Skip to content

Month: June 2023

Finally, someone says it

He had a reason for keeping those classified documents and it wasn’t for “show and tell”

It’s true, as always, that Trump is such a psychological train wreck that it’s not hard to imagine that he stuffed classified documents into boxes on the regular without thinking about it because he’s a disorganized mess. But that’s just too easy. There are other aspects of Trump’s personality that make it much more likely that he was thinking about making some deals.

This piece by Fintan O’Toole in the NYRB (subc. only) says it all:

Secrets are a kind of currency. They can be hoarded, but if kept for too long they lose their value. Like all currencies, they must, sooner or later, be used in a transaction—sold to the highest bidder or bartered as a favor for which another favor will be returned. To see the full scale of Donald Trump’s betrayal of his country, it is necessary to start with this reality. He kept intelligence documents because, at some point, those secrets could be used in a transaction. What he was stockpiling were the materials of treason. He may not have known how and when he would cash in this currency, but there can be little doubt that he was determined to retain the ability to do just that.

Before the publication of the grand jury’s indictment, it was possible to believe that Trump’s retention of classified documents was reckless and stupid. The indictment reveals that recklessness and stupidity are the least of his sins. With Trump, it’s always a mistake to equate anarchy with purposelessness or to think that the farce is not deadly serious. Trump’s hoarding of official secrets is both breathtakingly careless and utterly calculated. At the heart of that calculation is a cold resolve to not give up the power that access to highly restricted information had given him.

The most immediately striking parts of the indictment may, in this regard, be something of a distraction. The photographs that show boxes of papers at Mar-a-Lago, piled high on a ballroom stage, in a bathroom, and spilling out onto the floor of a storage room, convey an almost comic sense of chaos. If comedy is generated by incongruity, what could be more incongruous than nuclear plans or details of “potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack” sitting beside a toilet?

It all seems random and haphazard, an impression greatly magnified by the knowledge that Mar-a-Lago, in the eighteen months after Trump took the documents from the White House, was, as the indictment states, the venue for “more than 150 social events, including weddings, movie premieres and fundraisers that together drew tens of thousands of guests.” The New York Times has published photographs, scraped from social media, of people in party dresses or casual summer clothes around the Mar-a-Lago pool. We can see that, behind them, the door that leads to the storeroom, which was packed with boxes of official papers, is wide open. In those boxes, when the FBI opened them in August 2022, were eleven documents marked Top Secret, thirty-six marked Secret, and twenty-eight marked Confidential. It would have been the least thrilling spy thriller ever made. No James Bond high-tech gadgets or George Smiley ingenuity—just turn up in a cocktail dress, slip through an open door, and help yourself to the US military’s contingency plans for invading Iran.

Yet this ludicrous vulnerability to foreign spies is both remarkable and somewhat beside the point. The slapdash storage of classified papers is shocking—but also misleading. It defines the scandal as, in the words of Alan Feuer and Maggie Haberman in The New York Times, “Mr. Trump’s indifference toward the country’s most sensitive secrets.” But this is not a tale of indifference. Trump cared a great deal about the value of the documents. He cared enough, per the indictment, to suggest that his attorney lie to the FBI and a grand jury about what papers he did or did not have. Even Trump does not engage in a criminal conspiracy purely for its own sake. The retention of those boxes mattered to him because he understood the market value of what they contained.

It is important to bear in mind that chaos is Trump’s natural element. It is the medium in which his narcissism thrives. When there is no plan, the only law is his own desire. He alone knows at any given moment what he will do. In this light, the apparent disorderly storage of the boxes at Mar-a-Lago does not signify a lack of concern with what they contained. It is just the norm of Trumpworld. Derangement is his modus operandi.

The indictment makes clear that Trump knew very well that he was breaking the law. He was repeatedly warned by the National Archives and Records Administration that if he did not hand over the missing records, he would be referred to the Department of Justice. He had, of course, made a very big point in his attacks on Hillary Clinton of the need for zero tolerance for any lack of rigor in the handling of classified documents. He fully understood that the laws applied to everyone, including the president. As he declared in September 2016, before that year’s election, “We can’t have someone in the Oval Office who doesn’t understand the meaning of the word confidential or classified.” As president, in July 2018, he issued a statement saying that “as the head of the executive branch and Commander-in-Chief, I have a unique constitutional responsibility to protect the nation’s classified information, including by controlling access to it.”

