Politicians misuse statistics, make ‘snapshot’ analyses: Employment numbers, Trump election

 

Gordon L. Weil

If you think you can’t do numbers, beware. This column is about numbers.

But it reveals that you are not alone; many people, including some we rely on, can’t do numbers either.

We attach great importance to conclusions supported by numbers. Whether it’s about elections or employment, if there’s a number involved, we may often accept it as reliable and authoritative and not merely a matter of opinion.  That can be a mistake.

Take last week’s unemployment report.  The media stressed that the number of new jobs created in April was well below the economic forecast.  One outlet even congratulated itself for having foreseen that “April was not going to be a jobs boom, but instead, a jobs bust.”   An estimated 266,000 new jobs is “a bust?”

Conventional wisdom began to question if the economic recovery was slipping or the stimulus was a flop.  Optimism could swing to pessimism based on a solitary number that supposedly reported that fewer new jobs were created than had been forecast.

The media reported that the employment numbers fell below the expectations of “most economists.”  Obviously, that was not true, given the hundreds of thousands of economists, most of whom weren’t asked.  Who chose the economists whose opinions were used?  Are they qualified? Biased? 

Even if they were objective, does averaging the opinions of a relative handful of economists produce a gold standard jobs forecast?

Then, there’s the monthly report on new jobs and the unemployment rate.  It is produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a federal government agency that enjoys a good reputation for being competent and staying out of politics.

The BLS does not count each individual.  It uses surveys that, nine times out of ten, will be accurate within a range of possible results. Could this be the tenth time? And the width of the range in the BLS surveys could be larger than either the change in the number of jobs or the monthly variation in the unemployment rate.

Political leaders and the public don’t know exactly just how many jobs were created or how good the base forecast was. Because the same process is used every month, perhaps the best we do is make an educated guess that some jobs were created, but fewer than in the previous month. 

The employment results could raise questions about any new jobs legislation. National policy may change as a result of one month’s rough statistical finding, which flies in the face of all those “help wanted” signs we are seeing.  We are reading too much into the numbers.

If he really believes that he won the presidential election, Donald Trump is a victim of reading too little into the numbers he gets.  The numbers here are individually counted votes, not the result of a survey.  But they don’t seem logical to him, so he assumes they must result from massive cheating.

Trump received more popular votes than any other candidate for president ever, except for Joe Biden, who now sits in the White House.  Trump must find it hard to accept that the huge voter turnout helped Republican congressional candidates, but not him.

Mainly because of the coronavirus, states allowed for increased absentee voting. Trump believes that Biden’s huge vote is out of line and cannot be believed, and that absentee voting created the conditions for cheating on his behalf.  He also supports a few more fanciful causes to dispute the result.

That’s Trump’s logic, despite the fact that all the independent reviews show that there was no cheating that could have changed the result.  Republican election officials certified Biden’s votes.

The increased number of voters can readily be explained. The total population and the number of people of voting age increases with each election.  This time, with opinions sharply divided, it looks like more young people and women chose to participate. 

Believing only the numbers that support your expectation and ignoring those that don’t is called “confirmation bias.”  Most charitably, that’s what has happened to Trump.  He believed in the inevitability of his reelection and accepts only results favorable to him.

If only Trump’s results make sense, Biden must have cheated. That reasoning is enough and no evidence is needed.  None was produced.

Even if Trump is sincere, though misguided, his selective use of numbers endangers the democratic system of popular control by his prolonged attempt to undermine confidence in it.

The problems with excessive focus on numbers occurs almost continuously. Polls appear daily and are subject to instant interpretation. We can then jump to conclusions based on questionable “snapshot” data.

One daily national survey recently headlined that more Whites, Hispanics and suburbanites disapprove of Biden than when he took office.  It did not highlight that the same survey showed those groups also increased their approval of him.  The real news was that undecided people were making up their minds and that his overall national backing grew.

It’s not only polls. The New York Times revealed that the CDC had just found that there was less than a 10 percent chance of getting Covid-19 outdoors, when the data showed it to be far less likely.  The government agency used an excessively conservative number to protect itself from criticism that might later arise from any possible error.

