Month: March 2023

In August of 1980, Ronald Reagan decided to campaign for president at the Neshoba County fair in rural Mississippi, where he gave a speech announcing his support for “states’ rights”, the rallying cry of segregationists for decades. The choice of location was hardly a coincidence. It was right outside the town of Philadelphia, site of the horrific murder of civil rights workers James Chaney, Mickey Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, who were abducted and killed by the Ku Klux Klan in 1964. Oh, the Republicans swore they didn’t mean anything by this, but everyone understood what they were signaling. It wasn’t exactly subtle. This was a dog whistle to rural Southerners, part of the GOP’s years-long effort to convert the racists among them to the Republican party. And it worked.

Donald Trump adopted the GOP’s cultivation of racists but parted ways with the party on many other issues. Aside from stealing Reagan’s slogan “Make America Great,” Trump has never said much about him either. He seems to be taking a page from that 1980 playbook, however, with his plans for the first big Trump campaign rally of 2023. On Saturday, he will appear in Waco, Texas, the site of a 51-day standoff between an apocalyptic religious sect called the Branch Davidians and federal law enforcement exactly 30 years ago this month. Considering that Trump is under investigation for inciting an insurrection that resulted in violent clashes between police and extremists, this is too on the nose to be a coincidence.

The Waco siege wasn’t as explicitly political as was Jan. 6, although in subsequent years the right wing has characterized it as such. It started with a local newspaper article suggesting that David Koresh, leader of the Branch Davidians — technically an small offshoot of the Seventh-day Adventists — was molesting underage girls in their remote compound near Waco, the Mount Carmel Center. This brought suspicion upon Koresh’s secretive movement and when it was revealed that his followers were apparently stockpiling weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms began to investigate, ultimately leading to the confrontation at Mount Carmel that began on Feb. 28, 1993. It’s still unclear how that began, but shots were fired on both sides and when the smoke cleared four ATF agents and five Branch Davidians were dead. At that point everyone retreated to their corners and the infamous 51-day standoff commenced.

It was later revealed that the ATF had readied itself for a major show of force but one agent wound up asking Koresh’s brother-in-law for directions to the compound. He warned the Branch Davidians that an assault force was on the way. The whole raid was ill thought-out as well as poorly executed. Federal agents clearly overreached in arrogant style, seemingly eager to play soldier, and the whole thing went very wrong. There were many innocent people within that armed compound, including a number of children so the ATF’s aggression was dangerously provocative to say the least. But once four law enforcement officers had been killed, there was no going back. The FBI was called in, military advisers were consulted and we had the nearly three-month spectacle of the U.S. government besieging a small, apocalyptic cult movement that was armed to the teeth.

The country watched the siege on television for weeks, and for the most part the public considered the Branch Davidians, and Koresh in particular, to be nuts. Roughly 70% of the public believed the Branch Davidians were entirely to blame for the whole situation, and didn’t change their minds, even after the FBI fired tear gas canisters into the compound in preparation for a raid and the whole place went up in a massive conflagration. It was a horrific spectacle, shown live on TV to the whole world

There is still no consensus on what started the fire, although it was later proven that some of the canisters the FBI fired were flammable. Several of the group’s members, including Koresh were shot to death in what may have been a mutual suicide pact. A few years later, after investigations into the ATF and FBI’s handling of the situation, the public was more mixed in its assessment.

For one particular group of people, however, this was a watershed event. Far-right anti-government extremists were particularly active in the early ’90s, and for them the Waco siege demonstrated that the U.S. government would use its power to disarm its citizens. It was a perfect storm, in a particularly bad sense: The despised ATF, a nonconformist Christian religious sect, saturation coverage by a media which at first swallowed government propaganda and then what many on the far right perceived as the outright murder of citizens who were simply exercising their constitutional rights.

It galvanized at least one far-right believer into action. Timothy McVeigh, who orchestrated the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 that killed at least 168 people, saw his terrorist act as a direct response to the Waco siege, which he had personally witnessed. Waco remains a touchstone for right-wing “patriot” groups and anti-government militias to this day. As the New York Times reported years later:

For right-wing militias and so-called Patriot groups, Waco amounts to evidence of a tyrannical, illegitimate government unblinkingly prepared to kill its own people … the specter of Waco has not faded. Right-wing extremists regularly invoke it as a defining moment, proof of Washington’s perfidy. “Waco can happen at any given time,” Mike Vanderboegh, a prominent figure in the Patriot movement, told Retro Report. He added ominously: “But the outcome will be different this time. Of that I can assure you.”

I think we know that right-wing extremists love Donald Trump, and he has shown that he loves them too. We watched him play footsie with groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers throughout his presidency. Today, he’s participating in recordings with the jailed Jan. 6 defendants who have been deemed too dangerous to allow out on bail and has promised to pardon them all if he is elected president again. He considers them his people.

Trump has been portraying himself as a martyr on his Truth Social platform in post after post, decrying his alleged persecution. He posted this on Thursday, referring to his possible impending indictment in New York:

Isn’t it terrible that D.A. [Alvin] Bragg refuses to do the right thing and “call it a day?” He would rather indict an innocent man and create years of hatred, chaos, and turmoil, than give him his well deserved “freedom.” The whole Country sees what is going on, and they’re not going to take it anymore. They’ve had enough! There was no Error made, No Misdemeanor, No Crime and, above all, NO CASE. They spied on my campaign, Rigged the Election, falsely Impeached, cheated and lied. They are HUMAN SCUM!

We don’t know what Trump will say at his huge rally this weekend at the scene of a seminal event in the radicalization of the far right, but I feel sure he won’t hold back. But in fact, he doesn’t have to say a word about the history of that place. The far-right extremists who support him understand exactly why he chose to Waco for this moment, and for what purpose. The only question is if, or when, they decide to take action on his behalf. They know they have his blessing.

Salon

HAPPY CRIME-FRAUD EXCEPTION DAY, FOR THOSE WHO CELEBRATE

The headline above from Marcy at emptywheel made me smile. The subjects of her post have less reason to.

---

For the US political world … today marks crime-fraud exception day, the day that at least one of Trump’s attorneys will be obliged to testify about how Trump lied to his lawyers to try to get away with hoarding stolen classified documents.

