THE NEW YORK TIMES, SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2020 SR 5D.N.A. to compare with male D.N.A. found on
the dress Carroll was wearing at the time of
the alleged attack.
If Kaplan and Carroll prevail at trial, it
would be a high-profile legal validation of Car-
roll’s claims. Her suit has not, so far, been a ma-
jor news story — there’s too much else going
on. But a verdict in her favor could be the
#MeToo version of the civil judgment against
O.J. Simpson — not justice, exactly, but a pow-
erful rejection of impunity.
Carroll’s suit is not the only one that could
force Trump to answer for his predatory his-
tory with women. The former “Apprentice”
contestant Summer Zervos, who says Trump
groped and kissed her against her will, is, like
Carroll, suing for defamation because Trump
called her a liar. (Her lawyer is Beth Wilkin-
son, who defended Brett Kavanaugh when he
was accused of sexual assault during his Su-
preme Court confirmation fight.)
In addition to Carroll, Kaplan is represent-
ing Mary Trump, the president’s niece, who is
suing Trump, his sister and his late brother
Robert’s estate for fraud and civil conspiracy,
saying they cheated her out of an inheritance.
And she’s representing a group of people who
are suing Trump and his three oldest children
for enticing them to invest in an alleged pyra-
mid scheme, run by a telecommunications
company called ACN, which sold clunky vid-
eophones.
The plaintiffs are poor and working class, in-
cluding a hospice caregiver who paid thou-
sands of dollars to ACN because she trusted
Trump’s fulsome endorsements, having no
idea that ACN was paying Trump millions. As
with the other suits, there is obviously no guar-
antee of success. But Trump’s alleged involve-
ment in a multilevel marketing scheme that
traded on a false image of his business acumen
will be a minor subplot over the next few
years.
It’s too much to expect any sudden exposure
of Trump. There will be no cathartic momentwhen everyone realizes that the emperor was
always naked. But the question isn’t whether
Trump’s support will evaporate. It’s whether it
will erode, especially once he loses the ability
to make Republican dreams come true.
Besides, the threats to Trump are not only to
his reputation, such as it is. In Bob Wood-
ward’s book “Fear,” he wrote that Trump’s for-
mer lawyer John Dowd implored the president
not to testify in Robert Mueller’s probe be-
cause he believed him to be an inveterate liar.
(Dowd has denied this.) Should Trump face
depositions in these civil cases, however, he’ll
have no choice about submitting to interviews.
Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s former dep-
uty, told me he expects Trump to pardon him-
self for any federal crimes he might have com-
mitted. That would mean that even if a Biden
Department of Justice wanted to take the ex-
traordinary step of prosecuting a former presi-
dent, it would also have to litigate the constitu-
tionality of self-pardons, a complicated, time-
consuming process.
But he might face state charges that he can’t
pardon his way out of. The New York State at-
torney general, Letitia James, has a civil in-
vestigation into possible financial chicanery
by the Trump Organization. Trump is under
criminal investigation by Manhattan’s districtattorney, Cyrus Vance. While the scope of the
inquiry is unknown, his office’s filings suggest
Vance could be looking at tax fraud, insurance
fraud and falsification of business records.
The “Manhattan D.A.’s office is a really good
office, and they’ve done a lot of white-collar
cases,” said Weissmann. “If they were to prove
— this is now hypothetical — but if they were
to prove tens of millions of dollars in tax fraud
or bank fraud, people go to jail for that.”
Let’s say Trump, ever the escape artist,
avoids prison, setting himself up as the war-
lord of MAGA-world at Mar-a-Lago. His post-
presidency still won’t be easy. As The Times
has reported, he’s personally on the hook for
$421 million in debt, most of it coming due in
the next four years. If a long fight with the
I.R.S. goes against him, he could owe at least
$100 million more.
“Mr. Trump still has assets to sell,” The
Times reported. “But doing so could take its
own toll, both financial and to Mr. Trump’s de-
sire to always be seen as a winner.”
Trump is already trying to profit off his avid
base, and he will surely continue. But it’s an
open question whether, without the intoxicat-
ing aura of presidential power, he can sustain
their devotion.
There are several examples of once-formi-
dable right-wing leaders reduced to footnotes
after leaving office.
As Republican House majority leader, Tom
DeLay was frequently described as the most
powerful man in Congress. Then, in 2005, he
was indicted on a charge of campaign money
laundering. Though his 2010 conviction was
eventually overturned on appeal, the last time
he had any significant public profile was when
he appeared on “Dancing With the Stars” in
2009.
Sarah Palin, too, was once a Republican
icon; in many ways she presaged Trump. “Win
or Lose, Many See Palin as Future of Party,”
said a New York Times headline just before the
2008 election. It quoted the right-wing activist
Brent Bozell: “Conservatives have been look-
ing for leadership, and she has proved that she
can electrify the grass roots like few people
have in the last 20 years.”
But since resigning as Alaska’s governor in
2009, Palin has lost her luster. Once a likely
presidential prospect, she recently made
headlines for wearing a pink and purple bear
costume on the Fox reality show “The Masked
Singer.”