Even though roughly true, the numbers were presented in a way that protected a government agency at the expense of giving useful information to the public.

Numbers can help in understanding what’s happening and when.  They can identify trends, though not on a daily basis as some polls do.  But, if accepted uncritically, they can provide a false sense of certainty.

Public attitudes and activities are influenced by actions, events and biases.  Numbers can be helpful in getting at the truth, but they are not the only thing that counts.

 

 

 

 

Biden’s tax increase on wealthy, corporations won’t depress economy, will create jobs

Gordon L. Weil

If President Biden raises taxes on the wealthiest people, will you lose your job?  Or pay more taxes even if you are not wealthy?

Opponents of tax increases on the top one percent sometimes make it sound like the rich don’t mind paying taxes, but worry that if the federal government raises their taxes, they will have less to invest in creating new jobs.  Using that hammer, they bang the loudest political gong: “Jobs, jobs, jobs.”

This claim may sound reasonable.  If my taxes increase, no matter how low they might have been, I will have less money to invest.  With less capital flowing into the economy, there will be less need for labor to do the work.

The problem with this seemingly logical assertion is that it has no basis in fact.  Beware of economic models that forecast negative effects from taxation; their assumptions are set to produce the results their sponsors want. They may forecast an economic cost, but they fail to explain how public needs would be met without tax revenues.

Besides, how can Americans be sure that untaxed income will be invested in job-creating activities?  In passing the Covid-19 stimulus bills, Congress had to ban corporations from using the money they received to buy their own stock, thus raising its price.  Corporations had done that with previous stimulus laws without creating new jobs.

Another use of non-taxed gains has been to raise the pay of top executives. The result is the widening income gap between the wealthiest and the average working person.

The claim about harming jobs is false because tax dollars mainly fund purchases in the private economy, which creates jobs. If the government takes in less, as it did in the last administration, it should spend less.  Deficits grew and the federal workforce increased under President Trump.

As for spending, payments for Social Security mostly go to people who then spend almost all of what they receive on consumer purchases. Retail sales are by far the largest driver of American economic health.

Defense spending is a large part of the budget.  Members of Congress fight for military bases and construction in their states and districts as much for the jobs they support, putting spending money in people’s pockets, as for the weapons and bases needed.

In fact, the major role of the federal government as a customer in the national marketplace is one reason why presidents try to take the credit for a strong economy.

The wealthiest people and the largest corporations may also claim that they are already subject to tax rates among the highest in the world.  They argue that it simply would not be fair to undercut them in direct competition with others.

This claim is false. The U.S. corporate rate is less than in all other leading free-market countries, except the U.K.  If Biden gets what he seeks, the combined rate of state and local taxes would still be less than it was under President Obama.

The supposed impacts of higher rates may not matter.  Biden proposes raising the rate on capital gains, though not to the level under Obama. The New York Times reported: “Investors care more about economic data and corporate profits than an increase in the capital gains tax. It has usually been this way.”

Biden moves the country closer to asking if there is any good reason to tax workers’ incomes at a higher rate than investors’ gains. In Maine and other states, the capital gains rate is the same as the same top regular income tax rate. The federal capital gains rate is much lower.

Complaints about tax increases gloss over the difference between the formal rates and what the wealthy and big corporations really pay.  Welcome to the rich and fertile land of loopholes.

While the rates enacted by Congress get much media attention, the little-known exceptions in the law or those authorized to be developed by the IRS result in those rates being much lower in practice.

In his first speech to Congress, Biden said, "A recent study shows that 55 of the nation's biggest corporations paid zero in federal income tax last year.”  

Wealthy individuals may do the same.  In 2020, ABC News reported, “The tax-avoidance strategies that President Donald Trump capitalized on to shrink his tax bill to essentially zero is surprisingly common among major real estate developers and other uber-wealthy Americans.”

Biden speaks of the non-payers coming up with their “fair share.”  How much is that?  Whatever it means, a “fair share” is likely to be something more than zero.  However, their political contributions and lobbying can get the non-payers loopholes that nullify any tax rate.

Add to all of this the almost total elimination of the inheritance tax.  One of its purposes was to collect some taxes from the wealthy that had benefitted from loopholes.

