Opinion | Trump Gets the Everyman Experience (2024)

Pinned

The Schemes to Squelch Trump’s Scandals Were Hardly Commonplace

The prosecution objected, the objection was sustained, and the cross-examination of Pecker was suddenly over. It began strong, went south fast on Thursday and limped to its conclusion shortly after lunch on Friday. Bove had tried to prove that Pecker was a liar and failed.

On Thursday, Bove developed a strong, hard-nosed rhythm and got Pecker to admit that in recent decades tabloids have negotiated “hundreds of thousands” of nondisclosure agreements and so-called source agreements like the ones The Enquirer used with Karen McDougal, the former Playboy model with whom the prosecution says Trump had an affair.

The message to the jury was that the August 2015 arrangement at Trump Tower to kill scandalous stories before they could reach the public, which is central to the prosecution’s case, was just standard operating procedure in the celebrity “journalism” business.

But Bove made two mistakes on Thursday. He badgered Pecker for seeming to be coached, then handed him a document related to Hope Hicks, a former Trump aide, to refresh his memory about testimony that he claimed contradicted what he told the grand jury.

But the document turned out to be unrelated to the question at hand. When alerted by the prosecution, Justice Juan Merchan admonished Bove, “If there wasn’t anything in that document, it’s misleading.”

On Friday morning, Merchan made Bove apologize directly to the jury for suggesting that cooperating witnesses are not allowed to coordinate with prosecutors beforehand and for the document gaffe. It was a humiliating moment for one of Trump’s best lawyers.

Bove recovered his footing a bit and trapped a placid Pecker into admitting again how common The Enquirer’s unsavory methods were in his bottom-dwelling line of work.

But on redirect, Joshua Steinglass steered the prosecution’s case back on track, asking whether the various deals on Trump stories were really all that common.

If there were “hundreds of thousands” of nondisclosure and source agreements, Steinglass asked, “on how many of those N.D.A.s did the C.E.O. coordinate with a candidate for president?”

“That was the only one,” Pecker said, and his original testimony was now largely intact.

Four More Years, Pause

If the Biden team is wise, they’ll get the president to repeat the line a few times in the form of a wisecrack, much as they cleverly turned the anti-Biden “Let’s go, Brandon,” taunt into a cool “Dark Brandon” meme. Biden’s announcement Friday that he would be “happy to” debate Donald Trump in the fall might also help allay concerns about his mental acuity — assuming, of course, that he performs reasonably well in a debate.

But the larger problem for the Biden campaign is that perceptions about the president’s physical and mental fitness are hardly baseless. Axios reports that White House aides now surround the president as he walks across the South Lawn to his presidential helicopter — all for the purpose of disguising his shuffling walk. The New York Times has issued a statement calling it “troubling” that the president “has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term.” One can reasonably speculate as to why the president and his staff would want to avoid such questions.

There was a time in American life when the White House and the press colluded to hide the infirmities or indiscretions of the sitting president: Woodrow Wilson’s stroke, Franklin Roosevelt’s wheelchair, John F. Kennedy’s chronic back pain (and philandering). It’s past time for this White House to accept that that time is over.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

An Essential Set of Cold War Era Treaties Is Falling Apart

The fear of space-based nuclear weapons shot into the spotlight this year, when Representative Michael Turner of Ohio, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, cryptically warned of a national security threat. U.S. intelligence officials briefed allies on suspected plans by Russia to possibly launch a nuclear weapon — or dummy — into space. Vladimir Putin denied the reports. But Russia’s veto calls his denial into question.

All of this may be bluster. The effects of the sort of weapon feared by American intelligence officials — a nuclear-capable antisatellite device — would most likely harm Russian assets too. While such a weapon could “add a dangerous capability,” wrote Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, “it would not alter the existing military balance of terror.”

Even so, nuclear threats have fortified Putin since he ordered the invasion of Ukraine. Earlier this year, the U.S. intelligence community concluded that after extensive losses in the war, Russia “will be more reliant on nuclear and counterspace capabilities for strategic deterrence as it works to rebuild its ground force.”

When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Outer Space Treaty in 1967, he declared that we have failed to rid earth of the scourge of war. “But if we cannot yet achieve this goal here on earth,” he said “we can at least keep the virus from spreading.”

These safeguards were always imperfect, but the veto on Wednesday stands as the latest sign that they are far too fragile for comfort.

