Kevin Morris Says He's Hunter's Attorney

Last Friday I posted on a bar complaint filed against Kevin Morris:

[I]f Mr. Morris has provided personal funds to an individual who has now been confirmed to be a client – or who would reasonably believe himself to be Mr. Morris’s client – Mr. Morris would have violated both the text of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the well-established norms of the legal profession.

. . . If Hunter Biden or a similarly situated person would reasonably anticipate that Mr. Morris was obligated to provide legal services, the alleged funding of the lifestyle of a client or potential client justifies the immediate opening of a misconduct investigation under Rule 1.8.5.

In that post, I raised the question of whether Morris is actually Hunter Biden's attorney -- he could potentially weasel his way out by saying he is in fact an attorney, but in Hunter's case, he's just acting as a friend, not as an attorney of record. But according to Just the News, Morris invoked attorney-client privilege 17 times in his deposition to the Comer committee last week:

According to the transcript of the testimony reviewed by Just the News, Morris said that he began representing Biden about one week after the December 2019 California fundraiser for his father, Joe Biden, who became president in 2020. The details surrounding this meeting were previously reported by Just the News.

Morris’ early representation of Hunter Biden allowed him to invoke the privilege frequently, to avoid answering questions about his first meeting with the first son, how he paid Hunter Biden’s other attorneys and about the planning for Hunter Biden’s defiant speech in front of the Capitol while avoiding complying with his first congressional subpoena.

Specifically, Morris attempted to invoke the privilege regarding his acquisition of one of Hunter Biden's companies after Joe Biden's inauguration. Additionally, he denied claims that he was motivated by political concerns to help the first son solve his tax issues and stay afloat during his father's campaign, which was indicated by evidence from the IRS whistleblowers last year.

. . According to the transcript, Morris claimed that his legal representation of Hunter Biden was “global and complete” and therefore argued that almost any detail of their relationship is off limits to congressional investigators. Yet despite this, Morris told the committee that he had not represented Hunter directly in the past three years.

The story indicates that Just the News was aware of the bar complaint:

America First Legal filed a complaint with the state bar against Morris for allegedly violating its Rules of Professional Conduct.

According to rule 1.8.5(a): “[a] lawyer shall not directly or indirectly pay or agree to pay, guarantee, or represent that the lawyer or lawyer’s law firm will pay the personal or business expenses of a prospective or existing client,’ according to the California Bar.

Yet, Morris confirmed to the committee that he loaned Hunter Biden millions of dollars from 2020 to 2024 that are recorded in promissory notes. Just the News reported in November that Morris had loaned at least $5 million to the younger Biden to cover his tax debts and living expenses.

The story also refrred to other answers Morris gave in the transcript that suggest the overall nature of his relationship with Hunter:

“Counsel, in my job I represent high-profile individuals. ... [H]igh-profile individuals have basically virtual corporations. And in those virtual corporations, they have all kinds of staff and assistants. You know, agents and managers ... publicists. You know, whatever. And what I do is I oversee ... sort of the squad. Sort of like a general counsel,” Morris told the committees.

“But I am involved in everything. I am involved in everything. And the same is with Hunter. If you check my retainer agreements, you’ll see that it’s not – it says all matters,” he continued.

Presumably it's his job to keep his clients out of trouble and away from bad publicity. Well, maybe somebody like Tom Hanks has that kind of uber-guardian angel who does this kind of work, but if Hunter is any sort of typical Kevin Morris client, he can't be working for Tom Hanks -- maybe he works for Alec Baldwin or Amber Heard instead. I'd love to hear whom else Kevin is working for this way.

That Morris shied away from questions on how he pays Hunter's other lawyers also suggests he is in fact paying Abbe Lowell, and this strongly suggests to me that Lowell has liens on Morris's properties to guarantee those payments. I can't imagine that Mrs Kevin, AKA Gaby Morgerman of the William Morris agency, is thrilled with this, and I suspect that marriage is on borrowed time due to Kevin's involvement with Hunter.

I'm continuing to think the Comer committee staff was working mainly to nail down Morris's version of events to be able to catch him in inconsistencies down the road. I wouldn't hire Kevin Morris to get me out of a speeding ticket, much less solve my tax, drug, or gun problems.