Because Evan Corcoran (and possibly Georgia attorney Jennifer Little) will testify today, I thought it a good day to update the list of attorneys who were or have been witnesses or who may be subjects in one or more investigations into Trump.

Since the Stormy Daniels payment may lead to Trump’s first indictment, Michael Cohen gets pride of place at number one on this list, a reminder that for seven years, Trump lawyers have been exposing themselves to legal jeopardy to help him cover things up.

The following lawyers have all — at a minimum — appeared in subpoenas pertinent to one or another of the investigations into Donald Trump, and a surprising number have testified before grand juries, including at least three with (Executive Privilege) waivers. To be clear: Many have no legal exposure themselves, but are instead simply witnesses to the efforts made to keep Trump in line before they were replaced with lawyers who were willing to let Trump do whatever he wanted, legal or no. But some of these lawyers have had legal process served against them, and so may themselves be subjects of one or multiple investigations.

1. Michael Cohen (hush payment): convicted felon whose phones were seized April 9, 2018
2. Rudolph Giuliani (Ukraine, hush payment, Georgia, coup attempt): phones seized in Ukraine investigation April 28, 2021, received subpoena for billing records in fundraising investigation around December 2022
3. John Eastman (Georgia, coup attempt): communications deemed crime-fraud excepted March 28, 2022; phone seized June 22, 2022
4. Boris Epshteyn (stolen documents, coup attempt, Georgia): testified in Georgia grand jury; phone seized in September after which he retroactively claimed to have been doing lawyer stuff
5. Sidney Powell (fraud, coup attempt, Georgia): Subpoenas sent in fraud investigation starting in September 2021; testified before Georgia grand jury; appeared in November subpoena
6. Jeffrey Clark (coup attempt): May 26 warrant for cloud accounts and phone seized June 22, 2022
7. Ken Klukowski (coup attempt): May 26 warrant for cloud accounts
8. Victoria Toensing (Ukraine, coup attempt): Phone seized in Ukraine investigation April 28, 2021, on June and November subpoenas
9. Brad Carver (Georgia and fake elector): phone contents seized June 22
10. Jenna Ellis (coup attempt and Georgia): Rudy’s sidekick, censured by CO Bar for lying serial misrepresentations, on June and November subpoenas
11. Kenneth Cheesbro (fake elector, Georgia): included in June and November subpoenas
12. Evan Corcoran (stolen documents): testified before grand jury in January, testifies under crime-fraud exception on March 24
13. Christina Bobb (coup attempt, Georgia, stolen documents): interviewed in October 2022 and appeared before grand jury in January, belatedly asked for testimony in Georgia
14. Stefan Passantino (coup attempt obstruction and financial): included in November subpoenas, alleged to have discouraged full testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson
15. Tim Parlatore (stolen documents): appeared before grand jury in December 2022
16. Jennifer Little (Georgia and stolen documents): ordered to testify under crime-fraud exception
17. Alina Habba (stolen documents, NYS tax fraud): testified before grand jury in January
18. Bruce Marks (coup attempt): included in November subpoena
19. Cleta Mitchell (coup attempt and Georgia): included in November subpoenas
20. Joshua Findlay (coup attempt): included in June subpoenas
21. Kurt Olsen (coup attempt): included in November subpoenas
22. William Olson (coup attempt): included in November subpoenas
23. Lin Wood (coup attempt): included in November subpoenas
24. Alex Cannon (coup attempt, financial, stolen documents)
25. Eric Herschmann (coup attempt, Georgia, financial, stolen documents)
26. Justin Clark (coup attempt and financial): included June and November subpoenas
27. Joe DiGenova (coup attempt): included in June and November subpoenas
28. Greg Jacob (coup attempt): grand jury appearances, including with Executive Privilege waiver
29. Pat Cipollone (coup attempt): grand jury appearances in summer and — with Executive Privilege waiver — December 2
30. Pat Philbin (coup attempt and stolen documents): grand jury appearances in summer and — with Executive Privilege waiver — December 2
31. Matthew Morgan (coup attempt): included in November subpoenas

Tim Parlatore is the latest addition to this list, based off someone’s decision to reveal Parlatore’s testimony to the stolen documents grand jury in December. As ABC reported, Beryl Howell ordered him to testify after he belatedly revealed that investigators he hired had found four documents with classification marks in a box brought back to Mar-a-Lago after the August 2022 search (he emphasizes that he did so without a subpoena, but this was an effort to stave off a finding of contempt).

---

It goes on, of course.

What attorney in her/his right mind agrees to represent Trump?

Don’t answer that.

Consent of the governed? Bah!

Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper has seen it in North Carolina (2016). And Gov. Tony Evers in Wisconsin (2018). Voters’ choices pitted both Democrats against hostile Republican-dominated state legislatures. Before even taking office, Republicans in lame duck sessions, with support from outgoing Republican Govs. Pat McCrory and Scott Walker, stripped powers from the incoming Democratic governors.

If Jan. 6 and GOP election-denying in its aftermath did not clue you in, political niceties such as respecting the will of voters is not part of the Republican playbook. Raw power is. Richard Nixon torpedoed the Paris Peace Talks in 1968 to win his. Operatives for Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1980 delayed for months the release of Americans held hostage in Iran ahead of his election and inauguration. Power mattered more. Neither paid a personal price for the resulting deaths and extended captivity of Americans.

Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, reminds Slate readers that Republican power stripping of the sort deployed against Cooper and Evers has not stopped.

After disturbing photos appeared in 2020 of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s visit to Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, the Kentucky senator pressured the GOP-controlled legislature to strip the governor (then a Democrat) of the power to appoint a successor without restrictions in the case of a vacancy. That power resides in the governor in 35 states.

McConnell “urged and the Kentucky legislature took the step of changing that state’s law—overriding the veto of the governor to do so—in a way that assured that Republicans would maintain control of McConnell’s seat should it become vacant.”

Ifill explains:

This effort—to remove powers from elected representatives who are Democrats—has become the new method of disenfranchising voters and maintaining perpetual Republican political power. And it is being undertaken with alarming frequency and speed across the country. This may be the most dangerous and efficient structural attack on our democracy. Its threat, and pernicious ingenuity, lies in its ability to make voting itself irrelevant. Voters may turn out in high numbers and elect their candidates of choice, but if the official is not one whose views align with those of the Republican Party, they may find that their powers of office are removed by antagonistic GOP-controlled legislatures.

