Ask Us Anything
Election tampering, more on impeachment, Epstein, and . . . the Buffalo Bills?
Please take advantage of our New Year’s Sale to become a paid subscriber to Bowers News Media and Wolves and Sheep for only $60/year. You will receive access to two paid articles per week, invites to our monthly political briefings, opportunities to ask us questions in our Ask Us Anything series, and the ability to post comments on our articles.
You sent us many great questions this week. And if you have any doubt that you can ask us anything . . . here’s a clip of Chris doing a person-in-the-street interview last Monday about the Buffalo Bills for his hometown local news!
In more serious matters:
Do you think we’ll still have enough guardrails in place to fend off the Republicans’ inevitable attempts to rig the November elections before, while, and (if they lose) after the actual voting takes/is taking/has taken place?
(Chris) Yes, I absolutely believe there will be free and fair elections in 2026, as I have written repeatedly. Further, I don’t believe it is accurate to say that Republicans will inevitably try to rig the elections.
We had thousands of elections for public officials in the United States in 2025, and none of them were rigged or even suffered any serious allegations of rigging. These were not just random or obscure elections, either, but included contests for Congress, governorships, state Supreme Court seats, control of state legislatures, and mayors of major cities. And they all went on just fine. The same thing will happen in 2026.
Further, Trump-endorsed candidates were regularly wiped out at the ballot box, and he did noting about it. The only election that he has ever tried to overturn was his own defeat, and he won’t be on the ballot anymore.
Our elections have significant security protocols in place, are managed in a largely bipartisan fashion by experienced professionals, and are ultimately certified by elected officials of both parties who overwhelmingly believe in free and fair elections.
All that said, I understand your concerns, given what Trump tried to pull in 2020, and given how many elected Republicans went along with him. It will be a long time before Republicans are going to be able to clean up their image as safe proprietors of free and fair elections.
Matt has written that failing to impeach Trump next year would be a dereliction of duty, and I get that. Certainly, Trump merits a long list of impeachment charges. But is impeachment politically useful? I’m concerned that spending the bulk of 2027 on impeachment drama will look like more political gamesmanship rather than working on things that benefit people who want lower grocery prices or affordable housing—and that drama will hurt Democrats in 2028.
(Matt) Congress should be able to do more than one thing at a time. I share your concern about getting caught up in the drama of impeachment if it comes at the expense of issues that Americans are clamoring for their representatives to address. But there is no reason to believe it would. A Democratic House would be able to legislate while holding the administration accountable. And even if they are not able to enact laws while Trump is in the White House, they can make it clear where they stand on everything Trump is doing. That includes his disregard for democracy, which is now driving down Trump’s job approval and which can be litigated in an impeachment trial. Taking a principled stand on a critical matter that is resonating with the public permits Democrats to claim the moral authority this administration has abdicated. If done correctly, it can transcend politics.
I want to know if a President can unilaterally withdraw from treaties (e.g. the climate treaties or even NATO). Is there no process that is supposed to be followed?
(Chris) There isn’t one answer to this, because not all of the treaties to which we are party are the same.
We are not legally bound to the climate treaties, as they were never ratified by the Senate. President Obama simply “agreed” to have the United States adhere to the framework of the Paris Climate Agreement, but that does not make it legally binding here. Further, even if it was legally binding in the United States, the only binding aspects of the Paris Agreement were those pertaining to processes such as reporting emission totals. The emission reduction targets were entirely voluntary for all participating countries.
By contrast, we are legally bound to NATO, which was ratified by the Senate on July 21, 1949 (see NATO and History of NATO on Wikipedia for more). Further, in late 2023, Congress passed a law that barred presidents from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO. The lead sponsors of that legislation were Sen. Tim Kaine and, notably, then-Sen. Marco Rubio.
That said, as we are seeing with Donald Trump in his threats against Greenland, a president can render the alliance moot if he starts to threaten other members and if Congress is unable to stop him (there are bipartisan efforts to push back against Trump on this, but so far to no avail). So, I suppose this is a long way of saying that there is more than one way of unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty, and Trump is very good at finding loopholes.
Is there any effort being made to get Congress to force the DOJ to release all the Epstein files?
(Matt) Yes, although the news is being buried beneath Minnesota, Venezuela, and Greenland—which is most certainly the point. Democrat Ro Khanna and Republican Thomas Massie, who spearheaded the effort to have Congress vote on the law requiring public disclosure of the documents, have asked a federal judge to appoint a special master to oversee their release. Right on cue, the Justice Department asked the judge to deny the request. Meanwhile, while the country is looking the other way, the Justice Department has been flouting its legal obligation to release the documents. So the coverup continues. But this story is not going away.
How can Independents gain the right to vote in the primaries?
(Matt) It’s possible they already can, depending on where they live. But it’s complicated. Primaries are governed by state laws that create a patchwork of voting rules. Ballotpedia has an excellent overview. If you live in one of 13 states that require closed primaries you have to be registered with a political party in order to vote. But independents can participate in states with open primaries, semi-closed primaries, and primaries where candidates from every party appear together on the same ballot.
If Democrats win control of Congress, what steps can or should they take to remove lies from public discourse?
(Chris) As someone who writes for a living, the idea of the federal government passing a law that would make it illegal to lie in public is quite frightening.
Just imagine, for a moment, if Democrats retook Congress and passed a law like this. How do you imagine the Trump administration would use it?
Of course, this is not even really a question, since the First Amendment makes such a law unconstitutional. There are some exceptions, as you can’t lie to Congress or law enforcement officials, in a courtroom or in depositions and affidavits, or on official documents. You also cannot engage in false advertising or commercial fraud. Defamation is also illegal, as is breaching your fiduciary duty as a lawyer or financial advisor.
However, even if it were possible, I am strongly opposed to passing laws to further restrict speech, especially to the point where government can ban anything it deems to be a lie in public. Rather than pursuing such measures, the best an individual citizen can do is work to make sure they are as informed as possible. You cannot, and should not, seek to control what information other adults receive. In a free society, that is up to them.
How can we stay positive and focused on what we need to do without feeling utterly gutted by the fact that, as Matt wrote recently, “one-third or so of the country says Trump has the right priorities (36%), puts the good of the country ahead of his personal gain (37%), and is in touch the the problems of ordinary Americans (32%)” and “35% are proud that he’s the president?” I know these are small numbers when talking about polling, but it is demoralizing to think that so many millions of people still feel this way.
(Matt) It can be discouraging to know that millions of people hold attitudes that are incomprehensible to us, but I think you would find this to be the case in any country at any time. After all this is over, you will likely still find millions of people who feel the Trump years were a golden age.
The way I stay positive is by focusing on the two-thirds who do not feel this way. These numbers are both huge and consequential, because they constitute allies or individuals who have the potential to be allies. If you will forgive a sports analogy inspired by Chris’ meditation on the Buffalo Bills, American politics is played between the 40-yard lines. A candidate who wins 55% of the vote wins in a landslide. Trump may always have his 35-40%, but that puts him in the company of Barry Goldwater and Alf Landon. Republicans will not be viable next November if that’s where things stand.