Month: June 2024

Overwhelming corruption:

Former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner engaged in a “level of corruption that we’ve just never seen” when talking about his firm’s recent investments overseas. 

Rhodes made the comment when asked about The New York Times’s recent reporting that detailed that 99 percent of Kushner’s investment fund’s money came from foreign sources. The outlet also reported Kushner is working on developing hotels in the Balkans, specifically in Serbia and Albania, and noted that the firm has taken money from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

“I mean, look, this is not subtle corruption that we’re looking at,” Rhodes told MSNBC’s Alex Wagner during his Wednesday appearance on “Alex Wagner Tonight.”

“This is a guy, Jared Kushner, who had no expertise, no qualification whatsoever to be in the White House while he was there. He made it his account to work in the Gulf Arab states. He basically helped lead the cover-up for [Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman]. Get him in from the cold after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.”

Rhodes said Kushner securing a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia six months after leaving the White House is a way for Crown Prince Mohammed to exert influence on U.S. foreign policy if Trump returns to the Oval Office after the November election.

“Basically, what we can take from that investment is that in a second Trump term, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and around the world will be made entirely with the interests of Mohammed bin Salman in mind,” Rhodes said. 

More news on the Jared front from Michel Isikoff:

After weathering criticism over its reliance on a gusher of Saudi cash, Jared Kushner’s investment fund made its first big splash last month when it announced it had signed a $500 million deal with the Serbian government to develop a high end real estate project in downtown Belgrade on the site of a bombed down army building destroyed during the 1999 Kosovo war.

But the fine print of the deal includes a commitment that seems destined to stir up even more international controversy: a pledge by Kushner’s firm, Affinity Partners, to construct a “memorial dedicated to all the victims of NATO aggression”— an allusion to the U.S.-backed bombing campaign that brought the Serbian government of Slobodan Milosevic to its knees a quarter century ago in response to its relentless campaign of repression and savage massacres of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

Among those exercised over the Kushner deal is retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who served as NATO Supreme Allied Commander during the war.

While he has no objection to a U.S. firm investing in Serbia, the planned revisionist memorial—officially proclaiming America’s adversary in the war to have been a victim of  “aggression”— “is worse than a reversal” of U.S. policies in the region, said Clark in an interview with SpyTalk. “It’s a betrayal of the United States, its policies and the brave diplomats and airmen who did what they could to stop Serb ethnic cleansing.” 

Just as concerning as the whitewashing of Serbian war crimes, Clark said, is the just announced deal between Kushner’s firm and the Serbian government of Aleksander Vučić, a pro-Russian hardliner who once served as minister of information in Milosevic’s government. The memorial project needs to be viewed in a wider geopolitical context: It serves the Kremlin’s core interests in undermining NATO at a time the alliance is engaged in resisting Russian aggression in Ukraine.

Neither Kushner nor representatives of his Miami-based firm responded to requests for comment. But the remarks by Clark are likely to draw further attention to a project that has generated strong  criticism from Serbian opposition leaders as well as questions about potential conflicts of interest if Kushner’s father in law, Donald Trump (for whom he is once again raising money) is elected president in November.

They are all criminals. Every last one of them.

Sadly, yes…

Republicans used to call themselves the moral majority.

Last week, Donald Trump was convicted on 34 felony charges in the hush-money case against him. Compared to before the verdict, the biggest changes we found in a post-conviction poll conducted between May 31 and June 2 are in Republicans’ positions on felony, crime in general, and the presidency. They have shifted in a way that puts the verdict in a more favorable light and keeps Trump’s candidacy viable. For example, fewer Republicans think it should be illegal to pay hush money for the purposes of influencing an election than did a year ago, and more now say felons should be allowed to become president than did a few months ago.

Sigh…

Trump: Wouldn't it be terrible to throw the president's wife and the former secretary of state into jail? Wouldn't that be a terrible thing? It's a terrible, terrible, path that they're leading us to. And it's very possible that it's going to have to happen to them. pic.twitter.com/P0bRL6jurF

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 5, 2024

He then said “Some people said I should have done it. Would have been very easy to do it. But I thought it would be a terrible precedent for our country.”

Philip Bump responds:

This is nonsense. Trump’s administration did attempt to effect legal retribution against his opponents, including Clinton. It wasn’t that he didn’t try, it was that it wasn’t “very easy” to do.

Trump came into office railing against the intelligence community and the FBI because of the investigation into Russian interference that was publicly reported soon after he won the 2016 election. He fired FBI Director James B. Comey in an explicit effort to kneecap that probe, resulting in the appointment of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Mueller ultimately determined that there were links between Trump’s campaign and Russian actors, and that the campaign embraced Russia’s assistance, but that there was no coordination that violated the law.

But from the outset — even before Mueller was appointed — Trump decided this was all a “witch hunt.” He’d wanted Attorney General Jeff Sessions to uproot it, but Sessions recused himself from decisions related to the probe. This was repeatedly frustrating to Trump, who wanted Sessions to reverse his recusal “so that Sessions could direct the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute Hillary Clinton,” as Sessions told Mueller’s investigators.

After the 2018 election, Sessions was booted and, a few months later, William P. Barr was brought in. Barr had voluntarily written a letter to Trump criticizing the Mueller probe before his appointment; he spent much of the rest of Trump’s term attempting to prove it had been a political hit job.

He tasked U.S. Attorney John Durham — eventually elevated to a special counsel after Trump lost his reelection bid — to suss out the real triggers for the Russia investigation. Durham made no significant progress in this regard, but he did spend a great deal of energy attempting to position Clinton as a central trigger for the probe.

