Wednesday, June 26, 2024. Annette’s News Roundup
I think the Roundup makes people feel not so alone.
To read an article excerpted in this Roundup click on its blue title. Each “blue” article is hyperlinked so you can read the whole article.
Please feel free to share.
Invite at least one other person to subscribe today! Here 👇 is the link to share for others to subscribe. https://buttondown.email/AnnettesNewsRoundup
Remember: when you share the Roundup, you are fighting Fascism and helping to bring about a Democratic victory in 2024.
Preparing for the Presidential Debate. Thursday. 9:00 pm EDT, CNN.
Hillary Clinton: I’ve Debated Trump and Biden. Here’s What I’m Watching For
by Hillary Rodham Clinton
Last week I had the time of my life at the Tony Awards introducing a song from “Suffs,” the Broadway musical I co-produced about the suffragists who won women the right to vote. I was thrilled when the show took home the awards for best original score and best book.
From “Suffs” to “Hamilton,” I love theater about politics. But not the other way around. Too often we approach pivotal moments like this week’s debate between President Biden and Donald Trump like drama critics. We’re picking a president, not the best actor.
I am the only person to have debated both men (Mr. Trump in 2016 and, in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary race, Mr. Biden). I know the excruciating pressure of walking onto that stage and that it is nearly impossible to focus on substance when Mr. Trump is involved. In our three debates in 2016, he unleashed a blizzard of interruptions, insults and lies that overwhelmed the moderators and did a disservice to the voters who tuned in to learn about our visions for the country — including a record 84 million viewers for our first debate.
It is a waste of time to try to refute Mr. Trump’s arguments like in a normal debate. It’s nearly impossible to identify what his arguments even are. He starts with nonsense and then digresses into blather. This has gotten only worse in the years since we debated. I was not surprised that after a recent meeting, several chief executives said that Mr. Trump, as one journalist described it, “could not keep a straight thought” and was “all over the map.” Yet expectations for him are so low that if he doesn’t literally light himself on fire on Thursday evening, some will say he was downright presidential.
Mr. Trump may rant and rave in part because he wants to avoid giving straight answers about his unpopular positions, like restrictions on abortion, giving tax breaks to billionaires and selling out our planet to big oil companies in return for campaign donations. He interrupts and bullies — he even stalked me around the stage at one point — because he wants to appear dominant and throw his opponent off balance.
These ploys will fall flat if Mr. Biden is as direct and forceful as he was when engaging Republican hecklers at the State of the Union address in March. The president also has facts and truth on his side. He led America’s comeback from a historic health and economic crisis, with more than 15 million jobs created so far, incomes for working families rising, inflation slowing and investments in clean energy and advanced manufacturing soaring. He’ll win if that story comes through.
In 2016, I prepared intensely for the debates because I knew I had to find a way to cut through Mr. Trump’s antics and help the American people understand what was really at stake. In 90-minute mock debates on an identical stage, I practiced keeping my cool in the face of hard questions and outright lies about my record and character. A longtime adviser played Mr. Trump and did everything he could to provoke, rattle and enrage me. It worked.
Unfortunately, Mr. Biden starts from a disadvantage because there’s no way he can spend as much time preparing as I did eight years ago. Being president isn’t just a day job; it’s an everything-everywhere-all-at-once job. Historically, that has led to weaker first debate performances for the incumbent.
As viewers, we should try not to get hung up on the theatrics. Here are three things to watch for instead.
First, pay attention to how the candidates talk about people, not just policies. In my third debate with Mr. Trump, he promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. I responded that this would have real consequences for real women. Mr. Trump had already said women should be punished for getting abortions. “You should meet with some of the women I’ve met with,” I told him. “I’ve been to countries where governments either forced women to have abortions, like they used to do in China, or forced women to bear children like they used to do in Romania. And I can tell you, the government has no business in the decisions that women make with their families in accordance with their faith, with medical advice.”
On Thursday, Mr. Trump will most likely say he wants to leave abortion to the states. He hopes that sounds moderate. But it really means he’s endorsing the most extreme abortion bans already imposed by many states and all the extreme restrictions to come. Mr. Trump should have to answer for the 12-year-old girl in Mississippi who was raped and then forced to carry a child to term. She started the seventh grade with a newborn because of her state’s draconian abortion ban. It’s because of Mr. Trump that in Louisiana a young girl unable to get an abortion went into labor clutching a teddy bear. Studies find that women living under abortion bans are up to three times more likely to die during pregnancy, childbirth or soon after giving birth. Because of Mr. Trump, one in three women of reproductive age now lives under such restrictions.
