Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Saturday, April 29, 2023

After Warmth From Biden, South Korea’s Yoon Faces a Different Tune at Home - The New York Times

After Warmth From Biden, South Korea’s Leader Faces a Different Tune at Home

"President Yoon Suk Yeol’s foreign policy, aligning his country more closely with Washington and Tokyo, has polarized his country. And critics say he has won little to show for it.

Yoon Suk Yeol and President Biden toast each other on a lectern in front of a few tables of guests.
President Biden with President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea during the state dinner at the White House on Wednesday.Doug Mills/The New York Times

President Yoon Suk Yeol went to Washington to reset South Korean diplomacy by drawing closer to the United States and taking a larger role on the international stage. If the warmth of his reception there was the gauge of success, he did well.

President Biden welcomed him as “my friend.” Mr. Yoon belted out “American Pie”while the crowd whooped along during the White House dinner. On Thursday, he addressed the United States Congress, thanking Americans for their support during the Korean War, and extolling a deep relationship between the countries that helped energize South Korea’s rise to become a global technological and cultural powerhouse.

“Even if you didn’t know my name, you may know BTS and Blackpink,” Mr. Yoon said to chuckles from American lawmakers. “BTS beat me to the White House. But I beat them to Capitol Hill.”

But Mr. Yoon now returns home to South Korea to a decidedly colder audience — a public that has punished him with low approval ratings and, in some sectors, has deep misgivings over a pivot toward the United States that could alienate China and threaten the country’s long tradition of diplomatic caution.

Even before Mr. Yoon departed for Washington, South Koreans ​were beginning to grapple with questions that seemed distant until recently. How can they feel safe under the rapidly expanding nuclear threat from North Korea​? And how should they navigate the increasingly bitter rivalry between the United States, South Korea’s main military ally, and China, its biggest trading partner​?

Mr. Yoon addressing a joint meeting of Congress on Thursday.Pete Marovich for The New York Times

​The main answer Mr. Yoon is bringing home is the “Washington Declaration,” a joint statement with Mr. Biden. In it, Mr. Biden promised that Washington would embrace South Korea as a close consultative partner in its nuclear strategy over the Korean Peninsula — though American presidents will remain the sole authority on whether to actually use nuclear weapons.

To show its “extended deterrence” commitment to defend its ally with nuclear weapons if necessary, Mr. Biden ​promised that U.S. nuclear ballistic missile submarines would make port calls ​in South Korea for the first time in decades. In return, Mr. Yoon reaffirmed South Korea’s intention not to develop nuclear weapons of its own, dispelling misgivings in Washington that he might consider a nuclear option, as he indicated he might early this year.

But like everything else Mr. Yoon has done since his election last year, the reviews in South Korea were polarized.

“History will remember the Yoon government as the first South Korean administration to recognize the North Korean nuclear program as a present and urgent threat and begin preparing responses to the crisis,” said Cheon Seong-whun, a former head of the Korea Institute for National Unification in Seoul.

The Washington Declaration ​was “a big win​”​ for South Korea​ because “for the first time, the allies are discussing nuclear deterrence, which Seoul has not been able to discuss with Washington until now​,” said Kim Duyeon, a Seoul-based researcher for the Center for a New American Security.

A joint military exercise between the United States and South Korea on the aircraft carrier Nimitz last month.Pool photo by Jeon Heon-Kyun

​ “They are gaming out scenarios in which not only North Korea might use a nuclear weapon but the U.S. would direct the employment of a nuclear weapon in response as well,” Ms. Kim said​. ​“This is huge because until now, the tabletop exercises would end before Washington decides to use a nuclear weapon. The U.S. had considered such information to be too classified to share and because nuclear use would be a U.S. decision, operation and execution plan.​”

Mr. Yoon’s critics at home, however, felt he was giving away too much for too little, seeing the declaration and a separate joint ​statement from Mr. Yoon and Mr. Biden as a carefully wrought design to silence calls for South Korea’s own nuclear force or the redeployment of American tactical nuclear weapons in the South.

Such calls have gained momentum in recent months, as North Korea has stoked nuclear jitters in the South by testing a series of what it called nuclear-capable short-range ballistic missiles. ​The North has also ​warned ​that ​first nuclear strikes were now part of its military strategy.

“The Washington Declaration may look substantive and fantastic, but, in reality, it is an empty shell,” said Professor Kim Dong-yub, at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul. “There is no change in Washington policy.”