More specifically, Trump knew that he was taking huge risks when he allegedly instructed his lawyer to lie to the FBI and the grand jury. That lawyer, quoted in the indictment, recalls that when Trump told him to take a folder of documents to his hotel room, he made a silent “plucking motion,” as if to say, “if there’s anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out.” Precisely because Trump knew that he was committing a crime, he preferred not to utter the incriminating words. There is nothing thoughtless or accidental in all of this. He clearly believed that the risks were worth taking.

This does not suggest that he was holding these documents merely as souvenirs. It’s quite possible to believe that part of his motivation lay in his fantasy that he was still the real president: retaining the intelligence briefings he received as POTUS would make him still, at some level of self-delusion, potent. The two known occasions, cited in the indictment, when Trump produced some of the documents to outsiders while explicitly referring to them as secret and confidential have this air of showing off—perhaps as much to himself as to those he was trying to impress. It is also quite reasonable to think of him experiencing a tingle of pure pleasure in imagining his own impunity—knowing that he was committing the ultimate transgression and thrilling to the idea that he would get away with it because he had always in his life gotten away with everything.

But these elements of twisted psychology can coexist with a more rational impulse: to keep hold of secrets that could be traded at some point for his personal gain. Trump sees himself above all as a deal-maker: “The nation’s classified information” is a potentially lucrative part of one or many deals.

This intent would be treasonous. Trump may not have actually committed treason, but he was consciously putting himself in a position to be able to do so. For what is not secret is the identity of the foreign countries that would be most interested in acquiring the details of the military plans and vulnerabilities of the US and its allies. The indictment states that the documents also included information that could identify US agents and informants in some of those countries and “the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods.” This is worth underlining: Trump went to great lengths to retain for himself, as a private citizen, the power to reveal to any foreign power not just US military secrets but the workings of US intelligence-gathering in those countries. It is impossible to believe that he did this accidentally or without considering that he might at some time use that power in return for some financial or other benefits.

Which makes it all the more astonishing that most of the Republican Party is fine with this. Much of the history of the right in America is bound up with paranoia about the possible existence of traitors at high levels of government. Here is stark evidence of the existence of one at the very highest level of government, and Republicans are rushing to defend him. The Elizabethan courtier Sir John Harington famously asked, “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?” and answered, “For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.” If the hoarding of state secrets as valuable currency cannot be called treason, the concept has gone the way of honor, truthfulness, and respect for law. It has ceased to exist for the Republican Party.

There’s one country in particular who seems to me the most logical recipient since there have already been a couple of deals done. Here’s Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen saying it on TV:

“I think the DOJ should be, if they’re not already, [be] looking at the unholy relationships that exist between Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, and Jared Kushner,” he explained.

“I mean, this whole two plus billion dollars to an unqualified hedge funder makes no sense to me, and in light of the information that came out, that there was military information on Iran, and we all know that Saudi Arabia has had with Iranian aggression on their mind for a long time — who knows what was shown to them? Who knows what was discussed? Who knows what was sold? None of us.”

Both Kushner and Trump have done some lucrative deals with the Saudis since they left the White House. Trump’s golf deals may be picayune compared to Jared’s but he’s always been planning on running for president and had to keep a lower profile. Whether these deals were for services rendered or services to come this relationship stinks to high heaven.

It’s also very possible that he thought he might need some help getting elected. We know he has no problem asking foreign leaders to do such favors for him. He doesn’t have any vital military equipment to blackmail them with but a few super classified war plans or Top Secret nuclear secrets might just sweeten the deal.

O’Toole makes a vitally important point here that I think isn’t often articulated. Trump thrives on chaos — “derangement is his modus operandi.” So it’s very foolish to believe that just because he’s a mess that it precludes the idea that there was a method to his madness.

Trump took those documents for a reason and it wasn’t just casual sloppiness. There were just too many very important national security documents in there for that. He had a reason and the most likely is that he anticipated doing something with them. This is the man who was known for his (ghostwritten) book called “The Art of the Deal.”

See what we did there?