Here's How Lawfare Is Shaking Out

I suddenly realized Alan Dershowitz has had very little to say about developments in Trump's trials in recent weeks beyond comparing his strategy in New York to the successful Chicago Seven strategy of 1969. But here's how he saw the prospects, at least for his four criminal indictments, as of last August:

Alan Dershowitz believes all of former president Donald Trump’s trials will be completed prior to the 2024 election, but notes “There’ll be some convictions,” along the way.

. . . “I predict there’ll be some convictions,” speculated the lawyer. “I think the strategy is to get bad convictions, but to get them fast,” he continued, saying that Trump would then be able to appeal the decisions, after the election. Dershowitz argued that this is the reason prosecutors are “rushing” to get their cases against Trump to trial.

. . . “They’re going to get on the bandwagon,” Dershowitz said of prosecutors. The “approach is to get him before the election, convict him before the election, and he wins on appeal.”

“That’s tomorrow’s news,” Dershowitz concluded.

By this past December, he had scaled back his estimate:

They're going to try their best. It's going to be up to the discretion of judges. I suspect there will be at least one trial and probably one conviction before the election. And I think there's a substantial chance that any convictions will be very, very carefully scrutinized by the appellate courts and ultimately by the Supreme Court. . . . I think definitely it will be appealed after the election. And I think there's a substantial chance it could be reversed based on venue, based on immunity, based on a lack of a reasonable basis for a search of a phone. There are many, many grounds on appeal, but it will have no effect on the election if it occurs after the election rather than before. [ellipsis in original]

But this was before Trump's appeal of Judge Chutkan's denial of his immunity claim put the January 6 case on hold and before the ethical issues in Atlanta put the timing of that prosecution in question. No date had been set for the Atlanta trial before the allegations against District Attorney Willis surfaced, while any likelihood that the January 6 trial will start as scheduled on March 4 is fading as the DC appeals court continues to review the case. No date has been set for any of his other trials, and they now seem unlikely even to begin, much less to conclude, before the election. Judge Chutkan has been forced to reiterate that the January 6 prosecution cannot proceed with any trial business while the appeal is under review, and Trump is likely to appeal any adverse ruling from the appeals court to the US Supreme Court, further placing a trial date out of reach.

It's very hard to find a single cogent summary of the Democrat lawfare strategy as it was developed in 2023, but Dershowitz's version is correct as far as it goes. This version in the Washington Examiner from just a month ago is more general, but it does mention an objective of preemptively driving Trump out of the race:

The story of the 2024 campaign so far is the effort by Democrats and their appointees to use criminal charges and lawsuits to force former President Donald Trump out of the race for a second term in the White House. The name for such an effort is lawfare — that is, “the strategic use of legal proceedings to intimidate or hinder an opponent,” to cite one law dictionary.

. . . [T]he reality is, the prosecutions and lawsuits are all the work of Trump’s political opponents. If they succeed, they will result in him going to prison, paying huge fines, and losing his business. They would, in short, once and for all remove Trump from the American political scene.

It is as if anti-Trump leaders concluded that elections did not succeed in getting rid of him and media attacks did not succeed in getting rid of him and investigations did not succeed in getting rid of him and now the next step is lawfare. That’s where we are now.

. . . Immediately after the first indictment, Bragg’s, support for Trump in the Republican primary race shot upward. It rose further amid later indictments and lawsuits, going from 44% support before the Bragg indictment to 63% support today in the RealClearPolitics average of polls. Some Republicans are clearly using support of Trump as a way to express their disapproval of the wave of prosecutions and lawsuits. Whether that will last is unclear. But the Democratic lawfare campaign has been relentless, and it will surely provoke continuing Republican reaction in the months to come.

This discussion doesn't raise the issue of timing even as much as Dershowitz does, but as the cases have proceeded, it's become highly unlikely that any of the trials can conclude before the election. But the assumption had also been that the trials likely to begin the soonest, the January 6 trial scheduled to start March 4, and the Atlanta trial, still with an indefinite start date, would at least feature headline allegations in testimony against Trump atarting just before the March 5 Super Tuesday primary and extend through the rest of the primary season.

But as of now, with Gov DiSantis dropping out of the Republican race before tomorrow's New Hampshire primary and polls suggesting Trump will beat Ambassador Haley with 50% or more, the Republican primary season is effectively over, with a large segment of voters discounting Trump's indictments and farcical civil trials, with the credibility of the Atlanta prosecution collapsing. As the credibility of these trials diminishes, it will affect the public view of any future prosecutions, especially any that might yet be brought before the election.