In the end, somebody has to pay for necessary government spending. If some get tax breaks, others have to pick up the cost. Tax policy is not really about jobs; it’s really about who pays.

 

Three ways to restore Supreme Court balance without ‘packing’

 

Gordon L. Weil

Note to readers.  Posts on this site are also available by email from Substack.  Just enter "Weil's Notes from a Corner of the Country" on substack.com  and you will be able to sign up for regular emails.

“It ain’t broke, so don’t fix it.”

That version of the old saying is what most Republicans and some Democrats think about the Supreme Court and the proposal to increase the number of justices on the Court.

Most Democrats in Congress believe it is broken and that former GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell did it.  He led the Republicans to block many of President Obama’s federal court nominees plus changing the rules to ease confirmation of President Trump’s Supreme Court and other judicial choices.

They charge that McConnell packed the Supreme Court with conservatives and now is the time to rebalance it with their own packing. Congress has the power to add new justices to reduce the influence of the relatively young conservative newcomers who may enjoy decades on the bench.

In 1937, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt was faced with a majority of conservative holdovers who sometimes thwarted his recovery moves.  After his stunning re-election victory in 1936, he proposed adding more justices.  The Court majority then shifted, making packing unnecessary.  “A switch in time that saved nine” was the quip of the day.

Roosevelt’s proposal had met some opposition, and he ignored history. John Marshall, perhaps the most influential Supreme Court justice ever, was a Federalist holdover for decades after his party fell into oblivion.  But presidents of the party in power did not propose Court packing.

The problem today is that the Court needs to be fixed.  Unlike the Marshall or Roosevelt situations, the Court majority was not the result of the natural course of history. It is the result of the obvious finagling by an excessively partisan McConnell.

President Biden is naming a commission to suggest a fix. Adding justices is a possibility, but the obvious concern is that increasing the size of the Court could be proposed after every presidential election.  Besides, Congress probably wouldn’t approve an increase.

The current Court, with six conservatives and three liberals, is likely to continue unchanged.  Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal, is being urged to retire so Biden can appoint his replacement.  Otherwise, as when Justice Ginsburg died with Trump in office, a liberal might later be replaced by a conservative.

Even though the current balance cannot readily be altered, reasonable changes may be possible. They could reduce the threat of partisan wars spreading further into the Court.

The first reform could come in the Supreme Court itself.  In many decisions, it must interpret the law and settle on just what Congress intended.  Conservatives can decide what liberals meant.   That’s really legislating when it determines how the law will be applied and rules out other approaches.

Why do that?  Congress is just across the street and open for business.  The Court could decide on its interpretation of congressional intent, but delay the effective date of its decision for six months. During that period, Congress would be on formal notice either to amend the law, resolving the issue, or to do nothing and let the decision stand.

In that way, decisions might be taken from the hands of an unelected holdover Court and given to a current Congress.  Under the Constitution, Congress itself has the power to control the Court’s jurisdiction, so it might itself be able to adopt this requirement.

Another reform, this time in Senate rules, could prevent McConnell-type moves. Judicial nominations could be required to allow for a minimum of 60 days review, including committee hearings and investigation of nominees, with a decision by the full Senate after no less than 90 days.

Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments, they deserve careful review before taking office.  Senate confirmation may be as much about their proven competence to make decisions often affecting all Americans as their political philosophy

Finally, as previously suggested in this column, the president and Congress could agree on making temporary appointments to the Supreme Court, just has always been done for lower federal courts.

A new slot on the Court would be created and filled by the usual lifetime appointee.  The Court would be enlarged only until one of the original justices ended their service.  At that point, the temporary slot would disappear and the justice in the temporary position would take the permanent seat.

With both Congress and the presidency now under Democratic control, this might be a more acceptable approach for skeptical Democratic senators, such as West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Krysten Sinema, than is enlarging the Court.   It could set a precedent for a time when there is a split in control between the Senate and the White House.

To his credit, Chief Justice John Roberts seems intent on keeping the Supreme Court from being reduced to a partisan forum.  That is a worthy goal, and the Court, Congress and Biden’s commission need to take that same long view and protect the Court’s independence.