Examples in the news recently are Republicans stripping elected reform-minded prosecutors of their powers, if not their jobs. “Prosecutors who prosecute or investigate the wrong kind of criminal suspects in the eyes of Republican legislators have also received this treatment,” Ifill notes. She references recent cases in Florida and Missouri.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis faces backlash from Georgia’s GOP-dominated legislature for having the temerity to investigate former president Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results there.

In the wake of what were reported to be “imminent” indictments resulting from Willis’ investigations, the Georgia legislature passed a legally dubious bill that would create commissions empowered to remove elected prosecutors from office.

Indeed, bills have been filed in more than a dozen states to remove power from reform-minded prosecutors from Polk County, Iowa to Mississippi. Black women prosecutors have been the high-profile face of the targets of these challenges. But other reform-minded prosecutors have also faced well-financed recall or Republican legislative impeachment efforts since 2020.

Where once Republicans (and Democrats under 100 years of Jim Crow) deemed it sufficient to prevent the wrong kind of voters from casting ballots at all, the GOP has added making voting itself irrelevant to their efforts to consolidate power in the post-Civil Rights era.

Now, this practice of power re-allocation, as with all voter suppression techniques first work-shopped on Black communities in the South, has metastasized into a national phenomenon. Unchecked it will make the act of voting a Potemkin exercise, and upend the very concept of representative government. This is an efficiently sinister effort to solidify one-party rule. Its geographic breadth and reach to offices both high and low, requires a national legislative response. With Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, the prospects are dim. But this should be powerful motivation for congressional Democrats and indeed for all Americans who wish to live in a democracy—to turn out and vote this year and next—in essence to save the framework of democracy while there’s still time. It should be clear now that for the foreseeable future, democracy remains on the ballot.

Until the GOP can do away with elections entirely. They tried that and failed just two short years ago. Again, without senior leaders paying any personal price for the ensuing deaths and mayhem. The power of the governed to hold them accountable at all is next on the menu.

And pass me some laudanum

Yes, they’re firing people over the Statue of David:

On Thursday, the Tallahassee Democrat reported that the principal of a local charter school, the Tallahassee Classical School, was forced to resign after three parents complained about an art teacher showing a picture of Michelangelo’s 16^th-century sculpture of David. “Parental rights are supreme, and that means protecting the interests of all parents, whether it’s one, 10, 20 or 50,” the chair of the school’s board, Barney Bishop III, told the paper. To figure out exactly how this happened, I called Bishop, who is also, according to his biography, a consultant, a lobbyist, an “outspoken advocate for the free enterprise system,” and an Eagle Scout. Our conversation has been edited for clarity.

Dan Kois: Why did the board make the decision to remove the principal of the school?

Barney Bishop III: Well, like all the reporters I’ve talked to today, the premise that you’re operating from is incorrect. We didn’t remove her. She resigned. She’s an at-will employee by contract, as are all our teachers. I went to her last week and offered her two letters. One was a voluntary resignation, and another a letter that said if she decided not to resign, I was going to ask the board to terminate her without cause. Without cause. We have the right to do that under the contract.

So it’s safe to say she resigned under pressure from the board.

No question.

So why did the board make that decision?

As I said in the Tallahassee Democrat, based on counsel from our employment lawyer, I’m not going to get into the reasons. But this wasn’t about that one issue. That’s not the entire truth, and she knows it. The fact is, I have been working with her since she became principal, and I have supported her as principal. But as I saw how things were going, how decisions were being made, I made the decision this was the best thing for the school.

You’re saying this wasn’t about an art teacher showing Michelangelo’s David.

We didn’t even discuss that issue at the special board meeting on Monday morning.

So the statue wasn’t part of the reason the board forced her to resign?

That was an issue, along with many others. Look, she wasn’t surprised. She knew what was the purpose of our meeting. She had two questions: Have you talked to the whole board, and how long do I have to decide between the two letters? The meeting was five minutes long. It wasn’t like “Oh, my God! You don’t want me at the school anymore?”

I think in this situation, some boards would say: We’re going to stand by the principal, the trained educator, as opposed to a handful of parents who have an issue. Why did you not go this way?

What issue do you believe people had?

That the statue was pornographic.

You’re operating from the wrong premise. The teacher mentioned that this was a nonpornographic picture, No. 1. The teacher said, “Don’t tell your parents,” No. 2. So the issue, Dan, isn’t whether children should see these pictures or not. Gosh, we’re a classical school. Why wouldn’t we show Renaissance art to children?

Yes, I had a question about that.

Did parents know in advance what children were going to see and hear and learn? Dan, 98 percent of the parents didn’t have a problem with it. But that doesn’t matter, because we didn’t follow a practice. We have a practice. Last year, the school sent out an advance notice about it. Parents should know: In class, students are going to see or hear or talk about this. This year, we didn’t send out that notice.

Just to be clear, last year you sent a notice to parents warning them that students were going to see Michelangelo’s David?

Yes. This year, we made an egregious mistake. We didn’t send that notice. Look, we’re not a public school. We’re a public charter. Parents, after they saw all the crap that’s being taught in public schools during COVID, decided of their own that they didn’t want their children to be taught that. Here we teach the Hillsdale Curriculum, focusing on civic and moral values. We teach a traditional, Western civilization, liberal classical education. And if there’s controversial topics or subjects, we tell parents in advance. We’re going to be sensitive to everybody at the school.

I tend to think of a classical education as being the mode in the 17^th, 18^th century, where you study the Greeks and Romans, and Western civilization is central. A tutor or teacher is the expert, and that teacher drives the curriculum. You’re describing something where it seems the parents drive the curriculum. How does your classical education differ from the classical education as I think of it?

What kind of question is that, Dan? I don’t know how they taught in the 17^th, 18^th century, and neither do you. You live in New York?

Virginia.

You’ve got a 212 number. That’s New York.

I lived in New York when I got the cellphone, many years ago. Now I live in Virginia.

Well, we’re Florida, OK? Parents will decide. Parents are the ones who are going to drive the education system here in Florida. The governor said that, and we’re with the governor. Parents don’t decide what is taught. But parents know what that curriculum is. And parents are entitled to know anytime their child is being taught a controversial topic and picture.