Stochastic terrorism and plausible deniability

Once upon a time, Republicans wanted to learn to “speak like Newt.” Gingrich. These days, they might aspire to speak like Trump. Many have learned without a lot of trouble how to stoke stochastic terrorism with plausible deniability.

Bill Kristol points to a Joe Klein article on how Trump’s close-up magic is done:

He has a preternatural ability to bend the law to the point of breaking, but he never cracks it in two. He never says to the January 6 crowd: Go on down to the Capitol and overthrow the government. He says to the Proud Boys: “Stand back and stand by.” Stand Back absolves him of a truckload of evil intent. Stand By means: ignore the first part. He is a genius at the micro-laser-slicing of baloney, tip-toeing the rhetorical tightrope. And if you want to charge him with something that isn’t a flat-out doozy: advantage Trump.

Don’t get cocky. Remember when they called Bill Clinton “Slick Willy”? He’s got nothin’ on Trump. He’s a master. And his followers will just brush off whatever he’s done. Because the facts don’t matter. And they just don’t care.

“Cry ‘God for Donald, MAGA, and Mar-a-Lago!’”

Remember January 6th!

“In the end, they’re not coming after me. They’re coming after you — and I’m just standing in their way.”

True to form, the former president set out to rally his foot soldiers by branding Thursday’s 37-count federal indictment against him, for his actions, as an attack on them. That is, to personalize it.

“In the end, they’re not coming after me. They’re coming after you — and I’m just standing in their way,” Donald Trump told the convention of Georgia Republicans in Columbus, Ga. on Saturday.

Right. And I’m still waiting for Barack Obama’s jack-booted thugs to kick in my door and confiscate my guns, as I was promised over a decade ago.

The indictment is “ridiculous and baseless,” the most “horrific” abuse of power “in the history of our country,” so “many people have said,” Trump droned. “The Biden administration’s weaponized Department of Injustice” has engaged in “vicious persecution,” a “travesty of justice.”

Blah, blah, blah.

“I will prevent World War III. … Without me, it will happen,” Trump told them.

The problem ahead is that Trump’s “fool me twice” Republican base is lining up once again to take seriously that only the man who stored nuclear secrets in a ballroom and a bathroom can save them. The subtext, of course, is Trump’s plea for them to save him.

The New York Times reports that experts fret that the inhabitants of MAGAstan will once again take to the streets and commit violence in Trump’s name:

Experts on political violence warn that attacks against people or institutions become more likely when elected officials or prominent media figures are able to issue threats or calls for violence with impunity. The pro-Trump mob that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was drawn to Washington in part by a post on Twitter from Mr. Trump weeks earlier, promising that it would be “wild.”

The former president alerted the public to the indictment on Thursday evening in posts on his social media platform, attacking the Justice Department and calling the case “THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME.”

“Eye for an eye,” wrote Representative Andy Biggs, Republican of Arizona, in a post on Twitter on Friday. His warning came shortly before the special counsel in the case, Jack Smith, spoke to the public for the first time since he took over the investigation of Mr. Trump’s retention of classified documents.

On Instagram, Mr. Trump’s eldest son’s fiancée, Kimberly Guilfoyle, posted a photo of the former president with the words, “Retribution Is Coming,” in all capital letters.

Arizona’s imaginary governor, Kari Lake, spoke to the Georgia convention. She issued a threat against “Merrick Garland and Jack Smith and Joe Biden — and the guys back there in the fake news media.”

Lake told the cheering crowd, “If you want to get to President Trump, you are going to have go through me, and you are going to have to go through 75 million Americans just like me. And I’m going to tell you, most of us are card-carrying members of the N.R.A.”

She added: “That’s not a threat, that’s a public service announcement.”

This could again go beyond fiery boasts. It did on Jan. 6. It did in Oklahoma City.

Tribeca 2023: Week 1

New York City’s Tribeca Film Festival is running through June 18th. The festival (co-founded by Robert De Niro, Jane Rosenthal, and Craig Hatkoff in 2001) features a variety of media platforms, including film, TV, music, audio storytelling, games, and XR. I’m doing virtual coverage; as much as I’d love to be skipping down the streets of my birth city (well…technically Queens), physical mobility issues have made travel too uncomfortable. At any rate, I’ll be sharing reviews over the next couple weeks. The good news is that you can virtually attend as well-the festival is offering select titles via the “Tribeca at Home” online portal. Check out the website for more info.

