Tuesday, July 02, 2024

Rep. Lloyd Doggett Becomes First Democrat in Congress to Call for Biden’s Withdrawal from 2024 Race

A House Democratic lawmaker has become the first in the party to publicly call for President Joe Biden to step down as the Democratic nominee for president, citing Biden’s debate performance against Donald Trump.

BY FARNOUSH AMIRI

5:17 PM EDT, July 2, 2024

WASHINGTON (AP) — A House Democratic lawmaker has become the first in the party to publicly call for President Joe Biden to step down as the party’s nominee for president, citing Biden’s debate performance against Donald Trump failing to “effectively defend his many accomplishments.”

Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas said in a statement Tuesday that Biden should “make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw.”

“My decision to make these strong reservations public is not done lightly nor does it in any way diminish my respect for all that President Biden has achieved,” Doggett said. “Recognizing that, unlike Trump, President Biden’s first commitment has always been to our country, not himself, I am hopeful that he will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw. I respectfully call on him to do so.”

Doggett, who represents an Austin-based district and is serving his 15th term in Congress, is the first sitting lawmaker in his party to publicly state what many have been privately whispering behind closed doors since last week’s debate. Biden’s weak performance caused immediate panic among even his most ardent supporters, leading many to question whether the 81-year-old career politician is the strongest Democratic candidate to take on Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, in November.

“I represent the heart of a congressional district once represented by Lyndon Johnson,” Doggett, who is the No. 2 Democrat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, continued. “Under very different circumstances, he made the painful decision to withdraw. President Biden should do the same.”

Biden himself conceded the debate didn’t go well for him, but he insisted he was ready to fight for a second term as president. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, asked Tuesday about growing concerns among Democrats, said they respect the opinions and thoughts of concerned party members, adding, “that’s what makes this party different than the other side.” As for Doggett, she said: “He’s going to have his thoughts. That’s for him to speak to.”

Beyond the White House, control of both chambers of Congress is also hanging in the balance in November, and Democrats find themselves defending far more Senate seats than Republicans. The Democrats hold the Senate with a slim 51-49 majority, while Republicans control the House by only a handful of seats.

Doggett’s explosive statement came minutes after former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told MSNBC that she believes “it is a legitimate question” whether Biden’s halting performance is just “an episode or is this a condition.”

“When people ask that question, it’s legitimate -- of both candidates,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi said she had not spoken with Biden since the debate, but she emphasized that the president is on “top of his game, in terms of knowing the issues and what is at stake.”

It all amounts to a stunning and swift turn of events for Biden, his campaign and his allies on Capitol Hill, who have spent the better part of the last several years combatting criticism about the president’s fitness and defending his ability to serve another four-year term, at the end of which he would be 86 years old.

But Biden’s shaky performance during the debate with Trump has shaken Democratic support to its foundations, with members of the party at all levels entertaining the possibility that he can no longer be the nominee.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee and an influential voice in the caucus, over the weekend, broached the possibility of Biden stepping aside ahead of the Democratic convention in August.

“So whether he’s the candidate or someone else is the candidate, he is going to be the keynote speaker at our convention,” Raskin told MSNBC about Biden. “He will be the figure that we rally around to move forward.”

Other elected Democrats said they were caught off guard by Biden’s rambling and raspy performance. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, of Rhode Island, said that he has known Biden for years and served in the Senate with him, but had “never seen that happen before.”

“I think people want to make sure that this is a campaign that’s ready to go and win, that the president and his team are being candid with us about his condition — that this was a real anomaly and not just the way he is these days,” Whitehouse told WPRI on Monday.

And then there is a faction of the Democratic party who are deeply disappointed by Biden’s performance, but point to the political reality that less than two months from the Democratic National Convention and four months from election day, the path to an alternative candidate is rocky and uncertain.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, Biden’s one-time Democratic opponent, told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday that while he’s not confident the president can win in November, he doesn’t want him to step aside, considering what the party views as the greatest threat to Democracy in Trump.

“A presidential election is not a Grammy Award contest for the best singer or entertainer. It’s about who has the best policies that impact our lives,” Sanders said. “I’m going to do everything I can to see that Biden gets reelected.”

___

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Stephen Groves in Washington and Steve Peoples in New York contributed to this report.

Former Missouri Prison Guards Plead Not Guilty to Murder in Death of Black Man

BY SUMMER BALLENTINE

6:38 PM EDT, July 1, 2024

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Four former Missouri guards have pleaded not guilty to murder in the death of a Black man in prison, and a fifth has pleaded not guilty to accessory to involuntary manslaughter.

Othel Moore Jr., 38, died on Dec. 8 in the Jefferson City Correctional Center. A criminal complaint filed Friday alleged that the guards pepper-sprayed Moore, placed a mask over his face and left him in a position that caused him to suffocate.

Cole County Associate Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh on Monday refused to allow bond for three of the men charged with second-degree murder: Aaron Brown, Jacob Case and Justin Leggins. Gregory Varner, also charged with second-degree murder, is jailed without bond. His arraignment is scheduled for Wednesday. Each were fired in the wake of Moore’s death.

Cole County Prosecuting Attorney Locke Thompson on Monday said Bryanne Bradshaw, who is charged with accessory to involuntary manslaughter, paid bond and has been released from jail. Her next court appearance is scheduled for July 30.

Moore was searched and stripped down to his boxer shorts inside his cell during a prison contraband sweep. He was then handcuffed behind his back and led outside, according to a probable cause statement from deputies. Moore showed no aggression during the process and was complying with orders, investigators wrote.

While standing handcuffed just outside his cell door, Moore was pepper-sprayed, then put in a spit hood, leg wrap and restraint chair, according to Thompson’s office. Guards told investigators that Moore was not following orders to be quiet and spit at them, although witnesses said Moore was spitting pepper spray out of his mouth.

Thompson said multiple people heard Moore saying he couldn’t breathe and that the events were captured on the prison’s video surveillance system.

Moore was eventually taken to a hospital wing and was pronounced dead. Thompson said the medical examiner ruled Moore’s cause of death was from positional asphyxiation, and his death was listed as a homicide.

Moore, who grew up in St. Louis, was serving a 30-year sentence on range of charges, including second-degree domestic assault and first-degree robbery. His family filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the defendants and the Missouri Department of Corrections on Friday.

The Corrections Department released a statement saying it cooperated with the Cole County Sheriff’s Department’s investigation and has made policy changes since Moore’s death.

Leggins and Brown on Monday told the judge that they are still trying to hire private lawyers to represent them. No one immediately responded to a Facebook message from The Associated Press to a person associated with Leggins.

It is unclear if Varner and Bradshaw have hired attorneys: Missouri’s online court record system was out statewide on Monday and the jail declined to allow the AP to speak with Varner. A phone message and email to contacts associated with Bradshaw were not immediately answered Monday.

Case said he has a lawyer, but it is unclear who that is because of the court records outage.

___

Researcher Rhonda Shafner contributed from New York.

Bill Defining Antisemitism in North Carolina Signed by Governor

3:44 PM EDT, July 1, 2024

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper on Monday signed legislation that places an official definition of antisemitism into state law, which supporters say could help law enforcement determine whether someone should be charged under current hate crime prohibitions based on race, religion or nationality.

The measure came to Cooper’s desk after the Senate and House approved it in near-unanimous votes last week. The bipartisan backing followed recent heated nationwide campus protests over the Israel-Hamas War and supporters’ concerns that some comments by pro-Palestinian demonstrators had crossed the line into being antisemitic.

The act adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which is outlined as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” It also includes several examples of antisemitism, such as the denial of Jewish people’s right to self-determination and applying double standards to Israel’s actions.

In a statement Monday, Cooper said the now-enacted “SHALOM Act” addresses rising antisemitism.

“While we protect the right to free speech, this legislation helps to make our state a more welcoming, inclusive and safe place for everyone,” the Democratic governor said.

A coalition of civil liberties and multifaith groups opposed the legislation, saying it could stifle protesters’ otherwise free speech, particularly of words critical of Israel. Opponents demonstrated outside the governor’s mansion late last week urging that he veto the bill.

