Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 238 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      The Observer view on Donald Trump: utterly unfit for office, he should quit the race for the White House

      by

      It was the moment America, or at least America’s politicians and media, had been waiting for. It was the day justice finally caught up with Donald Trump. The former president’s manipulation of the 2016 election, by hushing up a sex scandal that threatened his chances, and his attempts to discredit a criminal justice system intent on punishing him, was famously thwarted. It was an all-time presidential and judicial first, a historic result that transformed Teflon Don into Felon Don, thanks to a jury of 12 ordinary men and women and a brave prosecutor, Alvin Bragg.Looked at another way, however, last week’s much anticipated dramatic denouement of the criminal trial of the New York playboy, billionaire and presumptive 2024 Republican presidential candidate may turn out to be less pivotal than anticipated. According to the US networks, most Americans tuned out weeks ago, not least because cameras were barred from the Manhattan courtroom. One not untypical public survey found that 67% of respondents said a conviction would make no difference to how they voted this autumn. The 34 guilty verdicts were an overnight sensation. But they may not significantly shift the political dial.The consensus view, around which most Republican and Democrat politicians, pundits and commentators swiftly coalesced, is that Trump’s disgrace will dog him for the remainder of the 2024 campaign – but will not doom him. It may even galvanise support. Evidence of the latter phenomenon came quickly. His campaign said it had raised a record $53m (£41.6m) in 24 hours after the verdict. There was a time, not long ago, when a criminal conviction would have destroyed a candidate’s chances. That time has passed.How can this be? It is, objectively, an extraordinary state of affairs. One explanation may be that twice-impeached Trump, possibly the most scandal-prone US president in history, has exhausted Americans’ capacity to be shocked. So egregious has been his behaviour, on so many occasions over the years, that no one is really surprised any more. Or perhaps this apathy and passivity are less to do with Trump and more with a broader public disillusionment with politics and politicians. Whatever the cause, it appears, regrettably, that Trump will ride out this storm and keep his bid for a second presidential term on track.Another key moment looms in early July, when Judge Juan Merchan, the target of his repeated contemptuous taunts, will decide how heavy a sentence to impose. Trump may escape jail given his age, 77, and the absence of prior convictions, although he could receive up to four years. A fine and probation look more likely. In any case, Trump has already signalled his intention to appeal. That process will almost certainly extend beyond the 5 November election. The three other major criminal trials Trump faces – over the alleged theft of classified documents, his role in the 6 January 2021 coup attempt, and electoral interference in Georgia – have all been delayed past polling day. Bottom line: if he defeats Biden, Trump will probably evade punishment entirely.If this prospect seems strange, even scandalous, then consider another big anomaly exposed by this trial. No previous US president, serving or retired, has been found guilty of a crime. Yet the hallowed US constitution makes no objection to Trump running for, and holding, the country’s highest office, even from inside a prison. This is another reason, along with the antiquated electoral college system and the politicisation of a rogue supreme court, to pursue urgent constitutional reform.Positive outcomes were not entirely drowned out by Trump’s unhinged post-trial ravings about a “rigged” process and the supposed threat posed by “millions” of terrorists and mentally unwell migrants seeking to “take over our country”. Most important is the fact that, in the end, Trump was forced to face justice like any other citizen. He is not above the law. He could not hide behind bogus claims of presidential immunity. In this instance, impunity and unaccountability, the twin curses of modern governance, did not prevail.The noisy theatrics, whingeing claims of victimisation and mendacious hype that characterised Trump’s trial performance have paradoxically served to make Biden look more stable, more sensible and certainly more statesmanlike. On Memorial Day, the president delivered a dignified speech at Arlington National Cemetery, ahead of this week’s anniversary of the 1944 D-day landings. While he was paying solemn tribute to America’s war dead, Trump was viciously ranting about “human scum” trying to “destroy” the country.Does Trump have any idea how bad this crude conduct makes him look, how diminished, mean and twisted? It’s a stark contrast with Biden, 81, always dapper and upbeat, if somewhat shaky on his feet. It is hard to imagine a less appealing pitch to the young first-time voters, independents and minorities who, pollsters say, could make all the difference in November’s half-dozen crucial swing states.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe margin of victory is predicted to be wafer thin again this autumn. Trump holds a tiny national lead, and has the edge in most of the battlegrounds. There is evidently all to play for. And while Biden remains a problematic candidate, Trump, on the forensic evidence of recent days, has proved again that he is a truly terrible one – and an unrepentant criminal to boot. He is unfit for office. He should stand down.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Kansas supreme court rules state constitution does not provide the right to vote