Critics also ​​doubted that ​the ​port calls​ ​by U.S. nuclear submarines ​would do much more than further escalate regional tensions with China and North Korea and​ provide another excuse for the North to ​expand its nuclear arsenal. On Saturday, North Korea called Mr. Yoon “a fool” and Mr. Biden “an old man with no future” and said it felt compelled to take “more decisive action.”

“They are not ‘extended deterrence,’ but rather ‘extended crisis,’” Mr. Kim said.

A photograph provided by North Korean state media is said to show Kim Jong-un inspecting the test launch of a solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile this month.Korean Central News Agency

An editorial in the conservative daily Chosun Ilbo sounded miffed by ​what​ it called ​the Biden administration’s ​efforts to “tighten the nuclear shackle​s​” on its ally.

“The declaration seems to put more emphasis on American concerns that South Korea could develop its own nuclear weapons than on the North Korean nuclear threat that prompts such aspirations,” it said. “Ultimately, South Korea must be in a position to defend itself.”

For decades, South Korea’s defense strategy relied on the assumption that the United States would come to its aid if war were to break out. But the once-bedrock premise is losing its credibility​. In a survey by the Seoul-based Chey Institute for Advanced Studies late last year, ​n​early 49 percent of respondents said they doubted that Washington would fight for South Korea at the risk of a North Korean nuclear attack on mainland United States.​ Nearly 77 percent said South Korea needed to develop its own nuclear arsenal.

​To such skeptical South Koreans, Washington’s ​promise of extended deterrence “just amounts to rhetoric, however you package it,” said Lee Byong-chul, a researcher on nuclear policy at the Institute for Far Eastern Studies at Kyungnam University in Seoul.

Many South Koreans remain wary of great powers, reflecting their deep grievances over Japanese colonial rule and the division of the Korean Peninsula by the Soviet Union and the United States at the end of World War II.

South Korea ​has ​​kept Japan at arm’s length, even though Washington urged its two key allies to work closely together to deter China and North Korea. It has ​​also sought diplomatic balance between Washington and Beijing. Its more progressive leaders​, like Mr. Yoon’s predecessor, Moon Jae-in, doggedly pursued dialogue with North Korea, even ​causing friction with Washington, which tended to emphasize sanctions​.

Mr. Yoon, however, has made a point of shaking the ​traditional equilibrium.

Mr. Yoon with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan during a dinner in Tokyo last month.Japan's Cabinet Public Affairs Office, via Associated Press

​In March, he broke a logjam in relations with Japan by promising that Seoul will no longer seek compensation for victims of forced labor during Japan’s colonial rule​. Mr. Yoon also doggedly aligned Seoul more closely with ​​the United States, despite concerns about China’s ability to harm South Korea’s vital economy.

“The alliance has now become a global alliance that safeguards freedom and peace around the world,” he told the U.S. Congress. “Korea will fulfill its responsibilities.​”​

While in Washington, Mr. Yoon condemned the war against Ukraine as “a violation of international law​.​” In a jab at Beijing, he ​opposed “any unilateral attempts to change the status quo in the Indo-Pacific, including through unlawful maritime claims, the militarization of reclaimed features and coercive activities.”

Liberal South Koreans cautioned against Mr. Yoon’s approach.

“If South Korea is unilaterally sucked into the new U​.​S​.​-led Cold War system, it must face up to the reality that relations with China and Russia, both of which have a strong influence on North Korea, will become more dangerous, and the risk of a North Korean nuclear crisis and even war on or around the peninsula will increase,” the liberal Hankyoreh newspaper said.

​Both hawks and doves in policy circles in Seoul will have reason to feel disappointed by the Washington Declaration, which “neither signals a push for dialogue with Pyongyang nor promises Seoul getting a nuclear deterrent of its own,” said John Delury, an East Asia scholar at Yonsei University in Seoul.

But to many South Koreans, especially younger ​generations struggling with ​dwindling job opportunities, a ​more pressing issue than the North’s nuclear​ arsenal is the economy.

In recent months, hardly a day ​has gone by in South Korea without headlines blaring concern that Mr. Biden’s Inflation Reduction and Chips and Science Acts would hurt two of South Korea’s ​most important industries: electric cars and semiconductors. But in their joint statement, Mr. Yoon and Mr. Biden ​only agreed to “continue close consultations.”​

“Younger Koreans don’t know the lyrics to ‘American Pie,’ but they know about the Inflation Reduction Act,” Mr. Delury said."