 

 

 

History becomes a weapon; partisans pit “cancel culture” against “politically correct”

 

Gordon L. Weil

 “That’s all she wrote.”

In explaining this familiar American sentence, a British authority wrote that it means, “it's all over; there's no more to be said.”

That’s what we used to think about history.  You found out what happened and wrote a big book about it.

While that belief was never true, it is now strongly rejected.  These days people take a new look at history in an effort to realign the past with present opinions.

It can result in misjudging historical leaders.  New research and experience may help us understand what they did and why.  But we might also measure them using standards likely to have been unknown to them.  Or we may resist any new historic understanding and continue to glorify the past.

The most obvious case of taking a new look may be the elimination of the Confederate flag on  state banners and the removal of statues of rebel leaders. They have been memorials to an armed attempt to preserve slavery and destroy the Union.  Venerating them amounts to keeping the rebellion going.

While eliminating the symbols of an unjust and inhumane cause is reasonable and necessary, it leads to confrontation between those defending the symbols, supposedly because they are part of history and those opposing them in light of a reinforced awareness of their lingering effect. As a result, they become elements of today’s political clash.

At the time that slavery was acknowledged in the Constitution, most drafters knew it was wrong.  But they regarded it as necessary to ensure the participation of southern states, which believed it essential to their economies. It lasted until the Civil War and, in practice, a century more.

Even at the outset, one general saw it differently and upon his death, his slaves were freed.  Six decades later, another general led his state’s soldiers in rebellion against his own country to preserve slavery.  Both were Virginians and both are respected. Washington and Lee University recognizes them. Only one deserves a statue.

Taking a new look at Robert E. Lee to deflate his high reputation may be seen as “cancel culture” by those who believe he should be honored for being committed to a worthy cause and a classy loser. 

Giving new consideration to the historic role of leaders makes sense, provided today’s analysis takes into account human understanding and sensitivity as it existed at the time.  To reject such analysis, which some dismiss as “cancel culture,” is dangerously simplistic. 

The term “cancel culture” is not just about fighting to preserve history. It is a rallying call for those people who support discredited movements or events and amounts to barely disguised support for lost causes.  Its advocates misleadingly dismiss their critics as merely being “politically correct.”

On the other side, those who simply condemn historic figures based on their own current views also misuse history. They resort to shortcuts that are meant to appeal to their audience.

The heated debate is selective, based more on today’s politics than on a broad, new look at accepted history. The cases pulled out for new consideration or subjected to claims of “cancel culture,” are more likely to legitimize the current political needs of their partisans rather than being part of an academic effort to reappraise past scholarship.

Today, some people may be shunned as objects of “cancel culture” because of their past statements or writings. If they persisted, shouldn’t they be rejected?  If they repented, do they deserve still to be rejected?   (Still revered, Lee never repented.)

Recently, the head of Planned Parenthood wrote one of the most balanced views of a troublesome history during these times of “cancel culture.”

Margaret Sanger was a nurse who opened the first clinic dedicated to birth control in an effort to promote it as a way to improve women’s lives.  She founded Planned Parenthood and gained a widely, but not totally, favorable reputation.

Beyond women’s health concerns, she saw birth control as a way of limiting the growth of the Black population and associated with white supremacist groups.  She also supported a Supreme Court decision allowing the involuntary sterilization of “unfit” people and testing a birth control pill on unsuspecting Puerto Ricans.

“Sanger remains an influential part of our history and will not be erased, but as we tell the history of Planned Parenthood’s founding, we must fully take responsibility for the harm that Sanger caused,” Alexis McGill Johnson, the organization’s president, wrote.

If the furor over “cancel culture” has brought more attention to understanding our history, including Sanger’s conflicted role, it may be useful.  Debating the past educates us, and that’s needed, because schools pay too little attention to American history and civics.

Frequently, leaders hail the shared “values” that supposedly unite all Americans, but then skip the sometimes clashing specifics of how they played out in history. 

That failure leaves people ignorant of history and vulnerable to political exploitation.  It allows “cancel culture” to flourish and history to be used as a weapon.

 

More federal debt without new taxes means big tax hike later

 

Gordon L. Weil

How are we going to pay for all this?

In March, the monthly gap between federal spending and revenues was the third largest in U.S. history.

Whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden is president, federal spending keeps climbed. But raising the money to pay for it has been lacking.  Even worse, under Trump spending increased and taxes were cut.

Congress had made a deal that, aside from fixed benefits, military and non-military expense would be kept about equal. That deal was broken by Trump, who boosted military spending with GOP support.  He also paid billions to compensate farmers for the negative effects of his trade policy.

Biden has proposed about $2 trillion in infrastructure spending. Last week he released his proposed budget that would boost federal spending to move toward restoring the budget deal without military cuts. Both he and Trump spent without restraint to combat Covid-19, the main cause of the March deficit.

The U.S. is now using the word “trillion” routinely.  The old saying, attributed to several political sources, was “a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it begins to add up to real money.”  “Pretty soon” billion will be replaced by “trillion.” 

The problem is paying for it all.

The Federal Reserve can create money.  When the coronavirus hit, it did just that to pump funds into a faltering economy and staved off a recession.  But that kind of support is temporary and is really only a loan.

There is only one ultimate answer. The people who pay the taxes will have to pay the bill.

Are taxes already too high? 

The political mantra is that the government is taking too much of your “hard-earned money.”  Taxation is undesirable and reduces your ability to decide how to spend your own money.  The mantra is mistaken.

Only about 57 percent of households pay any federal income tax. The rest of the households, mostly the poor and part of the middle class, have no income tax liability. A small percentage of the wealthiest households also pay no income tax.

The amount of money the government will recover in taxes is partly determined by what Congress decides upon as the activities and actions it wants to support.  So tax revenues buy things decided by the representatives of the taxpayers.  Those decisions are easier and more politically popular than paying for them.

Beyond income taxes, the government levies a payroll tax, and almost everybody who works pays it.  These taxes supposedly pay for guaranteed programs like Social Security. They don’t.  An individual’s payroll tax usually doesn’t cover more than a fraction of the benefits the worker will receive in retirement.  Today’s workers pay for retirees.

Because the federal government runs up a budget deficit almost every year and payroll taxes don’t cover benefit commitments, it looks like taxes are too low.

Biden proposes to raise taxes on the most wealthy households and on corporations.  If he gets his way, the new tax rates will still be lower than under President Obama.  In other words, much of the Trump tax cuts will survive.

But corporations and some wealthy individuals complain that if they pay more taxes, they will invest less in the economy, creating fewer jobs.  It may seem logical that raising taxes could have a negative effect on the economy, but there’s no proof.  In fact, much government spending finds its way into the private sector, stimulating the economy.

There’s one way to increase tax revenues without a tax increase. Give the IRS the funds for enforcement.  The IRS commissioner just reported that the government could be losing as much as $1 trillion a year to cheaters. Cutting big government has meant slashing the IRS budget.  Biden wants a 10 percent increase.

If we want better roads and more warships but dislike taxes, how do we pay for them?  The federal government borrows and debt increases.  Don’t worry about that, say succeeding presidents.

The economy will keep growing, especially without heavy taxes, and that will produce more tax revenues that can be used in the future to pay off the debt.  The annual projection about future tax revenue is one of the greatest exercises in artificial optimism.  Great days are always coming.

To that hope we have joined the belief that interest rates are now so low that future payments won’t be burdensome.  Add low interest rates to a booming economy and more debt is no problem. 

That theory leads to tax cuts. If lower taxes help the economy, we should cut them even more. That worked once, under President Kennedy, and became an almost sacred belief.  It never again worked.  The national debt keeps growing, partly because increased revenue is spent, not used to pay off debt.

Add to that the fact that states cannot increase their debt without paying for it.  So they lean on Washington for funds, because the federal government has no such rule.  They transfer much of the high tax responsibility to Washington and, hopefully, taxpayers elsewhere.

There will always be new demands on government, so for the sake of future generations debt should be kept under some control. Otherwise, making debt service payments will inevitably require high taxes and crimp the budget. That would harm the economy.

The Washington debate focuses on limiting taxes as the way to choke the growth of big government.  It ought to focus on just what we want from government and then decide if and how we pay for it.

 

 

 

 

 

Biden seeks major spending to build “infrastructure,” but what is it?