As of Monday afternoon, Cooper still had more than 20 bills on his desk sent to him by the General Assembly before lawmakers wrapped up their primary work session for the year. Cooper has a 10-day window on each bill to sign them into law or veto them. A bill becomes law if he takes no action within 10 days.

Monday, July 01, 2024

Sotomayor’s Dissent: A President Should Not be a ‘King Above the Law’

BY LINDSAY WHITEHURST

4:05 PM EDT, July 1, 2024

WASHINGTON (AP) — In an unsparing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Supreme Court allowed a president to become a “king above the law” in its ruling that limited the scope of criminal charges against former President Donald Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol and efforts to overturn the election.

She called the decision, which likely ended the prospect of a trial for Trump before the November election, “utterly indefensible.”

“The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding,” she wrote. She was joined by liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote another dissent referring to the ruling’s consequences as a “five alarm fire.”

Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the courtroom, with a weighty delivery that underscored her criticism of the majority. She strongly pronounced each word, pausing at certain moments and gritting her teeth at others.

“Ironic isn’t it? The man in charge of enforcing laws can now just break them,” Sotomayor said.

Chief Justice John Roberts accused the liberal justices of fearmongering in the 6-3 majority opinion. It found that presidents aren’t above the law but must be entitled to presumptive immunity to allow them to forcefully exercise the office’s far-reaching powers and avoid a vicious cycle of politically motivated prosecutions.

While the opinion allows for the possibility of prosecutions for private acts, Sotomayor said it “deprives these prosecutions of any teeth” by excluding any evidence that related to official acts where the president is immune.

“This majority’s project will have disastrous consequences for the presidency and for our democracy,” she said. She ended by saying, “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

Trump, for his part, has denied doing anything wrong and has said this prosecution and three others are politically motivated to try to keep him from returning to the White House.

The other justices looked on in silence and largely remained still as Sotomayor spoke, with Justice Samuel Alito shuffling through papers and appearing to study them.

Sotomayor pointed to historical evidence, from the founding fathers to Watergate, that presidents could potentially face prosecution. She took a jab at the conservative majority that has made the nation’s history a guiding principle on issues like guns and abortion. “Interesting, history matters, right?”

Then she looked at the courtroom audience and concluded, “Except here.”

The majority feared that the threat of potential prosecution could constrain a president or create a “cycle of factional strife,” that the founders intended to avoid.

Sotomayor, on the other handed, pointed out that presidents have access to extensive legal advice about their actions and that criminal cases typically face high bars in court to proceed.

“It is a far greater danger if the president feels empowered to violate federal criminal law, buoyed by the knowledge of future immunity,” she said. “I am deeply troubled by the idea ... that our nation loses something valuable when the president is forced to operate within the confines of federal criminal law.”

___

Associated Press writer Stephen Groves contributed to this story.

What to Know About the Supreme Court Immunity Ruling in Trump’s 2020 Election Interference Case

The Supreme Court rules that former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. This delays further the Washington criminal case against ex-President Donald Trump that he plotted to overturn his 2020 election loss.

BY ALANNA DURKIN RICHER, ERIC TUCKER AND MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

9:30 PM EDT, July 1, 2024

Highlights: Replay AP’s coverage of the US Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court’s ruling Monday in former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case makes it all but certain that the Republican will not face trial in Washington ahead of the November election.

The Supreme Court did not dismiss — as Trump had wanted — the indictment alleging he illegally schemed to cling to power after he lost to President Joe Biden. But the ruling still amounts to a major victory for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, whose legal strategy has focused on delaying the proceedings until after the election.

The timing of the trial matters because if Trump defeats Biden, he could appoint an attorney general who would seek the dismissal of this case and the other federal prosecutions he faces. Or Trump could potentially order a pardon for himself.

Trump posted in all capital letters on his social media network shortly after the decision was released: “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”

In remarks Monday evening, Biden said the court had done a “terrible disservice” to the American people, who he says deserved to know the outcome of the case before they head to the polls.

“The American people will have to render a judgment about Donald Trump’s behavior,” Biden said. “The American people must decide whether Trump’s assault on our democracy on Jan. 6 makes him unfit for public office.”

Here’s a look at the ruling and what comes next:

THE OPINION

The court’s conservative majority said former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” and are presumptively entitled to immunity for all official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial, or private, actions.

The ruling means that special counsel Jack Smith cannot proceed with significant allegations in the indictment — or must at least defend their use in future proceedings before the trial judge.

The justices, for instance, wiped out Smith’s use of allegations that Trump tried to use the investigative power of the Justice Department to undo the election results, holding that his communications with agency officials is plainly protected from prosecution.

The justices sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who must now “carefully analyze” whether other allegations involve official conduct for which the president would be immune from prosecution.

Among the issues for further analysis is Trump’s relentless badgering of then-Vice President Mike Pence to not certify the electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021. The justices said it was “ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity” in Trump’s interactions with Pence.

The order also directed additional analysis on the various posts on X, then known as Twitter, that Trump made — as well as a speech he delivered to supporters — in the run-up to the riot at the U.S. Capitol. Determining whether that communication represents official versus unofficial acts, the justices said, “may depend on the content and context of each” and thus needs more scrutiny.

THE FAKE ELECTORS SCHEME

The justices required fresh fact-finding on one of the more stunning allegations in the indictment — that Trump had participated in a scheme orchestrated by allies to enlist slates of fraudulent electors in battleground states won by Biden who would falsely attest that Trump had won in those states.

The Trump team had argued that the selection of alternate electors was in keeping with Trump’s presidential interest in the integrity and proper administration of the federal elections and cited as precedent an episode he said took place in the disputed election in 1876.

The Smith team, by contrast, portrayed the scheme as a purely private action that implicated no presidential responsibility.

The conservative justices in their majority opinion didn’t answer the question as to which side was right, instead saying that “determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a close analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations.”

Unlike Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department, the justices said, “this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons.”

THE DISSENTERS

The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — sharply criticized the majority’s opinion in scathing dissents. Sotomayor gave a dramatic speech as she read her dissent from the bench, at times shaking her head and gritting her teeth as she said the conservative majority wrongly insulated the U.S. president as “a king above the law.”

“Ironic isn’t it? The man in charge of enforcing laws can now just break them,” Sotomayor said.

The dissenting justices said the majority decision makes presidents immune from prosecution for acts such as ordering Navy seals to assassinate a political rival, organizing a military coup to hold onto power or accepting a bribe in exchange for a pardon.

“Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. 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,” Sotomayor wrote.

In a separate dissenting opinion, Jackson said the majority’s ruling “breaks new and dangerous ground.”

“Stated simply: The Court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself,” Jackson wrote.

The majority opinion accused the liberal justices of “fear mongering” and striking a “tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the court actually does today.”

WHAT COMES NEXT

The case will now go back to Chutkan. The trial was supposed to have begun in March, but the case has been on hold since December to allow Trump to pursue his appeal. Chutkan had indicated at that time she would likely give the two sides at least three months to get ready for trial once the case returns to her court.

That had left the door open to the case potentially going to trial before the election if the Supreme Court — like the lower courts — had ruled that Trump was not immune from prosecution.

But the Supreme Court’s ruling that Chutkan must conduct further analysis is expected tie the case up for months with legal wrangling over whether the actions in the indictment were official or unofficial.

TRUMP’S OTHER CASES

Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts in his hush money trial in New York and is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11. The falsifying business records charges are punishable by up to four years behind bars, but there’s no guarantee Trump will get prison time. Other possibilities include fines or probation.

It seems almost certain that Trump’s two other criminal cases will not go to trial before the election.

An appeals court recently halted Trump’s Georgia 2020 election interference case while it reviews the lower court judge’s ruling allowing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to remain on the case. No trial date had been set in that case. Trump’s lawyers have asserted presidential immunity in that case, though there’s been no ruling.

Trump was supposed to stand trial starting in May in the other case brought by Smith, over classified documents found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate after he left the White House. But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon canceled the trial date as the case got bogged down with legal issues. She has yet to schedule a new one. That case, too, involves a claim by the Trump team of immunity that prosecutors have disputed.