Mr. Biden is one of the most empathetic leaders we’ve ever had. Listen to how sincerely he talks about women’s rights, the struggles of working families, opportunities for people of color and the courage of Ukrainian men and women risking their lives for democracy. Mr. Trump can’t do that because he cares only about himself.
Second, try to see through the bluster and focus on the fundamentals at stake. In 2016, Mr. Trump refused to say whether he would accept the results of the election. “I’ll keep you in suspense,” he said. “That is not the way our democracy works,” I responded. “Let’s be clear about what he’s saying and what that means.” You can draw a straight line from that exchange to the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
This time, expect Mr. Trump to blame Mr. Biden for inflation but avoid answering questions about his own economic plans. He has to deflect or lie because his proposals — tax cuts for the superrich, gutting the Affordable Care Act, deporting millions of workers and slapping across-the-board tariffs on everyday goods — would exacerbate inflation, raise costs for American households and cause a recession. That’s not my prediction; it’s from Wall Street’s Moody’s Analytics. Experts at the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated that Mr. Trump’s tariffs alone would mean, in effect, a $1,700 tax increase each year for the average American family — or more.
For his part, Mr. Biden is clearly eager to talk about his plans to lower costs. He has stood up to powerful pharmaceutical companies by capping the cost of insulin and signing a law to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices for the first time. On Thursday listen for plans to take on corporate price gouging and make gas, groceries and housing more affordable. The president has already helped one in 10 Americans with federal student loans get much-needed relief. He most likely will be ready to offer more ideas for how to help young people get a strong start and afford a middle-class life.
Third, when you see these two men side by side, think about the real choice in this election. It’s between chaos and competence.
Mr. Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies and found liable for sexual assault and financial fraud. He’s spent a lifetime putting himself first. If he gets back to the White House, we’ll have more inflation and less freedom. It won’t just be a rerun of his first term. Since losing in 2020, Mr. Trump has become angrier and more unhinged. His former secretary of defense says he is “a threat to democracy.” His former chief of staff says he “has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution and the rule of law.” Remember that on Thursday when you hear Mr. Trump recite his grievances and vow retribution.
By contrast, Mr. Biden is a wise and decent man who is fighting hard for working families. Yes, he’s 81. That’s just three years older than Mr. Trump. And his lifetime of service and experience helps him get things done that make our country stronger and all of our lives better, from bringing Democrats and Republicans together to fix crumbling roads and bridges to standing up to Russian aggression.
This election is between a convicted criminal out for revenge and a president who delivers results for the American people. No matter what happens in the debate, that’s an easy choice. (New York Times).
The Finance World is NOT supporting Trump.
A former Dean of Yale School of Management, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld wrote a NY Times op-ed stating this, but in case you missed it in the Times or in an earlier Roundup.
No CEOs at Fortune 100 companies donate to Trump ahead of 2024 election.
There are zero Fortune 100 CEOs — a group that historically leans Republican — that have donated to former President Trump this election cycle, according to data compiled by Yale's Jeffrey Sonnenfeld.
Why it matters: It's very easy to overstate how much America's business establishment supports Donald Trump.
Just because corporate America has serious issues with Joe Biden doesn't mean they are in Trump's camp. By the numbers: Donations by CEOs of the country's 100 biggest companies haven't recovered since Trump became the Republican nominee in 2016.
He also received no donations from the group when he opposed Hillary Clinton in 2016. In 2020, when he was running as the incumbent, Trump managed to pick up the support of two Fortune 100 CEOs. The last time a non-Trump Republican incumbent was running for president, in 2004, George W. Bush picked up the support of 42 CEOs. Between the lines: Roughly two-thirds of CEOs are registered Republicans, but they're not MAGA.
"The top corporate leaders working today, like many Americans, aren't entirely comfortable with either Mr. Trump or President Biden," writes Sonnenfeld in a NYT op-ed. "They largely like — or at least can tolerate — one of them. They truly fear the other." The other side: Big-name investors seem to be more likely to support Trump than big-name CEOs.
Steve Schwarzman of Blackstone is probably Trump's most prominent investment world supporter. Susquehanna's Jeff Yass — who holds a massive stake in TikTok's parent company — was described recently by Bloomberg as "a former Never Trumper who's recently softened to become an OK-Fine-Might-As-Well-Be Trumper." The bottom line: "Mr. Trump continues to suffer from the lowest level of corporate support in the history of the Republican Party," writes Sonnenfeld.(Axios).
Scoop: 16 Nobel economists see a Trump inflation bomb.
Sixteen Nobel prize-winning economists are jumping into the presidential campaign with a stark warning: Former President Trump's plans would reignite inflation and cause lasting harm to the global economy if he wins in November.
