesn’t care about breaking the law.
That’s nation state territory, and most of them wouldn’t do it. Basically it’s Saudi Arabia, China, and Russia.Report
He asked oil company executives for $1Billion in exchange for regulatory relief. If they chose to they could collectively meet this. Quid Pro quo.Report
Koz: Trump straight out winning on the merits, like the 14th Amendment case.
That seems unlikely. Trump winning on the merits means a President could just order his political rivals Trump killed. We might have the Supremes establish some sort of test, but the results of that test will still put him seriously over the line.
[Trump] demonstrating his substantial innocence
In all four of them his actions aren’t seriously disputed (although his lawyers are making unserious disputes). Nor is it disputed that those actions are illegal.
or the corruptness of his adversaries
The argument here is that someone else wouldn’t be charged.
This is obviously untrue for both of his attempts to overturn the election (State and Federal), and the efforts to keep seriously classified documents.
For business fraud (i.e. Stormy) I’d say there’s a case to be made (and I’ve made it here) but I’ve been following that one and their case looks a lot more convincing when we drill down into it.
The various civil cases he’s already lost. He owes crazy amounts of money, it’s not clear he can pay, and his appeals don’t seem to have merit so he will eventually need to pay.
With Trump’s situation as it stands today, it’s weak to say that he can’t or shouldn’t be President because of his legal problems.
I don’t understand this conclusion.
Fiscally he’s compromised from the lawsuits he’s already lost and needs to take money from unclear sources just to keep his business alive (this has already happened).
For the two federal cases he needs to take office to order to stop the justice department from trying him (thus the planned purge at Justice that he’s talked about). The documents case has been delayed past the election. Depending on when the Supremes rule, the election interference case might go quick enough to require him to pardon himself.
For the two state cases he may end up in prison, or awaiting to go to prison, while he’s potentially in office.
Any of those 5 are enough to say he shouldn’t be in office.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-indictments-details-guide-charges-trial-dates-people-case/Report
Not on your life. The facts are completely disputed in the Jean Carroll case. In fact, in that case there is basically no evidence against him, except assertions from a woman with a huge motive to lie and a history of making unsubstantiated accusations of sexual misconduct against her.
The Alvin Bragg case and the DC Jack Smith case (and the Georgia case) it’s not at all clear that his actions were illegal, and the Alvin Bragg case in particular is absolutely obscene either way. He’s nominally guilty of the fraud accusations in the Tish James case, which ought to be a 50 dollar fine, if that.
Yes, but it goes well beyond that as well, to the point where it would equally disgraceful if anybody else were charged under the circumstances where Trump has been.
Frankly, a big turning point for me was the statement from Kathy Hochul, the Democratic governor of New York, reassuring the financial community that other people will not be charged in the same circumstances as Trump was in the Tish James case.Report
Koz: The facts are completely disputed in the Jean Carroll case. In fact, in that case there is basically no evidence against him
He’s already lost all of the cases involving her. The big witness for her was Trump himself.
She claimed he’d been defaming her after she made a rape accusation. Jury agreed and awarded her single digit millions.
At that point it should have been clear publicly attacking her was illegal and he should stop. Except he didn’t stop, he continued to do what he’d been found guilty of doing, he just did it more.
So she sued him again for the same thing. Won again. To get him to stop the award got two more zeros put on it so he now owes $600 million or so.
He’s appealing, but his idiot lawyer didn’t create grounds for appeal during the court case. To be fair she’s a Florida Real Estate lawyer and had zero experience in what she was doing, i.e. NY civil.
At this point it’s a legal fact that he defamed her. Trump claiming otherwise in public doesn’t matter to the courts.
Koz: reassuring the financial community that other people will not be charged in the same circumstances as Trump was in the Tish James case.
James is dealing with Trump’s defamation case. I think you’re confusing that with his business records case which is really Presidential Election Interference. This is at least the second case being brought for this sort of thing, I think the first one was against Edwards.
Normally this sort of business records fraud isn’t that serious. What makes it serious if it was done for a larger crime. It’s very hard to see the rest of the financial community interfering in Presidential elections but if they did then I’m reasonably sure they’d get charged no matter what the Mayor has said.Report
That’s right. But that’s because the jury (and judge) were the corrupt instruments of a literal rotten borough who were empowered by some attainder-ish moves in the NY state legislature to piss on Trump in spite of the evident facts of the situation.
That’s right, it doesn’t matter to the courts, but it matters to us, or least it ought to. There was basically no case against Trump. Trump raped Carroll because she said so, the case was in no meaningful way any deeper or stronger than that. In fact, it’s actually quite a bit weaker, given what we know of Jean Carroll’s financial motives, and more importantly, her propensity to assert other unsubstantiated claims of sexual misconduct against her by other men. And in fact, it’s even weaker than that, given that the nature of Carroll’s accusations against Trump are inherently very implausible on its own terms.
Trump is being unfairly railroaded, like for real. I know it’s hard to separate that from his continuous bluster and bullshyt. But still, he is.
No, I think you’re the one being confused here.
Counting the Edwards thing you just mentioned, there are three cases: the “Carroll case”, as I have called it, is a purely private civil lawsuit instigated by Jean Carroll accusing Donald Trump of rape and defamation.
The “Tish James case”, is a sorta rare public civil case by New York State against Trump accusing him of fraud, specifically misrepresenting the square-footage and valuation of some of his real estate holdings way back in the day.
The “Bragg case” is what we’re in the middle of now. That is a criminal case by New York city prosecutors against Trump accusing him of maintaining or creating false business records relating to his payoffs to Stormy Daniels. That’s is where the Edwards things come in. It is an absolute legal abomination, among other reasons because it presumes that the financial structure of the payoffs were an in-kind donation to his Presidential campaign, which is basically the same thing as what the DOJ tried and failed to convict Sen Edwards of. But frankly, this case is ridiculous for many many reasons well beyond that.
The $400 million. $600 million figure is from the Tish James case. I suspect Trump will end up having that award eliminated or substantially reduced.
The $90 million he owes in the Jean Carroll case is equally disgraceful as a legal matter, but I suspect Trump is stuck with that one.
In any event, the big picture is your understanding of theses case is incomplete in some very important ways. I suspect that if you follow them more closely, you might change your mind about them. I know I did.Report