So far, the Democrat lawfare strategy has, if anything, worked not just to keep Trump in the race but to enhance his general-election prospects in a way that's overtaken even Alan Dershowitz's predictions.

The Kevin Morris Mystery Grows

I've been posting about Kevin Morris for quite a while. in part because his story never quite adds up. As I posted last November,

. . . he's an entertainment lawyer whose career seems to have prospered, at least for a time, because his wife, William Morris partner Gaby Morgerman, is one of the most powerful agents in Hollywood. But the projects he's been asssociated with, South Park (1997) and the musical The Book of Mormon (2011), are old news. He left his former law firm Morris Yorn Barnes & Levine in 2020, oddly at the same time that he became heavily involved in Hunter's business and personal affairs.

But as I posted here, Morris appears to have lost interest in his law practice years earlier. In 2009, he "decided to become a writer" and seems to have worked full time at writing and publishing a collection of short stories, White Man's Problems (2014), and two novels, All Joe Knight (2016) and Gettysburg (2019). By most accounts, he met Hunter in 2019 at a Joe Biden fundraiser, Hunter impressed him, and the rest is history. He seems to have dropped his aspiration to become the John Updike of his generation, as well as his entertainment law career, and undertaken Hunter as his full time project.

This account of his deposition to the Comer committee last week fills in some blanks:

Comer revealed that Hollywood producer Lanette Phillips introduced Morris to Hunter Biden during a campaign event at her Los Angeles home for Joe Biden in the winter of 2019. One week later, Phillips called Morris to discuss what Morris apparently framed as an “entertainment” issue. Morris later visited Hunter at his home in L.A., according to the press release.

So Morris met Hunter via a connected intermediary at a time when he was easing out of his law firm and after his career as a writer failed to take off. It seems as if he was at loose ends, looking for something new. The story continues,

Morris testified he began providing money to Hunter Biden in January 2020. Then on Feb. 7, 2020, Morris emailed Hunter’s advisers and tax accountants, writing, “We are under considerable risk personally and politically to get the returns in.” Less than two weeks later, Hunter Biden filed his long-overdue 2017 and 2018 tax returns, although he didn’t pay his hefty tax bill at the time. Around Oct. 18, 2021, Morris paid some $2 million in overdue taxes for the president’s son.

In addition to paying Hunter’s taxes, Morris also paid for many of his living expenses and bought 13 of Hunter Biden’s paintings — two from before Hunter retained a gallerist and 11 after, with Morris paying $875,000 for the set purchased from the gallerist.

Lanette Phillips, the Hollywood producer, also introduced Hunter to George Berges in December, 2019, at the same time she introduced Hunter to Morris. However, it took another year for Hunter and Berges to establish a business relationship:

. . . in December 2020, Hunter and Berges executed a contract appointing the gallery owner as his exclusive representative, with Berges receiving a commission of 40 percent on sales. That contract, Berges testified, included a provision that required the gallerist to disclose to Hunter the identity of the purchasers of his paintings.

As Berges explained, that was not a typical contract term; he had never included a similar clause in any of his other contracts. “Normally, the gallerist does not let the artist know who the collectors are,” Berges confirmed, adding that of the 15 or so artists he currently works with, none ask to know who purchased their artwork. Berges elaborated, stating, “It’s my collector base,” and you don’t want “your artists to circumvent you if they know your collectors.”

But it wasn't until 2023 that Morris purchased the bulk of Hunter's paintings:

Hunter Biden also knew the identity of Morris, who on Jan. 19, 2023, purchased, in the name of his LLC, Kuliaky Art, 11 paintings for $875,000. Berges explained that Morris had seen the paintings at Hunter’s exhibit in California in October 2021 and then negotiated the January 2023 sale with him by telephone.

Berges further explained that Morris did not pay the galley [sic] for the paintings, but instead paid Berges his 40 percent commission and then paid Hunter (or reduced his loan balance) separately.

. . . Why would Morris purchase paintings from Berges at all? As Berges testified, the reason gallerists don’t share the names of their buyers with the artists is so they aren’t cut out of the deal. Morris, however, likely didn’t want to ruin Hunter’s relationship with Berges, Berges reasoned. But that doesn’t explain why Morris wouldn’t have purchased art from Hunter before he had a gallerist.

