Sign up for the Prompt 2024 newsletter for opinions on the biggest questions in politicsArrowRight
A reader asks: We have seen quite a few Republicans announce they will not be running for reelection. Why would they be doing that now? Do they think if they are on the sidelines in 2024, they won’t be associated with a Trump defeat and can resume their careers in another two years?
Answer: Yes! Serving in the minority is no fun, and serving in the minority with colleagues beholden to MAGA is even less fun. The smarter, saner members want out. Unfortunately, that means the remaining Republican caucus is likely to be worse than ever.
Advertisement
A reader asks: Shouldn’t Democrats campaign on the likelihood that Trump would be willing to give in to a call from Russian President Vladimir Putin that the transfer of Alaska from Russia to the United States was very unfair and that if the United States won’t give it back, Putin will do whatever he wants to get it back, per Trump’s instructions?
Follow this authorJennifer Rubin's opinionsFollow
Answer: Democrats should push for Alaska (and other states that Democrats could flip) not because they fear Trump might sell the state to Putin but because they know he will sell the United States down the drain to placate his idol. As former congresswoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said, “When you think about Donald Trump, for example, pledging retribution, what Vladimir Putin did to [Alexei] Navalny is what retribution looks like in a country where the leader is not subject to the rule of law. … You’ve now got a Putin wing of the Republican Party.”
A reader asks: Why are people missing Trump’s motives on Ukraine? Trump hates Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for not creating fake evidence against Joe Biden in 2020. Trump was impeached the first time for his actions against Ukraine, including withholding aid. Trump holds grudges, and now he is getting vengeance regardless of how many lives are sacrificed.
Advertisement
Answer: Perhaps, but Trump has been clear about his motives. He admires Putin and wants to emulate him. Strongmen who relish violence, disdain democracy and exhibit misogyny and ethno-nationalist bigotry flock to other strongmen with the same profile.
A reader asks: This has been an insane eight years of one person controlling the narrative for our country with a mostly cruel agenda. Does any other politician or otherwise come to mind? Stalin, Hitler, et al., for sure, but any other American?
Answer: Even with Watergate, even with domestic spying and even with the Vietnam War, not even Richard M. Nixon comes close. Millions of people have empowered a uniquely evil man.
A reader asks: I have been following the broadcast and print coverage of the relationship issue between Fulton County, Ga., District Attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade. It is axiomatic that the Trump lawyers would try to somehow capitalize on the controversy, but, despite all the coverage, it sounds to me more like a human resources issue within the district attorney’s office than a legal case, or, at least, a legal case that involves Trump. Is there a legitimate connection to the Trump case here? Would you explain what that is and what the potential impact could be? Thank you.
Advertisement
Answer: If only Judge Scott McAfee were as sharp as you! The relationship, as I explained, is not a basis for Willis’s recusal. It — along with details concerning when it started and ended — should not have been the subject of two days of testimony. The only issue is whether she derived some financial benefit from Wade (e.g., gifts) that incentivized her to pursue prosecution. Because there was zero evidence of that, the entire hearing should have taken a couple of hours. This was an egregious invasion of her privacy, which undermined respect for the judicial system and perpetuated stereotypes about powerful Black women.
A reader asks: I read articles about Trump’s armed vigilantes monitoring polling locations and the intent to question the legitimacy of mail-in ballots, which are used in large numbers by Democratic voters. These are only a couple of instances of ploys to subvert a fair election. Are there any plans in progress to counter these attacks for 2024?
Answer: Lawyers, including Marc Elias, representing Democratic state parties and candidates, as well as groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Legal Defense Fund, litigate these issues around the country. The Justice Department, to a lesser extent (despite calls for a more aggressive strategy), does as well. Many state attorneys general and secretaries of state are also working to head off suppression and ensure access to the polls. Part of the task also falls to ordinary voters, who need to volunteer to work at the polls and to act as poll watchers. This is an all-hands-on-deck moment that requires law enforcement, courts, elected officials and all pro-democracy Americans to do their part.
Advertisement
A reader asks: How does Trump always get granted an appeal to a higher court? I thought one needed additional or new evidence to get an appeal granted.
Answer: That is the standard for a new trial after conviction. However, appeals to a higher court are generally on points of law. Circuit courts must hear appeals, even if they summarily dismiss them. The Supreme Court has discretion about which cases to take. When an issue is novel (e.g., disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment) or there is a conflict between circuits, the justices are more likely to take the case.
A reader asks: The irony of Trump lashing out at President Biden’s mental acuity is unbearable. Why don’t we see more ads on behalf of Biden that show clips of Trump’s unhinged ramblings and discourse? They are so egregious and clearly point to his own mental incompetence — and they indirectly attack Trump’s attacks on Biden’s mental fitness for office.
Advertisement
Answer: They certainly have started, even on Trump’s own Truth Social. Democrats and outside groups are also amping up. Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley is making her own contribution. You’re going to hear plenty more from the Biden camp about Trump’s unhinged, sick and unpatriotic talk.