Gordon L. Weil

It’s not a new “New Deal.”   It’s not even “big government.”

But President Biden is trying to do something big with his infrastructure plan.   Congressional Republicans oppose the scope of those plans.

What does “infrastructure” mean?  Originally a French word, it translates as “substructure.”  Does that mean only the most basic supports of the national economy, as the Republicans argue, or many underlying elements that contribute to economic strength, as Biden sees it?

Trump floated a $1 trillion infrastructure investment proposal. It would have needed more revenues from taxes or debt.  The GOP wasn’t in favor and the private sector did not come up with the cash. Nothing happened.

Roads and bridges have to be repaired.  Everybody agrees, making it difficult to argue against an infrastructure plan. The GOP wants it narrowly focused.  It’s almost as though if it isn’t made out of cement, it isn’t infrastructure.

Keep it a small bill, they say, to limit the necessary small tax increase and limited growth in the national debt.  Now that Trump, who liked debt, is gone, the Republicans have become deficit hawks. By spending less, they want to choke “big government.”

The 1930’s New Deal was big government, because the federal government itself created jobs and hired people.  It created and runs Social Security. Biden’s proposal would mostly send money to the private sector, just as did President Obama’s stimulus.  That’s public investment not big government.

The GOP may concede that Biden’s election victory entitles him to some action on infrastructure, but he must accept their version. That’s a Republican compromise. He suggests that if he gains support from average Republicans, that will be proof of compromise. And he must make some concessions to moderate Democrats who share some of the GOP’s restraint.

Biden promises to seek “good faith negotiations” with the Republicans. He would if he could, but he can’t. 

Former GOP House Speaker John Boehner now explains why the dominant, right-wing Republicans spurn compromise.  He wrote, “These guys wanted 100 percent every time. In fact, I don’t think that would satisfy them, because they didn’t really want legislative victories. They wanted wedge issues and conspiracies and crusades.”

In Maine, something like that happened with this year’s supplemental budget.  Gov. Janet Mills gave GOP legislators 99 percent of what they wanted on business taxes, but they demanded 100 percent. When she gave them that, they demanded even more.

In short, politics is not about shared responsibility for governing the country, but a struggle between the Democrats, who make proposals, and the anti-Democrats who oppose them, good or bad.  

Republicans attack Biden’s big plan, but only propose severely trimming it without promising to vote for the reduced version. There is no GOP counterproposal.

If both sides were serious about compromise, they could successfully negotiate a deal. The Republicans would have to accept more spending and the Democrats less. Because the Democrats control the government, they should get more out of the deal than would the Republicans.

But that won’t happen.  Boehner found that the GOP right wing does not want to legislate; it wants to agitate.  Also, Biden can’t let the Republicans use compromise talks to delay action, giving them time to promote opposition to his bill.

Biden probably believes that the infrastructure bill plus the stimulus bill passed recently and planned health care reform legislation are the cornerstones of his presidency. With these bills, he can achieve most of what he set out to do. And his best chance for success comes now in the first year of his presidency.

He was an adept legislator, so he knows he must make some concessions to moderate Democrats and at least talk with Republicans.  His bill contains some spending on the progressive agenda to keep all Democrats on board, but he undoubtedly knew from the outset that he would have to drop parts of his proposal.

Yet some of his innovative items could prove popular with Republicans across the country.  For example, his proposed broadband expansion could bring real benefit to Maine’s rural areas, traditional Republican strongholds. 

The GOP leaders lined up for broadband, but Republicans oppose clean energy proposals and even fixing 100-year-old water systems.

The Republicans can block Biden from getting the 60 Senate votes to end debate on his bill.  One solution might be for the Democrats to eliminate the filibuster.  But Biden might not get swing Democrats to agree.

The more likely solution is budget “reconciliation.”  A simple majority can decide on spending and taxes under this procedure, used by both parties. Biden’s bill was drafted to permit it, and the Senate parliamentarian has issued a preliminary ruling allowing it.

Biden pits Republican governors and mayors, who could benefit from the bill, against the congressional GOP, largely still loyal to Trump.  The Democrats could not only pass the bill, but gain from the split.

This scenario reveals that the 2022 congressional election campaign has begun. 