Last week, Cannon set the stage further delays by agreeing to revisit a ruling by another judge that permitted crucial evidence related to allegations of obstruction of justice by Trump to be introduced into the case.

One of the arguments Cannon has entertained — that Smith was illegally appointed and that the case should be dismissed — got little traction with the Supreme Court.

A separate concurrence from Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that Smith’s appointment was improper, but no other justice signed onto that.

_____

Associated Press reporters Michelle L. Price in New York, Kate Brumback in Atlanta and Stephen Groves in Washington contributed.

What to Know About the Supreme Court Immunity Ruling in Trump’s 2020 Election Interference Case

The Supreme Court rules that former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. This delays further the Washington criminal case against ex-President Donald Trump that he plotted to overturn his 2020 election loss.

BY  ALANNA DURKIN RICHER, ERIC TUCKER AND MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

9:30 PM EDT, July 1, 2024

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court’s ruling Monday in former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case makes it all but certain that the Republican will not face trial in Washington ahead of the November election.

The Supreme Court did not dismiss — as Trump had wanted — the indictment alleging he illegally schemed to cling to power after he lost to President Joe Biden. But the ruling still amounts to a major victory for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, whose legal strategy has focused on delaying the proceedings until after the election.

The timing of the trial matters because if Trump defeats Biden, he could appoint an attorney general who would seek the dismissal of this case and the other federal prosecutions he faces. Or Trump could potentially order a pardon for himself.

Trump posted in all capital letters on his social media network shortly after the decision was released: “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”

In remarks Monday evening, Biden said the court had done a “terrible disservice” to the American people, who he says deserved to know the outcome of the case before they head to the polls.

“The American people will have to render a judgment about Donald Trump’s behavior,” Biden said. “The American people must decide whether Trump’s assault on our democracy on Jan. 6 makes him unfit for public office.”

Here’s a look at the ruling and what comes next:

THE OPINION

The court’s conservative majority said former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” and are presumptively entitled to immunity for all official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial, or private, actions.

The ruling means that special counsel Jack Smith cannot proceed with significant allegations in the indictment — or must at least defend their use in future proceedings before the trial judge.

The justices, for instance, wiped out Smith’s use of allegations that Trump tried to use the investigative power of the Justice Department to undo the election results, holding that his communications with agency officials is plainly protected from prosecution.

The justices sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who must now “carefully analyze” whether other allegations involve official conduct for which the president would be immune from prosecution.

Among the issues for further analysis is Trump’s relentless badgering of then-Vice President Mike Pence to not certify the electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021. The justices said it was “ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity” in Trump’s interactions with Pence.

The order also directed additional analysis on the various posts on X, then known as Twitter, that Trump made — as well as a speech he delivered to supporters — in the run-up to the riot at the U.S. Capitol. Determining whether that communication represents official versus unofficial acts, the justices said, “may depend on the content and context of each” and thus needs more scrutiny.

THE FAKE ELECTORS SCHEME

The justices required fresh fact-finding on one of the more stunning allegations in the indictment — that Trump had participated in a scheme orchestrated by allies to enlist slates of fraudulent electors in battleground states won by Biden who would falsely attest that Trump had won in those states.

The Trump team had argued that the selection of alternate electors was in keeping with Trump’s presidential interest in the integrity and proper administration of the federal elections and cited as precedent an episode he said took place in the disputed election in 1876.

The Smith team, by contrast, portrayed the scheme as a purely private action that implicated no presidential responsibility.

The conservative justices in their majority opinion didn’t answer the question as to which side was right, instead saying that “determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a close analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations.”

Unlike Trump’s interactions with the Justice Department, the justices said, “this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons.”

THE DISSENTERS

The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — sharply criticized the majority’s opinion in scathing dissents. Sotomayor gave a dramatic speech as she read her dissent from the bench, at times shaking her head and gritting her teeth as she said the conservative majority wrongly insulated the U.S. president as “a king above the law.”

“Ironic isn’t it? The man in charge of enforcing laws can now just break them,” Sotomayor said.

The dissenting justices said the majority decision makes presidents immune from prosecution for acts such as ordering Navy seals to assassinate a political rival, organizing a military coup to hold onto power or accepting a bribe in exchange for a pardon.

“Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. 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,” Sotomayor wrote.

In a separate dissenting opinion, Jackson said the majority’s ruling “breaks new and dangerous ground.”

“Stated simply: The Court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself,” Jackson wrote.

The majority opinion accused the liberal justices of “fear mongering” and striking a “tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the court actually does today.”

WHAT COMES NEXT

The case will now go back to Chutkan. The trial was supposed to have begun in March, but the case has been on hold since December to allow Trump to pursue his appeal. Chutkan had indicated at that time she would likely give the two sides at least three months to get ready for trial once the case returns to her court.

That had left the door open to the case potentially going to trial before the election if the Supreme Court — like the lower courts — had ruled that Trump was not immune from prosecution.

But the Supreme Court’s ruling that Chutkan must conduct further analysis is expected tie the case up for months with legal wrangling over whether the actions in the indictment were official or unofficial.

TRUMP’S OTHER CASES

Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts in his hush money trial in New York and is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11. The falsifying business records charges are punishable by up to four years behind bars, but there’s no guarantee Trump will get prison time. Other possibilities include fines or probation.

It seems almost certain that Trump’s two other criminal cases will not go to trial before the election.

An appeals court recently halted Trump’s Georgia 2020 election interference case while it reviews the lower court judge’s ruling allowing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to remain on the case. No trial date had been set in that case. Trump’s lawyers have asserted presidential immunity in that case, though there’s been no ruling.

Trump was supposed to stand trial starting in May in the other case brought by Smith, over classified documents found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate after he left the White House. But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon canceled the trial date as the case got bogged down with legal issues. She has yet to schedule a new one. That case, too, involves a claim by the Trump team of immunity that prosecutors have disputed.

Last week, Cannon set the stage further delays by agreeing to revisit a ruling by another judge that permitted crucial evidence related to allegations of obstruction of justice by Trump to be introduced into the case.

One of the arguments Cannon has entertained — that Smith was illegally appointed and that the case should be dismissed — got little traction with the Supreme Court.

A separate concurrence from Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that Smith’s appointment was improper, but no other justice signed onto that.

_____

Associated Press reporters Michelle L. Price in New York, Kate Brumback in Atlanta and Stephen Groves in Washington contributed.

In a Staring Contest With Democratic Voters, Joe Biden Hasn’t Blinked

Around Mr. Biden, a siege mentality has set in post-debate, one at odds with the persistent concerns of voters who view him as too old to be effective.

President Biden’s debate performance on Thursday ignited a fresh round of questions about whether he should stay atop the ticket.

By Shane Goldmacher

July 1, 2024, 5:08 p.m. ET

For years, President Biden has had a ready retort for the naysayers who have questioned his facility and fitness to run for president again at age 81 and to serve until he is 86. “Watch me,” he has said.

But in the days since tens of millions of Americans watched him fumble Thursday’s debate in real time, Mr. Biden has essentially adopted a new line: Trust me.

“Folks,” he said at a New York fund-raiser the next night, “I would not be running again if I did not believe with all of my heart and soul that I can do this job.”

It’s a cliché of political strategy that smart campaigns meet voters where they are. That typically means fashioning a strategy that taps into the public’s pre-existing feelings, rather than seeking to change how the electorate perceives matters.

Yet the trouble for the president is that even on the eve of his faltering debate, a New York Times/Siena College poll showed that 69 percent of voters — and 55 percent of Biden voters — saw Mr. Biden as too old to be an effective president. It is not a new concern: Nearly two years ago, a strong majority of Democratic voters said they wanted a new standard-bearer.

Now those persistent concerns from everyday Americans are being echoed publicly by many in the Democratic Party’s pundit class and privately by lawmakers, donors and strategists. They are worried about losing a 2024 campaign against former President Donald J. Trump, whom many view as an existential threat to the nation.

“Biden’s debate performance was a catastrophe from which there may be no recovery,” one House Democratic lawmaker texted a Democratic donor, Whitney Tilson. Mr. Tilson, a former hedge fund manager, shared the message on the condition the lawmaker not be named.