Parents choose this school because they want a certain kind of education. We’re not gonna have courses from the College Board. We’re not gonna teach 1619 or CRT crap. I know they do all that up in Virginia. The rights of parents, that trumps the rights of kids. Teachers are the experts? Teachers have all the knowledge? Are you kidding me? I know lots of teachers that are very good, but to suggest they are the authorities, you’re on better drugs than me.

How would the teachers at your school feel to hear you say they are not authorities?

Do you know what classical education is?

I know it in a historical context, but I guess not in the context you’re using it in.

The current context is about moral values, civic values, personal responsibility. Those are the things that aren’t being taught in schools. Along with history, science, math, art, music. We don’t have safe spaces for kids so they won’t be offended by a Halloween costume. We don’t use pronouns. We teach them phonics. We teach Singapore math. They learn to speak Latin. Every student learns a musical instrument. And by the way, a large number of our students are Title I, from poor families, underprivileged families. It’s not just rich white people. We don’t even pick our students; it’s a lottery. The mission of the school shows that standards are important—even poor people have standards.

You say you don’t have safe spaces for kids to be offended by, say, a Halloween costume, but aren’t you just protecting kids, giving them a safe space, from Michelangelo’s David?

Come on, Dan. That’s ridiculous.

It seems the same to me!

You’re determined to make this a story about David. You’re going to give it the mainstream media slant.

I’m running this as a Q&A, including everything I say and everything you say. Showing our disagreement. I’m not going to give it some spin, like “Here’s a crazy Republican.”

You’re going to be objective. That’s the job of a journalist.

Well, I have my opinion! But I’m trying to show your side as truthfully as possible.

Well, I’m dubious that’s what will happen.

You can text me and tell me how I did.

I will. Again, your premise is incorrect. We don’t have any problem showing David. You have to tell the parents ahead of time, and they can decide whether it is appropriate for their child to see it.

Have you heard from parents who disagree about forcing the principal to resign? Or are most of the parents in agreement with this decision? 

We’ll hear from a lot of parents. We have a board meeting on Monday night, our general monthly meeting. We spent probably close to an hour listening to public comment this week, at the special meeting. My intent, and the board’s intent, is not to shut anybody down. There were people hollering for me to step down.

Were those people parents?

You’re not gonna hear from people who are happy about it. If they’re happy, they’re not going to speak at a public meeting. I’m certain the vast majority of parents have no problem with it. And again, no one has a problem with David. It’s not about David.

Three parents had a problem with David.

Three parents objected. Two objected simply because they weren’t told in advance. One objected because the teacher said nonpornography. Nonpornography—that’s a red flag. And of course telling the students, “Don’t tell your parents”—that’s a huge red flag!

Wait, so the objection was just that the teacher used the word pornography in a sixth grade classroom?

Yes, that word is inappropriate in that classroom. No. 1, no one said it was pornography. No. 2, it’s not on the curriculum. No. 3, you don’t need to be saying that word in a classroom in Florida!

Look, here’s my opinion, and please tell me what you think of it. If I was an educator, I would never think that showing this extremely famous statue sculpted in the classical style, in a classical school, in a lesson about Renaissance art, would be, as you say, “controversial.” That it would require a letter to parents. Not to middle school students, not even to elementary school students! Is your goal to be more clear about what is and isn’t controversial?

Well, No. 1, yes, I appointed an ad hoc committee so we can see if everybody can come to some kind of consensus on this. No. 2, you’re a reporter, and I wouldn’t expect you to think like a teacher. Teachers are taught what’s controversial. The fact that this art teacher had the gumption to say that we need to send out a letter documents that. But the letter wasn’t sent out. And he didn’t check to make sure that it was sent out.

Wait, so the teacher requested one, but the principal didn’t send it out?

Yes. And he didn’t check. That was an egregious mistake, and we won’t make that mistake again.

I just don’t think this statue is controversial.

We’re not going to show the full statue of David to kindergartners. We’re not going to show him to second graders. Showing the entire statue of David is appropriate at some age. We’re going to figure out when that is.

And you don’t have to show the whole statue! Maybe to kindergartners we only show the head. You can appreciate that. You can show the hands, the arms, the muscles, the beautiful work Michelangelo did in marble, without showing the whole thing.

Ugh…

I grew up in a time when we were directly confronting this Victorian bullshit. But I guess it’s back and we’re all just going to have to agree that the human body is dirty and should be covered at all times. Kind of like Afghanistan.

I’m getting old but it’s not what I thought it was going to be. I thought you got more conservative as you aged. It turns out that’s not always true. In this case, it’s the society that’s getting more conservative as I age. We’re going backwards:

The Fig leaf campaign:

In 1563, the Council of Trent launched the Fig Leaf Campaign to camouflage the male genitals visible in art across Italy. The cover-up choice was a ‘Fig Leaf’.

The fig leaf campaign became a significant art censorship movement in the medieval period. The fig leaves were synonymous with sin, sex, and censorship.

Until the 1400s, Romans were traditionally inspired by Greek art. The ancient marble sculptures were chiseled with a nude body and that represented honor and virtue. The naked idols symbolized purity.

But in the 1500s, the acts of art censorship began when the Counter-Reformation took over the Vatican and started portraying nudity as immodest and obscene.

In an effort to counter Protestantism’s growing popularity, Catholic leaders spread the message that: We must stop shielding ourselves behind a culture of art and forsaking religion.

The Roman Catholic Church initiated the censorship campaign with Michelangelo’s David. Powerful clergymen wanted to clothe the nude David.

In the 1540s, Michelangelo was contracted by the Pope to paint the wall of the Sistine Chapel with fresco art depicting The Last Judgment.

But his nude art was condemned heavily by the powerful clergymen. Cardinal Carafa called the piece to be censored and Biagio da Cesena, the Pope’s master of ceremonies, vociferated the fresco paintings to be suitable for ‘public baths and taverns’ and not a chapel.

These criticisms pressurized the Popes to condemn nudity in artwork and start using modesty to portray their biblical figures.

Therefore, Pope Julius II forced Michelangelo to repaint the religious figures and cover their nakedness. This gave rise to the fig leaf campaign.