      by

      In a bizarre mixed ruling combining several challenges to a 2021 election law, Kansas’s supreme court has ruled that its residents have no right to vote enshrined in the state’s constitution.The opinion centering on a ballot signature-verification measure elicited fiery dissent from three of the court’s seven justices. But the majority held that the court failed to identify a “fundamental right to vote” within the state.The measure in question requires election officials to match the signatures on advance mail ballots to a person’s voter registration record. The state supreme court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit that challenged that. The majority of justices on the state supreme court then rejected arguments from voting rights groups that the measure violates state constitutional voting rights.In fact, writing for the majority, Justice Caleb Stegall said that the dissenting justices wrongly accused the majority of ignoring past precedent, holding that the “fundamental right to vote” within the state constitution “simply is not there”.That finding is contrary to the US constitution, which dedicates large portions of itself to the right to vote for citizens.Justice Eric Rosen, one of the three who dissented, wrote: “It staggers my imagination to conclude Kansas citizens have no fundamental right to vote under their state constitution.“I cannot and will not condone this betrayal of our constitutional duty to safeguard the foundational rights of Kansans.”Conversely, the high court unanimously sided with the challengers of a different provision that makes it a crime for someone to give the appearance of being an election official. Voting rights groups, including the Kansas League of Women Voters and the non-profit Loud Light, argued the measure suppresses free speech and their ability to register voters as some might wrongly assume volunteers are election workers, putting them at risk of criminal prosecution.A Shawnee county district court judge had earlier rejected the groups’ request for an emergency injunction, saying that impersonation of a public official is not protected speech.But the high court faulted the new law, noting that it doesn’t include any requirement that prosecutors show intent by a voter registration volunteer to misrepresent or deceive people into believing they’re an election official, and it thus “criminalizes honest speech” where “occasional misunderstandings” are bound to occur, Stegall wrote in the majority opinion.“As such, it sweeps up protected speech in its net,” Stegall said.Because the lawsuit over the false impersonation law’s constitutionality is likely to succeed, the state supreme court ordered the lower court to reconsider issuing an emergency injunction against it.“For three years now, Kansas League of Women Voters volunteers have been forced to severely limit their assistance of voters due to this ambiguous and threatening law,” said the state chapter’s president, Martha Pint. “The league’s critical voter assistance work is not a crime, and we are confident this provision will be quickly blocked when the case returns to the district court.”Loud Light’s executive director, Davis Hammet, said he hopes the lower court “will stop the irreparable harm caused daily by the law and allow us to resume voter registration before the general election”.Neither the Kansas secretary of state, Scott Schwab, nor the state’s attorney general, Kris Kobach, responded to requests for comment on that portion of the high court’s ruling.Instead, in a joint statement, Schwab and Kobach focus on the high court’s language bolstering the signature-verification law and its upholding of a provision that says individuals may collect no more than 10 advance ballots to submit to election officials.“This ruling allows us to preserve reasonable election security laws in Kansas,” Schwab said.Supporters have argued the ballot collection restriction combats “ballot harvesting” and limits voter fraud. The Republican-led legislature passed it over a veto by Kansas’s Democratic governor, Laura Kelly.Critics have said it’s a Republican reaction to baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election, in which Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump, was not valid, prompting a wave of misinformation and voter suppression laws across the country. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Neighbors say Alitos used security detail car to intimidate them after sign dispute