Here we run into an interesting detail: Morris testified he had purchased two pieces of art from Hunter Biden before he had a gallerist. Why then wait for Hunter to enter a contract with Berges before purchasing more art? And why wait until January 2023, when he saw the art during an October 2021 exhibit?

As far as I can tell, the deal between Hunter and Berges was negotiated separately from Morris at the behest of Lanette Phillips, and Morris didn't buy paintings from Hunter via this route until months or years after that deal was made. Why did Morris buy paintings through Berges at all, especially if he'd already been giving Hunter "loans" through other channels? Nor was the deal lucrative for Berges:

Morris’ $875,000 represented a huge chunk of Hunter Biden’s total sales of $1.5 million. In fact, Morris’ purchase represented such an “outlier,” as Berges put it, that the Soho gallery owner hasn’t renewed his contract with Hunter and is considering dropping him as a client.

“I look at the totality,” Berges explained. “If I look at the whole picture of this artist objectively, I would say, okay, this is great that we got someone to do a major acquisition, but let’s look at the general response and what the value is.”

“It’s not that impressive,” he concluded.

In other words, Berges is in business, and selling Hunter's paintings as "art" didn't make business sense, even if he earned commission from the sales. Margot Cleveland, the author of the piece, thinks the idea of funneling payments to Hunter via Berges's gallery fell apart due to public scrutiny during 2023, but it looks like Berges didn't particularly want the business, and the problem with the whole arrangement would have been that any money that went to Hunter via Berges would have been subject to a 40% commission, hardly an efficient way to do things.

What's hard for me to get around is the idea that Kevin Morris, at loose ends for a career after leaving his law firm in 2020 and having failed as a writer before that, was throwing millions of dollars around in "loans" to Hunter Biden, at least $875,000 of which was in a scheme Hunter seems to have worked out with George Berges via Lanette Phillips that never made a whole lot of sense for anyone involved, least of all Morris.

I think Morris is starting to look like one of Hunter's marks, and I'm just not sure he's all there. I've got to assume Abbe Lowell has got liens on Morris's properties to be sure he gets paid.

How Goes The Lawfare Strategy?

As I noted on Wednesday, although NeverTrumpers like Andrew McCarthy claim that the Democrats' lawfare strategy has succeeded in making Trump the overwhelming favorite to win the Republican nomination, statements by Biden supporters have consistently taken the position that the indictments and trials were timed to coincide with key campaign events that would tend to favor his opponents, especially Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis. By that reasoning, at least as might have been foreseen in the middle of last year, the Letitia James civil trial in New York would have dampened Trump's prospects in the Iowa caucuses and early primaries, while starting the January 6 trial in Washington on March 4, the day before Super Tuesday, would also have favored other Republican candidates.

Instead, it looks like there won't be much of a Republican primary contest at all. On Wednesday, following the Iowa caucus results, Sen Cruz, who ran against Trump in the 2016 primaries, announced “this race is over” before he stated he is “proud to endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States.” Philip Bump writes in the Washinton Post, "A lot of people are invested in presenting the 2024 Republican primary contest as competitive. It isn’t. It hasn’t been."

He goes on to say that media outlets have an incentive to cover the race as competitive, because it brings in clicks, but

No other Republican has landed a blow on Trump, particularly since he galvanized his support at the beginning of last year. This is one reason that Haley and DeSantis so often go after each other; there’s actual ground to be gained. The other reason is that neither candidate wants to irritate Trump’s base of support, just in case Trump gets hit by a meteor or something. The result is that there is a heated battle to win the Pro Bowl while Trump wins the Super Bowl by forfeit.

All of this, the preceding 1,000 words or so in this article, is talking generally about an obvious point. Barring that meteor strike, there’s no realistic outcome to the nomination other than Trump appearing on the November ballot.

In fact, it seems likely that neither the DeSantis nor the Haley campaigns will last even to March 4. DeSantis appears to have stopped all ad buys as of yeterday:

After losing to former President Donald Trump in the Iowa Republican caucuses Monday, coming in a distant second, DeSantis does not have any ads running in New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada, according to ad tracking services.

Not only has his campaign apparently gone silent, but the various super PACs supporting his 2024 bid have also vanished from television in the early nominating states.

Meanwhile, Haley has a new potential problem as the UK Daily Mail has revived old allegations of adultery on her part. Newsweek, an anti-Trump outlet, is trying to put the issue in the best light:

Unproven rumors from more than a decade ago of GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley having multiple affairs have given supporters of former President Donald Trump's MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement fuel for a new attack.