Around Mr. Biden, a siege mentality has set in for a team that remembers — and is fond of repeating — how it outlasted the doubters four years ago to win the nomination in the first place.

“He’s really at his best when the pundits are overreacting and counting him out,” Ted Kaufman, one of Mr. Biden’s closest advisers and his former chief of staff in the Senate, said in an interview. “He has a hell of record. I think he should stay. He is the best president in modern history.”

As the president huddled with his family at Camp David in recent days, his advisers rushed to keep in line any potential prominent wayward Democrats who might abandon their party’s leader. Mr. Biden’s team was discussing some kind of interview or news conference to comfort the concerned even before Mika Brzezinski, the co-host of the MSNBC show Mr. Biden often wakes up to watch, said in a monologue on Monday that “America needs an explanation from Joe Biden and reassurance that the other night was a onetime event.”

This spring, Mr. Biden’s top brass pressed for the earliest general-election debate in history, as a way to force voters to sooner accept the reality of a Trump-Biden rematch that polls have repeatedly showed they do not want. It was a calculated gamble at a moment when Mr. Biden trailed in the polls. The thinking at the time: Once that contrast became clearer and the contest undeniable, those on-the-fence Democrats would rejoin the party fold.

Instead, the debate flop has ignited a fresh round of questions about whether Mr. Biden should stay atop the ticket. At the least, it has prolonged the very conversation his team had hoped to extinguish.

“The gift Joe Biden gave us was agreeing to a debate before the convention,” said Jon Favreau, a former speechwriter for President Barack Obama and the co-host of the popular progressive podcast Pod Save America who has called for the party to consider replacing him. “If the debate was in October, I would be holding my tongue.”

Mr. Favreau said the Biden camp’s attempts to silence the second-guessers were insulting to voters.

“Guess what — millions of Americans saw that,” Mr. Favreau said of the debate, “and you can’t just tell people who are criticizing that they’re bed-wetters and crazy.”

On the Democratic National Committee’s call for members over the weekend, the party chairman, Jaime Harrison, spoke while everyone else was on mute. It felt to some like a too-on-the-nose metaphor for party leadership’s lack of desire for genuine grass-roots feedback.

The Biden campaign sees the $26 million in grass-roots donations and volunteer sign-ups that tripled the usual rate as evidence of voter support post-debate.

In recent days, Mr. Biden has more frontally acknowledged his flaws — and not just on the debate stage, saying that he didn’t “walk as easy as I used to” or “speak as smoothly as I used to.”

Representative Ro Khanna of California, a member of the Biden campaign’s national advisory board, said the new approach would help the campaign with “connecting emotionally” rather than just “spinning a bad performance.”

“The voters don’t want gaslighting and pretending Biden is more than he is,” Mr. Khanna said. “He was brutally honest about who he is.”

Some attention has centered on the role of the first lady, Jill Biden. Her assistance to her husband as he tried to descend a step after the debate went viral, as did her post-debate praise at a rally (“Joe, you did such a great job!”). On Monday, Vogue unveiled its newest cover, featuring Dr. Biden wearing a $5,000 white Ralph Lauren tuxedo dress alongside the words: “We will decide our future.”

President Biden points a finger toward Jill Biden, the first lady, who is waving and wearing a dress covered in the word “vote.” Behind them are quite a few American flags.

Michael LaRosa, a former adviser to Dr. Biden, said those expecting her to urge her husband to step aside fundamentally misunderstood their political relationship. He said it was a partnership forged in part by Mr. Biden’s early exit in the 1988 presidential race after a plagiarism scandal.

“In 1987, she saw him be forced out by the press, pundits and polls, and it was really a scarring experience for both of them,” said Mr. LaRosa, who said he had discussed the 1988 episode multiple times with the first lady when he worked for her. “I think they learned from that experience and they weren’t going to have their hands forced like they were in 1987.”

The Bidens, Mr. LaRosa explained, view Mr. Biden’s life and career as a tale of overcoming adversity. “This is another chapter of resilience in what is the story of Joe Biden,” he said, summarizing how he believed they would see it.

Indeed, the Biden campaign’s first post-debate ad closed with Mr. Biden declaring, “When you get knocked down you get back up.”

Any serious reckoning inside the party about Mr. Biden’s age was put on ice after the 2022 midterm elections, when Democrats outperformed expectations. The White House took it as validation of its political strategy — and of the limitations of studying the president’s sagging approval ratings for clues to the outcome of elections.

“My intention is that I run again,” Mr. Biden said the next day.

And that was that.

Mr. Biden has visibly aged, as most presidents do. But as early as late 2021, the White House physician had noticed a change, observing more frequent and severe “throat clearing” and a gait that was “perceptibly stiffer” than a year earlier. He recommended “shoe orthotics.”

Mr. Biden’s handlers insisted he could handle a re-election campaign even as their handling of him gave hints otherwise. He began using the shorter stairs to board Air Force One after his tripping went viral. He has done fewer news conferences than his predecessors. He passed on a pregame Super Bowl interview. His events have become intentionally shorter, too.

And after a special counsel’s report laced into his mental acuity in ways the White House saw as gratuitous — tagging him as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” — Mr. Biden called an evening news conference to rebut that caricature, only to flub a reference to the president of Egypt, calling him the president of Mexico instead.

In the wake of the debate, senior Biden officials are making the case privately that switching candidates would be unrealistic, risky and chaotic. And in a fund-raising message, Rob Flaherty, a deputy campaign manager, explicitly argued that any alternative would “be less likely to win than Joe Biden.”

Some of the Democratic Party’s future leaders urged voters to stand by Mr. Biden.

“We’ve got to have the back of this president,” Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said on MSNBC in the spin room after the debate. The next morning, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania went on MSNBC and said, “Stop worrying and start working.”

Privately, Democratic strategists worry about asking voters to work for Mr. Biden rather than the other way around.

In a sign of the campaign’s aversion to risk, the two senior-most Biden advisers who went on television over the weekend to defend the campaign — the White House adviser Anita Dunn and the pollster Molly Murphy — joined MSNBC shows anchored by former Biden advisers.

“What’s behind Door No. 2 is always going to have some appeal,” Ms. Murphy said, dismissing surveys showing voters wanting another nominee.

And yet 80 percent of Republicans in the most recent Times/Siena poll said they wanted Mr. Trump to remain the nominee, even after his felony convictions, a figure far larger than the share of Democrats who wanted Mr. Biden.

For now, the Biden campaign has renewed a fight with a favorite foil: the media.

“Did you see the awesome clips of our supporters on the tarmac doing the Cupid Shuffle at 2am on the night of the debate?” read a Biden fund-raising email from the weekend. “Well, no, probably not, because the media is busy hyperventilating and trying to manifest drama to boost ratings.”

Supreme Court Says Trump Has Some Immunity in Election Case

The ruling makes a distinction between official actions of a president, which have immunity, and those of a private citizen. In dissent, the court’s liberals lament a vast expansion of presidential power.

The Supreme Court heard two other cases this term concerning the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

By Adam Liptak

Reporting from Washington

July 1, 2024

6:24 p.m. ET

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the last election, a blockbuster decision in the heat of the 2024 campaign that vastly expanded presidential power.

The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines. Its immediate practical effect will be to further complicate the case against Mr. Trump, with the chances that it will go before a jury ahead of the election now vanishingly remote and the charges against him, at a minimum, narrowed.

The decision amounted to a powerful statement by the court’s conservative majority that presidents should be insulated from the potential that actions they take in carrying out their official duties could later be used by political enemies to charge them with crimes.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said Mr. Trump had at least presumptive immunity for his official acts. He added that the trial judge must undertake an intensive factual review to separate official and unofficial conduct and to assess whether prosecutors can overcome the presumption protecting Mr. Trump for his official conduct.

If Mr. Trump prevails at the polls, the issue could become moot since he could order the Justice Department to drop the charges.

The liberal wing, in some of the harshest dissents ever filed by justices of the Supreme Court, said the majority had created a kind of king not answerable to the law.

Broad immunity for official conduct is needed, the chief justice wrote, to protect “an energetic, independent executive.”