After Warmth From Biden, South Korea’s Yoon Faces a Different Tune at Home - The New York Times

Rape Case Places Trump in Legal Jeopardy. Politically, He’s Thriving. - The New York Times

Rape Case Places Trump in Legal Jeopardy. Politically, He’s Thriving.

"The former president’s new campaign is rolling unimpeded under the spotlights. In quiet courtrooms, he faces more serious threats.

Donald J. Trump stands in a dark suit before three flags and a campaign logo.
Donald J. Trump’s political and legal fortunes are diverging as he campaigns in public and faces criminal and civil allegations in private.Sophie Park for The New York Times

During E. Jean Carroll’s first day on the witness stand, her lawyer asked what had brought her to a federal courtroom in Manhattan.

“I am here because Donald Trump raped me and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen,” Ms. Carroll replied. “He lied and shattered my reputation, and I am here to try to get my life back.”

A day later, Mr. Trump, who has denied the attack and called Ms. Carroll a liar, campaigned in New Hampshire, joking to a crowd about his changing nicknames for Hillary Clinton and President Biden. He did not mention Ms. Carroll’s testimony, or the civil trial going on 250 miles away. But he remarked cheerfully on a poll released that day, which showed him far and away leading the 2024 Republican primary field.

Since Mr. Trump was indicted last month in a criminal case brought by the Manhattan district attorney’s office, his legal travails and his third presidential campaign have played out on a split screen. The courtroom dramas have taken place without news cameras present, even as the race has returned Mr. Trump to the spotlight that briefly dimmed after he left the Oval Office.

Ms. Carroll’s harrowing testimony, a visceral demonstration of Mr. Trump’s legal peril, has emphasized the surreal nature of the divide. Mr. Trump is the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. But he has also been indicted on 34 felony false records charges, and in Ms. Carroll’s case faces a nine-person jury that will determine whether he committed rape decades ago. And then there are the other investigations: for election interference, mishandling sensitive documents and his role in the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“To see a former and potential future president of the United States confront all these legal issues at once is bizarre,” said Jennifer Horn, a former chairwoman of the New Hampshire Republican Party and a vocal opponent of Mr. Trump. “But what’s really disturbing about it is that he’s the front-runner for a major political party in this country. And you can’t just blame that on him. You have to blame that on the leaders of the party and their primary base.”

The past week brought the former president a steady stream of setbacks. Ms. Carroll gave detailed and graphic testimony about the encounter with Mr. Trump. The judge in the case sought to limit Mr. Trump’s posts on social media, as did the Manhattan district attorney’s office in its own case. And former Vice President Mike Pence testified before a grand jury hearing evidence about Mr. Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers have reshaped the “Access Hollywood” tape into a legal weapon.Jefferson Siegel for The New York Times

Mike Murphy, a Republican political strategist who advised John McCain and Jeb Bush, said that trials and investigations of Mr. Trump often create “a psychological roller coaster for Trump-hating Democrats,” giving them hope that he will be taken down, only to leave them disappointed. Mr. Trump’s legal problems have yet to create significant political problems given the unflinching loyalty of his core supporters.

Since Mr. Trump was indicted, his poll numbers have risen. Criminal investigations against him, in Georgia and Washington, as well as Ms. Carroll’s trial and a civil fraud lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General’s office, have done little to hamper him with his supporters. The poll he mentioned Thursday predicted that he would receive 62 percent of the vote in the Republican primary. His closest opponent, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who has not yet declared that he is running, was polling at 16 percent.

But the investigations could cause Mr. Trump real harm. If he is convicted in Manhattan, where he pleaded not guilty to 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, he could face up to four years in prison. Criminal charges in Georgia and Washington could come with steeper punishments. And the New York attorney general’s lawsuit against him — which accused him of deceiving lenders and insurers by fraudulently overvaluing his assets — could exact a heavy financial toll.

No matter the outcome, any direct connection between Mr. Trump’s legal fate in the rape case and his political fortunes is tenuous. But Ms. Carroll’s lawyers have reshaped a political bombshell from 2016 into a potent legal weapon: They plan to use the “Access Hollywood” tape on which Mr. Trump boasts about grabbing women by the genitals as the basis for a compelling story about a self-styled playboy man-about-town whose modus operandi was assaulting women.

