Abbreviated Pundit Roundup is a long-running series published every morning that collects essential political discussion and analysis around the internet
We begin today with Jose Pagliery of the Daily Beast and his review of Michael Cohen’s first day as a witness in the Trump election interference trial in lower Manhattan.
For hours, prosecutors matched verified paperwork to Cohen’s recounting of his covert catch-and-kill operation. When Cohen said his calls to Pecker kept dropping, TV screens in the courtroom showed screenshots of the encrypted phone app Signal’s logs. When Cohen recalled talking to Weisselberg, screens showed AT&T call records. When Cohen distinctly remembered checking in one last time with Trump on a Wednesday morning before heading to the bank, phone entries show two calls at 8:30 a.m.
Jurors began to see the full story coming together, one that might survive any ad hominem attacks against Cohen for being a convicted perjurer.
But it was a tiring exercise for Cohen, who by mid-afternoon looked like he’d had enough of reading the damning messages that would forever tie his fate to the former president. He donned his thin-framed glasses every time he read the computer screen in front of him, with the glasses hanging low on the bridge of his nose.
But jurors always perked up—with three consistently taking notes—anytime they heard about Trump’s alleged directives.
Direct examination of Michael Cohen by prosecutors continues today.
Neal Katyal writes for The New Yorker making a pitch for cameras in the courtroom.
As a member of the Supreme Court bar, I was able to sit at the front of the courtroom for the arguments in Trump v. United States, the Presidential-immunity case. I could see Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s face twist into an expression of utter incredulity as Trump’s lawyer D. John Sauer claimed that a President sending a Navy seal team to assassinate a political rival was not an indictable crime. I was able to watch Michael Dreeben, the lawyer for the special counsel Jack Smith, painstakingly describe the counts in one of the federal indictments against Trump, relating to his abuse of the Justice Department. Dreeben outlined how Trump tried to pressure top Justice Department officials into sending letters to state legislatures expressing doubt about the election counts, and how Trump threatened to fire those officials if they didn’t comply. After Dreeben relayed this information, almost two hours into the proceedings, I could see the Court dynamics shift. The Justices began to listen far more closely to him, sitting up in their chairs.
I’ve personally seen more than four hundred oral arguments at the Supreme Court. Why bother trudging all the way to One First Street when I could just listen to audio recordings or read a transcript? Because neither is any sort of substitute for watching the way in which these arguments are delivered, and for observing the dynamics on display in the courtroom. The Court itself isn’t satisfied with just reading a bunch of written words in briefs; it insists on seeing advocates deliver their arguments in person. More than fifty Americans should get that same basic opportunity. [...]
Some fear that courtroom cameras will prompt witnesses to be intimidated and scared. I understand this concern; indeed, I once shared it. From 2020 to 2023, I was privileged to serve as special prosecutor in one of the most high-profile trials in modern history, the trial of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd. Up until this case, Minnesota had never televised a criminal trial. As prosecutors in the case, and in accordance with Minnesota law and practice, we requested that cameras be forbidden. We feared, in particular, for the safety and comfort of a seventeen-year-old witness, who had taken the video of Floyd’s murder.
Kadia Goba of Semafor reports that the Democratic “Mod Squad” of women are moving out of their current positions in the House and, hopefully, moving on up.
Now, “the badasses” are moving on. The close knit group of Democratic women, who adopted the nickname after winning House seats in 2018 following careers in the military and the CIA, is set to dwindle as several of them look toward higher office.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA analyst and Defense Department official, is running for U.S. Senate in Michigan. Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a fellow CIA alum, is leaving Congress after this term to prepare for a run at Virginia’s governorship next year. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a former Navy helicopter pilot, is “seriously considering” her own 2025 gubernatorial bid in New Jersey, where she tops early polls, even as she’s campaigning to keep her current seat for now. [...]
The fact that all three are considered top-tier candidates for statewide office may be a sign of staying power for their brand of Democratic politics. But it also means that the caucus will soon find itself losing a key set of moderate voices, who’ve also won respect across the aisle.
Molly Beck of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that the Wisconsin Supreme Court seems poised to overturn its decision to allow drop boxes outside of election clerk’s offices.
The state's highest court heard arguments Monday in a lawsuit backed by Democrats that seeks to overturn the court's decision under its previous conservative majority that said state law does not allow drop boxes to be placed outside of an election clerk's office and another ruling that prohibited clerks from filling in missing address information on absentee ballots.
“What if we just got it wrong?” said Justice Jill Karofsky, one of four members of the court's liberal majority, referring to the court's prior decision. “What if we made a mistake? Are we now supposed to just perpetuate that mistake into the future?"
The court in the coming weeks will decide whether to reinstate the use of absentee drop boxes, just before voters are set to cast ballots in the next presidential election that features a rematch of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.
Michael Birnbaum of The Washington Post reports that Secretary of State Antony Blinken began a two-day visit to Ukraine to reassure Ukrainian leaders as Russia has begun a renewed offensive in Kharkiv Oblast.
Various concerns surfaced prior to the election, including traditional concerns like fraudulent ballots, spy cameras at voting stations, and early voting fraud, as well as concerns about artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled election interference and deepfakes. While the 2022 presidential election embraced and incorporated AI into political campaigns – the PPP’s AI Yoon Suk-yeol, DP candidate Lee Jae-myung’s AI Chatbot, and former Deputy Prime Minister Kim Dong-yeon’s AI spokesperson AiDY and avatar WinDY – AI did not have the same presence in the 2024 elections. However, while AI was not emphasized in the campaigns, AI-generated deepfakes and disinformation were observed. [...]
The limited impact of AI-enabled false information may be due to the private and public sector efforts to protect the election’s integrity.
In May 2022, before the provincial elections, a deepfake video of Yoon seemingly endorsing a local candidate circulated, leading to the 2023 revision of the Public Official Election Act. The revision banned election-related deepfake videos, photos, and audio in the campaign period of 90 days before election day. Violators can face up to seven years in prison or a fine of up to $37,500. The use of Chat GPT to generate campaign mottos, song lyrics, or speeches is still permitted.
Everyone have the best possible day!