Trump faces increasing legal pressure, even after Senate’s failure to convict him

Gordon L. Weil

If at first you don’t succeed, try again. 

If Trump’s critics couldn’t win in Congress, they want the courts to bring him to justice.  The legal complaints keep rolling in.

Trump’s serious problems began when Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a Republican, found ten “episodes” of his potential obstruction of justice. While Mueller found no direct link between the Trump campaign and Russian meddling on his behalf, he reported that Trump had tried to interfere with his investigation.

But Mueller could go no further, blocked by a Department of Justice opinion that a sitting president could not be forced to face criminal charges. 

Freed from any penalty from the Mueller investigation, Trump tried to get the Ukraine president to investigate the alleged involvement of Biden’s son in a potentially corrupt company there.  He added pressure for such help by delaying promised financial aid for Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s invasion.

House Democrats impeached Trump for his Ukraine move, though they skipped over any charges that might have come from Mueller’s obstruction of justice findings.  Only one Republican senator, Mitt Romney, voted to convict, and the effort to remove Trump from office failed to gain the Senate’s required two-thirds vote.

Next, House Democrats joined by 10 Republicans impeached Trump for inciting the January 6 Capitol insurrection aimed at getting Congress to overturn his election defeat.  

While GOP senators denounced Trump’s actions, they refused to convict him because he was no longer in office.  The same Justice Department opinion that had blocked Mueller clearly stated that an impeached federal official could be convicted after leaving office. A Senate majority voted to support that view.

Most Republican senators refused to honor that decision.  Seven Republicans, including Susan Collins, did accept it and voted to convict Trump, but the effort again failed.

The impeachment process is political. Conviction depends on the offense being so outrageous that members of the president’s own party will vote against him.  The second Senate trial vote revealed that convicting a president is probably impossible.

When the Senate’s unwillingness to act is coupled with protection from criminal charges while in office, a president likely enjoys complete immunity.

An ex-president might face a criminal trial, but the only punitive action is likely to be the verdict of history.  Trump’s record-setting two impeachments may be his main legacy.

But that outcome is not enough for his opponents and victims. Having failed to convict him when Trump was president, they continue to hope for him to be found guilty of a major offense. Such a decision might be seen as their vindication, because it would be judicial not political.

Democrats had intended that conviction in the second impeachment trial would lead to Trump being banned from ever again holding federal office.  That’s why the Senate trial began even after his term had ended.

Being found guilty in court now could serve the same purpose. He might be sufficiently discredited that his chances at election or perhaps even the GOP nomination would be undercut.   Much would depend on the reaction of traditional Republicans plus independents.

His partisans may believe that losing in court might not stop him. The party keeps working to suppress the Democratic vote in swing states so that he could win again with a smaller GOP turnout. 

Many federal cases have been brought against Trump, mostly by professional prosecutors not political figures. There’s a slim chance he could be tried for his January 6 actions.  Recently, two Capitol police officers injured by the mob sued Trump.

Though Biden should keep hands off, he might prefer the Justice Department not pursue him out of concern that they could appear overly political, especially in light of Trump’s investigation of his son, which the president has not halted.

Beyond the federal cases, Trump remains vulnerable. The ex-president is the subject of state investigations that are completely independent of the federal Justice Department.  Other cases in which he is not directly involved could also produce negative results for him.

Both the New York State Attorney-General and the Manhattan District Attorney are investigating his possible tax evasion and if he lied to obtain business loans.   Georgia is investigating his attempts to influence the presidential vote count through direct contacts with its election officials. Conviction in these cases, if they get to court, could be politically damaging.

Among the most serious cases are complaints brought by two companies against some Trump lawyers and his Fox News allies.  Trump endorsed their claims that the companies operated voting machines replacing Trump votes with Biden votes. There is no such evidence, and the companies say their businesses have suffered because of the claims.

If the companies win, the results will further discredit Trump’s false assertion that he won the election, his supporters’ justification for the Capitol insurrection.  That could harm his political prospects.

The campaign battles between Trump and his opponents continue. No longer is it only a matter of politics.  In the end, the courts may have as much to say about Trump’s presidency and his future as did the voters last November.