Connect with us

Politics

Hollywood showed up in force for Kamala Harris at DNC, even if Beyoncé and Taylor were absent

Published

on

Hollywood showed up in force for Kamala Harris at DNC, even if Beyoncé and Taylor were absent

Anyone who tuned in to the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night expecting to watch Beyoncé make a surprise appearance onstage was likely disappointed to see former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta standing there instead, not a rhinestone to be found on his staid blue suit.

For weeks, ever since Queen Bey gave Kamala Harris’ campaign permission to use her stirring anthem “Freedom” as its theme song, speculation had mounted that she would perform at the convention — and that maybe she would even team up with fellow pop supernova, Taylor Swift, to send a woman to the White House. On Thursday, the theories shifted into overdrive on social media, thanks largely to a single tweet from a random X user teasing a surprise appearance on the final night of the event.

If the unchecked, unfounded Bey-Tay rumors now feel like a moment of virtual mass hysteria, it’s also easy to understand why so many of us got carried away with the showbiz wish-casting. The star power across the four nights of the Democratic National Convention was so potent, the mood so buoyant, it made sense that two of the only figures whose fame and influence transcends an increasingly fractured cultural landscape, would be there, too.

Organizers of the event — which was hastily revamped in a matter of weeks after President Biden dropped out of the race — pulled off a feat that seems impossible in 2024: turning the convention into must-see TV.

“For a celebrity, an athlete, a musician, to lend their name, their influence to a candidate, they are risking a lot — starting with some amount of trolling in the comment section. It’s not without its sacrifices, so you have to really be motivated to do it on behalf of a candidate,” said Genevieve Roth, founder and president of Invisible Hand, a culture change and strategy agency, who also served as director of creative engagement on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. “Kamala Harris seems to have inspired a tremendous amount of devotion from this community,”

Advertisement

Lil Jon, right, with Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia. The rapper led the state’s roll call Tuesday.

(Paul Sancya / Associated Press)

The DNC was a big tent, culturally speaking, offering a little something for virtually every taste, except, perhaps fans of aging professional wrestlers. There were musical performances by Jason Isbell, Pink (and her adorable daughter, Willow Sage Hart), Patti LaBelle, Sheila E., Stevie Wonder and — who could forget? — Lil Jon, who helped turn the once-tedious state roll call into an exuberant dance party. Celebrity hosts anchored each evening’s lineup, with Mindy Kaling cracking jokes about the demise of Bennifer 2.0, and Kerry Washington staging a reunion with her “Scandal” co-star, Tony Goldwyn. Kenan Thompson, the longest-tenured “SNL” cast member in history, did a funny-but-scary bit about Project 2025.

Golden State Warrior Steph Curry offered his endorsement as did his coach, Steve Kerr. The first three nights of the convention drew in around 20 million viewers each, while Thursday night attracted 26 million — outpacing the Republican National Convention last month. Similar to the Oscars, some of the best moments came not from the big celebrities, but the normal people being themselves, like Gov. Tim Walz’s teenage son, Gus, who wept with joy at the sight of his father onstage.

Advertisement

In the absence of Beyoncé, the biggest celebrity moment was Wednesday‘s surprise appearance by media mogul Oprah Winfrey, who returned to Chicago, the city where she built her empire, to enthusiastically endorse Harris as “the best of America.” Winfrey has played the role of political kingmaker before: According to one study, her endorsement of Barack Obama in 2007 translated to a million votes for the candidate.

Oprah Winfrey in a purple long sleeve blazer standing behind a lectern.

Media mogul Oprah Winfrey made a surprise appearance during the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

And while few stars these days wield her kind of influence, they can still have a potent voice.

“When a trusted source communicates about participating in our democracy in an authentic way, people are responsive,” said Ashley Spillane, who was author of a study by the Ash Center for Governance at Harvard University, which looked at efforts by celebrities like Billie Eilish and Washington to mobilize voters. It found that celebrities can have a powerful influence on the electorate — if the conditions are right. “The most important thing was that they were delivering a message to their community of fans in a way that felt on brand and authentic. As long as you are talking to people in your community in a way that is transparent and relatable, you can have a very significant impact,” Spillane said.