. . . The rumors were never proven and no significant new information has emerged about the old accusations, but that hasn't stopped Trump supporters from spreading them again. Their attacks come as Haley has risen in the polls, with many analysts speculating she could defeat Trump in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.

. . . The affair allegations gained more traction among Trump's base after the Daily Mail picked up the story on Friday, with Ryan Fournier, the co-founder of Students for Trump, and conservative X account @Proud Elephant referencing the Mail's article on social media.

Whether Haley is rising in the New Hampshire polls, as Newsweek claims, is questionable. According to NBC News,

Three high-quality New Hampshire polls have now been conducted after the Iowa caucuses — and they tell a consistent story about the battle in the state’s GOP presidential primary.

It’s not just that all three of them — two tracking polls via the Boston Globe/NBC-10/Suffolk, as well as another poll from St. Anselm College — have former President Donald Trump leading former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley by double digits, or that they all have Trump at 50% or higher.

If the goal of the Democrat lawfare campaign is to give Trump the nomination, why would anti-Trump, pro-Democrat Newsweek try to minimize his chances against Haley in New Hampshire and suggest she might beat him there? The fact is that there's no shortage of Democrats who are worried about Trump's potential performance in November, such as David Axelrod, who likely is speaking on behalf of Barack Obama.

The fact is that the January 6 trial, expected to start the day before the Super Tuesday primaries, looks like it will be overtaken by events, with the Republican nomination decided before that date, even leaving aside the increasing likelihood that it will be delayed past then. The Letitia James and E Jean Carroll trials in New York have had no discernible effect on Trump's primary performance, while if anything, the Fani Willis debacle in Atlanta will vindicate Trump and boost his popularity as well.

Lawfare so far has proven an utter debacle.

Kevin Morris Resurfaces

Retired Hollywood attorney and John Updike wannabe Kevin Morris has been lurking in the background of the news lately. He was interviewed by the Comer committee yesterday in what is generally characterized as a "lackluster" appearance that's said to have done nothing to advance the Republicans' case, although at this point, Hunter's income sources and how they may relate to Joe aren't major campaign issues -- they fade in comparison to the simple questions of Joe's condition, the border, and the economy.

Here's typical reaction:

Morris was there as part of the impeachment probe into Joe Biden, but it wasn’t entirely clear what the Republicans were expecting him to say. Morris admitted to virtually everything that we’ve heard about his relationship with the First Son but seemed baffled about why he was there. James Comer suggested that there were inappropriate connections between “loans” that Morris had made to Hunter and Joe Biden’s political campaigns, but little to no concrete evidence was provided. The Oversight Committee has provided plenty of fireworks over the course of this investigation, but this chapter seemed to be more of a dud than anything else.

Kevin Morris has emerged as one of the more colorful and potentially interesting characters in the story of Biden Incorporated, but his involvement with the Biden family’s affairs has always sounded very “hands-off” in nature. I suppose it was worth talking to him, but I’ll confess that I really wasn’t sure what, if anything, he could be accused of. He’s been on the periphery of the story and is definitely deeply embedded with the Bidens, but he never seems to show up in the truly insidious parts of the story.

The photo above shows him on the left with Hunter and Abbe Lowell during Hunter's surprise appearance on January 10 in the Comer committee hearing room. What struck me was how much Morris, 61, appears to have aged since his days as an aspiring writer pitching his first book only a decade ago. He was 51 then; now he's 61 and looks more like 81. A bicoastal multimillionaire, he's dressed like a used car salesman in a purple jacket, buttoned while he's seated, that no longer fits.

He's squinting inquisitively at the proceedings like an octogenarian not quite sure what they're about. Abbe Lowell, 71, looks ten years younger and far more focused; he and Hunter also knew to unbutton their jackets before they sat down -- but let's recall that Morris is generally understood to be paying Lowell's bills and is generally reported as heading Hunter's legal team. I don't feel 100% comfortable with this, frankly. Hanging with Hunter doesn't seem to have done much for the guy.

The coverage of Morris's tesimony so far leaves out a much more important development: this past Tuesday, the America First Legal Foundation filed a bar complaint with the State of California against Morris, alleging a violation of California’s Rules of Professional Conduct.