      by

      Neighbors of Samuel Alito and his wife described how a disagreement over political lawn signs put up in the wake of the 2020 presidential election quickly devolved into “unhinged behavior towards a complete stranger” by the supreme court justice’s wife.Emily Baden says she never intended to get into a fight with Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann, her powerful neighbors who live on the same suburban cul-de-sac as her mother outside Washington DC.Then a large black car, part of the Alitos’ security detail, started parking in front of her mother’s house instead of theirs, and Baden understood the perils of being an ordinary citizen going up against one of the most powerful men in the country.The two sides do not agree on much, but Baden, a staunch liberal, and Martha-Ann Alito, a staunch conservative, concur that they began exchanging words in late 2020, almost two months after Joe Biden’s election victory over Donald Trump. Soon after, according to Baden, the Alitos’ security detail began parking a car directly in front of her mother’s house – several houses down from its usual spots either directly in front of the Alitos or across the street from them.“This happened a handful of times,” Baden now recalls. “I took that as directly threatening.”Baden and her husband both say that the security detail’s car showed up in front of her mother’s house again two weeks ago, after the New York Times broke the story about an upside-down American flag hanging on the Alitos’ flagpole in the days before Biden’s inauguration – a symbol associated with the January 6 insurrection that sought to prevent Biden from taking office at all.Baden was no longer living with her mother by that point – she is now a mother herself and living on the west coast. Neither she nor her mother were mentioned by name in the initial Times story. Still, she found the message that this sent disturbing.“I couldn’t say who was in the car because of the tinted glass, and nobody ever said anything. I took it as a general threat,” she said. “The message was, we could do terrible things to you, and nobody would be able to do anything about it. When it comes to justices at the supreme court, they make the laws, but the laws don’t apply to them.”Baden’s husband, who did not want to be identified by name, said he, too, remembered a large black security SUV parking in front of their house, most memorably after Martha-Ann Alito confronted the couple in February 2021 and Baden let an expletive fly at the justice’s wife.“Right after, a security vehicle moved in front of our house and stayed for the remainder of the night,” he recalled.The Alitos did not immediately respond to a request from the Guardian for comment.Baden is an unusual witness to the Alito flag controversy and furore it has unleashed, because she never saw the upside-down flag flying outside the Alitos’ house and did not hear about it until the story hit the headlines two weeks ago.When the Times first contacted her, she said she didn’t want to be in any story because she had nothing to add. That changed when Alito put out a statement saying that his wife had briefly hung the flag in response to a neighbor’s use of “objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs”.Baden realised this was a reference to her. It both incensed and frightened her.“He’s lying about many, many things in that statement,” she claims. Contrary to Alito’s assertions, she alleged, it was not true that she had initiated any confrontation. She said it was also untrue that her lawn signs were directed personally at the justice or his wife.In Baden’s version of events, Martha-Ann Alito first approached her to complain about a home-made cardboard sign that said “Bye Don” on one side and “Fuck Trump” on the other – sentiments found on many similar signs around their neighborhood in Alexandria, Virginia, and in the rest of the country.Alito took further umbrage after January 6 when Baden erected signs that read “Trump Is a Fascist” and “You Are Complicit” – the latter intended, Baden says, as a condemnation of all Trump supporters, not as a message to the Alitos, who had no direct view of it from their house.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe next day, according to Baden, Martha-Ann Alito pulled up in front of their house in her car and glared at her and her partner (now her husband). The security detail started parking outside the house around the same time, and the dispute continued for more than a month, culminating in the swearing incident in mid-February and a police report that the Badens filed right after.“This was unhinged behavior towards a complete stranger, who had done nothing except put up a yard sign,” Baden charged. “I became truly afraid of what they might do.”That fear also made her hesitate about agreeing to be named publicly. She knows how quickly people can be vilified when stepping into a high-profile political controversy, and she has thought of Anita Hill, who tried in vain to stop Clarence Thomas being named to the supreme court in the early 1990s, and of Christine Blasey Ford, who testified against Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings in 2018, also to no avail.“I was scared for myself, for my mother, for my family, for anyone who shares my last name,” Baden said.Then news broke of a second flag affiliated with the “Stop the Steal” movement being flown at a second Alito home, and she felt she had no choice but to speak out.“That other flag sealed the deal for me,” she said. “I thought, if I don’t use my name, I will not be true to myself and my lifelong convictions. I believe in resistance to fascism. My grandpa fought in world war two … he was a person who quite literally fought against fascism.”Her view of Alito was further coloured by the fact that he wrote the majority opinion in the 2022 Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization – the decision that overturned Roe v Wade and ended a constitutional right to an abortion. She happened to be in Virginia when the news broke, and participated in street protests outside the Alitos’ home, at which point her signs (and almost everyone else’s) were indeed personally directed at the justice.Now, she feels compelled to add her voice to the growing calls for Alito to recuse himself from Trump-related cases before the supreme court and is willing to testify before Congress, as Hill and Blasey Ford did before her.“This story is not about me. I didn’t do anything except put a sign in my front yard,” she said. “The story is that one of the most powerful men in the country showed allegiance to an insurrection … I’m horrified by this behaviour, and want to see at least a modicum of accountability.“If I’m coming forward, it is to encourage other people to resist. I want to galvanise people and let them know they have the power. It truly gives me chills to think how close we came to a coup, and Christian fascists taking over our country. [But] this is still a democracy.” More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is guilty on all counts. So what happens next? – podcast