Advertisement

The Kamala-mania on display ever since Biden dropped out of the race last month, and especially over the last four days, has invited comparisons to Obama, who remains beloved by Hollywood and, since leaving the White House, has launched a successful Oscar-winning production company with his wife, Michelle, the former first lady.

The DNC offered a stark contrast with the Republican National Convention, where a scant handful of celebrities, most of whom peaked in the last millennium and have been mired in controversy, were supporting players in an event that was all about lavish displays of loyalty to one person: Donald Trump. There was Hulk Hogan, a man known for using the N-word in a sex tape; musician Kid Rock, who once flew the Confederate flags at his concerts, even though he is from Michigan; and Ultimate Fighting Championship President Dana White, who was caught on video slapping his wife last year. If speeches by Republicans other than Trump were memorable at all, it was for how shamelessly his former critics kissed the ring.

Hulk Hogan ripping off a shirt to reveal a red Trump T-shirt underneath.

Hulk Hogan on the final day of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee last month.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

For all their professed disdain for “Hollywood liberals,” it is often the Republicans who appear to be more enthralled by celebrities, no matter how culturally irrelevant or low-wattage they might be. As long as they are willing to voice support for their party — and Trump in particular — any semi-famous person will do. The 2016 convention featured a cavalcade of names from a “where are they now?” special, including “Charles in Charge” star Scott Baio, “General Hospital” actor Antonio Sabato Jr. and former “Real World” cast member Rachel Campos-Duffy.

Advertisement

It’s telling that Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, were both reportedly motivated to take a hard right turn into politics after facing rejection from Hollywood and the liberal establishment. Trump, who resented how “The Apprentice” was snubbed at the Emmys and was known to exaggerate the show’s ratings — even to TV journalists — spent years teasing a presidential run. According to Roger Stone, he finally decided to get serious about a White House bid after getting brutally roasted by Obama and Seth Meyers at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner. Vance first made his name as a Never-Trump Republican who wrote a bestselling memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” that liberals read to understand the frustrations of rural white voters. But when the film adaptation, directed by Ron Howard, received a critical drubbing, it reportedly represented the “last straw” for Vance, who soon refashioned himself as a MAGA warrior and successfully ran for the Senate in Ohio.

Democrats have long had an edge when it comes to corralling big-name celebrities to their cause, said Roth. “If you look throughout history and election cycles, they’re doing a heck of a lot better than anyone on the other side is.”

Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992, fueled in part by his masterful use of pop culture, including a saxophone-playing appearance on “The Arsenio Hall Show.” Such was his power that Fleetwood Mac reunited for the first time in years to perform at his inauguration in 1993, a feat comparable to getting Beyoncé and Taylor Swift to sing together in public.

But there’s an inherent danger, particularly in a party criticized for elitism, in giving too much ground to big-name actors or musicians who may not exactly scream “salt of the earth.”

“I think it is a mistake to think about it as proximity to razzle-dazzle,” said Roth. Instead, the animating questions, she said, should be: “How can you deploy people for their incredible storytelling ability? How can you make sure that you’re connecting them to the issues and the people on the ground living the issues?”

Advertisement
Kamala Harris at a lectern with American flags behind her.

Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday accepting the party’s nomination for president at the Democratic National Convention.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Biden had the support of Hollywood, at least behind closed doors at fundraising events, until the first debate in June when he delivered a performance so disastrous that showbiz allies like George Clooney called for him to drop out. When he eventually did July 21, the party quickly consolidated around Harris — and so did the stars, who have flocked to her candidacy with enthusiasm not seen since Obama‘s campaign in 2008.

Hours after Biden’s announcement, British pop star Charli XCX tweeted, “Kamala IS brat,” an apparent endorsement that triggered a flood of memes that delighted Gen Z while confusing their parents. And Harris’ first rally as the presumptive nominee, in Georgia, featured an appearance by Megan Thee Stallion. While stopping short of an explicit endorsement, Beyoncé provided the campaign not only with a theme song, but an inclusive slogan that sums up its stance on issues as diverse as abortion and gun violence.