[L]ast year, Mr. Morris was publicly photographed appearing to use marijuana, while Biden, a recovering drug addict, was visiting his home. The year before that, it was reported that Mr. Morris had “been funding the 52-year-old’s lifestyle in Los Angeles – including his rent and living expenses.” Mr. Morris had allegedly paid $2 million in back taxes owed by Biden.

However, if Mr. Morris has provided personal funds to an individual who has now been confirmed to be a client – or who would reasonably believe himself to be Mr. Morris’s client – Mr. Morris would have violated both the text of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the well-established norms of the legal profession.

. . . If Hunter Biden or a similarly situated person would reasonably anticipate that Mr. Morris was obligated to provide legal services, the alleged funding of the lifestyle of a client or potential client justifies the immediate opening of a misconduct investigation under Rule 1.8.5.

Current coverage indicates that Morris has provided at least $5 million to Hunter, paying his tax bill, living expenses, and legal costs, although Morris is reported to have repeated his claim that these are loans in yesterday's committee testimony. This also leaves aside the testimony from Hunter's art dealer that most of that art was purchased by Morris.

There's also the question of whether Morris was actually ever Hunter's lawyer, although knowledgeable parties like Chris Clark, who negotiated Hunter's failed Delaware diversion deal, have told the press that he is:

Hunter Biden could not be reached for comment, but his criminal attorney, Christopher Clark, confirmed that Morris is serving as an "attorney and trusted adviser" to Hunter Biden.

It may be that the purpose of getting Morris's lackluster testimony before the Comer committee was simply to nail down his version of events, however uncontroversial this may seem, prior to exposing Morris as a liar. But for now, something strikes me as hinky indeed if Hunter has been relying on the guy in the picture at the top of this post as a "trusted adviser". He looks more like an over-the-hill actor who's been hitting the coke but still thinks he can make a comeback in the role of, say, Silas Marner.

I get the impression that the only guy in the vignette above who knows what he's doing is Abbe Lowell. I'm wondering how long he's going to last here, especially if Morris is Lowell's de facto boss. Lowell must certainly have understood Morris's ethical problem and the risk he faces giving sworn testimony that his payments to Hunter are just loans. I suspect Lowell has, first, an exit strategy, and second, an ironclad arrangement that makes sure either Morris, Hunter, or other Bidens pay his bills.

The Chicago Seven Strategy Still Works

Trump was back in court for the second E Jean Carroll civil trial in New York on Tuesday, and his exchange with Judge Kaplan was true to form:

"Mr. Trump has the right to be present here. That right can be forfeited and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive, which what has been reported to me consists of. And if he disregards court orders, Mr. Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial," Judge Lewis Kaplan told Trump, who was reportedly making comments throughout the trial, according to CNN.

Trump responded to Kaplan by throwing his hands up.

"I understand you’re probably eager for me to do that," the judge said.

"I would love it," Trump said, according to reporters in the courtroom.

"I know you would," Kaplan responded. "You just can’t control yourself in this circumstance apparently."

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Trump's public demeanor, as well as his conduct in the courtroom. It echoes similar comments by William Barr:

Former Attorney General Bill Barr said it would be a "particularly bad idea" for former President Donald Trump to take the stand in New York because the latter "lacks all self-control."

In a Sunday interview with Fox News' Shannon Bream, Barr was asked whether Trump would personally defend himself in court if his indictment went to trial.

"I'm not his lawyer, generally I think it's a bad idea to go on the stand," Barr replied. "And I think it's a particularly bad idea for Trump because he lacks all self-control, and it would be very difficult to prepare him and keep him testifying in a prudent fashion."

As I pointed out last October, Trump's strategy, at least in the New York civil cases, is based on the Chicago Seven defense, something Alan Dershowitz recognizes, and Dershowitz worked for the defense on that case. I quoted him in that post:

[T]he trial turned into a farce, because they had picked a judge named Julius Hoffman, who was a very right-wing jurist to preside over the trial, and he hated these radical defendants, and the radical defendants hated him, and Abby Hoffman came up with a tactic, he said basically to his lawyers and everybody else, "Look, we can't win this case in front of Judge Julius Hoffman. Let's see if we can go about getting it reversed on appeal, and the best way to do it is to provoke this judge, he has a short fuse, and provoke him into making error after error."