Further thoughts
Many readers conveyed their understandable outrage that Trump and his party remain in the thrall of Putin, the person responsible for the death of Alexei Navalny, invading Ukraine, committing war crimes, repressing his people and robbing his country blind. This is the model for Trump and Trumpism. If Americans do not want to go down the dark road to tyranny, losing their freedom and the qualities that make America great, they will have to turn out in large numbers to vote not only against Trump but also against his congressional enablers. The alternative is too horrifying to imagine.
Journalism 101
“Why Russia killed Navalny: Even behind bars, the dissident leader was a threat to the corrupt Russian dictator.” That was the Atlantic headline for Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian Anne Applebaum’s column on Navalny’s death in the clutches of Russian jailers last week. It’s a near-perfect headline and avoids the traps many other publications fall into.
Advertisement
First, the headline made clear that he didn’t just die; he was killed. If not for his incarceration, the 47-year-old would be alive. Second, the killer is “Russia” — the state, the entire system. Third, the sub-headline managed to get in all the salient facts: Navalny was a dissident whom Putin, a dictator, wanted dead.
Complete, concise and contextual. That’s the best we can hope for in a headline. This one did all three.
Now, compare that with this atrocious headline from the New York Times: “Navalny’s Death Raises Tensions Between U.S. and Russia.” Count the ways this misses the boat. Navalny did not just die; he was killed. The tensions rise because Russia has invaded a neighbor, committed atrocities and killed a dissident. Tension is not a mutual or neutral phenomenon. It arises from the actions of a malicious actor. Let’s fix this: “Navalny’s Killing Triggers U.S. Wrath.” Much better.
Legal highlight
Justice Arthur Engoron, presiding in Trump’s New York civil case, dropped the hammer on the former president, fining him $354 million and barring him from acting as a director or officer of a New York company for three years. Engoron explained the necessity of such a harsh judgment:
After some four years of investigation and litigation, the only error (“inadvertent,” of course) that they acknowledge is the tripling of the size of the Trump Tower Penthouse, which cannot be gainsaid. Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint. Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” posture that the evidence belies. This Court is not constituted to judge morality; it is constituted to find facts and apply the law. In this particular case, in applying the law to the facts, the Court intends to protect the integrity of the financial marketplace and, thus, the public as a whole. Defendants’ refusal to admit error — indeed, to continue it, according to the Independent Monitor — constrains this Court to conclude that they will engage in it going forward unless judicially restrained. Indeed, Donald Trump testified that, even today, he does not believe the Trump Organization needed to make any changes based on the facts that came out during this trial.
This was Trump’s third civil defeat in New York. He’ll soon face a jury in a criminal case. So far, it seems, whether a judge or jury is the fact-finder, Trump is consistently adjudicated to be a liar, bordering on “pathological.”
Next week, I’ll have my online chat, so please submit your questions. Questions submitted after Feb. 28 will go to my next Mail Bag newsletter on March 6.
Share Sign up
This edition of the Mail Bag answers a batch of questions, providing some reflections on readers’ concerns. I also compare an excellent journalistic framing with a terrible one and highlight a critical passage from a hefty verdict against four-time-indicted former president Donald Trump.
A reader asks: We have seen quite a few Republicans announce they will not be running for reelection. Why would they be doing that now? Do they think if they are on the sidelines in 2024, they won’t be associated with a Trump defeat and can resume their careers in another two years?
Answer: Yes! Serving in the minority is no fun, and serving in the minority with colleagues beholden to MAGA is even less fun. The smarter, saner members want out. Unfortunately, that means the remaining Republican caucus is likely to be worse than ever.
A reader asks: Shouldn’t Democrats campaign on the likelihood that Trump would be willing to give in to a call from Russian President Vladimir Putin that the transfer of Alaska from Russia to the United States was very unfair and that if the United States won’t give it back, Putin will do whatever he wants to get it back, per Trump’s instructions?
Answer: Democrats should push for Alaska (and other states that Democrats could flip) not because they fear Trump might sell the state to Putin but because they know he will sell the United States down the drain to placate his idol. As former congresswoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said, “When you think about Donald Trump, for example, pledging retribution, what Vladimir Putin did to [Alexei] Navalny is what retribution looks like in a country where the leader is not subject to the rule of law. … You’ve now got a Putin wing of the Republican Party.”
A reader asks: Why are people missing Trump’s motives on Ukraine? Trump hates Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for not creating fake evidence against Joe Biden in 2020. Trump was impeached the first time for his actions against Ukraine, including withholding aid. Trump holds grudges, and now he is getting vengeance regardless of how many lives are sacrificed.
Answer: Perhaps, but Trump has been clear about his motives. He admires Putin and wants to emulate him. Strongmen who relish violence, disdain democracy and exhibit misogyny and ethno-nationalist bigotry flock to other strongmen with the same profile.
A reader asks: This has been an insane eight years of one person controlling the narrative for our country with a mostly cruel agenda. Does any other politician or otherwise come to mind? Stalin, Hitler, et al., for sure, but any other American?