The perceived value of an endorsement from Swift, who supported Biden in 2020 but has not yet weighed in on this year’s election, is so high that Trump shared fake images of the singer, dressed as Uncle Sam, with the message, “Taylor wants you to vote for Donald Trump.”

Advertisement

“Taylor Swift and Beyoncé have huge followings and fans who really enjoy being in community with one another. It’s natural to look for the places that and the people who can help you organize,” said Spillane, who is also founder and president of Impactual, a social impact agency.

DNC organizers didn’t let the bold-faced names overshadow the rising stars in the party — or its nominee. Now that the convention is over, it seems obvious why they wouldn’t have wanted Beyoncé or Taylor Swift to perform, even if the musicians had made themselves available: It would have undercut the air of normalcy and relatability the campaign fought so hard to cultivate. And instead of talking about Harris’ speech, fans would have been obsessing over Swift’s outfit and whether Travis Kelce was there, too.

The convention was in many ways less a showcase for celebrity activists than for the deep bench of talent in the Democratic Party, names like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan; Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland; and “Slayer Pete” himself, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, whose speeches were all highly anticipated like top acts at a music festival.

“People are just happy to have a candidate that they can really get behind, and they’re happy to have the things that they care about articulated so clearly on stage,” Roth said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Even Without Its Most Famous Son, Carter’s Hometown Remains a Destination

Published

on

Even Without Its Most Famous Son, Carter’s Hometown Remains a Destination

Plains has no major hotel, a single small gas station and only a couple of restaurants, neither of which is usually open for dinner. Still, for the longest time, the tiny town had something that no other place in Georgia did: Jimmy Carter making it his home.

Especially as Mr. Carter withdrew from public life, the town has had years to prepare for life after him. But now that he is gone — Mr. Carter died last month at 100 — the town is hoping that its prospects as a tourism destination have not been buried along with its most famous son.

The optimism in Plains is grounded in the experience of other small towns known almost exclusively for their ties to a former president, which history has shown can still attract a crowd decades or centuries after that president has died.

Hyde Park, which borders the Hudson River in New York, has a steady stream of tourists coming to visit Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidential library, home and gravesite. Tampico, Ill., has erected signs advertising itself as the birthplace of Ronald Reagan, trying to encourage people to take a brief detour on the way to Chicago to see the apartment where Mr. Reagan was born.

These towns and others are banking on the country’s enduring fascination with its presidents. particularly among the collection of history buffs who find the insights they can offer irresistible.

Advertisement

“I recognized that there was something about getting to experience what they experienced and getting to see the world through their eyes,” said Joe Faykosh, a history professor at Central Arizona College.

He has visited all the available presidential birthplaces and homes and has interned at the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center in Fremont, Ohio. He met the Carters in 2017 after the former president taught Sunday school at Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains.

There is no guarantee that the appeal will last forever, though. More than 100 presidential sites in big cities and backcountry towns attract thousands of visitors each year, but interest can fade as a president drifts further into history. In recent years, the reappraisal of historical figures and the sins of the past that has toppled monuments and renamed schools has also affected the appeal of historic sites.

Charlottesville, Va., has seen a decline in visitors to Monticello, the plantation that once belonged to Thomas Jefferson. Tourism officials there have adapted, broadening what had once been a largely generous interpretation of Jefferson’s history to a more complex portrayal, including his role in upholding slavery as an institution. They have also tried to market Charlottesville as an emerging wine region — an identity Jefferson had also worked to establish around 250 years ago.

“Leisure trips have focused in the past on kind of historical discovery, and now people — because of their relationship with history, because of the politicizing of history — have a different relationship with the past,” said Courtney Cacatian, the executive director of the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau. “A lot of people don’t seek it out as part of their vacation experience anymore.”

Advertisement

Plains isn’t so worried about the judgment of history. Many in the community believe that people’s perceptions of Mr. Carter’s legacy will continue to be favorable. Americans remain divided about his performance as president. But the week of funeral events highlighted a widespread admiration for his character and the extensive work he did after leaving office to protect democracy, fight ailments like Guinea worm disease and provide support to impoverished people worldwide.