Mr. Trump said on the tape that “when you’re a star, they let you do it.” When the comments became public during the 2016 election, Mr. Trump characterized them as “locker room banter” and after his victory, they became an example of his apparent immunity to scandal.

In the courtroom, which Mr. Trump has avoided, Ms. Carroll’s team argued that his words were not to be dismissed, even years after they became public.

“This was not locker room talk,” Shawn G. Crowley, one of her lawyers, said on the first day of the trial. “It’s exactly what he did to Ms. Carroll and to other women.” Those other women, named by Ms. Crowley as Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, are expected to testify for Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Carroll described for the jury how a chance meeting with Mr. Trump in a Bergdorf Goodman store in New York City in the mid-1990s turned into an encounter that would haunt her for nearly 30 years.

The assault, she said, took place in a sixth-floor dressing room. After Mr. Trump shut the door, she said, he shoved her against the wall hard enough that she hit her head. He put his mouth against hers, Ms. Carroll said, pulled down her tights, put his fingers inside of her vagina and then his penis. 

Ms. Carroll testified that she has been unable to have sex or a romantic relationship since.

“I am a happy person basically, but I’m aware that I have lost out on one of the glorious experiences of any human being,” she said. “Being in love with somebody else, making dinner with them, walking the dog together. I don’t have that.”

On Thursday, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, Joseph Tacopina, began cross-examining Ms. Carroll. He sought to highlight her memory lapses — most prominently her inability to provide the date of the alleged rape — and to elicit testimony that he suggested showed the jury how implausible the story seemed. He noted that Ms. Carroll herself had written in her 2019 memoir, where she first told her story, that some of the details were “odd” and “inconceivable.”

“It all comes down to: Do you believe the unbelievable?” Mr. Tacopina said during his opening statement.

Joseph Tacopina, Mr. Trump’s lawyer, has probed for inconsistencies in Ms. Carroll’s account. Anna Watts for The New York Times

The jurors, six men and three women, will decide whether Ms. Carroll proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Trump committed the assault. Because the trial is civil, he would face monetary damages rather than a conviction.

Ms. Carroll’s lawsuit also seeks a retraction of what the suit says were defamatory comments on his Truth Social website last October, when he called her case “a complete con job” and “a Hoax and a lie.”

The social platform is one of Mr. Trump’s most potent political tools. And the legal cases are threatening his ability to use it unhindered.

On Tuesday, a prosecutor working for the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, asked the state judge in the false business records criminal case to limit Mr. Trump from disseminating evidence online, including on that platform.

And on Wednesday, after the former president made Truth Social posts calling Ms. Carroll’s allegation a “made up SCAM” and a “fraudulent & false story,” the federal judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, said they were “entirely inappropriate” and suggested the former president was attempting to influence the jury.

When, hours later, Judge Kaplan was told by Ms. Carroll’s lawyer that Mr. Trump’s son Eric had tweeted an attack on Ms. Carroll’s case, the judge sternly suggested the former president might face criminal sanction.

“If I were in your shoes,” Judge Kaplan told Mr. Tacopina, “I’d be having a conversation with the client.”

Kate Christobek contributed reporting."

Rape Case Places Trump in Legal Jeopardy. Politically, He’s Thriving. - The New York Times

Opinion | A Sinister New Page in the Republican Playbook - The New York Times

Jamelle Bouie


A Sinister New Page in the Republican Playbook

A close-up of the torso of a person wearing a suit and tie. The tie is patterned with red, white and blue elephants.
Mark Peterson/Redux

On Tuesday, I wrote about the Republican effort to limit the reach and scope of initiatives and referendums as another instance of the party’s war on majority rule. One thing I wanted to include, but couldn’t quite integrate into the structure of the column, was a point about the recent use of legislative expulsion to punish Democratic lawmakers who dissent from or challenge Republican majorities.

We saw this in Tennessee, obviously, where Republicans expelled two Democratic members — Representatives Justin Jones of Nashville and Justin J. Pearson of Memphis — for loudly supporting a youth protest for gun control from the statehouse floor using a bullhorn.

We saw another example this week, in Montana, after State Representative Zooey Zephyr, a transgender woman, spoke out against a bill that would ban gender-affirming care for minors. Calling her comments (“If you vote yes on this bill and yes on these amendments, I hope the next time there’s an invocation, when you bow your heads in prayer, you see the blood on your hands.”) “disrespectful and “inappropriate,” Montana Republicans have barred Zephyr from attending — or speaking during — the House session for the rest of the legislative term, which ends next week.