      by

      Today, we are sharing Politics Weekly America’s latest episode with Today in Focus listeners. Donald Trump has made history again, becoming the first US president, sitting or former, to be a convicted criminal. Late on Thursday a New York jury found him guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal. Within minutes of leaving the courtroom, Trump said he would appeal. On a historic night for American politics, Jonathan Freedland and Sam Levine look at what the verdict will mean – for Trump himself, and for the election in November. Archive: CNN, CBS, MSNBC, ITV, NBC More

    • 200 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      At long last, ‘Teflon Don’ Trump couldn’t unstick himself from the legal system | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      For decades, he skated. Nothing seemed to stick to the Teflon-coated businessman-turned-president. The guy who didn’t pay his bills, who constantly lied, who mocked a disabled journalist, who insulted a Gold Star family, who bragged about grabbing women by their private parts, who praised dictators, who urged a violent mob to overturn an election, who was unperturbed as his own vice-president was threatened with hanging.Yes, he skated – through two impeachments, through countless investigations and accusations, and through so much chaos that responsible US citizens became almost numb and hopeless.And then came Thursday afternoon, when 12 regular New Yorkers – against the odds and against the conventional wisdom – simply did their civic duty and convicted Donald Trump.Unanimously. On all counts. And quickly. No hung jury, no hesitation – their deliberations lasted not weeks, but mere hours – and no mixed decisions.It took the US jury system to finally bring some accountability, with quite a bit of help from an adult film actor, a sleazy tabloid executive, and the ex-president’s former fixer, a notorious liar himself.In a world so divided that our political tribes can’t seem to agree on a single fact, we now have one that is impossible to argue with: Trump is a convicted felon, the first US president to be convicted of a crime – the crime of falsifying documents to cover up a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 election, lest she tell her tale of their tryst.That much we know. That much can’t be denied, no matter the bitter whining on Fox News or the inevitable claims of a unfair legal system and a corrupt judge.And to those millions who have watched his destructive and sordid career for years, the jury’s decision in a New York courtroom brought a moment both regrettable and righteous.Regrettable, of course, because it’s all so sordid and shameful that this con man was able to operate with impunity.And righteous because somehow the truth won out in this lower Manhattan courtroom and because – quite simply – Trump deserves it.What we don’t know is if it will matter to his bid for the presidency in November.If you believe public opinion polls – it’s wise to be skeptical – it probably will make a difference. Not to his most loyal followers, of course, who have been taught to believe only him. These are the followers who, Trump himself famously said, wouldn’t change their votes if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue.But to some number of reasonable Americans, it will matter. They will decide that they’d rather not put a convicted felon back in the White House, where he never belonged to begin with.A new Marist poll released this week estimated that two-thirds of voters said a felony conviction wouldn’t change their minds. But 17% of the respondents (presumably representing millions of Americans) allowed that they would be less likely to vote for a convicted Trump.The rightwing media, of course, will do what it can to save him. It’s already working on the case. In the initial hour or so after the verdict, the pundit and former prosecutor Jeanine Pirro, visibly indignant, told the Fox News faithful that “this is warfare,” and “God help America after what I’ve seen in the last two weeks.”And Trump predictably blasted the trial as “rigged” and “disgraceful”, having said just on Wednesday that even the sainted Mother Teresa couldn’t have survived its horrors.But two facts remain. Trump is now a convicted felon. And there is – after his endless and appalling parade of malfeasance – some semblance of justice.
      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump was found guilty – what could his punishment be?