Against All Enemies (U.S.) *** – In a post examining reaction from the Right when news broke this week that ex-president Trump was being indicted by federal prosecutors for alleged mishandling of classified documents, Digby included this disturbing tidbit:

What makes that even more chilling for me was that this all came down mere days after I saw Charlie Sadoff’s (incredibly) timely documentary. Sadoff’s study (which he co-wrote with Sebastian Junger and Kenneth Harbaugh) begins with an unsettling statistic: out of the approximately 1,000 people who have been officially charged for storming the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021, 15% worked as police or military personnel. These are, of course, the folks who take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.

The film not only delves into how military vets become radicalized but builds a timeline of modern right-wing extremism from the Ku Klux Klan’s public resurgence in the 1920s to current groups like the Proud Boys. The most revelatory “hidden history” aspect for me concerns the mid-70s to mid-80s-a period that saw a surge of Vietnam vets into various anti-government and racist groups, as well as the advent of “Liberty Net”, which holds the dubious distinction of being the first social network engineered by and for members of the neo-Nazi/white power movements.

Sadoff covers so much ground that this engrossing history begs a Ken Burns extended dance mix (occasional narration by Burns stalwart Peter Coyote adds to that flavor). That said, this is enough nightmare fuel for most viewers. You have been warned.

Downtown Owl (U.S.) *** – It took me a while to get into the rhythm of this quirky comedy-drama, which begins with a nod to Savage Steve Holland (palpable Better Off Dead energy) then pivots into a more angsty realm (as in Ang Lee’s The Ice Storm). Adapted from Chuck Klosterman’s eponymous novel by writer-director Hamish Linklater (no relation to Richard), the story is set during the winter of 1983-1984 in a North Dakota burg (where everybody is up in everyone else’s business).

Julia (Lily Rabe) is a 40-ish, recently engaged, self-described “restless” soul who has just moved to Owl to take a teaching position at a high school. Episodic; we observe Julia over a period of several months as she acclimates to her new environs. She strikes up a friendship with a melancholy neighbor (Ed Harris) and pursues a crush on a laconic buffalo rancher (I told you it was quirky). There’s a sullen high school quarterback, and a pregnant teen (it’s a rule). All threads converge when a record-breaking blizzard descends on the sleepy hamlet. A bit uneven, but it grew on me.

The Future (Israel) **½ – A near-future tale about a surrogate mother-daughter relationship between an Israeli scientist (Reymond Amsalem), and a Palestinian college student (Samar Qupty) who has confessed to assassinating Israel’s Minister of Space and Tourism. The scientist heads “The Future Project”, which uses algorithms to predict terrorist attacks (shades of Philip K. Dick). The scientist has asked permission to conduct a psychological study of the young woman to determine why her crime eluded prediction. More “science-fiction” in tone than production design, writer-director Noam Kaplan’s economical film is essentially a chamber drama, bolstered by earnest lead performances but bogged down by its heavy-handed allegory.

Richland (U.S.) *** – [Shame mode] All the times I’ve zipped by the I-82 turn-off to Richland, Washington while driving on I-90 and thought “hey, isn’t that where that Hanford superfund nuclear thingy is?” I’ve never stopped to ponder its historical significance. Adjacent to the Hanford Nuclear Site that was built in the early 1940s to house nuclear government workers at the height of the Manhattan Project, Richland is, in essence, a company town; a true-to-life “atomic city” with a problematic legacy.

Then again, according to Irene Lusztig’s absorbing documentary, how “problematic”  depends on who you talk to. For example, many current residents don’t see why anyone would make a fuss over the local high school football team’s “mascot”, which is a mushroom cloud. The town manufactured weapons-grade plutonium for decades following the end of WW2 (to which  they had a direct hand in “ending”, via providing the plutonium for the ”Fat Man” nuclear bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki).

Lusztig incorporates archival footage for historical context; these segments reminded me of the 1982 documentary The Atomic Café. With Christopher Nolan’s anticipated biopic Oppenheimer looming (July 21st), this is a perfect primer for brushing up on America’s complex relationship with nuclear energy.