Why UNRWA Is Vital to Gaza’s Future

The United States and several other countries suspended their funding from UNRWA, and, while other countries, including Germany, the second-largest donor, have since restored their contributions, the U.S. will not resume its funding until March 2025 at the earliest. The State Department has said it is still reviewing the report.

Lazzarini said private donors have made up much of that shortfall, allowing UNRWA to continue its work, but the funding gap remains a significant worry relative to the need.

He has managed to secure the agency’s budget through June, he said, but the second half of the year is uncertain. “I know that we won’t be able to count on the U.S. contribution,” he said. “So obviously it brings the agency closer to the edge of financial collapse.”

There are other U.N. agencies and international aid organizations, including the World Food Program and UNHCR, that could address humanitarian needs in Gaza. But UNRWA serves another function: It provides “state-like” services, paying the salaries for teachers, health workers and other civil servants. To hand over those public services, “we would need a functioning administration,” Lazzarini said, and it is unclear who could assume that responsibility.

UNRWA, he said, is open to working with a revitalized Palestinian Authority, a possibility the United States has supported. But until the Palestinian Authority or another governing body takes shape, UNRWA plays a necessary role. Without it, the situation in Gaza after the conflict ends could be dangerously unstable. Six months into this conflict, “the day after” may seem like a distant prospect, but in the meantime, it is in no one’s interest to hobble one of the few remaining stabilizing forces in Gaza.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

David Pecker, Trump’s Trash Collector, Got Cold Feet

We’ll never know if Trump’s early-morning threat to Pecker to “be nice” — a clear violation of the judge’s gag order preventing the defendant from discussing witnesses — had anything to do with Pecker’s reference to the bright side of their relationship.

Pecker testified that during the December 2016 visit, Trump told him, “I want to thank you for handling the McDougal situation.” Pecker continued: “He was thanking me for buying them and not publishing any of the stories and helping the way I did.” As a reward, Trump invited Pecker and his wife to a celebratory private dinner at the White House. He attended; his wife begged off.

By this time, Pecker was getting cold feet. He thought the ghostwritten articles McDougal “wrote” for his magazines and her other services for his publications were worth only $25,000, not the $150,000 he said that he, Michael Cohen and Trump had paid to silence her. His company lawyer told him that the shell companies that he and Cohen planned to use for the $125,000 reimbursem*nt from Trump could put him on the wrong side of campaign finance laws.

Sure enough, in 2018 Pecker avoided federal prosecution by admitting, in the words of the agreement with the government, that his company overpaid McDougal to “suppress the model’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.”

Trump wanted Pecker to continue collecting and disposing of trash that might hurt him.

Having felt burned by the McDougal hush-money deal, Pecker didn’t want to get involved in paying off Stormy Daniels. But he did hear Trump rant about it. On the phone, Pecker said, “Trump said we have an agreement with Stormy Daniels that she can’t mention my name and each time she does, she owes us one million.”

Pecker’s testimony about the Playboy model has little direct bearing on the charges against Trump, which involve falsification of business records in the Stormy Daniels payoff. But it set the table for the bounty of evidence to come.

Harvey Weinstein and the Limits of ‘He Said, She Said’

Outside the courtroom, believability has come to be synonymous with numbers — a preponderance of voices, joining together to corroborate an accusation, is how the public determines a single woman can’t be lying. And yet inside the courtroom, sometimes the opposite is true: She said, she said, she said, she said can be ruled inadmissible.

The collective nature of the Weinstein case, and those that followed, seemed to solve a problem that activists had labored over for decades: How do you combat the “he said, she said” nature of these cases? How do you get people to believe that, more often than not, a woman who speaks out is telling the truth?

As it turned out, persuasion came in the form of numbers — both in establishing a pattern and in helping women feel safe to come forward. Yet though Weinstein’s accusers could fill an entire courtroom, and the women who proclaimed #MeToo in their wake could populate a small country, a portion of Weinstein’s appeal rested precisely on the argument that allowing testimony from those other women — specifically, four who testified about his behavior but were not part of the charges — violated a legal precedent that limits evidence about a defendant’s other alleged crimes if it can be prejudicial to a defendant’s presumption of innocence.

Which left me wondering: When are we going to evolve past “he said, she said,” too?