The Council of Trent hunted for all the nude sculptures in Rome and started the campaign of carefully placing metal fig leaves to cover the genitals.

Historian Leo Steinberg pointed out in his 1983 book The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion, that “many beautiful and antique statues” were “censored” in Rome by the order of Pope Paul IV.

The Bible mentions that Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves after eating the forbidden fruit. The earliest depictions of Adam and Eve in the catacombs of Rome showed them holding the fig leaves to cover their naked bodies.

Thus nudity became a sign of paganism in Medieval Europe and the Byzantine Empire. Consequently, many people began to view nude statues as pagan idols. To counter Protestant charges that the Roman Church was backsliding into paganism, Catholic leaders began covering statues’ genitals.

The Aftermath

The fig leaf campaign demolished the rawness and artistry of renaissance painters. The systemic defacing of art continued in the name of preserving the roots of Christianity.

Michelangelo’s painting The Last Judgment was altered twice and in the 1700s, a Mannerist artist named Daniele da Volterra added a loincloth and camouflaged the nudity in the painting to suit the Vatican’s censorship standards.

This trend continued with the paintings of Masaccio from the 14th century and his artwork fell prey to this bizarre campaign. The painting Expulsion from the Garden of Eden was modified by an unknown artist and fig leaves were added to Adam and Eve figures to conceal the genitals.

The fig leaf campaign continued across the borders of Italy. When the plaster cast of David was presented to the Protestant British Queen Victoria by the Grand Duke of Tuscany, she was shocked to see the statue’s nudity. And so, a large detachable fig leaf was given to hide the penis in the sculpture.

Rupert reads the polls

Trump has been improving in the polls in the last few weeks so guess what?

Donald Trump’s reported “soft ban” from Fox News is at an end, and he’s getting the band back together for the 2024 Republican presidential primary. 

Trump will appear on prime-time host Sean Hannity’s show next Monday, the network announced on Wednesday. The interview will mark Trump’s first Fox appearance since September 2022, according to the Media Matters database. Fox weekend host Mark Levin let slip on his radio show the day before that he will also interview Trump the following Sunday.

Trump’s return to the network that served as his personal propaganda organ during his presidency follows a stormy month that led some observers to question whether the Fox-Trump relationship had suffered an irrevocable rupture. 

Filings in Dominion Voting System’s $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox revealed in late February that Rupert Murdoch, Fox’s co-founder and the head of its parent company, had said in a deposition that he never believed Trump’s claims that the 2020 election had been stolen from him and privately bashed the then-president as “increasingly mad.” 

Trump responded to those revelations with a series of posts on his Truth Social platform in which he described Fox as a “RINO network” and Murdoch as a “MAGA Hating Globalist RINO,” and called on Murdoch to “apologize to his viewers and readers for his ridiculous defense of the 2020 Presidential Election.”

Meanwhile, members of Trump’s orbit complained to Semafor that he had been hit with a “soft ban” from Fox, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a potential Republican candidate for president and network favorite, received more weekly mentions than Trump for the first time this year as Fox personalities touted his new book and his nascent campaign.

It’s been obvious for a while that Fox was making a bit of a bet on DeSantis. But the latest polls show that may not be the ticket with the Fox audience. And we know what that means.

I guess she’s completely given up on getting Democratic votes in Arizona. But I’m afraid she might have a teensy problem with MAGA Republicans too. She’s an openly bisexual, former Green, pro-choice, DREAM act supporter whose main “independent” credibility lies with her fealty to corporate interests. This is not a recipe for electoral success with well … anyone, and certainly not in Arizona where MAGA is very strong. Has she not heard about the culture war?

Ever since Sen. Kyrsten Sinema became an independent in December, her Democratic colleagues have been restrained about the shift, careful not to alienate the Arizona lawmaker when they only have a single-seat majority and need her support on legislation and nominees.

Hoping to get through this year, and then gain clarity about whether Sinema will even seek reelection in 2024 let alone continue to caucus with her old party, Senate Democrats have dodged questions about the mercurial marathoner who’s still barely in their ranks.

“It’s really early,” Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), who chairs the Senate Democratic campaign arm, told me. “I don’t know what she’s planning on doing.”

But Sinema may be making the Democrats’ deliberations easier.

As she races to stockpile campaign money and post an impressive, statement-making first-quarter fundraising number, Sinema has used a series of Republican-dominated receptions and retreats this year to belittle her Democratic colleagues, shower her GOP allies with praise and, in one case, quite literally give the middle finger to President Joe Biden’s White House.

And that’s before an audience.

Speaking in private, whether one-on-one or with small groups of Republican senators, she’s even more cutting, particularly about Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, whom she derides in harshly critical terms, according to senior Republican officials directly familiar with her comments.

Sinema’s sniping spree has delighted the Republican lawmakers, lobbyists and donors who’ve taken in the show, giving some of them hope that she can be convinced to caucus with the GOP, either in this Congress or in the case she’s reelected as an independent.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who Sinema has assiduously courted, remains skeptical, however. Believing she remains a Democrat at heart, McConnell has focused on trying to recruit a non-controversial Arizona Republican into the race, somebody who could attract the moderate GOP voters and independents Sinema would need to win the purple state as an independent.

It’s entirely possible, however, that such a Republican doesn’t run or can’t clear a primary in Arizona’s MAGA-fied state party. Former Gov. Doug Ducey has made clear he’s not interested, first-term Rep. Juan Ciscomani is likely to accrue more House seniority, and the most attainable option, Karrin Taylor Robson, just lost the gubernatorial primary to Kari Lake. With near-total name identification among Arizona Republicans and the affection of one Donald J. Trump, Lake would enter the Senate race as the odds-on favorite to be the GOP nominee.

Which all raises the question for McConnell: Should his efforts to woo a mainstream Republican fail, would he be better off attempting to cut a deal with Sinema or hope a candidate like Lake can prevail in a three-way race against a current and former Democrat? One potential arrangement: Sinema could remain an independent but caucus with the Republicans in exchange for a ceasefire in spending from the National Republican Senatorial Committee and McConnell’s Super PAC.