And that's exactly what [Abby] Hoffman did, he stood up, he made speeches, he wore costumes, he did everything possible to provoke the judge, and the judge fell into the trap, and I was one of the lawyers on the appeal, and we won the appeal, and he held the lawyers in contempt, and we won the appeal on contempt. So we had a total victory, and [Julius] Hoffman really was laughed at by his fellow judges, and he was condemned by jurists and appellate judges. So I call this the Chicago Seven tactic, and I think this is what Donald Trump is using now.

Unlike Judge Kaplan or Mr Barr, Dershowitz recognizes Trump's strategy as fully calculated. Both Trump and Dershowitz recognize Trump can't get a fair verdict in either of the New York civil trials, so on one hand, he's aiming to provoke Judge Kaplan, and it looks very much as though he'll succeed. But in addition, as Abby Hoffman was at the time, Trump is media savvy, and he's playing his courtroom performance for the media. Trump understands the media needs him as a story, and he's getting free coverage every day, while at the same time he calls attention to the other bizarre characters in the drama, this time "whack job" E Jean Carroll.

During the Letitia James trial, he's been able to play himself against Judge Engoron. Whether Judge Kaplan will prove as effective a foil, Trump is nevertheless now able to bring up Ms Carroll and her absurd allegations, which if nothing else prove delicious entertainment and keep the focus on Trump. He doesn't need campaign ads, and he doesn't need to debate. His name is in front of the public all day, every day, for free.

This is the error of NeverTrumpers like Andrew McCarthy. I quoted him yesterday in his apostrophe to Trump's supporters:

You need to put yourselves in the shoes of the country as a whole. Most Americans do not see this as you do. They vote, but they don’t follow politics closely. They are not attuned to the partisan machinations, the way incumbent Democrats convert the legal system into a campaign weapon. They know only the broad outlines of news coverage.

Trump knows well enough that most Americans won't necessarily understand whatever subtleties may be involved in HR 2 vs the Senate Lankford compromise, but they know entertainment when they see it, and they see it every day with Trump. Trump is a truthteller, a Huckleberry Finn, a Holden Caulfield, James Dean as Caleb Trask in East of Eden, or John Belushi as Bluto in Animal House.

Andrew McCarthy and William Barr misunderstand this as Trump's lack of self-control, when it's more like Bluto's pure irrepressibility. The American people understand this completely, and they'll be in the process of rejecting the NeverTrump alternative, that paragon of self-control Gov Haley, within the next few weeks.

Andrew McCarthy On Trump's Iowa Win

The National Review continues to be solidly NeverTrump, and it's brought out an old NeverTrump stalwart, Andrew McCarthy, to, prognosticate on the Iowa outcome:

. . . I took in a wide array of television and web coverage of former president Trump’s 30-point win in the Iowa caucuses last night.

What I found most curious was the Trump crowd’s crowing that Democrats woke up this morning to the news that their plan has failed — because, the irrational exuberance goes, Trump looks strong while Biden is floundering. This misapprehends the Democrats’ plan, which, in fact, continues to be working to perfection.

The plan was built on the four indictments and sundry civil suits, all brought by Democratic partisans (led by the Biden Justice Department). The point of the lawfare siege, which is the target of Trump’s constant ire and is thus scoffed at by his fans as ineffective partisanship, was to get Trump nominated. In that sense, the siege has been effective beyond the Democrats’ wildest dreams.

But doesn't this neglect what appears to be an across-the-board consensus view that a key aspect of the lawfare strategy is to start the January 6 trial by March 4, the day before the Super Tuesday primaries? For instance, via the Daily Beast, which commented before the US Supreme Court denied Jack Smith's request to rule immediately on Trump's immunity claims:

With Trump’s election fraud case set to start March 4, and the screening of potential jurors set for Feb. 9, the Supreme Court at this point would have to hear the case over the holidays—and speed through one of the most historic decisions in modern history.

. . . Any delay—even by a day—would seriously hamper one of the most significant aspects of Trump’s upcoming trial in Washington for lying to the American public in an attempt to stay in power. Days and hours matter because Trump’s D.C. trial is set to start the day before the massive primary election contests on Super Tuesday.

. . . It’s terrible timing for Trump, who will be portrayed by seasoned prosecutors representing the U.S. government as a man who betrayed the very Constitution he swore to protect and defend. And it’s an unprecedented opportunity for Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, and the few other candidates desperately trying to replace him as the GOP frontrunner.