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

For Justice Alito, Presidents Stand Above the Law

The risk of such prosecutions poses the biggest threat, Alito suggested: “If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”

As Dreeben correctly responded, that is the literal inversion of the Jan. 6 case, which involves a defeated former president who, after pursuing several legal avenues to challenge the outcome and losing all of them, chose very clearly not to “go off into a peaceful retirement,” but rather tried to overturn the election by illegal and unconstitutional means that resulted in a violent attack on Congress.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was also perplexed by Alito’s upside-down hypothetical, which actively avoided the facts of the case before the court. “A stable democratic society needs the good faith of its public officials, correct?” she asked, adding that the crimes Trump is charged with committing “are the antithesis of democracy” and that his immunity argument cast doubt on the principle “that no man is above the law, either in his official or private acts.”

This is the bottom line, no matter how hard Alito squints and pretends otherwise.

A Not-So-Great Economic Report

Inflation was a bit more concerning. The Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of underlying inflation, the cost of personal consumption excluding food and energy, rose at a 3.7 percent annual rate, up from just 2 percent in the previous quarter. On the face of it that looks bad.

But I don’t believe that inflation has really accelerated that much. What we’re probably seeing is mostly statistical noise that understated inflation in late 2023 but is overstating it now.

For one thing, the sheer size of the inflation jump is just implausible. Even in a highly overheated economy, which we don’t seem to see in other data, we wouldn’t expect underlying inflation to rise that fast, which suggests that there’s something funny about the numbers.

Furthermore, if inflation were really exploding, you’d expect to see that explosion reflected not just in official numbers but in “soft” data — surveys of business experiences and expectations. But we don’t. Purchasing managers’ indexes, which generally track official inflation, are still suggesting inflation not much higher than it was before the pandemic:

And business inflation expectations have remained low, just slightly above prepandemic levels:

So this was not a good report, but it shouldn’t change your narrative. The best bet is that we’re still on track for a soft landing.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

If Arizona Repeals Its Abortion Ban, the Far Right Won’t Blame Trump

This might never have happened had Trump not come out for scrapping the Victorian-era statute, followed by Kari Lake. (Though she’s since flip-flopped again, lamenting the refusal of Arizona’s attorney general to enforce the 1864 ban.)

After the vote, activists were furious at the Republican lawmakers who broke ranks. A few were unhappy with Lake. No one who I spoke to, however, blamed Trump. Several were unaware that Trump opposed the 1864 law.

“I didn’t hear that, no,” said Karen Mountford, a Republican precinct committeeman — Arizona Republicans don’t use gender-neutral titles — wearing a “Trump Girl” T-shirt.

Anthony Kern, a far-right Republican state senator, who was pontificating outside the Capitol about the need to return to America’s Christian foundations, pledged that the three Republicans who voted to scrap the abortion ban would be unseated. Lake, he said, is “wrong on this issue.” But Trump? “I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt because he has been the most pro-life president ever,” said Kern.

Perhaps this flexibility isn’t surprising: later on Wednesday, Kern was indicted by the state, accused of fraud and forgery for his role in Arizona’s fake Trump electors scheme.

In 2016, Christian conservatives argued they had to vote for Trump in order to ban abortion. Eight years later, Trump has become an end in himself; for him and only him, wobbliness on abortion can be overlooked.

Trump Didn’t Really Do That Well in Pennsylvania

Don’t forget about Erie, indeed.

Trump’s problems in the state may stretch beyond purplish suburbia. Haley won more than 20 percent of Republicans in Lancaster County, a dark-red enclave, and pulled double digits in other conservative counties such as Westmoreland and Northumberland.

And keep in mind that Pennsylvania holds closed primaries, in which only registered members of a party can vote in that party’s primaries, so it’s not as though independents or mischief-making Democrats were muddying up the Republican pool.

How many of these Haley Republicans will turn out in the general election to vote for Biden? Or for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? Or for no one at all? Impossible to say.

But these are the questions that should be keeping the former president’s people up at night.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Amy Coney Barrett Jumps In on Abortion

“I’m kind of shocked, actually,” she said, “because I thought your own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered, and you’re now saying they’re not?” Her comments, accusing Turner of “hedging,” suggested that she didn’t believe the state’s guidance to doctors was clear. She even got Turner to admit that an anti-abortion prosecutor could go after a doctor who made a difficult decision to end a pregnancy.