“The president therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy or party.”

The alternative, the chief justice wrote, is to invite tit-for-tat political reprisals.

“Virtually every president is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration or environmental laws),” he wrote. “An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous president violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-presidents could quickly become routine.”

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision was gravely misguided. In a rare move and sign of deep disagreement, she summarized her dissent from the bench, making off-the-cuff remarks that underscored her frustration.

“Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency,” she wrote. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.”

In her own dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that “the court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself.”

Mr. Trump embraced the outcome on social media, celebrating the ruling. “Big win for our constitution and democracy,” he wrote in all-capital letters. “Proud to be an American!”

Mr. Biden’s campaign focused on the events of Jan. 6 and nodded to Mr. Trump’s recent conviction in New York on falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal. “Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol,” the campaign said in a statement attributed only to a senior campaign official. “He thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold on to power for himself.”

The chief justice’s opinion recounted the events surrounding the assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in an understated, almost antiseptic summary, while the dissents called them a singular threat to democracy. And where the chief justice stressed the importance of protecting all presidents, the dissents focused on Mr. Trump.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that it was not the Supreme Court’s job to sift through the evidence and to separate protected conduct from the rest. “That analysis,” he wrote, “ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.”

But he issued guideposts for Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, of the Federal District Court in Washington, who is overseeing the case.

Mr. Trump, the chief justice wrote, is “absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”

He added that Judge Chutkan should determine whether prosecutors can overcome Mr. Trump’s presumed immunity for his communications with Vice President Mike Pence.

“We therefore remand to the district court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the vice president’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as president of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch,” he wrote.

Other parts of the indictment against Mr. Trump, the chief justice said, require “a close analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations.”

“I try to make the Supreme Court accessible to readers. I strive to distill and translate complex legal materials into accessible prose, while presenting fairly the arguments of both sides and remaining alert to the political context and practical consequences of the court’s work.”

That includes, he wrote, Mr. Trump’s statements on Jan. 6, among them ones he made at the rally on the Ellipse.

“Whether the tweets, that speech and Trump’s other communications on Jan. 6 involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a characteristically noncommittal passage.

He added, in a kind of refrain that ran through his opinion: “This necessarily fact-bound analysis is best performed initially by the district court.”

In all, the majority opinion was a broad defense of executive power and a detailed recipe for delay.

It was joined by the other Republican appointees: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and, in part, Amy Coney Barrett.

In dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote that “the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark.”

“The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding,” she wrote, adding: “The president of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.”

She gave examples: “Orders the Navy’s SEAL team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

Chief Justice Roberts rejected the prosecutors’ arguments that evidence about official acts could be presented to the jury for context and information about Mr. Trump’s motives.

Mr. Trump contended that he was entitled to absolute immunity from the charges, relying on a broad understanding of the separation of powers and a 1982 Supreme Court precedent that recognized such immunity in civil cases for actions taken by presidents within the “outer perimeter” of their official responsibilities.

Lower courts rejected that claim.

“Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy,” Judge Chutkan wrote, “the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get out of jail free’ pass.”

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed. “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the panel wrote in an unsigned decision. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.”

In agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court said it would decide this question: “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

The court heard two other cases this term concerning the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6.

In March, the court unanimously rejected an attempt to bar Mr. Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which makes people who engage in insurrection ineligible to hold office. The court, without discussing whether Mr. Trump was covered by the provision, ruled that states may not use it to exclude candidates for the presidency from the ballot.

On Friday, the court ruled that federal prosecutors had improperly used an obstruction law to prosecute some members of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. Two of the four charges against Mr. Trump are based on that law. In a footnote on Monday, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “if necessary, the district court should determine in the first instance” whether those charges may proceed in light of the decision last week.

The court decided the case restoring Mr. Trump to the ballot at a brisk pace, hearing arguments a month after agreeing to and issuing its decision a month after that.

The immunity case has moved at a considerably slower tempo. In December, in asking the justices to leapfrog the appeals court and hear the case immediately, Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the prosecution, wrote that “it is of imperative public importance that respond­ent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this court.” He added that “only this court can definitively resolve them.”

The justices denied Mr. Smith’s petition 11 days after he filed it, in a brief order without noted dissents.

After the appeals court ruled against Mr. Trump, he asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Sixteen days later, on Feb. 28, the court agreed to hear his appeal, scheduling arguments for almost two months later, on the last day of the term. Another two months have passed since then.

At the argument, several of the conservative justices did not seem inclined to examine the details of the charges against Mr. Trump. Instead, they said, the court should issue a ruling that applies to presidential power generally.

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Gorsuch said.

The court’s announcement of that rule on Monday elicited some of the sharpest dissents ever by justices of the Supreme Court.

Justice Jackson, for instance, said the practical consequences of the majority opinion “are a five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance and the normal operations of our government.”

Before reading from her prepared remarks, Justice Sotomayor appeared to address the chief justice directly: “Saying it so doesn’t make it so.”

She quoted mockingly from the majority’s opinion on how criminal prosecutions would have an even more chilling effect on the ability of a president to take “bold and unhesitating action.”

“Think about that — that makes no sense,” she said.

In her written dissent, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Jackson and Elena Kagan, said: “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 Sotomayor ended her opinion in unusual fashion. “With fear for our democracy,” she wrote, “I dissent.”

Chief Justice Roberts said the dissents were overwrought.

“They strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate,” he wrote, “to what the court actually does today — conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the president and his attorney general, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity.”

Linda Qiu contributed reporting.

The Trump Decision Reveals Deep Rot in the System

July 1, 2024

By Laurence H. Tribe

New York Times

Mr. Tribe taught constitutional law at Harvard for 50 years.

On Monday the Supreme Court dispensed with the rule of law by effectively depriving the American people of crucial information we should have had before the November election.

The question before the justices in Trump v. United States: Was Donald Trump immune from prosecution for the crimes the special counsel Jack Smith accused him of committing while president? The answer should have been obvious: No, presidents cannot commit crimes aimed at obstructing the peaceful transfer of power without facing consequences. Indeed, to my knowledge, no court has ever held that a president could be criminally immune under any circumstances.

Instead of delivering that judgment many months ago and allowing the trial to proceed, the justices have given Mr. Trump the gift of delay piled upon delay. By taking nearly 10 weeks to deliberate before returning the case to the district court — and by sending it back not even for immediate trial but for preliminary determinations that could trigger yet another round of appeals — they have extinguished any realistic hope of getting a verdict in the Jan. 6 case before November. American voters will enter ballot booths to choose between Donald Trump and President Biden without knowing whether Mr. Trump is guilty of the crimes with which a grand jury of his fellow citizens charged him.

This decision may seem like a reflection of a rogue conservative majority that can, in time, be changed. But it is a sign of a much deeper problem — one that, when the time is ripe, will require constitutional reforms to solve and perhaps even a new branch of government.

Although the opinion features a high-minded disclaimer that the court is not granting Mr. Trump or any future president complete immunity, the practical effect of this decision is presumptive immunity for all future presidents and complete immunity by delay for Mr. Trump.

This prospect was not lost on Mr. Trump. He repeatedly obtained delays to avoid trial, turning the legal machinery of the court system against itself to buy what he needed most: time — time to distract, delay and spin his own version of the story as he sought to find a way to make these devastating charges disappear. If he becomes president again, he could have his new attorney general fire Mr. Smith and deep-six the entire prosecution.

Regardless of whether you think Mr. Trump would have been acquitted or convicted in a trial, immunity by running out the clock is justice delayed and thus justice denied.

So how did our legal system get tripped up by his persistent delay strategy? And why does it have such perilous ramifications for the rule of law?

The Constitution’s framers erected a structure they hoped would ensure, as far as humanly possible, that no person, including a president, would be above the law. But they also designed the prosecutorial arm of government — which now includes the attorney general and the special counsels — to be dependent on the president. As centuries passed, this has created serious problems.

Special counsels now lack even the autonomy of independent prosecutors past because the dissent of Justice Antonin Scalia in a 1988 case called Morrison v. Olson announced what is now the accepted judicial view: that the executive branch should have sole appointment and discretionary retention power. As a result, Mr. Smith is less equipped to cope with extreme corruption at the top than his predecessors.