Why it matters: The Nobel laureates are lending their academic prestige to a political argument the Biden administration has been making for weeks: Inflation would be worse under Trump. "While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we all agree that Joe Biden's economic agenda is vastly superior to Donald Trump," the 16 economists write in a letter, first obtained by Axios.
Zoom in: Since prices spiked in the summer of 2022, Democrats have been playing defense on the economy.
But their various explanations — including a brief embrace of the term "Bidenomics" and big media buys — don't seem to have worked. Voters aren't vibing with an economy that the White House says is great. Now Biden's team wants to go on offense and draw attention to Trump's actual proposals — including his plans to impose fresh 10% duties on all imports, and minimum 60% tariffs on Chinese goods. Driving the news: The economists' claim is part of a broader attempt by Biden's campaign to turn the 2024 election into a choice between the two candidates' plans for the future — and not necessarily a referendum on Biden's record.
"We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.'s economic standing in the world, and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.'s domestic economy," the economists write in the letter. "Many Americans are concerned about inflation, which has come down remarkably fast. There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite this inflation, with his fiscally irresponsible budgets," they write. The message was spearheaded by Joseph Stiglitz, who won the Nobel prize for economics in 2001.
He was joined by George A. Akerlof (2001), Sir Angus Deaton (2015), Claudia Goldin (2023), Sir Oliver Hart (2016), Eric S. Maskin (2007), Daniel L. McFadden (2000), Paul R. Milgrom (2020), Roger B. Myerson (2007), Edmund S. Phelps (2006), Paul M. Romer (2018), Alvin E. Roth (2012), William F. Sharpe (1990), Robert J. Shiller (2013), Christopher A. Sims (2011), and Robert B. Wilson (2020). State of play: The economy is expected to be a focus of Thursday night's presidential debate, and both candidates are sharpening their approach to pocketbook issues.
Besides promising corporate America to lower its tax rate from 21% to 20%, Trump wants to eliminate taxes on tipped wages for workers in the leisure and hospitality industries. Biden is sticking with his plan to raise taxes on corporations — and his promise that households who make less than $400,000 a year wouldn't see a tax increase.
Looming behind both approaches is a federal debt that continues to grow, with tax cuts and spending in Trump's first term adding nearly twice to the debt as much as Biden's, according to a new nonpartisan analysis. Zoom out: Biden has presided over a period of solid growth, a strong labor market, and stubbornly high inflation.
Voters don't give him much credit for the first two but they blame him for the third, telling pollsters that high prices are a major source of their economic unease. More than half of voters (wrongly) think the U.S. is in a recession. Some 68% of Americans still think the economy is "not so good" or "poor" according to a recent Fox News survey. The remaining 32% of voters say it's "excellent" or "good." And that poll showed some improvement over earlier and grimmer surveys. The Biden administration is trying to meet voters halfway, asking them to accept that inflation has come down while acknowledging there's more work to do. Officials also are using the levers they have to try to convince voters that they're focused on lowering prices. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen's on Monday announced a $100 million plan to support affordable housing financing. The White House also is going negative, warning that a Trump presidency would take inflation to new heights and that Jan. 6-style attacks on democratic institutions could undermine global economic stability. (Axios)
Finally, Judge Aileen Cannon seems about to reject one Trump argument. Is this really going to happen?
Judge Skeptical of Claim Search Was Mishandled in Trump Documents Case
Judge Aileen M. Cannon appeared to all but dismiss a request from former President Donald J. Trump’s legal team to suppress evidence from the search of Mar-a-Lago.
The federal judge overseeing former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case showed little patience on Tuesday with an argument by his lawyers that the F.B.I.’s search two years ago of Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, was conducted improperly.
The judge, Aileen M. Cannon, has granted a serious audience to several far-fetched arguments by Mr. Trump’s lawyers. But the skepticism she displayed toward their position at a hearing in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla., was a rare example of her turning a critical eye on the defense.
At the hearing, Mr. Trump’s legal team had asked Judge Cannon to suppress any evidence collected during the Mar-a-Lago search — including most of the 32 classified documents he has been charged with removing from the White House — because, they said, the warrant was not specific enough about which parts of the property the F.B.I. could search and what items it could seize.
“It seems like it is,” Judge Cannon said, disagreeing with Mr. Trump’s lawyers about the question of specificity and all but ruling against them from the bench. “I have a hard time seeing what other language needed to be included.”
Granting the defense’s request would be a deadly blow to the classified documents case, keeping the jury from seeing the highly sensitive national security files that Mr. Trump has been accused of holding on to after he left office.