The overall impression she gave was that she doubted the state’s law superseded federal law on emergency care. Last month, in an even more important case involving the legality of abortion drugs, she also suggested a crackdown on such pills would be an overreach, as long as doctors who oppose abortion would have the right not to prescribe them.

If she and one other conservative justice — possibly John Roberts or Brett Kavanaugh — side with the three liberals on these cases, that could mitigate some of the worst effects of her earlier misjudgment to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Why I’m Getting More Pessimistic About Biden’s Chances This Fall

The second reason I’ve become more pessimistic is because of what’s happening to the youth vote. NBC News released an interesting poll last weekend finding that interest in this election is lower than in any other presidential election in nearly 20 years. Only 64 percent of Americans said they have a high degree of interest in the election, compared to, say, 77 percent who had high interest in 2020.

But what really leaps out is the numbers for voters ages 18 to 34. Only 36 percent of those voters said they are highly interested.

I imagine that’s partly because it’s difficult to get enthusiastic about candidates who are a half-century older than you. But part of it is also about Biden’s approach to the Israel-Hamas war. Young people are much more critical of Israel than other groups, and there are no candidates representing that point of view.

I think what we’re seeing at Columbia and on other elite campuses is a precursor to what we’re going to see at the Democratic convention in Chicago. In 1968 the clashes between the New Left activists and Mayor Richard Daley’s cops were an early marker of the differences between the more-educated and less-educated classes. They were part of the trend that sent working-class voters to the G.O.P.

If there are similar clashes in Chicago this August, the chaos will reinforce Trump’s core law-and-order message. It will make Biden look weak and hapless. Phrases like “from the river to the sea” will be 2024’s version of “defund the police” — a slogan that appeals to activists but alienates lots of other voters.

The folks in the administration project confidence that their man will prevail. I wish I could share that confidence.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Trump Gets the Everyman Experience

Inside the court, the chairs were uncomfortable. It was so cold that reporters were bundled in heavy coats and scarves. (Trump wasn’t wrong when he complained, “It’s freezing.”) The speckled linoleum floors were drab, the fluorescent lighting was harsh, the rumpled shades were drawn. It was hard to see and hear. The monotony made my eyes droop.

Trump has called the courthouse “an armed camp,” but in reality it has remained open to the public, including spectators who want to attend the trial, like the young man in a beer sweatshirt who, on his way to work, decided to join the press line and peppered a young woman with questions. “Maybe they’ll let me in. I have a blog,” he said confidently. Hours later, I passed him in the hallway.

Court let out early Monday, after the judge explained that an alternate juror had a dental emergency. You could just imagine Trump seething at the thought of his time dictated by a root canal. But I was grateful to leave early — and satisfied that he would be there every day.

David Pecker and ‘The Trump Tower Conspiracy’

I covered the weird and historic 2016 campaign. While the celebrity candidate led in many early polls, he was far from a shoo-in for the nomination. Ben Carson was the front-runner for a spell in late 2015, Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucuses, and Marco Rubio was briefly seen as the logical young choice for the G.O.P.

Pecker testified that as part of what prosecutors call “the Trump Tower conspiracy,” hatched just before Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015, Trump — through Michael Cohen — helped The Enquirer generate phony stories about malpractice by Carson and adultery by Cruz and Rubio (not to mention an article sliming Cruz’s father as connected to John F. Kennedy’s assassination).

No one in the courtroom was laughing at the lurid tabloid headlines when they were introduced into evidence. It seems clear that these bogus stories, too, were part of the corrupt and journalistically disgraceful Trump Tower deal.

Under the terms of the “catch and kill” deal, Pecker was Trump’s “eyes and ears” for stories about dalliances that could harm the candidate. When a Trump Tower doorman, Dino Sajudin, shopped a tip that Trump had fathered a child with a Latina maid in Trump’s apartment, Pecker testified that he reported it to Cohen, who was adamant that the story was untrue. Trump would take a DNA test, Cohen told Pecker: “He is German-Irish, and this woman is Hispanic, and that would be impossible.”

Sure enough, Dino the doorman’s story turned out to be false. To protect Trump before the election, Sajudin nonetheless received an unheard-of $30,000 from The Enquirer for his bogus tip. But the contract introduced into evidence required Sajudin to pay $1 million if he talked about it. After the election, he was released from the nondisclosure agreement — more evidence that suggests that “catch and kill” was a prelude to the criminal cover-up of the Stormy Daniels hush-money payment that is the heart of the case.