Plains has become somewhat stuck in time — a capsule capturing the lives that Mr. Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, had lived there, even while they were still alive.

There are no drive-throughs or supermarkets. The Dollar General downtown has a brick facade that makes it look like it has been there forever. Plains High School no longer has students — it is a site maintained by the National Park Service, just like the Carter family farm outside town and even the Carters’s home off Main Street.

It is a transformation the Carters have been deeply involved in. They created an exhibition at the high school about segregation. Visitors walking around the president’s boyhood home and farm can hear recordings of Mr. Carter sharing memories of his childhood, such as visiting his Black neighbors who lived in a ramshackle home nearby and the absolute joy he felt when he received a pony for Christmas.

“There’s just so many things that President Carter had his hands in,” said AB Jackson, a councilwoman in Plains.

Advertisement

Sarah Wollenweber and her 17-year-old son, London, said that the amount of documentation of Mr. Carter’s life and where he grew up set Plains apart from other presidential sites they had visited across the country.

“He’s one of the last great presidents we’ve seen who is genuine and actually kind, so it’s been really great to experience this,” London said. He and his mother drove 12 hours from Bloomington, Ill., to see Mr. Carter’s coffin being carried through Plains last week.

“They dedicated the whole town to him and his wife,” he added.

Many residents believe the Carters were keenly aware of how much their presence attracted tourists and positively impacted the town’s economy.

From 2014 to 2019, when Mr. Carter was still routinely teaching Sunday school at Maranatha Baptist Church, at least 50,000 tourists a year came to Plains. Beginning in 2020, the number of sightseers dropped significantly, as the pandemic stymied tourism and the Carters’ health declined. But visitorship picked up again last year, with approximately 45,000 people coming through the town. That does not include the hundreds of people per day who descended on Plains after Mr. Carter died on Dec. 29.

Advertisement

Over many years, Mr. Carter encouraged improvements to increase the appeal for tourists. He founded the Friends of Jimmy Carter, a nonprofit that owns the Plains Historic Inn, with its seven suites, as well as the antique mall below it. He was also instrumental in opening one of the town’s two restaurants: the Buffalo Café, which serves cheeseburgers, salads and pimento cheese sandwiches. And he convinced legislators to fund a train that would drop visitors off at his former campaign headquarters.

“He wanted to make sure that the town stays viable,” said Kim Carter Fuller, the president’s niece. “Whatever he could do within reason, he did.”

But Plains could only accommodate so much. The town is less than one square mile in size and has little public land to sell for development. There is also tension between wanting to attract more tourists and not wanting to disturb the town’s traditional way of life.

“We don’t really want to change Plains,” said Ellen Harris, a councilwoman. “That’s what makes us unique.”

Locals were grateful that the Carters chose to be buried at their home instead of at their presidential library in Atlanta, a decision they hope will help to maintain a steady stream of visitors. In the coming months, the gravesites of the Carters will be opened to the public. The modest ranch home the president and the first lady built in 1961 — where they raised their children and returned to after leaving the White House — will be made accessible to the public for the first time shortly after.

Advertisement

Events with historical ties — like the city’s yearly peanut festival in September that pays homage to Mr. Carter’s roots as a farmer — will continue to be a draw, some say. There are also newer attractions. The latest, Apt. 9A, which opened for private tours in October, is the government-subsidized home Mr. Carter moved his wife and three sons into after his father’s death in 1953.

After a 2001 walk-through with Ms. Carter in the apartment, Annette Wise, who led the project, received donations and searched through thrift stores to find items to recreate the family’s modest furnishings at a time when they had almost no income. Paint chips in a closet helped her to track down the precise shade of dark green the Carters had painted their living room and later used in campaign signs.

Ms. Wise said she believes all the time and effort will ultimately be worthwhile.

“Plains is headed in the right direction,” said Ms. Wise, who is a member of the Plains Historical Preservation Trust and a founder and the president of the Rosalynn Carter Butterfly Trail. “They’ve left us big shoes to fill. But they’ve given us plenty of time to learn what to do.”