More reviews at Den of Cinema

Dennis Hartley

There is nothing he could do to shake their allegiance

I was going to Fisk (an old blogging term) this WSJ editorial but I see that James Joyner did it already so I don’t have to. Seriously, it’s completely daft and a low point for the WSJ editorial page and that’s saying something. Never, ever let them forget this the next time they start hippie bashing over national security. The hypocrisy has never been so overwhelming.

Here’s Joyner:

That the WSJ editorial page tends toward reflexive fealty to Republican causes is no secret. But the Editorial Board should be ashamed of its latest effort.

A Destructive Trump Indictment

Do prosecutors understand the forces they are unleashing?

Already, this is ominous. They’re not only insinuating that violence is likely to occur but blaming the decision to indict a person for serious crimes, not the environment created by the individual under indictment.

Whether you love or hate Donald Trump, his indictment by President Biden’s Justice Department is a fraught moment for American democracy. For the first time in U.S. history, the prosecutorial power of the federal government has been used against a former President who is also running against the sitting President. This is far graver than the previous indictment by a rogue New York prosecutor, and it will roil the 2024 election and U.S. politics for years to come.

The Justice Department is not Joe Biden’s; it’s ours. We have not, in modern history, had a former President run for re-election after having been defeated. Only one recent President, Richard Nixon, has committed crimes so egregious that they would have been worthy of prosecution—and he would likely have been prosecuted if his successor hadn’t decided, probably rightly, that pardoning him was the best way for the country to move on.

Special counsel Jack Smith announced the indictment in a brief statement on Friday. But no one should be fooled: This is Attorney General Merrick Garland’s responsibility. Mr. Garland appointed Mr. Smith to provide political cover, but Mr. Garland, who reports to Mr. Biden, has the authority to overrule a special counsel’s recommendation.

It’s certainly the case that Garland could have ordered Smith not to file charges. Presumably, he didn’t because he agrees with Smith that the evidence is very strong that Trump committed sufficiently heinous and blatant crimes that prosecution was warranted.

Americans will inevitably see this as a Garland-Biden indictment, and they are right to think so.

Now, I’ve made a variation of this argument myself for quite some time. It’s absolutely the case that Trump supporters, and even some independents, will see this as a politically-motivated prosecution. There’s just no way around that, given who Trump is and the fact that the Attorney General is a political appointee.

The appointment of a special counsel is the only mechanism we have to create a veil of independence. As I noted at the time, Smith is almost the perfect choice in that regard but it’s not going to mollify Trumpers.

But it’s one thing to acknowledge the political reality of public perception and quite another to argue that the public is “right” to believe this is some authoritarian political repression by Biden and Garland. Faced with a former President who committed crimes, they have to either uphold the rule of law—their sworn duty—or not.

The indictment levels 37 charges against Mr. Trump that are related to his handling of classified documents, including at his Mar-a-Lago club, since he left the White House. Thirty-one of the counts are for violating the ancient and seldom-enforced Espionage Act for the “willful retention of national defense information.”

It’s true that the Espionage Act of 1917 is pretty old. It’s also true that it’s been amended multiple times over the years. That it’s “seldom-enforced” is simply untrue, unless we’re using sleight of hand to argue that prosecutions for espionage are relatively uncommon compared to those for more frequently-occurring crimes. Indeed, there were several prosecutions (Reality Winner, Daniel Hale, and Julian Assange being the most famous) during Trump’s presidency.

But it’s striking, and legally notable, that the indictment never mentions the Presidential Records Act (PRA) that allows a President access to documents, both classified and unclassified, once he leaves office. It allows for good-faith negotiation with the National Archives. Yet the indictment assumes that Mr. Trump had no right to take any classified documents.

This doesn’t fit the spirit or letter of the PRA, which was written by Congress to recognize that such documents had previously been the property of former Presidents. If the Espionage Act means Presidents can’t retain any classified documents, then the PRA is all but meaningless. This will be part of Mr. Trump’s defense.

This is simply embarrassing nonsense. The whole point of the PRA was to establish public ownership of all Presidential records. Presidents are allowed to keep purely personal records as defined by law. But literally all official documents held by an incumbent President “automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.”

The notion that former Presidents are allowed to simply take any classified documents—let alone the originals!—home with them is simply laughable.