The attorney general, for his part, serves at the president’s pleasure. That probably explains why Merrick Garland waited about 20 months to appoint a special counsel in this case. The New York Times and other outlets have reported that in the early days of his presidency, Mr. Biden adamantly opposed bringing charges against his predecessor, most likely worried that they would backfire politically. An attorney general unconstrained by the political pressures of presidential politics might well have brought charges earlier, ensuring that we had answers before Election Day.

All this is generally accepted. But this case has exposed an even more insidious problem caused by the structural relationship between any president and the Justice Department. During the oral arguments, Michael Dreeben, the able Justice Department advocate, had to acknowledge that, because the attorney general serves at the president’s pleasure, any president can effectively secure the equivalent of immunity for whatever crimes he might choose to commit. All a chief executive must do is pick an attorney general who would give him a formal opinion stating that whatever he planned to do would be legal — up to and including a coup reversing his own election loss. That advice of counsel would, under settled principles of due process, give the president an ironclad defense every bit as good as judicially conferred immunity.

Should Mr. Trump return to the Oval Office, he could act with even greater impunity than he did in his first term, either by immunizing himself with an attorney general’s opinion (which would give him license to commit whatever crimes he chose to commit) or by using the Justice Department to engage in politically motivated prosecutions.

The American people can still vote this November to reject what would be a devastating blow to the survival of government by and for the people. But whatever one believes about the likely outcome, we can and should also begin talk of amending the Constitution to repair these structural flaws. Whether Trumpism implodes later rather than sooner, we must remember that over the course of our history, we have made progress toward a “more perfect Union” only by imagining a better future and struggling to embody it in our fundamental law. Sometimes we’ve amended the Constitution after a national upheaval as convulsive as the Civil War. At other times, however, less traumatic events affecting the presidency, in particular, have prompted constitutional reform.

To repair the profound and growing problem of presidential unaccountability, we must dare to design a separate branch of government, outside the existing three, charged with investigating and prosecuting violations of federal criminal laws.

The process of amending the Constitution is long and cumbersome and could take years. Although it requires no involvement by the president, it can happen only after our constitutional republic puts Trumpism behind it. But a decisive victory over the MAGA movement, either now or in the years ahead, could provide the political energy needed to make structural change possible, persuading a future supermajority in Congress to advance an amendment to repair the dangers embedded in our constitutional structure before it is too late.

Precedent exists for a prosecutorial arm separate from the presidency. In other nations and more than 40 states, the chief executive has no power to remove the head of the government’s prosecutorial authority. In a majority of those states, voters elect attorneys general who are independent of the governor. That would be one route for selecting an independent federal prosecutor to head the fourth branch. Another would retain appointment of the chief federal prosecutor by the president but ensure that official’s independence by preventing removal without good cause.

To be sure, there are risks. There’s no perfect system of government that individuals with insatiable thirst for dominance cannot corrupt or subvert. In the one I envision, an individual motivated less by justice than by greed for power could come to wield the immense authority of the federal prosecutor. What would prevent that person from going rogue? Courts? Congress? The people? The answer is all of the above.

By creating a fourth branch less powerful than the presidency and subject to checks and balances — both from the judiciary, with its power of judicial review, and from the legislature, with its power of the purse — we can fortify our system from the kinds of abuse we have sadly witnessed in our times and are likely to see repeated and amplified because of Monday’s anti-democratic decision.

The Road to a Crisis: How Democrats Let Biden Glide to Renomination

An 81-year-old candidate and no Plan B. “How did we get here?” one leading Democrat asks. The answer is complicated.

President Biden’s faltering debate performance last week has many Democrats worried that he will lose the election, prompting questions that get at the party’s structure and ideological rifts within it.

Jim Rutenberg 

Adam Nagourney

By Jim Rutenberg and Adam Nagourney

July 1, 2024

8:19 a.m. ET

In the aftermath of Thursday’s presidential debate, as Jill Biden led President Biden off the stage, former Senator Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Democrat, raised what she called a “hard and heartbreaking” question.

“You have to ask,’’ she said on MSNBC, “how did we get here?”

Barely seven weeks before Democrats gather in Chicago to formally nominate Mr. Biden for a second term, the Democratic Party is in crisis. Many party leaders, donors, activists and ordinary voters, stunned by the president’s faltering debate appearance, now fear he will lose to former President Donald J. Trump and drag Democrats to devastating defeats in congressional and state elections.

The answer to Ms. McCaskill’s question is a complicated mix of historical circumstance and structural deficiencies, a party struggling with ideological and generational fissures, and an aging Democratic president who spent his life battling for this job.

Mr. Biden is surrounded by a tight circle of longtime aides and family members who have encouraged his desire to seek a second term. But interviews with top party strategists, office holders and people close to Democrats seen as possible presidential hopefuls suggest that, just as crucially, party leaders were lulled into complacency or pressed to step in line at crucial moments when they might have persuaded Mr. Biden to step aside.

Many of them, including the president’s top aides, drew what could prove to be overly encouraging lessons from Mr. Biden’s victory against Mr. Trump in 2020, his run of policy victories as president and the party’s surprisingly strong showing in the midterm elections of 2022.

“It was the ’22 elections,” said David Plouffe, who was the senior adviser to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012. “We’ve had three good elections in a row. The feeling was, ‘Let’s stay the course.’”

And some 50 years after the Democratic Party rewrote its rules to marginalize the role of political bosses, there was also no leader to step in and quietly prepare a Plan B. Other key Democratic figures who might have pressed Mr. Biden to consider retiring, or suggested an alternate plan, like Mr. Obama or Bill and Hillary Clinton, have moved on to their own post-White House lives and, operating outside Mr. Biden’s close circle of advisers, did not to appear to be in position to engage the Bidens in such a sensitive conversation.

At key moments, those who tried to sound the alarm about Mr. Biden’s potential weaknesses — among them David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s chief strategist, and James Carville, who helped elect Bill Clinton in 1992 — were slapped down by Democrats, often in the brutal discord of social media sites like X, and chastised by top Biden aides for being disloyal.

Candidates who might have considered challenging Mr. Biden, after reviewing his weaknesses, yielded in the face of the threat of backlash from a party united behind its president. That also acknowledged the weight of history: Challenges to sitting presidents almost never succeed, and Mr. Biden had broad support among Democrats — particularly, until quite recently, with Black voters, a critical bloc.

“I said then, privately and publicly, if Biden ran he would be the nominee,” Mr. Axelrod said. “I felt a primary challenge would fail and only help Trump. I’m sure there were potential Democratic challengers who made the same calculation and didn’t want to jeopardize their futures by running and taking that risk.”

The situation is all the more striking because the Democratic Party, which has long positioned itself as a forward-looking party of the young, has what its operatives and activists view as the most robust class of next-generation leaders in a very long time.

Many are more seasoned than Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama were when they won the White House: the governors Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan; the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries of New York; the transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, and Vice President Kamala Harris, who won praise with a staunch post-debate defense of Mr. Biden.

“The Democratic bench has never been more stacked at the local, state, federal levels,” said Lis Smith, a senior party strategist. “We have so many talented next-generation mayors, governors, senators, congressmen and women and cabinet officials.

“We need to make a gentlemen’s agreement,” she added, “that 2024 is the last time we ask them to wait their turn.”

Even as Ms. McCaskill spoke on television after the debate, there were reminders of what could have been — and, in the hope of some Democrats, what still might be this year — as Ms. Harris, 59, and Mr. Newsom, 56, turned up in post-debate television coverage, making a better case for Mr. Biden than the president himself had made as he appeared, often frozen, opposite Mr. Trump.

“Those two people are signaling to a whole lot of Americans that are paying attention, ‘How come they’re not running?’” Ms. McCaskill said. “How come the Democratic Party doesn’t have them at the top of the ticket, instead of using them to shore up what have become, after tonight, some pretty glaring weaknesses in our president?”