Rick Rojas contributed reporting. Kirsten Noyes contributed research.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump says Jack Smith is a 'disgrace' after special counsel resigned from DOJ: 'He left town empty handed!'

Published

on

Trump says Jack Smith is a 'disgrace' after special counsel resigned from DOJ: 'He left town empty handed!'

President-elect Trump blasted special counsel Jack Smith as a “disgrace” to himself and the country following Smith’s resignation from the Justice Department.

Smith’s resignation was announced in a court filing Saturday.

“The Special Counsel completed his work and submitted his final confidential report on January 7, 2025, and separated from the Department on January 10,” a footnote in the filing said.

Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social on Sunday to criticize Smith for his investigations into the incoming president.

SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH RESIGNS AFTER 2-YEAR STINT AT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Advertisement

President-elect Donald Trump arrives to speak at a news conference at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, Friday, Oct. 25, 2024, in Austin, Texas. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

“Deranged Jack Smith was fired today by the DOJ. He is a disgrace to himself, his family, and his Country. After spending over $100,000,000 on the Witch Hunt against TRUMP, he left town empty handed!” Trump wrote.

Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to investigate Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and his mishandling of classified documents.

Smith previously served as acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee in 2017 during Trump’s first administration.

The resignation comes ahead of the release of Smith’s report on the case related to Trump’s role in the attack on the Capitol. A recent court filing revealed that Garland plans to release the report soon, possibly before Trump takes office next week.

Advertisement
Special Counsel Jack Smith

Jack Smith, US special counsel, speaks during a news conference in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2023. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“As I have made clear regarding every Special Counsel who has served since I took office, I am committed to making as much of the Special Counsel’s report public as possible, consistent with legal requirements and Department policy,” Garland wrote in a recent letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and ranking member Jamie Raskin, D-Md.

A judge from a federal appeals court ruled on Friday against blocking the release of Smith’s report.

After Trump’s presidential election victory in November, Smith filed motions to bring his cases against the president-elect to a close.

Smith asked a judge in late November to drop the charges against Trump in the case related to the Capitol riot. Prior to that request, Smith filed a motion to vacate all deadlines in that case, which was anticipated after Trump’s electoral win.

TRUMP PRESSES GOP TO SWIFTLY SEND ‘ONE POWERFUL BILL’ FOR HIS SIGNATURE ASAP

Advertisement
Jack Smith

Special Counsel Jack Smith announces an indictment of former President Donald Trump during a press conference on August 1, 2023, in Washington, D.C. (Getty Images)

Trump said after the cases were dropped that they “should never have been brought.”

“These cases, like all of the other cases I have been forced to go through, are empty and lawless, and should never have been brought,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social. “It was a political hijacking, and a low point in the History of our Country that such a thing could have happened, and yet, I persevered, against all odds, and WON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Fox News’ Andrea Margolis contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Opinion: Merrick Garland's integrity saved the DOJ only to doom it again

Published

on

Opinion: Merrick Garland's integrity saved the DOJ only to doom it again

In 2016, the American Bar Assn. couldn’t say enough good things about Merrick Garland, then the chief judge of the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, when it sent the Senate a report giving him its highest rating. So at Garland’s confirmation hearing, a bar official gave senators samples of the unanimous praise from hundreds of lawyers, judges and law professors who were contacted by the group’s evaluators.

“He may be the perfect human being,” effused one anonymous fan. Another: “Judge Garland has no weaknesses.”

Opinion Columnist

Jackie Calmes

Jackie Calmes brings a critical eye to the national political scene. She has decades of experience covering the White House and Congress.

Advertisement

Therein lies the tragedy of Merrick Garland. A man who could have been a truly supreme justice — but for then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s unprecedented Republican blockade — instead became a seemingly ineffectual attorney general, at least regarding the defining challenge of his tenure: holding Donald Trump accountable for trying to steal the 2020 presidential election.