The other counts are related to failing to turn over the documents or obstructing the attempts by the Justice Department and FBI to obtain them. One allegation is that during a meeting with a writer and three others, none of whom held security clearances, Mr. Trump “showed and described a ‘plan of attack’” from the Defense Department. “As president I could have declassified it,” he said on audio tape. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

The feds also say Mr. Trump tried to cover up his classified stash by “suggesting that his attorney hide or destroy documents,” as well as by telling an aide to move boxes to conceal them from his lawyer and the FBI.

As usual, Mr. Trump is his own worst enemy. “This would have gone nowhere,” former Attorney General Bill Barr told CBS recently, “had the President just returned the documents. But he jerked them around for a year and a half.”

Which would rather undercut the notion that this is some political sabotage by Biden and Garland, no?

That being said, if prosecutors think that this will absolve them of the political implications of their decision to charge Mr. Trump, they fail to understand what they’ve unleashed.

In the court of public opinion, the first question will be about two standards of justice. Mr. Biden had old classified files stored in his Delaware garage next to his sports car. When that news came out, he didn’t sound too apologetic. “My Corvette’s in a locked garage, OK? So it’s not like they’re sitting out on the street,” Mr. Biden said. AG Garland appointed another special counsel, Robert Hur, to investigate, but Justice isn’t going to indict Mr. Biden.

As for willful, how about the basement email server that Hillary Clinton used as Secretary of State? FBI director James Comey said in 2016 that she and her colleagues “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” According to him, 113 emails included information that was classified when it was sent or received. Eight were Top Secret. About 2,000 others were later “upclassified” to Confidential. This was the statement Mr. Comey ended by declaring Mrs. Clinton free and clear, since “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Oh, for fuck’s sake.

Should Biden have had classified documents from his days as Vice President in boxes in his private garage? No, he shouldn’t. Did he turn them over the moment they were discovered? Yes, he did.

Do I continue to think Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server in violation of established policy was egregious? Yes, I do. But Comey was absolutely right: while Clinton was sloppy and arrogant, her transgressions weren’t criminal—and certainly not to the level where we would prosecute a high government official.

Not only was Trump’s transgression orders of magnitudes worse he—again, by the Editorial Board’s own concession—would have faced zero chance of indictment had he simply turned the goddamn boxes of stolen secrets over when he was asked rather than stalling for months and forcing them to raid his compound.

I will step in here to point you to this piece that show Clinton’s server wasn’t sloppy or arrogant, she was following the same rules that other Secretaries of State had followed and — oh ferfucksake, You can read this is you’ve forgotten the details. It’s too exhausting to relitigate all over again. But I think we can all remember that he did not have nuclear fucking secrets on her server! Anyway…

This is the inescapable political context of this week’s indictment. The special counsel could have finished his investigation with a report detailing the extent of Mr. Trump’s recklessness and explained what secrets it could have exposed. Instead the Justice Department has taken a perilous path.

The charges are a destructive intervention into the 2024 election, and the potential trial will hang over the race. They also make it more likely that the election will be a referendum on Mr. Trump, rather than on Mr. Biden’s economy and agenda or a GOP alternative. This may be exactly what Democrats intend with their charges.

So, first, not indicting Trump would also have been a political act that impacted the 2020 race.

Second, is the argument that anyone who is a declared candidate for public office can never be charged with a crime?

Third, did the Editorial Board have this position vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton’s emails? Shockingly, no.

Republicans deserve a more competent champion with better character than Mr. Trump. But the indictment might make GOP voters less inclined to provide a democratic verdict on his fitness for a second term. Although the political impact is uncertain, Republicans who are tired of Mr. Trump might rally to his side because they see the prosecution as another unfair Democratic plot to derail him.

That, of course, is a real possibility. But so what? Should DOJ make indictment decisions based on how it’ll impact the Republican primaries? Really?

And what about the precedent? If Republicans win next year’s election, and especially if Mr. Trump does, his supporters will demand that the Biden family be next. Even if Mr. Biden is re-elected, political memories are long.

If Joe Biden commits crimes, he should be prosecuted for them. And, frankly, Republicans were investigating Hunter Biden even before the discovery of the documents at Mar-a-Lago. The notion that a legitimate prosecution justifies illegitimate ones is baffling.

It was once unthinkable in America that the government’s awesome power of prosecution would be turned on a political opponent. That seal has now been broken.

