Weekend at Biden's
Plus: Trump immunity ruling, cosmopolitan thinking on immigration, cringe Kamala, and more...
Who's really running the show? Following President Joe Biden's abysmal performance at Thursday's debate, press coverage has sought to investigate how exactly Biden's cognitive decline got this bad without it becoming a major scandal earlier. The story Politico has offered: Biden's public appearances are so tightly controlled by his shrinking inner circle, which has been running interference for him as his mind atrophies.
"The number of people who have access to the president has gotten smaller and smaller and smaller. They've been digging deeper into the bunker for months now," a Democratic strategist in a critical battleground state told Politico. Some of those people include senior adviser Anita Dunn (who advocated for the early debate, in a break with tradition) and Ron Klain, Biden's former chief of staff who handled the debate prep, as well as Bob Bauer, Dunn's husband and Biden's personal lawyer.
("To their allies, the two are loyal and steely under fire," says The New York Times of Dunn and Bauer. "To their critics, the couple—and Ms. Dunn in particular—are the embodiment of Mr. Biden's affinity for revolving-door Washington operatives who move back and forth between high-powered political jobs and lucrative corporate clients.")
"It's the same people," one Democratic operative told Politico. "He has not changed those people for 40 years." Of course, it's not uncommon for career politicians to have close advisers who have worked with them for decades, whose judgment they trust. What is confusing is that the president's enablers seem unable to sound the alarms that Biden is a bad candidate to run, ill-suited to the job ahead, and that their inability to do so has seemingly sabotaged the Democratic party, leaving it without a nominee who can beat former President Donald Trump.
It feels like a Weekend at Bernie's situation—advisers are the ones actually running the show, not the person we've elected. (Using we generously, as I certainly played no part in electing this guy.)
Immunity ruling handed down: Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 ruling in the presidential immunity case. "A President inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority. "And if a former President's official acts are routinely subjected to scrutiny in criminal prosecutions, 'the independence of the Executive Branch' may be significantly undermined."
Do not read this as a victory for Trump, though. The ruling was a thoroughly mixed bag. "The Court held that a former president enjoys 'absolute' immunity for 'actions within his exclusive constitutional power,' 'presumptive' immunity for other 'official acts,' and no immunity for unofficial acts," writes Reason's Jacob Sullum. At the same time, the Court swatted away Trump's argument—"that former presidents can be prosecuted for 'official acts' only if they are first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate based on the same conduct," writes Sullum, following Trump's federal prosecution for his election-overturning attempts—and remanded the case to U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Hard to delineate: There are disagreements between the justices as to what type of presidential behavior falls into each category, and thus is granted or denied immunity. For example, "Trump tried to persuade state officials that the election results had been tainted by systematic fraud, and his campaign enlisted 'alternate' electors whom he wanted state legislators to recognize instead of the Biden slates," writes Sullum. Was that Trump "trying to ensure the integrity of a federal election" and thus operating in an official capacity? Or was that Trump undermining the election results, operating in his own political self-interest as a candidate, not as a president fulfilling his official duties?
"Supreme Court's Trump immunity ruling poses risk for democracy, experts say," reads a Washington Post headline from yesterday. (The Washington Post declares democracy at risk every four days, so it's hard to take seriously.) Nothing about this ruling was particularly unexpected, but to give credit where due, there are some hypotheticals dismissed by Roberts that could present major problems: Justice Sonia Sotomayor previewed some of these in her dissent, writing, "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
She continued: "The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."
Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a partial concurrence that perhaps strikes the best balance, agreeing with the majority but offering some additional wisdom: "Properly conceived, the President's constitutional protection from prosecution is narrow."
Scenes from New York: Illegal immigrants who have come to New York, frequently seeking asylum after harrowing journeys, now get pre-loaded debit cards to buy food, costing the city $2.6 million to feed 7,300 migrants over the next six months. "City officials say the program is significantly less expensive than a previous program that delivered meals, which was expected to cost about $5.6 million over the next six months," reports The New York Times. Still, one must wonder: Is there any cap to the number of non-New Yorkers that the city will use residents' taxpayer dollars to feed? Why isn't our money being used to improve public services from which we benefit?
QUICK HITS
- "If Harris replaces Biden, we won't even get one of the key benefits we'd want from replacing our nominee: cleaning the slate and having less responsibility for the incumbent's record," writes Josh Barro at Very Serious.
- The head of Gaza City's Al Shifa Hospital, Mohammed Abu Salmiya, was freed Monday and returned to Gaza. He alleges that he was held in inhumane conditions and tortured by Israeli prison guards. The Israeli prison service denies these allegations while some government officials said it was "security negligence" to release this man, a sign of the government's "lawlessness and dysfunction."
- Hurricane Beryl has strengthened into a Category 5 and is barreling toward Jamaica right now.
- "There is a longstanding debate—for centuries in fact—as to whether you should consider only your national (or regional) interest, or whether you should think in cosmopolitan terms when evaluating policies with cross-national ramifications," writes Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution. "Some commentators, for instance, suggest that American immigration policy should be set to serve the interests of current American citizens only. But what if an American is evaluating a French decision to take in or exclude some potential Algerian migrants? You might think the French should take a French point of view, and that the Algerians should take an Algerian point of view. But is the American allowed to be cosmopolitan in his judgment?"
- Possibly the most cringe thing I've ever seen. Proceed with caution.
- Yes:
This reminds me of the thing @mcmoynihan has been saying about how you can tell these people are full of shit when they don't just say "he's not that bad" but instead say "he's the most lucid President ever! More physically agile than a 26 year old! Wittier than Dorothy Parker!" https://t.co/YCD4t4sE5s
— Ben Dreyfuss (@bendreyfuss) July 1, 2024