In Nebraska, a Democratic lawmaker is being investigated by an ethics panel for a conflict of interest regarding her filibuster of another bill to ban gender-affirming health care for minors. The conflict? She has a transgender child.

And if we look back to last year, we’ll recall that House Republicans censuredformer Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for their roles in investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

What to make of this?

Expelling or censuring members isn’t necessarily an attack on majority rule or popular government, and yet it feels more sinister, in a way, than an impenetrable partisan gerrymander or even a strict voter ID law. I think that’s because these moves against dissenting members constitute an attack on representation itself.

No one forced Tennessee Republicans to expel Representatives Jones and Pearson. They could have ignored them. But they were so incensed by the show of opposition that they deprived about 130,000 people of their representation in the legislature. Silencing and effectively banning Representative Zephyr means that about 10,000 people in Montana’s 100th District don’t have a voice in the legislature.

The foundation of modern American democracy is that all Americans deserve some kind of representation in the rooms where law and policy are made. Not content to control those rooms in states where they dominate the political scene, some Republicans have said, in essence, that representation is a privilege for communities whose chosen lawmakers don’t offend their sensibilities.

The Constitution guarantees to each state a “republican form of government.” I’ve written before about how this “republican form” is mostly undefined; neither the framers nor the courts have really said what it means for a state to have one. But I think we can at least say that when legislatures are stripping communities of representation over dissent and disagreement, it doesn’t exist.


What I Wrote

My Tuesday column was, as I mentioned, on the Republican attack on referendums and initiatives, and how the party has committed itself to circumventing the will of the majority wherever it thinks it’s necessary.

There’s still room for innovation, however, and in the past year Republicans have opened new fronts in the war for minority rule. One element in these campaigns, an aggressive battle to limit the reach of the referendum process, stands out in particular. Wherever possible, Republicans hope to raise the threshold for winning a ballot initiative from a majority to a supermajority or — where such a threshold already exists — add other hurdles to passage.

My Friday column was on the drama on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where its chairman, Dick Durbin, asked Chief Justice John Roberts to testify at a hearing on Supreme Court ethics. I wrote that the response from Roberts demonstrates something crucial about the relationship between the court and the American political order.

“Separation of powers,” in Roberts’s view, means the court is outside the system of checks and balances that governs the other branches of government. “Judicial independence,” likewise, means neither he nor any other member of the court has any obligation to speak to Congress about their behavior. The court checks, according to Roberts, but cannot be checked.

And in the latest episode of my podcast with John Ganz, we discussed the 1995 political comedy “Canadian Bacon.”

Opinion | A Sinister New Page in the Republican Playbook - The New York Times

Friday, April 28, 2023

White House calls out Haley’s 'outrageous' comments on Biden’s age

 

"GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley's recent comments about President Biden's age are stirring up controversy. During an interview on Fox News, Haley implied that 'if you vote for Joe Biden you really are counting on a President Harris, because the idea that he would make it until 86 years old is not something that I think is likely.' The White House responded to Haley's comments, stating that they do not directly respond to campaigns but adding, 'honestly, I forgot she was running.' The Morning Joe panel discuss."

Opinion | E. Jean Carroll testimony against Trump is reminder of his character - The Washington Post

Opinion What the Trump rape trial has already revealed

E. Jean Carroll arrives to federal court in New York on Thursday. (Seth Wenig/AP)) 

“I’m here because Donald Trump raped me, and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen.”

That is the testimony of E. Jean Carroll, searing and raw nearly three decades after the alleged attack in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in New York.

It is important — no, it is imperative — not to sanitize Carroll’s testimony this week in a Manhattan federal courtroom. We have become so inured, so numb, to stories about Trump’s behavior that it is tempting to minimize the case.

After all, it is just one of many — who can keep straight the gusher of allegations and indictments, actual and impending? It is simply another sordid example of Trump’s behavior, unmoored and, as yet, unpunished: The adult-film star paid off; the Playboy model whose tale of an affair with Trump was captured and killedbefore she could peddle it; “When you’re a star, they let you do it.” Oh, that. Whatever. We knew that.

We did, but we need to hear it again, and to remind ourselves of how far Trump has dragged us down into the gutter with him, reduced to his level of tawdry entitlement. The account being heard by a Manhattan jury is not only about a former president — it is also about a man who, by all measures, seems poised to claim his party’s nomination a third time.