Again, this is simply shameful. Trump committed multiple crimes. He’s been charged with 37 counts! This is not criminalizing politics.

It didn’t need to be. However cavalier he was with classified files, Mr. Trump did not accept a bribe or betray secrets to Russia. The FBI recovered the missing documents when it raided Mar-a-Lago, so presumably there are no more secret attack plans for Mr. Trump to show off.

So, first, we have no idea whether he accepted a bribe or betrayed secrets to Russia. Second, we have no idea whether all the documents were recovered. But, even if we assume that the only crimes he’s committed are those he’s charged with, so what? You’re allowed to commit 37 crimes so long as you don’t commit actual treason?

The greatest irony of the age of Trump is that for all his violating of democratic norms, his frenzied opponents have done and are doing their own considerable damage to democracy.

There’s been zero “frenzy” here. Garland is, if anything, hyper-cautious. And allowing former Presidents to wantonly violate the law isn’t exactly great for democracy, either.

These people are trying to drive us all crazy. Their shamelessness is a powerful psychological weapon designed to produce rage and a feeling of total impotence in the face of it.

They know they are wrong. They know Trump is full of shit and the people who love him are either evil or brain damaged or both. But their lives are organized around supporting their team regardless of what they do.

There is literally nothing Donald Trump or … say, an American Hitler, could do that would shake their commitment. They stuck with him through “grab ’em by the pussy” to “I don’t know why he would” to “I’d like you to do me a favor, though” to “we won in a landslide” and “we’re going to march to the Capitol” and never wavered.

Shameless

Garth Brooks is selling Bud Light at his bar and says that the boycotters are assholes. The right is now calling for a boycott against Garth Brooks. Of course. (Read the comments to this…)

Look who’s making moral judgments about Garth Brooks:

I know, I know.

Garth does a great version of a Billy Joel song called “Shameless” and I think it’s called for right now:

How he commonly handled sensitive secrets

Apparently, some people think that one of the unnamed recipients of classified information in the Trump indictment was Kid Rock. It’s because of this interview from 2022 on Tucker Carlson’s show. But the event happened in 2017 so it was when Trump was president and has nothing to do with this indictment.

He does show just how cavalier he always was with government secrets.

In the 2022 interview, Rock said the embattled former business mogul asked him for assistance when writing a tweet about ISIS and probed the rocker on how he would handle North Korea – showing him maps in the Oval Office.

A 52-year-old Rock – whose real name is Bob Ritchie – is not the mystery person mentioned in the indictment, though the stories he told to Carlson do call into question Trump’s handling of top secret material.

Rock recalled one session with Trump when the now ex-president ‘ended the caliphate,’ a reference to the Islamic State terror group that took over parts of Iraq. 

‘He wanted to put out a tweet. And it was like – I don’t like to speak out of school, I hope I’m not – but he said something like … and I’m paraphrasing – but it was like, ‘If you ever joined the caliphate, and trying to do this, you’re going to be dead,” the rocker recalled. 

Trump asked Kid Rock his thoughts on the tweet, Kid Rock said. 

‘I go, ‘Awesome. Like, yes tweet that out.’ I was like, ‘I can’t add anything better than [that],” he said.

Rock – often a guest of Trump at the White House and a very public supporter of the President – said when the actual tweet came out it was ‘reworded and more political and like a little politically correct.’ 

He also said he and Trump would be ‘looking at maps and s**t.’ 

‘And I’m like – I’m like, ‘Am I supposed to be like in on this s**t?’ Kid Rock said. 

‘What do you think we should do about North Korea?’ Kid Rock also said he was asked. ‘I’m like, what? I don’t think I’m qualified to answer this.’ 

‘I make dirty records sometimes. What the f**k am I doing here?’ Kid Rock said of the pinch-me moments with the former commander-in-chief. 

The world get a little more dangerous

A lot of people have pooh-pooh’d the idea that Elon Musk’s degradation of twitter is of any real world importance and I’ve always thought that was ridiculous. No, it doesn’t really matter that a bunch of right wingers are hurling insults at everyone — what else is new?

But this does matter:

A viral hoax that briefly sent the stock market down last month apparently first gained traction on Twitter through a conspiracy-mongering, pro-Russian account.