A Come-From-Behind Win in 2020

In April 2019, Mr. Biden embarked on his third, and given his age, almost certainly his last, bid for the White House. After Mr. Obama’s two terms and Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 campaign, many younger Democrats, the energetic grass roots of the party, were hungering for new talent.

Mr. Biden appeared to struggle on debate stages crowded with more progressive rivals, such as Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, as well as younger and more engaging competitors, such as Mr. Buttigieg, then the mayor of South Bend, Ind., Ms. Harris and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey among them. He finished poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire.

But he caught fire after his win in South Carolina, and his lead solidified as the Covid-19 pandemic raised his stock for Democrats looking for a more experienced hand to not only take the battle to Mr. Trump but also to guide the country through a crisis.

One prominent younger Democratic congressman, Ro Khanna of California, said Mr. Biden’s success in 2020, after he was written off by many voters as too old and out of touch, was a signal that more traditional parts of the Democratic base were not looking for generational change: They were seeking “a familiar face” after the “transformational” presidency of Mr. Obama and the disruption of Mr. Trump.

“The change candidates in the 2020 cycle lost,” Mr. Khanna said.

Mr. Biden’s surge to the nomination was an affirmation that emboldened him and the people around him, and it reinforced an instinct to ignore his critics and doubters. “You all declare me,” he told The New York Times editorial board in 2020, fumbling for words before finishing his thought: “declare me dead, and guess what, I ain’t dead, and I’m not going to die.”

Yet even then, Mr. Biden appeared to position himself as a transitional figure, an elder statesman who would defeat Mr. Trump and perhaps make way for a new generation of leaders — enhancing his appeal to younger voters who still wanted a change.

“I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,” he said in March 2020. Campaigning with Ms. Harris, Mr. Booker and Ms. Whitmer, he referred to them as belonging to “an entire generation” of new leaders. They, he said, were “the future of this country.”

Potential Challengers Yield

After Mr. Biden’s election, some of his prospective successors made quiet moves preparing for potential 2024 campaigns in case Mr. Biden indeed decided to be a bridge, as he had said, and to step aside after one term.

Mr. Pritzker spoke in New Hampshire during his re-election campaign and donated to Democrats around the country. Mr. Newsom, after beating back a recall attempt in 2021, began raising his national profile, traveling and criticizing his party for not being forceful enough against Republicans, while being careful to talk up Mr. Biden.

The net effect was to lay the groundwork for a 2028 run while very discreetly positioning himself to be ready if Mr. Biden stood down in 2024. Mr. Newsom, associates said, never considered challenging Mr. Biden, which he made clear as White House officials began nervously tracking Mr. Newsom’s movements across the country.

But Mr. Biden showed little interest in retiring to Delaware. He scored a series of legislative wins — among them a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill and a $1.9 trillion package to help the nation deal with the Covid pandemic — that led to a wave of praise of his skills as chief executive, some comparing his accomplishments to those of Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Mr. Biden was also protected, in an unexpected way, by his choice of Ms. Harris as his vice president: Many Democrats thought she lacked the political skills and presence to lead a national ticket but believed it would be hard to deny the first Black woman vice president the top spot if Mr. Biden did not run again.

The congressional election of 2022 proved a pivot point. Again, Mr. Biden showed himself to be politically stronger than many Democrats had thought. Through the final weeks of the contest, some pollsters projected a “red wave” of big Republican gains in Congress. But Democrats defied those predictions.

Mr. Biden and his aides took the party’s surprisingly strong showing, even as they lost the House, as another sign of his popularity with voters. That, and the extent to which he was understimated by Washington elites, all but erased any chance he might step aside.

Also eliminated was any threat of a serious challenge from a younger Democrat.

“If we had had a disastrous '22 election, yes, he might have had challengers,” Mr. Plouffe said. “But in the aftermath of ’22, there was a sense that ‘Biden can do this.’”

Quieting Early Concerns about Age

As he prepared for the general election, questions about Mr. Biden’s age and fitness for another four years as president were simmering beneath the surface. Mr. Biden and his top aides worked to stamp out discussion of those concerns, arguing that he was the only candidate who could have beaten Mr. Trump in 2020 and promising he could, and would, do it again.

One Democrat who was not convinced was Dean Phillips, a congressional representative from Minnesota. A distilling empire heir who also once headed the Talenti gelato company, with a $50 million net worth, Mr. Phillips warned that Mr. Biden’s age would prove disqualifying with voters. He won outsize attention when he said publicly in July of 2022 that he did not think Mr. Biden should seek re-election.

“I think the country would be well served by a new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats to step up,” he said. Even after his comments drew harsh blowback from party activists, he told Politico, “If he were 15 to 20 years younger, it would be a no-brainer to nominate him, but considering his age, it’s absurd we’re not promoting competition but trying to extinguish it.” He was only saying publicly, Mr. Phillips insisted, what other Democrats were saying privately.

Mr. Phillips tried to enlist a more prominent Democrat to challenge Mr. Biden, reaching out to strategists for Ms. Whitmer and Mr. Pritzker, among others. As he told The Atlantic last fall, Ms. Whitmer’s aide was “very thoughtful,” and Mr. Pritzker’s was “somewhat unfriendly.” People close to Mr. Pritzker and Ms. Whitmer, speaking only on condition of anonymity, said the same thing: Neither ever would have considered a primary against Mr. Biden.

Finding no takers, Mr. Phillips launched his own campaign in October, one with little chance of achieving more than a larger statement about the party’s standard-bearer.

“The whole point of the Dean campaign, such as it was, was that he said the quiet part out loud,” said Steve Schmidt, a Never-Trump Republican turned Democrat who aided Mr. Phillips’s campaign.

A More Alarming Landscape

In November, a New York Times/Siena College poll found that Mr. Biden was trailing Mr. Trump in five of six key battleground states, with voters expressing deep concerns about the president’s economic policies and his age. Mr. Axelrod again raised questions about the president’s viability if he took on Mr. Trump.

“What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it’s in HIS best interest or the country’s?” Mr. Axelrod wrote on X.

Mr. Axelrod drew fierce pushback from Democrats across the country, including from inside the White House. In his own post, Mr. Biden’s former chief of staff, Ron Klain, noted that Mr. Axelrod had referred to Mr. Biden as “Mr. Magoo” in 2019. And word leaked that Mr. Biden had vented about Mr. Axelrod in salty language.

For Democrats surveying a landscape that, after the debate, looks even more alarming than it did in November, it is hard not to wonder what might have been had someone persuaded Mr. Biden not to run.

That would have opened the way for the party’s newer stars to become known by the public and undergo the kind of on-the-ground vetting that a contested primary provides.

But the decision was Mr. Biden’s. Whatever his weaknesses as a general-election candidate, he dominated the primary field. He was the president. He was the party’s unrivaled leader. And, as he and his aides repeated, he had proved his doubters wrong in 2020 and 2022.

“There was no D.N.C. committee that came to candidates and said, ‘Do not run,’” Mr. Khanna said. “If there was any Democrat who thought they could become the nominee, they would have run.” Instead, he added, those would-be candidates concluded that “nobody is beating Joe Biden in a Democratic primary.”

Hindsight casts those conclusions in a new light. Yet for now, Mr. Biden is holding on to the support of many leading Democrats, particularly those of his generation, for the very reason that they stood behind him at critical junctures over these past two years.

“We had an incumbent president who has the best record since F.D.R. on the economy and who is a very compassionate man,” said Barbara Boxer, the former Democratic senator from California. “Of course we are going to stick with that.”

Political Crisis for the Democratic Party: Biden’s Family Tells Him to Keep Fighting as They Huddle at Camp David

President Biden is trying to figure out how to tamp down Democratic anxiety after last week’s disastrous debate performance.

By Katie Rogers and Peter Baker

June 30, 2024

President Biden’s family is urging him to stay in the race and keep fighting despite last week’s disastrous debate performance, even as some members of his clan privately expressed exasperation at how he was prepared for the event by his staff, people close to the situation said on Sunday.

Mr. Biden huddled with his wife, children and grandchildren at Camp David while he tried to figure out how to tamp down Democratic anxiety. While his relatives were acutely aware of how poorly he did against former President Donald J. Trump, they argued that he could still show the country that he remains capable of serving for another four years.