Follow Ruth Marcus's opinions

Trump, Carroll said, “shoved me so hard my head banged” against the dressing room wall. He pulled down her tights and “jammed” his fingers inside her.

“His fingers went into my vagina, which was extremely painful — extremely painful. It was a horrible feeling because he curved — he put his hand inside of me and curved his fingers,” Carroll said. “As I'm sitting here today, I can still feel it.”

Indelible in the hippocampus are the fingers. If only this trial were televised.

I do not want to think about this. I do not want to make you think about it. And yet, we must. This is where Trump has brought us all. This is the person who wants to return to the presidency.

Carroll is far from the perfect plaintiff. She can’t precisely pin down the date of the alleged encounter. She didn’t report an assault — indeed, when she called a friend to relate the incident right after leaving Bergdorf’s, Carroll was laughing. “He raped you. He raped you, E. Jean. You should go to the police,” the friend, writer Lisa Birnbach, told her.

When, years later, after Trump’s election, Carroll wrote about it in a book, she made unsettling comments about rape on CNN: “I think most people think rape is sexy. Think of the fantasies.”

But if there is anything we’ve learned in the last three decades — since Anita Hill, since #MeToo — it is that perfection is both uncommon and unnecessary. People follow their harassers to new jobs, and yet they were harassed. They don’t go to police, and yet they were assaulted. Rape is rape, even if it starts with romance or flirtation. The victim inevitably blames herself.

“I was ashamed,” Carroll testified about why she didn’t go public. “I thought it was my fault.” And, she said, with a daily show called “Ask E. Jean” on an obscure cable channel run by the man who went on to run Fox News, “Roger Ailes would have fired me. He was a friend of Donald Trump.”

Trump’s defense is a jumble of his customary misogyny, victimhood and dishonesty. “She’s not my type,” he said — an assertion undercut by the fact that when he was being deposed by Carroll’s lawyers, Trump mistook a picture of Carroll for that of his former wife Marla Maples. Carroll, in Trump’s telling, is the pawn of his Democratic enemies, in it for political payback, fame and cash.

And, Trump claims, the encounter never happened. “Does anybody believe I would take a then almost 60-year-old woman that I didn’t know, from the front door of a very crowded department store, (with me being very well known, to put it mildly!), into a tiny dressing room, and … her,” Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social, on Tuesday.

Does anybody not believe it? Carroll’s accusations — and, by the way, she would have been in her early 50s at the time — are consistent with Trump’s pattern of behavior, both self-proclaimed and extensively reported. This is an admitted pussy grabber.

As Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled in allowing Carroll’s lawyers to introduce that evidence, “A jury reasonably could find … that Mr. Trump admitted in the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape that he in fact has had contact with women’s genitalia in the past without their consent, or that he has attempted to do so.”

The cross-examination, which began on Thursday, followed a predictable victim-blaming playbook, straight out of the 1950s. If Trump attacked her against her will, defense attorney Joe Tacopina demanded of Carroll, why didn’t she scream? She had described trying to push Trump off her but being overpowered.

“One of the reasons women don’t come forward is because they’re always asked, 'Why didn’t you scream?’” she said. Trump, she added, “raped me whether I screamed or not.”

In his opening statement, Tacopina suggested, “It all comes down to: Do you believe the unbelievable?”

Really? A better way to look at the case is this: Do you believe denials — denials Trump won’t repeat in court — from a man who has been accused of similar behavior by dozens of other women and who bragged about engaging in such conduct? Or do you believe a woman who has corroboration from two friends, who will testify?

What is unbelievable is that this man, this immoral creature, still has sway over so many Americans. It would be comforting to imagine that a verdict in Carroll’s favor could break that spell, but we have learned the hard way: nothing will."

Opinion | E. Jean Carroll testimony against Trump is reminder of his character - The Washington Post

Opinion | The Polite Disdain of John Roberts Finds a Target - The New York Times

JAMELLE BOUIE

The Polite Disdain of John Roberts Finds a Target

The eight columns of the Supreme Court very brightly lit at night.
Christopher Lee for The New York Times

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. 

Although the three branches of the American government were designed to be coequal, the structure of the Constitution tells us something about the relative power of each branch, as envisioned by the framers.

Article I establishes the legislature. Article II establishes the executive branch. And Article III establishes the federal judiciary. It is true that the branches share powers and responsibilities. But it’s also true that the framers trusted Congress — the representative branch — with far more authority than it did the president or the Supreme Court.