Otherwise, McConnell could find himself ushering the election-denying Lake into the Senate, a step he may be less inclined to take as he considers his legacy and, more proximately, the group of mostly newcomers who’ve already tried to overthrow him once from his post. Remarkable as it may sound, on the vote that counts the most for the longest-serving Senate leader, the one to extend his record further, the independent may be more likely to support McConnell than the Republican.

At least one prominent Senate Republican is hoping McConnell attempts a negotiated peace with Sinema.

“If he hasn’t he should,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who has worked closely with Sinema, told me. Romney jokingly said that McConnell should even offer her the gavel of the influential Senate Finance Committee to sweeten the deal.

Just as notable, Romney said he hopes Sinema is reelected regardless and was open to stumping for her in Arizona, which has a significant population of Mormon voters.

“I’m not saying no, I could very easily endorse Sen. Sinema,” he said, calling her “one of the senators that is able to pull people together and actually get legislation passed.”

At the risk of spoiling the fun for political junkies and students of third-party campaign history, this all could be moot.

Some of Sinema’s friends believe she’ll retire rather than risk losing. To borrow the old line about the Clintons, after her taste of high finance on the fundraising circuit, she’s become like the Episcopal priest in the humble rectory who was surrounded by money in his pews and wanted a cut. (Her appetites for luxury hotels, car services and charter flights, as laid out in her campaign finance reports, are ample.)

Nice little Clinton slam there. Great work. You won’t have to buy a drink in the village all year. Anyway, here’s where she entertains the GOP lobbyists she is cultivating:

What’s clear after the last few months, though, is that it could prove even more awkward than it already is for her to remain even nominally part of the Democratic Party.

“Those lunches were ridiculous,” she told a small group of Republican lobbyists at a reception in Washington this year in explaining why she had stopped attending her caucus’ weekly luncheons in the Capitol, according to an attendee.

First off, she explained, she was no longer a Democrat. “I’m not caucusing with the Democrats, I’m formally aligned with the Democrats for committee purposes,” Sinema said. “But apart from that I am not a part of the caucus.”

Then she let loose.

“Old dudes are eating Jell-O, everyone is talking about how great they are,” Sinema recounted to gales of laughter. “I don’t really need to be there for that. That’s an hour and a half twice a week that I can get back.”

Now she was rolling.

“The Northerners and the Westerners put cool whip on their Jell-O,” she shared, “and the Southerners put cottage cheese.”

Cue the groans.

Turning more serious, but continuing to dismiss her colleagues, Sinema boasted that she had better uses of her time than “those dumb lunches,” which the windiest lawmakers can drag out but are also used to discuss substance and strategy.

“I spend my days doing productive work, which is why I’ve been able to lead every bipartisan vote that’s happened the last two years,” she said.

That’s very impressive I’m sure. But is she so stupid that she thinks she can actually win a majority in Arizona with that pitch? I find that hard to believe. She’s actually very bright. It must be the money, which actually surprises me. I’ve always thought it was all about ambition and power with her but maybe the luxuries really have seduced her. If so, I hope she gets her wish and secures a lucrative sinecure for all her hard work.

He’s changed his stance on Ukraine without any explanation so now he appears to be confused and weak. TPM had this observation:

For big picture purposes, let me just make this clear off the bat: Ron DeSantis’ position on U.S. support for Ukraine is still unclear. But that is largely beside the point. 

Over the course of the last week and a half, the Florida governor has been roundly criticized by fellow Republicans for an answer he gave in a Tucker Carlson questionnaire about his stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the U.S.’s support for Ukraine’s military. His response at the time was more telling about his 2024 campaign strategy than his actual beliefs about the war. In remarks to Carlson, DeSantis characterized Russia’s year-long deadly invasion of Ukraine as a “territorial dispute” and argued that supporting Ukraine’s defense was not necessarily in the U.S.’s best interest. Here’s the full quote:

“While the U.S. has many vital national interests—securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness within our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural and military power of the Chinese Communist Party—becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them.”

The remark confused some Republicans and supporters who have been following DeSantis’ positioning for longer than the past year. Back when DeSantis was a congressman from Florida, he was incensed by Russia’s annexation of Crimea and frequently attacked the Obama administration, claiming it wasn’t doing enough to punish Russia for the occupation. 

But the rationale for the about-face earlier this month is fairly obvious. Carlson often uses his show to promote pro-Putin propaganda — a year ago a leaked memo revealed the Kremlin had been advising Russian state media to broadcast Carlson segments as often as possible — and has been highly critical of the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine. 

So on one hand, DeSantis knew his audience and was likely hoping to appeal to Carlson’s viewership, which has been bathed in the Fox News host’s anti-Ukraine sentiment for over a year. But he’s also trying to make inroads with Trump supporters before he officially challenges the former president for the Republican nomination. When Carlson’s team asked Trump if “opposing Russia in Ukraine” was “a vital American national strategist interest,” Trump held to his isolationist stance: “No, but it is for Europe.”

Other far-right MAGA Republicans like Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO), J.D. Vance (R-OH) and Freedom Caucus members in the House have become increasingly critical of the U.S.’s military support for Ukraine, with some calling for it to end. 

But Republican foreign policy hawks were quick to pounce on DeSantis for his position on Ukraine, and publicly lambasted the Florida Republican for it — John Cornyn said he was “disturbed” by DeSantis’ remarks, Marco Rubio suggested the governor wasn’t experienced enough in foreign policy to have an opinion, etc. 

And it appears it’s all getting to DeSantis. During his interview with Piers Morgan this week, which will air in its entirety tomorrow, DeSantis cleaned up his remarks. He called Putin a “war criminal” who should be “held accountable” and admitted he could have been clearer about the whole “territorial dispute” thing.

The bigger point is that DeSantis, in caving to criticism, proved that he’s capable of being shamed — a massive vulnerability and character flaw in today’s MAGA Republican Party that Trump will surely feast upon.  

Tucker will have a field day too. If he decides it’s profitable for him to get back on Trump’s good side. From the sound of his recent grovelling, he must think it is:

BO SNERDLEY (HOST): Tucker, listen, I’ve had a number of people saying they read all these things in the paper — “You hate Trump blah, blah, blah.” But this it — does Tucker like Trump’s policies, any policies of his? What’s the deal with you and Donald Trump?