      by

      A Manhattan jury has convicted Donald Trump on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in the hush-money case.The immediate next question is: what punishment the former US president should receive?It’s a decision that rests entirely with Juan Merchan, the judge overseeing the case. The crimes Trump has been found guilty of, falsifying business records in the first degree, are class E felonies in New York, the least serious category, and punishable by up to four years in prison. His sentencing is set for 11 July.But Trump is unlikely to be sentenced to prison, experts say. He is a first-time offender, and the crime he has been found guilty of is a non-violent paper crime.“I think the judge would probably not incarcerate him under those circumstances alone,” said Cheryl Bader, a law professor at Fordham University who called any sentence of incarceration “unlikely”.“But also given that he is a former president, has a Secret Service detail and is also the presumptive Republican nominee, I think a term of incarceration would be logistically very difficult, but also would have political implications that I think Judge Merchan would want to avoid.”Any punishment is likely to consist of fines, probation, community service or some combination of those.“I would like to see community service – picking up trash on the subway,” said Karen Friedman Agnifilo, a former top prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office.Much could depend on how Merchan interprets Trump’s conduct, including any lack of remorse.“I can’t imagine we will see a remorseful, apologetic Trump if it comes time for sentencing,” Bader said. “Judges also consider the harm caused. On one hand, Judge Merchan could view this as a technical recording violation to cover up tawdry conduct, causing only minimal harm. On the other hand, he could view Trump’s conduct as inflicting deep harm on the entire country by depriving the voting public of their right to cast an informed vote in the highest-ranking national election.”The jury did not have the option of convicting Trump of a misdemeanor – of falsifying business records but not in service of another underlying crime. Trump’s attorneys could have asked Merchan to give the jury that option, but they did not do so.Both the prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers will submit recommendations for sentencing. So too will the probation office, which will put together a confidential presentencing report for the judge.Trump will almost certainly quickly appeal. Any punishment would then probably be on hold while an appeal is pending.The appellate process would take months, even years, to play out, meaning it could be a while before the sentence would take effect. Trump has 30 days to file a notice of appeal of the guilty verdict, and then six months to file a full appeal to the first judicial department, which hears appeals from New York county. If a conviction were upheld, Trump would then likely appeal to the New York court of appeals, the seven-member body that is the highest appellate court in New York state. That court has discretion over whether to hear the case or not.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe issues argued on appeal would likely be complex legal questions – for example, whether the judge gave appropriate instructions to the jury and allowed the right evidence to be included or excluded. Facts, and the credibility of witnesses, would not be issues on appeal.If the conviction is upheld by the New York court of appeals, Trump would likely appeal to the US supreme court, which could also choose whether or not to take the case. Because the case is under New York state law, getting it into the US supreme court would require Trump to convince the justices that there is some federal or constitutional question at stake.The conviction will not affect Trump’s legal ability to run for president. The constitution does not bar felons from running for office. Whether he could serve as president from prison is untested. He would not be able to pardon himself from any conviction, since it is a state crime.The conviction will probably not affect Trump’s ability to vote in this fall’s election. Florida, where he is registered, allows people with an out-of-state conviction to vote if the state where they were convicted allows it. In New York, someone with a felony conviction can vote as long as they are not incarcerated.Merchan has already punished Trump twice during the case for violating a gag order in place, and the way the judge handled both episodes could offer insight into how he will approach any possible punishment for Trump. It underscores that Merchan is keenly aware of the logistical difficulty of incarcerating Trump and the broader political implications of doing so.“Mr Trump, it’s important to understand that the last thing I want to do is to put you in jail. You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president, as well,” Merchan said on 6 May, when he issued a $1,000 fine holding Trump in contempt of court for the 10th time. He went on to explain why putting Trump in jail at that time was “truly a last resort for me … I also worry about the people who would have to execute that sanction: the court officers, the correction officers, the Secret Service detail, among others. I worry about them and about what would go into executing such a sanction.“Of course, I’m also aware of the broader implications of such a sanction. The magnitude of such a decision is not one-sided. But, at the end of the day, I have a job to do, and part of that job is to protect the dignity of the judicial system and compel respect,” he added. More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump was just convicted of conspiracy and fraud. He could still win re-election | Lloyd Green