Mr. Biden has been soliciting ideas from advisers about how to proceed, and his staff has been discussing whether he should hold a news conference or sit for interviews to defend himself and change the narrative, but nothing has been decided yet. The campaign scheduled what could be a critical call with its national finance committee for Monday to calm nerves and take temperatures.

One of the strongest voices imploring Mr. Biden to resist pressure to drop out was his son Hunter Biden, whom the president has long leaned on for advice, said one of the people informed about the discussions, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to share internal deliberations. Hunter Biden wants Americans to see the version of his father that he knows — scrappy and in command of the facts — rather than the stumbling, aging president Americans saw on Thursday night.

Other family members were trying to figure out how they could be helpful. At least one of the president’s grandchildren has expressed interest in getting more involved with the campaign, perhaps by talking with influencers on social media, according to the informed person.

One of the people informed about the situation said “the entire family is united” and added flatly that the president was not getting out of the race and had not discussed doing so. “You get up and keep fighting,” the person said.

The anger among Democrats was made evident on Sunday when John Morgan, a top Democratic donor who is close to Mr. Biden’s brother Frank, publicly blamed the advisers who managed the president’s debate preparations, citing by name Ron Klain, Anita Dunn and Bob Bauer.

“Biden has for too long been fooled by the value of Anita Dunn and her husband,” Mr. Morgan wrote on social media. “They need to go … TODAY. The grifting is gross. It was political malpractice.”

He elaborated in a subsequent interview. “It would be like if you took a prizefighter who was going to have a title fight and put him in a sauna for 15 hours then said, ‘Go fight,’” he said. “I believe that the debate is solely on Ron Klain, Bob Bauer and Anita Dunn.”

Members of Mr. Biden’s family were likewise said to be focused on the president’s staff, including Ms. Dunn, a White House senior adviser, and her husband, Mr. Bauer, the president’s personal attorney, who played Mr. Trump during debate rehearsals.

They were asking why Mr. Klain, the former White House chief of staff who ran the preparations, would in their view allow him to be overloaded with statistics, and they were angry that Mr. Biden, who arrived for the debate in Atlanta with a summer tan, was made up to look pale and pallid, said one of the people, who has been in touch with several members of the family.

But the person said that the president himself was not among those who were upset and that he still trusted Mr. Klain, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Bauer and the others. A person close to Jill Biden, the first lady, said she was not critical of them, either. A White House official and a second person close to the family later denied that other members were mad. Several Democrats said it was unfair to blame the staff for the president’s own failings, dismissing what they called typical second-guessing and scapegoating aimed at diverting fault away from Mr. Biden himself.

A couple of Democrats pointed out that neither family members nor Mr. Morgan or other critics attended the preparation sessions and therefore had no idea how they went. One member of Mr. Biden’s circle said that no one was happy with how the debate turned out and that it was human nature to look for someone to blame.

Mr. Klain, Ms. Dunn and Mr. Bauer had no comment about the debate preparation, but Mr. Klain said that it was 100 percent certain the president would stay in the race.

“He is the choice of the Democratic voters,” Mr. Klain said. “We are seeing record levels of support from grass-roots donors. We had a bad debate night. But you win campaigns by fighting — not quitting — in the face of adversity.”

He recalled a primary debate in 2019 that went badly but did not stop Mr. Biden. “It’s a tough, close campaign and he’s the person who can win it,” Mr. Klain said. “Big-money donors don’t get to dictate the nominee of the Democratic Party.”

In the days since the debate, Mr. Biden has privately and publicly acknowledged that he did not do well, and he has been calling trusted advisers like Mr. Klain; Ted Kaufman, his longtime aide and friend; and Jon Meacham, the historian and informal adviser; as well as key donors and party figures.

But three people familiar with Mr. Biden’s calls said that they were more about checking in to see what people were saying, rather than to seek advice about reassessing his future. His tone was described as measured. One of the people on Mr. Biden’s phone tree said that the president wanted to keep campaigning hard to drive a contrast with Mr. Trump, a convicted felon who tried to overturn the last election and made numerous false statements during the debate.

Campaign advisers have been burning up the phone lines all weekend with major donors angry about the situation in hopes of heading off a wave of defections. The campaign scheduled a conference call for 5:30 p.m. on Monday for its national finance committee to hear from Jen O’Malley Dillon, the campaign chair. Many insiders have said that preserving the donor base will be key to the president staying in the race.

Mr. Biden is scheduled to return to the White House on Monday evening and has a relatively light public schedule for the week. On Tuesday, he plans to visit an emergency operations center to discuss extreme weather and will headline an evening fund-raiser in McLean, Va. He will host a Medal of Honor ceremony on Wednesday and a Fourth of July barbecue for military service members on Thursday before heading to Delaware on Friday. A cabinet meeting set for Wednesday was canceled, according to officials, who said too many members were traveling the day before the holiday.

While the campaign has forcefully rejected advice that Mr. Biden step aside for another candidate just weeks before the roll call vote to formalize his nomination, many Democrats, including some working for the president, said they did not think the door was yet closed on that possibility.

But Mr. Biden is a proud man, and they said they believed that the odds of him trying to gut it out were still 4 or 5 to 1. The only way they said they could imagine him reversing course was if he could be afforded a dignified way out in which he could claim credit for ousting Mr. Trump in 2020, restoring the country and serving as a transition to the next generation.

A new poll by CBS News found strong sentiment among Democratic voters for Mr. Biden, 81, to cede the way to a younger nominee. Forty-five percent of Democrats said they wanted a different candidate to take on the battle with Mr. Trump. Among voters overall, just 27 percent think Mr. Biden has the mental and cognitive health to serve as president, down from 35 percent before the debate.

Democratic allies took to the Sunday talk shows to defend the president. “If they weren’t engaged in a little bit of hand-wringing, they wouldn’t be Democrats,” Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia said on “Meet the Press” on NBC. But he added, “Joe Biden has demonstrated, not over 90 minutes, but over the last four years, the character and the mettle of the man that he is.”

Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland acknowledged that Mr. Biden’s age was a concern for voters. “The number 81 is an important number,” he said on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “But so is watching historically low unemployment rates. And I don’t think that people should lose sight of that.”

Mr. Moore said he would not run if Mr. Biden did drop out. “Joe Biden is not going to take himself out of this race, nor should he,” he said. “He has been a remarkable partner.”

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed talk of the president dropping out. “I support the Biden-Harris ticket,” she told Jen Psaki, a former Biden White House press secretary, on MSNBC. “I’m not abandoning Joe Biden right now, for any speculation.”

The “right now” in that comment, however, did not go unnoticed, and Democrats were still watching to see what their senior elected leaders would do, wondering whether they might intervene privately with the president despite their public comments of support. Ms. Pelosi’s spokesman later said that she “has full confidence” in Mr. Biden and that “any suggestion otherwise is not based in fact.”

Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, though, acknowledged that the president’s fate was uncertain. “There are very honest and serious and rigorous conversations taking place at every level in our party,” he said on MSNBC, adding that the party would be unified “whether he’s the candidate or someone else is the candidate.”

If any major discussions about the president’s future were to take place with the family, two Biden confidants said, they would not happen at Camp David, where too many people outside the family might overhear.

The family had already planned before the debate to spend the weekend at Camp David, in part to participate in a photo shoot with the veteran celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz. It was the first time the entire family had assembled in one place since Hunter Biden was convicted of federal gun charges; he still faces sentencing and another trial on tax charges.

A senior administration official who was not authorized to detail internal conversations said there was an ongoing debate over how the president moves forward — not about dropping out, but about how best to make the case that he should not.

The version of Mr. Biden that has emerged in rallies and at fund-raisers since Atlanta is more in line with the person his aides describe — someone who is energized, emphatic and willing to keep fighting until November.

But some aides were not happy to see him relying on a teleprompter in fund-raisers, a practice pushed by advisers seeking a more disciplined approach by the president even in informal settings. One aide said that Mr. Biden had been “scared” away from a more informal approach in recent months.

Adam Entous contributed reporting from Washington.