Congress makes laws. Congress spends money. Congress approves the president’s cabinet and says whether he can appoint a judge or not. Congress structures the judiciary and Congress sets the size of the Supreme Court and the scope of its business.

The upshot of all of this is that when Congress calls, the other branches are supposed to answer — not as a courtesy, but as an affirmation of the rules of the American constitutional order. The modern Congress might be weak, and the presidency, against the expectations of the framers, might be the center of American political life, but it’s still newsworthy when a member of the executive branch says he or she won’t meet with the legislature.

Story continues below advertisement

Chief Justice John Roberts is in a different branch of government, the judiciary. But he — a constitutional officer confirmed to his seat by the Senate — is still subject to the power of Congress to question and investigate his conduct. When Congress calls, he too should answer.

Last week, Congress called the chief justice. In the wake of revelations concerning the friendship between Justice Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow, a billionaire Republican donor, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, invited Roberts to testify at an upcoming hearing on Supreme Court ethics rules.

“There has been a steady stream of revelations regarding justices falling short of the ethical standards expected of other federal judges and, indeed, of public servants generally,” Durbin wrote in his letter to the chief justice. “These problems were already apparent back in 2011, and the Court’s decade-long failure to address them has contributed to a crisis of public confidence.”

“The time has come for a new public conversation on ways to restore confidence in the Court’s ethical standards,” Durbin went on to say. “I invite you to join it, and I look forward to your response.”

This week Roberts answered. He said, in a word, no.

“I must respectfully decline your invitation,” Roberts wrote. “Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the chief justice of the United States is exceedingly rare as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence.”

Story continues below advertisement

This deceptively polite reply sounds reasonable for as long as you can manage to forget the fact that it is questions about the ethical conduct of the court and its members that have compromised the independence of the court. Was Thomas influenced by the largess of his billionaire benefactor? Was Justice Samuel Alito influenced by an explicit campaign to curry favor with the conservative justices? Was Justice Neil Gorsuch influenced by the lucrative sale of a Colorado property, in the wake of his confirmation, to the head of a powerful law firm with ample business before the court?

It is with real chutzpah, in other words, that Roberts has claimed judicial independence in order to circumvent an investigation into judicial independence.

More striking than this evasion is the manner in which Roberts ended his reply. Faced with serious questions about the integrity of the court, he pointed to a nonbinding ethics document that has done almost nothing to prevent these situations from arising in the first place. “In regard to the Court’s approach to ethics matters,” he wrote, “I attached a Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices to which all of the current members of the Supreme Court subscribe.”

Roberts did not write an aggressive or confrontational letter. And yet, he is quietly making an aggressive and confrontational claim about his own power and authority and that of the court’s. “Separation of powers,” in Roberts’s view, means the court is outside the system of checks and balances that governs the other branches of government. “Judicial independence,” likewise, means neither he nor any other member of the court has any obligation to speak to Congress about their behavior. The court checks, according to Roberts, but cannot be checked.

A number of legal scholars have remarked on the judicial power grab of the past several years, in which courts across the federal judiciary have seized key governing decisions from the legislative and executive branches and disparaged the ability of elected officials to, as Josh Chafetz of Georgetown University Law Center writes, “engage in principled, competent governance.”

Story continues below advertisement

As one of the architects of this development in American politics, Roberts is essentially using this letter to make plain to Congress the reality of the situation: I will not speak, and you cannot make me. And he’s right, not because Congress doesn’t have the power, but because it doesn’t have the votes. In the absence of a majority of votes, the Senate Judiciary Committee cannot subpoena a justice. In the absence of 218 votes, the House cannot impeach a justice. And in the absence of 67 votes, the Senate cannot remove a justice.

There are steps Congress could take to discipline the court — shrinking its budget, reducing the scope of its docket, imposing ethics rules itself, even making it “ride circuit” à la the 19th century — but those require a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate because of the filibuster, as well as a consensus among lawmakers (and specifically, Democrats) to follow through if they ever have the chance to do so.

It is not especially dramatic, but this exchange with Chief Justice Roberts over the court, its ethics and its responsibility to the public and its representatives has done more than almost anything else in recent memory to illustrate a key reality of American politics in this moment: that our Supreme Court does not exist in the constitutional order as much as it looms over it, a robed tribunal of self-styled philosopher-kings, accountable to no one but themselves."

Opinion | The Polite Disdain of John Roberts Finds a Target - The New York Times