The traits that the bar experts saw as Garland’s strengths — deliberative caution, modesty, judicial temperament, indifference to politics — turned out to be weaknesses for the head of the Justice Department in these times.

So intent was Garland on restoring the department’s independence and integrity — after Trump, in his first term, openly sought to weaponize it against his enemies — that the attorney general initially shied from investigating and prosecuting Trump for his role in the postelection subversions culminating on Jan. 6, 2021. By all accounts, Garland feared the optics of the Justice Department turning its legal powers against the man President Biden had just beaten at the polls.

Advertisement

Of course Trump, the master of projection, was going to, and did, accuse the attorney general of the very thing that Trump himself was guilty of: weaponizing the Justice Department. Yet in a nation based on the rule of law, the case against Trump needed to be pursued.

Garland succeeded in reviving the department’s post-Watergate norms, which restrict contacts between law enforcement officials and the White House, norms that Garland, as a young Justice lawyer in the Carter administration, helped develop in response to Nixon-era abuses. But so much for Garland’s achievement: Trump, saved by his election from having to answer for Jan. 6 or for a separate federal indictment for filching classified documents, will be back in power next week, more emboldened than before and backed by appointees willing to do his vengeful bidding at the Justice Department and the FBI.

Last week, there were small victories for accountability, if not for Trump’s alleged federal crimes. On Friday he was sentenced for his one conviction, in New York state court in May, for falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to a porn star ahead of the 2016 election. Judge Juan M. Merchan gave the president-elect no penalty, but at least the sentencing underscored Trump’s distinction as the only felon-president. Separately, Garland indicated he would make public the final report from special counsel Jack Smith detailing the evidence for Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6.

The 72-year-old attorney general soon leaves office having angered all sides — Republicans for going after Trump at all, Democrats for not going after him fast and hard enough. California Sen. Adam B. Schiff, formerly a member of the House Jan. 6 committee, was among the first Democrats to publicly blame the Justice Department, at least partially, for letting Trump avoid trial before the 2024 election, complaining on CNN that the department had focused too long on “the foot soldiers” who attacked the Capitol “and refrained from looking at … the inciters.”

A recent CNN retrospective on the Trump prosecution called 2021 “the lost year.” At a time when the former president was still on the defensive about Jan. 6, the Justice Department followed a bottom-up strategy targeting more than 1,500 rioters in its largest criminal investigation ever. Prosecutors insisted they were chasing leads involving Trump and close allies, while sorting out the legal complexities of trying a former occupant of the Oval Office.

Advertisement

By 2022, questions about Garland’s deliberative dillydallying became unavoidable. In March, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled in a civil case that “the illegality of the [fake electors] plan was obvious.” The next month FBI Director Christopher Wray authorized a criminal investigation into the scheme. Then in June the House Jan. 6 committee held its televised hearings, essentially a daytime drama about Trump’s multipronged efforts to keep power, starring Republican eyewitnesses.

That development, finally, prodded Garland to get serious about the man at the top. In November 2022, Garland named Smith as special counsel. As fast as Smith seemed to work, it wasn’t until August 2023 — two and a half years after the insurrection — that Trump was criminally indicted. Months of legal challenges from the Trump team followed, delaying everything and putting forward what seemed like a crazy claim, that Trump should have presidential immunity.

Yet to point fingers solely at Garland for letting Trump off the hook shifts blame from those even more deserving of it. McConnell, for instance, who engineered Trump’s Senate acquittal in February 2021 after his impeachment for inciting the insurrection; conviction could have been paired with a vote banning Trump from seeking federal office. And the Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority, which took seven months before mostly siding with Trump’s claim that he and future presidents are immune from criminal charges for supposedly official acts.

Even if Garland had moved aggressively, there’s a good argument that all the delays available to Trump would’ve made a trial and verdict before the election unlikely. And this fact remains: The ultimate jury — voters — had more than enough incriminating facts available to decide Trump was unfit to be president again. A plurality decided otherwise.

Still, Garland’s performance makes me doubly sad that he ended up at Justice instead of becoming a justice.

Advertisement

@jackiekcalmes

Continue Reading

Trending