Charles Lipson

These weren’t the Lincoln-Douglas debates. They weren’t Kennedy-Nixon. If those were graded ‘A’, then this was ‘C-minus’, at best. Both candidates filled the air with hyperbole. Trump led the way, as usual, calling everything he did ‘the best ever’, and everything Biden did ‘the worst’. He doesn’t favour shades of grey. The President looked dreadful and sounded hoarse. Biden responded in kind. He was right to emphasise Trump’s hours of silence during the 6 January attack on the Capitol. But he didn’t stop there. He went on to repeat what he surely knows is a lie about Trump’s comments after Charlottesville. And he kept going, trying to link Trump directly neo-Nazis. It could have been worse. The CNN format was far better than previous debates.

We live in tumultuous times. Donald Trump’s adversaries blame much of it on him — his hyperbole and personal attacks, the unrestrained actions that cross the bounds of propriety — even, perhaps, of the Constitution. Trump’s supporters see the same things and celebrate. They appreciate the brickbats he throws at a judicial system they think is mobilized against him. They love his denunciation of Washington bureaucrats and lobbyists who, they believe, run the country for their own benefit, and not very well at that. Both sides are right that Trump is a destabilizing figure, but there are deeper issues at play, most notably the significant social changes upending norms that have long governed American politics.

Hunter Biden’s defense against felony gun chargesa faced two toxic problems — problems that, in the end, proved insurmountable. One was that the crime itself was straightforward. It was easy to present to the jury. The other was that there was a mountain of evidence that Hunter actually committed the crime. A lot of that evidence came from Hunter’s own texts and his memoir. He had the best defense money could buy. Abbe Lowell is tough, a shrewd and smart defense attorney, but he had almost nothing to work with. One by one, the defenses he put forward collapsed under the weight of direct evidence. Lowell tried to show the gun shop employee might not have seen Hunter fill out the purchase form. Turned out the employee was two feet away.

The contrast between the two parties on illegal immigration couldn’t be sharper. Donald Trump erected a wall. Joe Biden erected a pole. Oops. Sorry. That should be “poll.” And Biden didn’t erect it. He was skewered by it. Very few people think President Biden is doing a decent job at the southern border. More than twice as many think he has created a full-scale disaster. Those poll numbers aren’t just underwater. They’re headed for the Titanic in a flimsy submersible. Faced with this disaster, Biden finally did what he has said for three years he had no authority to do. He issued some Executive Orders to close the border... .well, sort of, partially, maybe, under certain circumstances.

The indictment and trial on a thin charge, the gagging of a presidential candidate in the middle of a campaign, and the judge’s consistently biased rulings amount to deliberate judicial interference in the 2024 election.  The process was led by a Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, who ran on the campaign platform of going after Donald Trump. Not going after a crime. Going after a person. That fundamentally contradicts the basic principles of Anglo-American law and justice. No one else in New York City would have been indicted, as Donald Trump was, on what amounted to two expired misdemeanours, turned into a felony. One alleged felonious act became 34 counts. The prosecution said Trump was really guilty of election interference.

Dumb is dumb. Among the dumbest is a political strategy that harms your own side and infuriates your normal allies, the ones who stand with you on most issues. That describes Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is a master of both bad ideas and bad strategies. She’s a bomb-thrower who lights the fuse, gathers her friends around her and then drops the bomb on her own toes. She illustrated those qualities last week, not once but twice. First, she opposed a House bill on antisemitism, which passed easily with bipartisan support. Her reason was that the resolution could be used to attack believing Christians. To prove it, she dredged up medieval calumnies against the Jews as “Christ-killers,” who handed Jesus over to the Roman authorities.

The most effective ad ever made for a presidential election featured a violent, career-criminal, Willie Horton, walking out of a Massachusetts prison on a weekend pass. On one of those passes, he went on another vicious crime spree. George H. W. Bush used those crimes — and the lax policies that let Horton roam the country — to destroy his Democratic opponent, Massachusetts governor Mike Dukakis. The past is prologue. Once again, voters are worried about their safety and angry about the open-border policies that have degraded it. Donald Trump knows that, so he will be using ads like the one Bush used against Dukakis. They will have the same devastating impact. A little background is helpful.

Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis might reflect on the proverb, “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.” She will have ample time to reflect as she watches her career decompose in a Georgia courtroom and state Senate hearing. The old saying is directly on point. The spotlight searches out prominent people and their entourage. If they are caught cheating, they will shrivel under the glare. If they are caught lying under oath, their troubles will be far worse. That is exactly what is happening in an Atlanta courtroom to Willis, as well as her paramour, Nathan Wade, and Wade’s former law partner, Terrence Bradley, who was also briefly his divorce attorney. The spotlight is on Willis because she is prosecuting Donald Trump and a busload of co-defendants.

Fani Willis, the district attorney for Fulton County, Georgia, went down in flames on Thursday. A crematorium wouldn’t have been more efficient. Her angry, self-righteous defense added a load of fossil fuel to the conflagration.  It happened at a judicial hearing before Judge Scott McAfee, who is presiding over the election-interference case Willis brought against Donald Trump and eighteen codefendants. The district attorney charged them with acting jointly to overturn the 2020 US presidential election. Her basic allegation is that they conspired to add bogus votes to Trump’s total so they could flip the state’s electoral vote. Then, a slate of false electors, pledged to Trump, would certify he had won the state.

Few moments are less promising to reach a bipartisan deal than the months before a presidential election. And few issues present greater obstacles than limiting illegal immigration. Even the word “illegal” is contested. Progressives say it is too harsh. Conservatives say it is simply truthful. It is no surprise, then, that the compromise “border-security bill” gasped its final breath this week. The Senate bill, negotiated by a Democrat, a Republican and an Independent, met a hostile reception as soon as the text was released. House Speaker Mike Johnson declared it “dead on arrival.” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer reluctantly brought it up for a procedural vote, where it went down in flames. Why such stiff opposition?