On Thursday, we’ll hear more about Trump the double cheater: his efforts to silence his mistress Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels. And we’ll see more of the mundane but critical documents that connect the man Pecker described as a “detail-oriented micromanager” to criminal wrongdoing.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Joe Biden, Abortion Warrior?

But there he was on Tuesday at a community college in Tampa, backed by big blue banners calling for “Reproductive rights” and “Restoring Roe,” fiercely bashing Trump for putting women’s health and lives at risk. “There is one person responsible for this nightmare!” he roared. It was enough to make my heart go pitter-patter.

In his brief remarks, Biden didn’t utter the word “abortion” very often, but he didn’t really need to. Rather, he emphasized the idea that Trump and his party are messing with women’s fundamental rights — and doing so at their peril. And on this point, he appeared to be enjoying himself. The president observed that in overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court “practically dared women to be heard” when Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “Women are not without political or electoral power.” Leaning in close to the mic, he dropped his voice and said, with a chuckle and a gleam in his eye, “No kidding.”

Raising the stakes, Biden warned that conservatives will be coming for people’s contraception and in vitro fertilization treatments next — maybe even same-sex marriage. And then he wrapped things up by urging voters to “teach Donald Trump a valuable lesson: Don’t mess with the women of America! I mean it!”

For a guy with deep moral qualms about abortion, it was an impressive call to arms.

The Legal Limits of Trump’s Contempt Defense

Constant threats and insults against his perceived enemies are Trump’s stock in trade, of course; in the political world, he relies on them like other politicians rely on baby-kissing. It’s coarse and juvenile, but it’s not illegal.

In court, it’s a different matter. There are consequences for behavior like this. “I have never seen a criminal defendant go out and attack the process and the actors in the process while the trial was going on, while a jury was in the box,” Kristy Parker, a former federal prosecutor now with Protect Democracy, told me.

On Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers sought to explain away his posts as protected speech, but surely they know better. So does Justice Merchan, who was clearly out of patience and told them their arguments were “losing all credibility with the court.”

Trump may well come out of this contempt hearing with nothing more than a few thousand dollars in fines and an even sterner warning against similar behavior in the future. But the courts — and the American people — are watching and learning. Trump’s refusal to stop, even pursuant to an explicit court order, tells you all you need to know about the incompatibility of the man and the government he seeks to lead.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Will Justice Merchan Find Trump in Contempt of Court?

That day, Watters posted on Truth Social, “Catching undercover liberal activists lying to the judge.” When Trump reposted it, he added: “in order to get on the Trump jury.”

This put the lie to the claim of Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche that Trump was merely responding to political attacks or reposting content, not willfully defying the gag order.

“This goes to the defendant’s willfulness,” the prosecutor Chris Conroy argued to the judge. “He added to it and posted it.” The judge appeared to agree.

Blanche made a lame attempt to explain. “This gag order — we’re trying to comply with it,” he said. “President Trump is being very careful to abide by your rules.”

That’s when the judge said, “Mr. Blanche, you’re losing all credibility with this court.”

Ouch.

Rural Voters Are More Progressive Than the Democratic Party Thinks

But it’s not just abortion. The survey found overwhelming support for leaders who fight to raise the minimum wage, to protect the right to form a union and to make quality child care more affordable — policy descriptions that seem ripped from President Biden’s campaign speeches.

The trouble is that a significant number of the respondents didn’t associate these policies with Democrats. In fact, once that partisan affiliation was added, support dropped significantly. Nonetheless, 47 percent of respondents said they would prefer to vote for a Democrat who grew up in a rural area and shared their values over a Republican business executive from the East Coast.

But perhaps the biggest problem the survey uncovered was that large numbers of respondents — especially young voters and people of color — reported that no one from the Democratic Party had reached out to them to offer information or ask for their support.

“It’s really clear that Democrats have a significant work to do to rebuild their brand in rural America, but that investment could pay dividends for Democrats, not just in the future but this year,” Patrick Toomey, a partner at Breakthrough Campaigns, which conducted the survey, told me.

