It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy.

[link removed]
[link removed]

Photo by Leah Millis/Reuters

It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy. We think of it as a mini-magazine in your inbox.

WHAT BIDEN IS DOING ABOUT THE BORDER
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews ([link removed])
Correspondent

Months after the collapse of a potential border ([link removed]) compromise in the Senate and amid a barrage ([link removed]) of attacks ([link removed]) (which go back years ([link removed]) ) from Republicans, President Joe Biden announced today a new executive order ([link removed]) on border policy.

Immigration is among the most complicated areas of U.S. law and policy. But, undaunted, let us attempt a simple look at what Biden is doing here and what it means.

What is this executive order aiming to do?

The idea is this: During large numbers of illegal crossings, as we have now, border patrol must deny entry to most undocumented migrants they encounter on the southern border and block them from access to the U.S. asylum system, which has been a key mechanism of entry.
[link removed]
Watch Biden explain his action in the player above.

What would it actually do?

Let’s get into specifics.
* Limits at the southern border would go in place after illegal crossings hit an average of 2,500 people or more per day over seven days.
* The limits would end two weeks after that figure diminishes to 1,500 people per day (again, over a seven-day average), according to Biden’s official proclamation ([link removed]) .
* Unaccompanied children from countries other than Mexico are not included in the count of migrants. And no unaccompanied child would be limited by this policy; they would have access to current policy and methods of processing.

What would happen to border crossers when limits are in effect?

This is not yet clear, as we are awaiting final language of the rule that executes the order.

But from what the Biden administration has written, it seems that those migrants would have less recourse to stay in the United States and would be more likely to qualify for immediate or fast deportation, through a process known as“expedited removal” ([link removed]) .

It’s also not clear what would happen to migrants who are from nations to which the United States has difficulty deporting people, like Venezuela.

When does this system go into place?
* The order goes into effect overnight. Based on recent levels of encounters at the southern border, the 2,500-person trigger could be met right away.
* Meaning, limits on border migration could happen within hours.

What’s next?

Things may move quickly in the next day.

Once the new order goes in place tonight, policy at the border can change immediately. At the same time, lawsuits can be filed freezing the new policy.

Then, things may move slowly. The American Civil Liberties Union ([link removed]) and National Immigrant Justice Center ([link removed]) have each announced they are filing lawsuits. We expect a significant court battle.
More on politics from our coverage:
* Watch: Dr. Anthony Fauci testified on COVID-19’s origins ([link removed]) and the government’s response in a GOP-led House hearing Monday.
* One Big Question: What did Fauci say? The PBS NewsHour’s William Brangham walks through how the top infectious disease expert responded to accusations ([link removed]) from House Republicans.
* A Closer Look: How a far-right challenge to a GOP incumbent in Texas highlights a growing rift ([link removed]) within the party
* Perspectives: An expert on what Claudia Scheinbaum’s historic election win means for U.S.-Mexico relations ([link removed]) .

WHY THE MENENDEZ CORRUPTION CASE MATTERS

[link removed]

Photo by Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

By Kenichi Serino, @KenichiSerino ([link removed])
Deputy News Editor, Digital

Experts say it’s harder today than it was a decade ago for prosecutors to build a political corruption case against lawmakers ([link removed]) like Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who is on trial for allegedly accepting bribes in exchange for political favors.

That’s because of a landmark 2016 Supreme Court decision, McDonnell v. U.S., that narrowed the definition of political corruption, including what is considered official acts.

What happened in McDonnell vs. U.S.? The 2016 case was an appeal from a lower court ruling that found Virginia’s former Gov. Bob McDonnell guilty of accepting more than $165,000 in gifts from a businessman in exchange for favors that would help promote dietary supplements.

A jury in 2014 found him guilty. McDonnell’s appeal reached the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court said: McDonnell argued that these were not “official acts” under the law but rather constituent services — routine assistance that elected officials provide to the public.

The Supreme Court agreed in a unanimous 8-0 decision in 2016 that overturned his conviction. Calling McDonnell’s original case “distasteful” and “tawdry,” Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that, nevertheless, the law’s definition of “official acts” was too broad.

What’s happened since? The decision caused several former officials to challenge their corruption convictions, and moved the ball for prosecutors in terms of what they must prove.

“What the statute does makes very clear that … paying for access, paying for influence is not considered bribery,” Wayne State University Law professor Jennifer Taub said.