Answer: Even with Watergate, even with domestic spying and even with the Vietnam War, not even Richard M. Nixon comes close. Millions of people have empowered a uniquely evil man.
A reader asks: I have been following the broadcast and print coverage of the relationship issue between Fulton County, Ga., District Attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade. It is axiomatic that the Trump lawyers would try to somehow capitalize on the controversy, but, despite all the coverage, it sounds to me more like a human resources issue within the district attorney’s office than a legal case, or, at least, a legal case that involves Trump. Is there a legitimate connection to the Trump case here? Would you explain what that is and what the potential impact could be? Thank you.
Answer: If only Judge Scott McAfee were as sharp as you! The relationship, as I explained, is not a basis for Willis’s recusal. It — along with details concerning when it started and ended — should not have been the subject of two days of testimony. The only issue is whether she derived some financial benefit from Wade (e.g., gifts) that incentivized her to pursue prosecution. Because there was zero evidence of that, the entire hearing should have taken a couple of hours. This was an egregious invasion of her privacy, which undermined respect for the judicial system and perpetuated stereotypes about powerful Black women.
A reader asks: I read articles about Trump’s armed vigilantes monitoring polling locations and the intent to question the legitimacy of mail-in ballots, which are used in large numbers by Democratic voters. These are only a couple of instances of ploys to subvert a fair election. Are there any plans in progress to counter these attacks for 2024?
Answer: Lawyers, including Marc Elias, representing Democratic state parties and candidates, as well as groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Legal Defense Fund, litigate these issues around the country. The Justice Department, to a lesser extent (despite calls for a more aggressive strategy), does as well. Many state attorneys general and secretaries of state are also working to head off suppression and ensure access to the polls. Part of the task also falls to ordinary voters, who need to volunteer to work at the polls and to act as poll watchers. This is an all-hands-on-deck moment that requires law enforcement, courts, elected officials and all pro-democracy Americans to do their part.
A reader asks: How does Trump always get granted an appeal to a higher court? I thought one needed additional or new evidence to get an appeal granted.
Answer: That is the standard for a new trial after conviction. However, appeals to a higher court are generally on points of law. Circuit courts must hear appeals, even if they summarily dismiss them. The Supreme Court has discretion about which cases to take. When an issue is novel (e.g., disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment) or there is a conflict between circuits, the justices are more likely to take the case.
A reader asks: The irony of Trump lashing out at President Biden’s mental acuity is unbearable. Why don’t we see more ads on behalf of Biden that show clips of Trump’s unhinged ramblings and discourse? They are so egregious and clearly point to his own mental incompetence — and they indirectly attack Trump’s attacks on Biden’s mental fitness for office.
Answer: They certainly have started, even on Trump’s own Truth Social. Democrats and outside groups are also amping up. Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley is making her own contribution. You’re going to hear plenty more from the Biden camp about Trump’s unhinged, sick and unpatriotic talk.
Many readers conveyed their understandable outrage that Trump and his party remain in the thrall of Putin, the person responsible for the death of Alexei Navalny, invading Ukraine, committing war crimes, repressing his people and robbing his country blind. This is the model for Trump and Trumpism. If Americans do not want to go down the dark road to tyranny, losing their freedom and the qualities that make America great, they will have to turn out in large numbers to vote not only against Trump but also against his congressional enablers. The alternative is too horrifying to imagine.
“Why Russia killed Navalny: Even behind bars, the dissident leader was a threat to the corrupt Russian dictator.” That was the Atlantic headline for Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian Anne Applebaum’s column on Navalny’s death in the clutches of Russian jailers last week. It’s a near-perfect headline and avoids the traps many other publications fall into.
First, the headline made clear that he didn’t just die; he was killed. If not for his incarceration, the 47-year-old would be alive. Second, the killer is “Russia” — the state, the entire system. Third, the sub-headline managed to get in all the salient facts: Navalny was a dissident whom Putin, a dictator, wanted dead.
Complete, concise and contextual. That’s the best we can hope for in a headline. This one did all three.
Now, compare that with this atrocious headline from the New York Times: “Navalny’s Death Raises Tensions Between U.S. and Russia.” Count the ways this misses the boat. Navalny did not just die; he was killed. The tensions rise because Russia has invaded a neighbor, committed atrocities and killed a dissident. Tension is not a mutual or neutral phenomenon. It arises from the actions of a malicious actor. Let’s fix this: “Navalny’s Killing Triggers U.S. Wrath.” Much better.
Justice Arthur Engoron, presiding in Trump’s New York civil case, dropped the hammer on the former president, fining him $354 million and barring him from acting as a director or officer of a New York company for three years. Engoron explained the necessity of such a harsh judgment:
This was Trump’s third civil defeat in New York. He’ll soon face a jury in a criminal case. So far, it seems, whether a judge or jury is the fact-finder, Trump is consistently adjudicated to be a liar, bordering on “pathological.”
Next week, I’ll have my online chat, so please submit your questions. Questions submitted after Feb. 28 will go to my next Mail Bag newsletter on March 6.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