Trump is in for years of scandals and humili-
ations. We will doubtlessly find out more about
official misdeeds he tried to keep secret as
president. Republicans who hope to succeed
him will have reason to start painting him as a
loser instead of a savior. He’ll have to devote
much of his energy to trying to stay out of pris-
on.
After all that, could he be back in 2024? Of
course. Trump is, if nothing else, relentless.
But this election was just the latest reminder
that he is far from invincible. When he is no
longer in office, there will be many more.That’s a sign that these standards tend to be
more popular than energy taxes: Most Ameri-
cans support pollution reductions. Opponents
still portray them as tax increases, as they no
doubt will during the Biden administration.
“The oil industry is always going to be arguing
that no matter what you do, it’s a price on car-
bon,” as Mr. Markey told me. But it’s easier for
climate advocates to win that argument.
In some cases, Mr. Biden may use the threat
of regulation to negotiate with industry. Au-
tomakers seem open to making a deal. When
Mr. Trump tried to free them from Obama-era
restrictions, some balked. Many auto execu-
tives understand that clean-energy cars are the
future. They would rather get working on the
transition than have to maintain two different
product lines — gas-guzzling vehicles in some
places (like red states) and more fuel-efficient
cars elsewhere (like California and Europe).
With a Republican Senate, the Biden climate
agenda will consist of dozens of smaller pieces,
rather than one sweeping piece of legislation.
The Agriculture Department will create incen-
tives for farms to emit less carbon, and the En-
ergy Department will do the same for buildings.
On Capitol Hill, the administration will try to
add some clean-energy subsidies to legislation
on virus relief and infrastructure.
Foreign policy will also be geared toward per-
suading other countries to emit less. China, in
particular, has shown more willingness to listen
to American requests on climate change than on
other big subjects, like human rights and intel-
lectual property.
Will this be enough to avoid the worst conse-
quences? It is impossible to know. Our chances
would certainly be better if Congress were able
to pass major legislation.
“We have to use every tool in the toolbox on
climate action, before it is too late,” Ms. Castor
said. Ms. McCarthy added, “We are way past
the time when we should be looking incremen-
tally instead of very aggressively.”
That aggressive approach depends on Demo-
crats winning both Georgia races, which would
give them 50 Senate seats and allow Vice Presi-
dent Kamala Harris to break ties. In that case,
Democrats could pass much of Mr. Biden’s pro-
posed clean-energy spending. This money
would increase spending on research and devel-
opment, as well as give consumers and busi-
nesses incentives to make immediate changes.
Many more families would probably buy an
electric car, for example, if the government sub-
sidized the purchase and also paid to build
many more charging stations.
A Democratic Senate could also try to protect
Mr. Biden’s regulatory authority from court
challenges, especially given the newly conser-
vative makeup of the Supreme Court. Some cli-
mate advocates even hope the Senate would be
willing to revisit targeted carbon taxes, perhaps
only for the power sector.
The biggest reason to believe that Mr. Biden’s
presidency may mark a new era in climate pol-
icy is also the biggest reason for pessimism
about the future. The effects of climate change
seem to be accelerating. The coming years will
bring more fires, more unbreathable air, more
extreme storms and more flooding, as well as
damage that we cannot yet predict. At some
point, voters may demand aggressive action
and punish politicians who put a higher priority
on the profits of the energy industry than on the
condition of the planet.
We’re not there yet. But Mr. Biden seems to
grasp that his success in fighting climate
change will go a long way toward defining his
success as president.If I were to demand a re-
count, the organization of
the new administration and
the orderly transfer of re-
sponsibility from the old to
the new might be delayed
for months. The situation
within the entire federal
government would be cha-
otic. Those in the old ad-
ministration would not
know how to act — or with
what clear powers and re-
sponsibilities — and those
being appointed by [John
F.] Kennedy to positions in
the new administration
would have the same diffi-
culty making any plans.
Then too, the bitterness
that would be engendered
by such a maneuver on my
part would, in my opinion,
have done incalculable and
lasting damage throughout
the country. And finally, I
could think of no worse ex-
ample for nations abroad,
who for the first time were
trying to put free electoral
procedures into effect, than
that of the United States
wrangling over the results
of our presidential election,
and even suggesting that
the presidency itself could
be stolen by thievery at the
ballot box.
It is difficult enough to
get defeated candidates in
some of the newly inde-
pendent countries to abide
by the verdict of the elec-
torate. If we could not con-
tinue to set a good example
in this respect in the
United States, I could see
that there would be open
season for shooting at the
validity of free elections
throughout the world.
Consequently, I made
the decision not to support
the contest and recount
charges. I know that this
greatly disappointed many
of my best friends and
most ardent supporters —
but I could see for myself
no other responsible course
of action.
Nixon Has
Some Advice
ERIN SCHAFF/THE NEW YORK TIMESIn his memoir “Six Crises,” Richard Nixon wrote that
he didn’t push for a recount after the 1960 election,
despite some accusations of voter fraud. Historians
debate whether that’s true; the writer David Greenberg
called the memoir a “notoriously unreliable account
from a notoriously unreliable narrator.” But at least
Nixon talked a good game.MARLY GALLARDOTake comfort: Out of office,
Donald Trump might seem
a lot less formidable.