TUCKER CARLSON (GUEST): Oh, let’s see. I spent four years defending his policies and I — I’m going to defend them again tonight. And actually, and I’m pretty straight forward, I’m — I love Trump. Like, as a person, I think Trump is funny and insightful. And and I said this to Trump when he called me, you know, all wounded about those texts. That was a moment in time where I was absolutely infuriated.

And I think this is in the text — and those were all grabbed  completely illegitimately, in my opinion, in this court case, which I guess I’m not allowed to talk about, but I’m enraged that my private texts were pulled.

But those — those particular texts were pulled at exactly — at the moment where I was texting with one of my producers because some idiot on the Trump campaign had sent us the name of these dead voters who had voted. And we went and I repeated them on air, and it turns out some of them were alive.

SNERDLY: Oh.

CARLSON: So. I was just — I felt humiliated. Yeah. Like what? And I thought then and I think now that that election was not on the level, it was not a free and fair election. I thought that then. I think it now.

Alvin Bragg responded to the House Republicans fatuous primal scream earlier today:

In a letter to Jordan and others Thursday, Bragg’s office said their request “treads into territory very clearly reserved to the states” — and noted that it had only come after Trump had “created a false expectation that he would be arrested … and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene.”

“Neither fact is a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry,” stated the letter from the district attorney’s office, signed by general counsel Leslie Dubeck.

Complying with their request would interfere with law enforcement and violate New York’s sovereignty, Dubeck added. The letter also poured cold water on Jordan’s suggestion that Congress needed those documents for a review of federal public safety funds, but said the district attorney’s office would nonetheless submit a letter describing its use of federal funds.

“While the DA’s Office will not allow a Congressional investigation to impede the exercise of New York’s sovereign police power, this Office will always treat a fellow government entity with due respect,” the letter from Bragg’s office concluded. “Therefore, again, we request a meet and confer to understand whether the Committee has any legitimate legislative purpose in the requested materials that could be accommodated without impeding those sovereign interests.”

It’s so, so stupid. And it gets even stupider:

House Republicans are expanding their investigation into Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s probe of former President Trump by seeking testimony from two prosecutors who resigned from the D.A.’s office last year.

 It demonstrates a sustained effort by Republicans to undermine Bragg’s case amid reports that an indictment over hush money payments Trump allegedly paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels could be imminent.

 House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) sent letters to former prosecutors Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne, who helped lead the Trump case under former D.A. Cyrus Vance but resigned in protest last February after Bragg came into office and suspended the probe.

“Your criticisms of Bragg’s investigation were widely reported,” Jordan wrote, “It now appears that your efforts to shame Bragg have worked as he is reportedly resurrecting a so-called ‘zombie’ case.”

The letters ask both men to sit for transcribed interviews and turn over documents related to the Trump investigation, including communications with federal agencies and other staffers in the D.A.’s office.

I guess they want to beat up on these lawyers knowing they probably aren’t going to be able to defend themselves with the fact due to the ongoing criminal case. Whatever. If they want to keep licking Trump’s boots in public be my guest.

He went to jail for a hush money scheme

Here’s a good rundown of why the Stormy Daniels case matters from Amanda Carpenter. It’s actually important, even in the great scheme of things.

Donald Trump’s defenders would love for people to believe that the former president entered into totally normal, by-the-book, run-of-the-mill legal agreements with adult film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal to purchase their silence, and that he did so in a way that was agreeable and beneficial to all parties.

But that’s not what happened.

Trump risks indictment because, allegedly at his behest, an illegal scheme was undertaken to deceive the public at a critical moment before the 2016 election. That was the purpose of the “hush money” payments—not to enrich the women or settle a personal matter, but, in the words of the man who went to prison for arranging the deals, “for the principal purpose of influencing the election.”

A reminder of what really happened: In 2016, Daniels and McDougal each wanted to sell her own story about liaisons with Trump to the press. Daniels had previously pitched the media about her tawdry escapades with Trump, but after he became the Republican nominee in that year’s presidential election, both women understood that their stories now had significant news and monetary value. They had credible information relevant to the question of Trump’s fitness for office. Trump and his team understood the importance of suppressing the stories to help him win the election.

In exchange for the rights to McDougal’s story, American Media Inc.—the parent company of the National Enquirer—in August 2016 promised her a six-figure compensation package plus a regular magazine column. But even though she agreed not to discuss her story with anyone else, it was not going to be published at all. It turns out that what McDougal had actually sold to the tabloid was her silence.

Daniels, who also had been in talks with the Enquirer’s parent company, instead made a deal with Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen just two weeks before the election. She, too, pledged to keep quiet.

And then Trump won the election.

---

There is no question that these deals were illegally made. We know this because the men who set them up have admitted their guilt, and further admitted to having done so to assist Trump’s campaign.

David Pecker—who at the time was the CEO of American Media Inc.—admitted as part of a non-prosecution agreement that “in cooperation, consultation, and concert with, and at the request and suggestion of” the Trump campaign, he engaged in what is called a “catch and kill” scheme to secure the rights to McDougal’s story with no intention of ever publishing it. In this, he came through on a commitment he made to the Trump campaign in August 2015 to seek out “negative stories about [the] presidential candidate’s relationships with women” so as to help prevent them from becoming public—another admission he made in the course of the non-prosecution agreement.

Pecker’s testimony was then used to elicit a guilty plea from Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen, who admitted to illegally securing payments to McDougal and Daniels to influence the election. Cohen spent more than a year in prison and a year and a half in home confinement for his crimes. The eight criminal counts to which he pleaded guilty included “two counts of illegal campaign contributions related to payments to women.” The Wall Street Journal summarized the nature of those violations:

Under federal law, individual campaign contributions are limited to a total of $5,400 for each election cycle, including primary and general election votes, and corporate contributions are barred.

Conspiring to cause an excessive campaign contribution of more than $25,000 is an indictable offense and a felony.

While pleading guilty, Cohen directly implicated his former boss in the schemes to prevent the publication of Daniels’s and McDougal’s stories. As a sitting president, Trump could not be indicted, per guidance from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. But that was in 2018; he does not enjoy the same protection now. An effective criminal justice system would not look past Trump’s role in orchestrating these crimes.