So what are the charges against Menendez? Menendez and his wife, Nadine, were indicted in September on corruption charges ([link removed]) and pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors added a charge of obstruction of justice and another charge accusing the pair of conspiring to act on behalf of Egypt while Menendez was serving as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

This is the second time in nine years the senator has faced corruption charges. In the first case, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, ending in a mistrial. Reports at the time drew a connection ([link removed]) between that mistrial and the Supreme Court ruling in 2016.

Why the 2016 Supreme Court case matters: Taub argues that the public’s understanding of what constitutes corruption is much broader than the reality that will be enforced by the court.

Most people picture the public definition of corruption “as a big-size swimming pool,” Taub said. “But what qualifies under the federal statute as corruption is more like one of those backyard blow-up kiddie pools.”

Under federal statute, bribery can fundamentally be described as “a prohibition on using public office for private gain,” Taub said. “But then it gets very narrow from there.”

The bottom line: Penn State professor Stanley Brand argues that public officials are owed due process and, like all criminal defendants, should be protected from prosecutorial overreach. The Supreme Court’s 2016 decision was rooted in the idea that “every American is entitled to not having prosecutors stretch these statutes to the breaking point.”

When it comes to quid pro quo corruption, Taub said, “I do think that wanting to be absolutely clear what is considered an official act matters.”

She said it’s up to Congress to make the law more strict with explicit restrictions on, for example, gifts or payments to lawmakers or detailed language about what constitutes an official act for a public official, she said.

WILL TRUMP’S GUILTY VERDICT SWAY VOTERS?
[link removed]
Watch the segment in the player above.
By Laura Santhanam, @LauraSanthanam ([link removed])
Health Reporter & Coordinating Producer for Polling

Two in 3 registered U.S. voters said a guilty verdict in former President Donald Trump’s just money trial would have no effect on their vote in the presidential election. That’s according to a PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll ([link removed]) conducted before a New York jury handed down a historic conviction against the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee.

Overall, 67 percent of voters said a conviction would make no difference for them in November. That includes 74 percent of independents – a significantly higher percentage than that of either Republicans or Democrats who said it wouldn’t change their vote.
[link removed]
Image by Megan McGrew/PBS NewsHour
In fact, 25 percent of Republicans said they would be even more likely to vote for Trump if he were found guilty by a jury, while 27 percent of Democrats said they would be less likely to vote for him — a split that underscores hardened partisan perspectives on candidate Trump.

Republican strategist Douglas Heye said he thought a guilty verdict would “give a subset of voters something to think about, but not a ton of voters.”

Narrow slivers of Republicans (10 percent) and independent voters (11 percent) said they would be less likely to vote for Trump if he were found guilty.
More on Trump’s conviction from our coverage:
* Could Trump go to prison? 5 quick questions ([link removed]) about his felony conviction.
* Reactions: How Trump and his allies are reacting to the historic conviction ([link removed]) .
* Political fallout: Will Democrats use Trump’s guilty verdict as a political cudgel? NPR’s Tamara Keith and Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter discuss ([link removed]) .
* Trump’s trials: A guide ([link removed]) to all the key hearings, trials and dates for each state and federal case that the former president faces this year.

#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Kyle Midura, @KyleMidura ([link removed])
Politics Producer

Ethan Dodd, @ethandasaxman ([link removed])
News Assistant

New Jersey, as well as Iowa, New Mexico, Montana, South Dakota and Washington, D.C., have primaries today.

In the Garden State, Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez isn’t on the primary ballot. He decided not to file ahead of the party deadline, citing his indictment for corruption. Instead, with his ongoing trial, he filed Monday to run as an independent this November.

Regaining candidate status will allow him to fundraise, and tap those funds for his legal defense ([link removed]) .

Menendez has not said if he would caucus with Democrats should he win reelection — as all four of the sitting independents in the Senate do currently.

Our question: Which of those four independents hasn’t run for any public office with a party identification?

Send your answers to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.

Last week, we asked: Before the start of Trump’s hush money trial, one star witness said they were considering a congressional run. Who was it?

The answer: Michael Cohen ([link removed]) . The former Trump attorney and fixer told Semafor last year that he was mulling a Congress run as a Democrat. During his cross-examination in the trial, he was asked whether this was true. Cohen said it was, telling Trump attorney Todd Blanche it’s because, in part, he has the "best name recognition out there."

Congratulations to our winners: Brenda Radford and Dan Golub!

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.
[link removed]
Want more news and analysis in your inbox?
Explore all of the PBS NewsHour's newsletters ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2024 WETA, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
3620 South 27th Street
Arlington, VA 22206

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
** update subscription preferences ([link removed])