In an election in which a few thousand votes could decide who wins the presidency or controls the Senate, it’s foolish to write off rural America.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Jurors Begin to Understand the ‘Trump Tower Conspiracy’

In the prosecution’s opening statement, Matthew Colangelo outlined what his team calls the August 2015 “Trump Tower conspiracy” hatched by Trump, Michael Cohen and David Pecker, boss of The National Enquirer, who began his testimony later in the day. Colangelo previewed a large amount of evidence that will corroborate Cohen’s testimony about the falsified business records (including handwritten notes) that will most likely be damaging to Trump.

The worst day for Trump could come when the prosecution plays a September 2016 taped call in which Trump can be heard asking Cohen, “So what do we have to pay for it? 150?” (Meaning $150,000.) The answer was $10,000 more. Colangelo concluded: “It was election fraud. Pure and simple.”

By saying of Trump, “he’s a man, he’s a husband, he’s a father, he’s a person like you and me,” Todd Blanche, Trump’s lead attorney, seemed to be setting up a defense partly based on Trump not wanting the Stormy Daniels story made public in order to protect his family. But Cohen and others are expected to testify that Trump tried to avoid paying the hush money on the theory that it wouldn’t matter if the story came out after the election. So much for shielding Melania.

The Trump lawyers are denying everything — the alleged affairs and the cover-up — which is unlikely to be persuasive. But they may have better luck arguing that for all the prosecution’s talk of conspiracy, that wasn’t a count in the indictment. Blanche’s best line was: “Spoiler alert: There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence this election. It’s called democracy.”

What the jurors don’t know yet and won’t learn until the judge instructs them just before they deliberate is that there is nothing in New York state law requiring prosecutors to prove that Trump broke tax laws, campaign finance laws or conspiracy laws to win a felony conviction. All they need to do is prove that Trump intended to do wrong in these areas.

And by insisting that Trump is completely innocent, his lawyers have made it harder for the jury to convict him of just misdemeanors, not felonies. But it will be a few weeks before the jury understands all of that.

The Impossible Matzo Ball

When I asked The Times’s recipe columnist Melissa Clark for a tip, she pointed me to Joan Nathan’s vegan matzo ball soup recipe. It calls for the use of aquafaba — chickpea water — as an egg substitute. (Clark noted that Ashkenazic dietary rules prohibit consuming legumes like chickpeas and soybeans, known as kitniyot, on Passover but Sephardic rules allow it. My mom’s veganism is more observant than her Judaism, however, so it’ll probably be all right.) The inside scoop is that this year my mom is going to use both silken tofu and flaxseed. Next year maybe aquafaba will join the list.

The plethora of options seems fitting for a holiday that celebrates liberation and, thus, relaxation; the need to labor in someone else’s name is gone, and so the labor of love that is the matzo ball can continue unhindered.

The quest for the structurally sound vegan matzo ball always made sense to me as latter-day Passover tradition. Judaism — especially of my family’s assimilated, not-really-observant-at-all kind — never seemed to me to require a logic that made sense independent of its own tradition. Jewish history and practice are rife with coincidences and traditions and loopholes. Why not add failed vegan matzo balls to the list? And who knows? Maybe this year the matzo balls will hold together.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

The N.I.H.’s Words Matter, Especially to Long Covid Patients

However, while viral persistence is one hypothesized mechanism for long Covid, as far as I knew, only viral remnants — leftover virus pieces that cannot replicate — have been shown, not persistent live whole virus. Further, such remnants haven’t correlated with long Covid symptoms. (Some healthy and sick people have them.)

Patients were abuzz. Was this more unacceptable sluggishness? Was the N.I.H. sitting on crucial unpublished information? Was the N.I.H. director completely out of touch with the research? Had they all misunderstood the science?

I reached out to the N.I.H. The answer turns out to be mundane. Dr. Bertagnolli said she “misspoke” and had “meant to say ‘viral components’ rather than ‘live virus.’” The N.I.H. also confirmed to me such remnants have not yet been shown to correlate with long Covid symptoms.

Viral remnants may still play a role — maybe only some people are sensitive to them — or maybe leftover viral components are common and harmless. The N.I.H. also told me this is “an area of active investigation,” as it should be.

It’s good that Dr. Bertagnolli is so engaged with long Covid, and misspeaking during an interview is human. Hopefully, the institution keeps in mind that suffering patients are hanging on their every word.

What Toll Will the Trial Take on Trump?