      by

      On Thursday, a Manhattan jury found Donald Trump guilty of all 34 counts of conspiracy and fraud in a case stemming from payments that the former president arranged to cover up an affair with the adult film actor Stormy Daniels. The presumptive Republican nominee is now a convicted felon.He was already an adjudicated sexual predator and fraudster. Trump once quipped that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. Maybe not.Sentencing has been set for 11 July. Of course, it is unlikely that Trump will serve time in prison for what amounts to a bookkeeping offense. Rather, he could be placed on probation and required to report to New York City’s probation department, which has been described as a “humbling” experience. Regardless, the conviction does not disqualify him as a candidate or bar him from again sitting in the Oval Office.Practically speaking, Americans who support Joe Biden must internalize that Trump’s conviction is unlikely to greatly impact his odds of being re-elected president – which are already far higher than many Democrats care to acknowledge. The betting markets are in his corner.The deadline for further motions is 27 June, which is also the day of the first presidential debate. Trump, who denied the charges against him, had previously branded the trial “rigged” and a “scam”. As he exited the courthouse on Thursday, he told watching cameras: “This was a rigged, disgraceful trial. The real verdict is going to be November 5th, by the people.”In the aftermath of his defeat in 2016 in the Iowa caucus and again after losing to Biden in 2020, he resorted to the same playbook. Regardless, his disgrace and lust for vengeance are real. Just look at January 6. Someone who would otherwise be barred from obtaining a security clearance could be the next president. For its part, the Republican party, the so-called law-and-order party, has embraced a convicted criminal as its standard-bearer.Defeat in a New York courtroom, however, is not the same as a Trump loss in November. The 45th president possesses the good fortune of running against an 81-year-old with a halting gait and tentative mien.The calendar will quickly test whatever boost Biden garners from his predecessor’s criminal conviction.On 3 June, the trial of Hunter Biden on federal gun charges kicks off in Delaware. Seemingly clueless to this reality, the president hosted his prodigal son at a recent state dinner for William Ruto, the president of Kenya. Hunter Biden also faces a trial on criminal tax charges in early September, just as the fall campaign begins in earnest.By the end of June, the US supreme court too may provide Trump with another boost. It is expected that the Republican-dominated high court will further slow the special counsel’s election interference case against Trump, ostensibly over the issue of presidential immunity.Last, the first presidential debate is slated for 27 June. Four years have passed since Biden and a Covid-carrying Trump squared off before the cameras. Trump came in too hot while Biden bobbed and weaved. Biden also dinged fossil fuels, making the race in Pennsylvania closer than necessary.However you slice it, Biden’s post-State of the Union resurgence is over. He persistently trails Trump in the critical battleground states. He runs behind the Democratic Senate candidates in places like Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania.Let’s be clear, the rejection is to some extent personal. Unabated doubts swirl about Biden’s continued capacity to lead and govern. Most Americans view Biden as incapable of taming inflation, let alone securing the border.“Working-class voters are unhappy about President Biden’s economy,” Axios reports.Beyond that, the sting of inflation is actually sharper in the precincts of so-called red America. Ominously for the incumbent, his difficulties with non-college graduates cut across race and ethnicity.David Axelrod, chief political adviser to Barack Obama, has taken Biden – Obama’s vice-president – to task. It’s “absolutely true” that the economy has grown under Biden, Axelrod told CNN, but voters are “experiencing [the economy] through the lens of the cost of living. And he is a man who’s built his career on empathy. Why not lead with the empathy?”Instead, Biden keeps touting his own record to tepid applause.“If he doesn’t win this race, it may not be Donald Trump that beats him,” Axelrod continued. “It may be his own pride.”By the numbers, Biden leads among suburban moms and dads and households earning more than $50,000, but lags among people with lower incomes. His voting base bears little resemblance to the lunch-bucket coalition that powered Franklin D Roosevelt and John F Kennedy to the White House last century.“We keep wondering why these young people are not coming home to the Democrats. Why are [Black voters] not coming home to the Democrats?” James Carville, the campaign guru behind Bill Clinton’s win in 1992, recently lamented. “Because Democrat messaging is full of shit, that’s why.”Once upon a time, Carville coined the phrase: “It’s the economy, stupid.” Three decades have not diminished its truth or resonance.Similarly, Biden ignores the reality that he must hug the cultural center as he tacks leftward on economics. Working Americans want stability, safe streets and a paycheck that takes them far. Campus radicals, riots and identity politics are a turnoff.Both Trump and Biden have aged and slowed down since their paths first crossed. Trump continues to display manic stamina on the stump. In contrast, Biden’s events are uninspired, under-attended and over-scripted. For the president, “spontaneity” is synonymous with “gaffe”.Whether Biden brings his A-game to the June debate may determine his fate. If he fails, expect a long summer for the Democrats. Indeed, the party’s convention set for Chicago may rekindle unpleasant memories of 1968. And we know how that ended.To win, Biden must quickly capitalize on Trump’s conviction. The jury is out on whether the 46th president possesses the requisite skill-set.
      Lloyd Green is an attorney in New York and served in the US Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992 More