---

Still, among Trump’s friends and foes alike, it is commonly held that the hush money case isn’t as meaningful as the other investigations and legal challenges Trump is facing, including those pertaining to the January 6th insurrection, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago, and the scandals related to his various businesses. (Kim Wehle summarizes the ongoing investigations here.) Therefore, some Trump critics think, maybe the Manhattan district attorney should hold off on indicting Trump so the marquee charges against him can be brought first.

But had voters known about Trump’s indiscretions with Daniels and McDougal, Trump may never have become president in 2016. His margin of victory over Hillary Clinton was slim: Just 80,000 voters in three states put him over the top in the Electoral College.

Say what you will about the questionable life decisions made by Daniels and McDougal, but they own their actions and who they are. (Anyone remember “Make America Horny Again”?) Yet even after two presidential campaigns, the same can’t be said for Trump.

---

Team Trump had locked the McDougal story down in August 2016. And after the release of the Access Hollywood tape in early October 2016, Cohen quickly moved to reach an agreement with Daniels, too.

The hush money did what Trump wanted it to do: It kept the women from talking. The Wall Street Journal published a story on November 4, 2016 that focused mainly on McDougal’s hush money but also mentioned that Daniels had previously sought to speak with ABC News about her relationship with Trump. The Trump campaign vociferously denied the allegations, and McDougal and Daniels did not comment. Since McDougal and Daniels were unwilling to go on record, the story didn’t get much traction at the time.

So Trump barrelled on toward the election on November 8. Despite his personal scandals, the GOP rallied around him, and he went on to the White House.

The public would first learn of the Daniels payments through a Wall Street Journal article published in January 2018. When the story came out, Trump denied it, and Daniels claims that Cohen used “intimidation and coercive tactics,” such as initiating “a bogus arbitration proceeding” against her, to force her to sign a false statement denying the affair. (This is more than a step beyond whatever was entailed by the “hush agreement,” and as Colin Kalmbacher noted at the time, these alleged actions would have been clear ethical violations for Cohen.) Ronan Farrow soon followed the WSJ article about Daniels with his bombshell New Yorker story about the payments to McDougal.

As a result of the combined reporting and public follow-up on their stories, the women took their cases to court, where it was established that the hush money agreements were pretty much bullshit and they were free to speak.

A judge threw out Daniels’s lawsuit against Trump on the grounds that the nondisclosure agreement, which stipulated that she would owe $1 million to Trump every time she discussed her story in public, was not enforceable because Trump had never signed it. McDougal sued AMI, claiming she was misled into her hush agreement, and the company reached a settlement with her that freed her to discuss her story, although the company retains the right to some future profits resulting from her telling it.

---

The same summer that Trump’s team was seeking to quash these stories, another high-ranking Republican official was starting a prison term because of a case involving hush money. The story of the terrible crimes and the prosecution of former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is very different from Trump’s story, but it nevertheless provides some useful points of comparison.

When he was a high-school wrestling coach in the 1960s through 1980s, Hastert molested at least four boys. In 2010, one of them—referenced as “Individual A” in court documents—confronted Hastert, and the retired congressman agreed to pay the man $3.5 million to stay quiet about the abuse. A few years later, the FBI and IRS began investigating Hastert for making unusual bank withdrawals. While Hastert originally claimed to investigators that he was taking out the money because he didn’t trust the banks, his lawyer later told investigators Hastert had made the withdrawals because he was being extorted by Individual A.

Recall that Trump also accused Daniels of extortion.

It didn’t work for Hastert. He went to prison, but not for the reasons you might think.

Due to the statute of limitations, Hastert could not be prosecuted for his crimes against boys, although he admitted to the abuse during his sentencing hearing. Rather, he was put away for illegally structuring the hush money payments. He reported to prison in June 2016, and ultimately served 13 months of a 15-month sentence.

---

A common refrain from people uncomfortable with prosecuting Trump is that hush money payments are “nothing new,” as though that makes them less objectionable.

But for just a moment, let’s set aside the questions of legality and instead think about the morality of hush money payments.

Fox News has spent tens of millions of dollars to prevent female employees from publicly discussing the alleged sexual harassment they faced from former CEO Roger Ailes and former host Bill O’Reilly. And former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was tried for (but not convicted of) funneling hush money to his pregnant mistress during his 2008 campaign.

The core purpose of hush money and nondisclosure agreements is to stop people from going on the record, and this often allows malevolent actors to continue to amass, enjoy, and abuse their power.

It’s not an accident that the reporter who exposed the payments to Karen McDougal, Ronan Farrow, also penned the devastating exposé that brought down film executive Harvey Weinstein. Farrow showed how Weinstein used nondisclosure agreements and other legal threats to silence the women he abused, and Farrow’s reporting contributed to a new public awareness of how these tools were being used by powerful people to manipulate their victims into silence and submission. Spurred by Farrow’s reporting, other women felt encouraged to go on the record about Weinstein’s crimes, helping to launch the #MeToo movement; this new reckoning led to the criminal prosecution of Weinstein, who is now serving a 23-year prison sentence in New York. Last month, he was sentenced by a California court to serve an additional 16 years in prison for crimes he committed in that state.

No one should kid themselves about who the hush money in such cases is meant to protect. I’ll give you a hint: It’s not the people being instructed to stay quiet.

Which is why—in terms of morality as much as of justice, the law, and politics—Trump’s hush money matters. But you aren’t supposed to know that.

Trump is a corrupt pig. And a criminal. And lots of criminals are jailed for the charges prosecutors can prove not all the crimes they committed. Look at Hastert. I really doubt they threw the book at him solely for the hush money. He molested boys on the wrestling squad.

Personally, I would have liked to see Trump tried for the selling of the presidency while in the oval office but I guess we’re good with that. The incitement of January 6th seems even worse. But this is here, it’s illegal and wrong so fine.

Headlines we’re sure to see

It’s not as if the question of Donald Trump running for president from jail hasn’t been addressed before. It’s just that Trump’s arrest seems more imminent.

The chances of Trump actually being held in jail pending trial for any of four separate investigations seems remote. That doesn’t stop the speculation.

Newsweek (Wednesday):

CNN (Wednesday):

Mad Magazine should run a “Headlines We’re Sure To See” bit on Trump’s arrest. We’ve been here before.