In other words, as best anyone can surmise, a key Biden intent in the overall lawfare strategy is to head Trump off by Super Tuesday in hopes of promoting NeverTrumper candidacies by Haley and DeSantis, whom Biden, at least at the time he developed the lawfare strategy in the middle of last year, apparently felt he'd have an easier time beating. As far as we know now, the March 4 deadline for Jack Smith to start the January 6 trial is still a must-do. But wasn't this supposed to be in order to hurt Trump, not to help him?

By McCarthy's argument, no, starting the January 6 trial just before Super Tuesday will simply inflame Trump's base and further lock in his nomination. His reasoning is this:

The biggest factor in Trump’s early clinching is the Democrats’ lawfare. . . . Before the first indictment, Ron DeSantis was within striking distance. Once the indictments began, the base rallied to Trump and he blew the field away. As Phil notes, even DeSantis now concedes that the indictments “distorted the primary.”

Sometime in the next week or two, we will get a verdict and judgment from Judge Arthur Engoron, the elected progressive Democratic judge in elected progressive Democratic New York attorney-general Letitia James’s civil fraud lawsuit. . . . Trump will run for election judicially stamped as a fraudster who’s been put out of business (much of the country won’t care about the details, or know that the judge is a partisan hack).

. . . But here’s the thing: Hard as this is, Trump-sympathetic Republicans need for analytical purposes to set aside their seething over the Democrats’ exploitation of punitive legal processes against the former president. You need to put yourselves in the shoes of the country as a whole. Most Americans do not see this as you do. They vote, but they don’t follow politics closely. They are not attuned to the partisan machinations, the way incumbent Democrats convert the legal system into a campaign weapon. They know only the broad outlines of news coverage.

To support his argument, McCarthy relies mostly on the New York civil trials, the one now ending under Judge Engoron and the one getting under way in which E Jean Carroll insists yet again that Trump raped her. He leaves aside the question I've raised about the Jack Smith January 6 trial and why the Democrats want it to take place before Super Tuesday to damage Trump's prospects for the nomination, and even more significantly, he leaves completely aside the problem of the Fulton County trial and the new and salacious allegations of misconduct against DA Fani Willis.

The Fulton County trial is quickly degenerating into farce, and the sexual allegations are dominating the headlines -- as of today, likely even more than Trump's Iowa win. This is the best political entertainment since Monica Lewinsky, and the country as a whole is tuned in. But again, the consensus opinion seems to be that it will hurt the Democrats in the general election if the Fulton County case is dismissed or delayed. Here is Andrew Fleischmann in the Daily Beast:

So what happens next? Judge McAfee has stated his intention to hold a hearing in February to look over the truth of these allegations. If they are true, the case will not be dismissed, but it is likely that he will disqualify Fani Willis, which, under Georgia law, will require disqualifying her entire office. The case will then go to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, which will decide who the case can go on to next.

. . . But even if everything goes as smoothly as humanly possible, it is difficult to imagine trying the former president before the November election. And it’s also possible the case may go to someone who will choose to dismiss it.

Mr Fleischmann's assumption is that the Fulton County case must be tried before the election -- and his unspoken premise is that if he isn't found guilty before then, he'll be elected and pardon himself. He clearly thinks this is a potential outcome in the likely timeline of events. The same set of arguments applies here as to the need to start the January 6 trial before Super Tuesday -- otherwise, it will be very hard to prevent Trump's nomination and subsquent general election victory.

I think Andrew McCarthy's theory that the Democrat lawfare strategy is meant deliberately to inflame the Trump base and get him nominated as the candidate most likely to lose in November is too clever by half. Other Democrat opinion is clearly that the lawfare strategy was intended to use ongoing trials early in 2024 to deny Trump the nomination or, failing that, somehow to convict him of a crime before the election, sentence him to prison, and ensure he loses the general election.

The problem has been two practical obstacles. The first is that the prosecutors and judges have been party hacks who, like Judge Julius Hoffman in the Chicago Seven trial, have played into the defense strategy of discrediting the judicial process. This was and is, given appropriate overreaction and misconduct, an effective strategy. The second is that the lawfare strategy appears to have been developed and implemented only in mid-2023, and given the nature of legal proceedings, the trials are vulnerable to delay, when to be effective, they need to deliver credible results, either in key testimony or outright convictions, before definite 2024 election dates. This is increasingly unlikely. Murphy's general laws state, in part,

• Nothing is as easy as it looks.
• Everything takes longer than you think.
• Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
• If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. Corollary: If there is a worse time for something to go wrong, it will happen then.