The picture that grabbed attention on the morning of May 22, captioned “Large Explosion Near the Pentagon,” was generated by artificial intelligence without much sophistication, experts said. But it is probably a harbinger of things to come, especially as generative AI gets better at producing images to meet the demandsof anyone’s imagination.

Research by The Washington Post, misinformation tracking firm Alethea and othersfound that the earliest confirmed Twitter posting of the image came from an account called @CBKNEWS121. In its less than two years on Twitter, CBK has posted a grab-bag of references to QAnon and other baseless conspiracy theories, current events, and memes and statements praising former president Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. On May 3, it tweeted “I stand with Putin,” followed by a heart emoji.

CBK is in the new wave of Twitter accounts with blue check symbols that only mean the accounts were paid for but boost how often and how prominently their tweets appear. Taking advantage of other changes in Twitter standards and enforcement, some of the early amplifiers used the name of a real media organization to enhance credibility.

The hoax served the interests of some of the most significant forces behind viral misinformation — quick-buck artists and those who serve them, fringe attention-seekers and state propagandists — which can form long-running or ad hoc alliances that overwhelm the reduced watchdog staffing at the biggest social networks.

Until twitter just degrades to the point where nobody pays any attention to it at all, this is the sort of thing that could be catastrophic. It is quickly becoming the greatest propaganda tool in the world with AI becoming ever more sophisticated and virtually no standards at all. Thanks to Musk.

No Comparison

Trump and the MAGA wingnuts are hystericl screeching about Hillary Clinton’s emails again so it’s worth reminding everyone what it actually was about and comparing it to Trump’s bizarre classified documents case:

The obvious comparison that Republicans have, and will, make to Trump’s predicament is Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. The email server became a public controversy during her 2016 presidential campaign against Trump, with his rally crowds chanting “Lock her up,” a sentiment Trump said he was “starting to agree with” in July 2016. Trump ally Alex Jones sold “Hillary for prison” T-shirts.

The initial investigation into Clinton’s private email server revealed classified information had been shared in upwards of 2,000 email chains stored on the server. In making the server a campaign issue, Trump promised to enforce the law.

“In my administration, I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information,” Trump said in August 2016. “No one will be above the law.”

Trump’s repeated attacks on Clinton and promises of upholding the rule of law are cited in the indictment against him as evidence that he knew about the importance of enforcing the proper handling of classified information.

The investigation into Clinton’s private email server crescendoed when FBI Director James Comey’s July 2016 statement that although Clinton and her aides were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” no charges would be filed because “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Comey used such prosecutorial discretion because there was no evidence Clinton or her aides failed to turn over documents or that the server was set up to receive classified information and retain it and that there was little evidence that the documents deemed to be classified were properly marked as such when they were sent and received in her email.

Justice Department inspector general’s report on the investigation and the agency’s handling of it was released in June 2018, revealing that none of the emails contained clear classification markers as required under executive rules.

Just three email chains “contained any classification markings of any kind,” according to the IG report. The classified documents in these three chains were “call sheets” marked with the lowest priority of classification, providing reminders and talking points on scheduled calls between Clinton and foreign leaders.

It was also difficult for prosecutors to determine if Clinton and her aides intended to receive and retain classified information because the State Department’s email oversight and retention practices had been so poor for years that her actions were just normal practice.

Two State Department reviews conducted under Trump’s secretaries of state, Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo, also found that Clinton bore no “individual culpability” for any “spillage” of classified information and there was “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.”

Four investigations revealed that Clinton did not have forethought in her retention of classified information, just three of the emails on her server were even marked as classified when they were received and she complied with the Justice Department’s investigation fully. This is almost the exact opposite of what Trump is alleged to have done.

There’s more at the link comparing the Biden and Pence cases. And this Fact Check by Daniel Dale on Trump’s stupid claim that Biden has stashed 1850 boxes of classified documents is also informative.(Hint: they’re Senate papers held at the University of Delaware under he same rules and laws that govern all Senate records. Trump is full of shit as usual.)

The “whataboutism” is rampant and I’m sue it will have a political effect. Just look at this garbage — and he’s supposed to beone of the moderates:

Luckily the whole panel was shocked at his inane attempt to have it both ways. This is the correct response:

It’ the GOP “moderates'” job to clean up their party. And they refuse to do it.