The search of Mar-a-Lago, which took place on Aug. 8, 2022, is the central investigative step in the extraordinary criminal inquiry into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified materials and attempts to obstruct the government’s efforts to retrieve them.
It has engendered yet another conflict between the special counsel’s team and Mr. Trump’s lawyers: The lawyers have accused prosecutors of failing to properly secure the individual items inside the 45 boxes the F.B.I. hauled away from the estate.
Late on Monday night, prosecutors filed court papers pushing back vehemently against Mr. Trump’s claims about the boxes. They said it was all but impossible for the F.B.I. to have kept in order the jumble of items that Mr. Trump had stored in them, describing the contents of the boxes as being organized in a “haphazard manner” and pointing out that materials in them included “newspapers, thank-you notes, Christmas ornaments, magazines, clothing, and photographs of himself and others.”
Tuesday’s hearing about the legality of the search capped three days of proceedings in Fort Pierce that included an expansive debate about the funding and appointment of the special counsel, Jack Smith, who has filed two federal indictments against Mr. Trump, and about Mr. Smith’s attempt to bar the former president from making public remarks that could endanger F.B.I. agents working on the case.
Over the course of the hearings, Judge Cannon has displayed overt frustration with lawyers from both sides and an intolerance for veering outside the bounds of the discussion at hand.
Despite her insistence that the hearings remain on topic, she has been lax in other ways, allowing a backlog of unresolved decisions to pile up on her docket and declining to set a start date for the trial. That has played directly into Mr. Trump’s strategy of seeking to delay a trial as long as possible.
In court on Tuesday, Judge Cannon’s irritation was mostly focused on Emil Bove, a former federal prosecutor who now represents Mr. Trump.
Addressing the judge, Mr. Bove said the F.B.I. had failed to give the agents who searched Mar-a-Lago sufficiently detailed instructions about where to search and what to search for. He also claimed that the bureau left out of the warrant several critical pieces of information that might have changed the mind of Bruce E. Reinhart, the magistrate judge who approved it.
But Judge Cannon was not buying Mr. Bove’s arguments, pointing out that the warrant “clearly delineated” that agents were authorized to search Mr. Trump’s Palm Beach estate for “physical documents with classification markings.”
When Mr. Bove accused the F.B.I. of going beyond the terms of the warrant and “rummaging” through the bedrooms of Mr. Trump’s wife and teenage son, Judge Cannon pushed back hard, getting him to admit that nothing had in fact been found in either place.
Mr. Bove then changed directions, suggesting that there had been dissension within the F.B.I. about whether to obtain a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago or to get permission for a consensual search of the property. Judge Cannon effectively said “So what?” — noting that even if people within the bureau disagreed about how to proceed, it had no bearing on whether there was probable cause to conduct the search.
Speaking for the government, David Harbach, one of Mr. Smith’s top deputies, told Judge Cannon that the search had been conducted fairly and professionally. He pointed out that prosecutors included as part of the search warrant’s application package a letter from Mr. Trump’s lawyers setting out their position about the investigation.
Moreover, Mr. Harbach said Mr. Trump’s lawyers had come nowhere near the high legal threshold needed to support a second request they made to Judge Cannon: to hold a fact-finding hearing delving into whether the warrant had been fairly drafted, a step that would largely serve to eat up additional time.
But even though he was clearly winning the day, Mr. Harbach seemed incapable of simply taking the victory and complained to Judge Cannon about the various ways in which Mr. Trump’s lawyers have “hijacked” hearings by persistently going off topic.
“There’s no hijacking going on,” Judge Cannon snapped back, telling Mr. Harbach the hearing was about to end.
And it did. (New York Times).
Primary Update.
Yes, Republicans in CD 4 in Colorado nominated Lauren Boebert despite the fact that she doesn’t live in their district and they watched her in full fondling action with a first time date during Beetle Juice.
Yes, NBC News projects that Westchester County Executive George Latimer defeated Jamaal Bowman after a bitter and expensive Democratic race in New York’s 16th District. Top issues were Bowman’s criticism of Israel and questions about ‘Why on earth did he set off a fire alarm in Congress?’
Tomorrow is bound to be a big day at the Supreme Court.
Remember - 6/26/03 Lawrence v. Texas ended laws against sodomy, 6/26/13 United States v Windsor ended DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, 6/26/15 Obergefell v Hodges made marriage equality the law of the land.
Expect action as the SCOTUS term draws to a close.
Your Daily Reminder
Trump is a convicted felon.
On May 30th, he was found guilty on 34 felony counts by the unanimous vote of 12 ordinary citizens.
He will be sentenced on July 11th.