The idea was that the Clinton campaign’s elevation of questions about Trump’s links to Russia (including a quickly discredited rumor involving a Russian bank) was the point of origin for such questions. The reality, as Mueller established and as a report from the Justice Department inspector general reinforced, was that there were numerous links between Trump’s team and Russia and that there was an obvious effort by Russia to upend the election. Durham brought charges against an attorney linked to Clinton. The attorney was acquitted.

Last year, the New York Times’s Charlie Savage explained that the pivot to focusing on Clinton came only after Durham was unable to uncover nefarious intent on the part of the FBI.“By keeping the investigation going,” Savage wrote, “Mr. Barr initially appeased Mr. Trump, who, as Mr. Barr recounted in his memoir, was angry about the lack of charges as the 2020 election neared.”

The evidence wasn’t there — and then they ran out of time.

Bump goes on to lay out all the reasons why there will be much more of this if he’s re-elected. First, he won’t have to worry about re-election. Either he will adhere to the Constitution or he will simply refuse to leave. So there’s that.

He’ll hand pick a bootlicking, MAGA Attorney General who will eagerly do whatever he tells them to do. And he’ll get rid of anyone on the DOJ who stands in the way.

Most importantly, he’ll have the total backing of the official Republican Party and the right wing media. As Bump writes:

The Washington Post on Tuesday detailed how his allies hope to exact revenge against Trump’s prosecutors. The New York Times on Wednesday listed prominent voices calling for a re-inaugurated President Trump to use federal power against his opponents. Many of them use the language Trump presented to Kelly: Look what you made us do. But, again, Trump had already tried to do it — perhaps along multiple avenues.

He will do it. Trump’s philosophy of life is based upon vengeance. It has been since he was a very young man.

This is really getting terrifying:

Julie Adams, a member of the Fulton County election board, filed her lawsuit on May 22 with the help of lawyers from America First Policy Institute, a pro-Trump think tank. The lawsuit seeks access to voting records that Adams says she was denied by Fulton County’s election director, Nadine Williams, and also seeks the court’s ruling on whether Adams’ duty to certify election results is up to her discretion. 

Adams’ lawsuit specifically requests that the judge “clarify” that her “duties are, in fact, discretionary, not ministerial.”

This MAGA flunky wants the “discretion” to overturn the election results.

[…]

The Adams lawsuit is an attempt to pave the way for Republican election officials to deny election results en masse — a fundamental part of Trump’s strategy of baselessly questioning election results and making claims of widespread voter fraud. According to Axios, the Republican National Committee has been staffing up lawyers, legal observers, and poll watchers to “gather string for lawsuits challenging the results of the Nov. 5 vote.” The RNC “plans to hire more people for the operation than for any other department it has,” Axios reported. 

It sure doesn’t sound like a confident campaign to me.

Let’s hope not. It never works out very well

Tomorrow marks the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landing at Normandy France, where approximately 160,000 Allied troops successfully pulled off the largest invasion by sea in history. From that point on America was in charge of allied forces and it was the beginning of the end of the war. When you travel to that battlefield and visit other WWII memorials and cemeteries in Europe you will see what great care is taken to ensure the memories of those sacrifices are honored with daily maintenance and respect.

This is likely to be the last big D-Day celebration featuring WWII veterans who are almost all centenarians at this point. Some are travelling to the ceremonies and will be honored by all the dignitaries in attendance which will include President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and King Charles II of Britain among others.

Russian President Vladimir Putin was not invited due to the invasion of Ukraine which is somewhat ironic since back in 1944 the Soviet Union was one of the allied countries fighting Germany. Of course, it wasn’t long after the war that NATO was formed to provide a formal, ongoing alliance to assure the collective security of its members in the wake of Soviet machinations in Eastern Europe and Berlin.

The bond between the US, Canada and Europe has been strong ever since that cataclysmic event 8 decades ago, at least until recently. Today Europe is bewildered by what is happening to its American allies. And you can’t blame them. Most Americans wonder the same thing.

Donald Trump had no idea about the historical significance of the term “America First” when he first started saying it, believing erroneously that he’d thought up the slogan himself even though he’d no doubt heard it somewhere during his 77 years. Before the US entered the war the America First Committee was the name of the right wing isolationist movement and many of it members also happened to be just a little bit taken with that strongman fella from Germany.

In fact, there was quite a large political faction which was all in on der Fuehrer and as Rachel Maddow brilliantly laid out in her award winning podcast “Ultra” most of them were America Firsters. They didn’t try to hide it:

Trump has said that he “just liked the expression” America First and he isn’t an isolationist. His ignorance of history and foreign policy has led him to simply denounce wars that were begun during other president’s terms because he doesn’t know what else to say. But to the extent he has a philosophy about interventionism at all it’s that America should “win” wars and then “take the resources.” Oh, and allies should pay protection money if they want the United States to adhere to its treaty commitments. NATO members have heard him loud and clear when he said this recently:

One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?” I said, “You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?” He said, “Yes, let’s say that happened.” “No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.”

I’m sure it’s not necessary to point out that NATO members don’t pay dues and can’t be “delinquent. ” (And it’s especially rich for the notorious deadbeat Trump to lecture anyone about paying bills.)

The Europeans weren’t exactly surprised by his shocking statement. After all, the US Congress just delayed financing for Ukraine for months because a group of American First politicians refused to vote for it. Neither will they be shocked to see the MAGA members in the US House of Representatives voted against funding for the NATO security investment program this week. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., obviously even more ignorant of both history and current events than Trump, said on the floor:

America should not be sending out hundreds of millions of dollars to international organizations to help them fight their enemies, especially when they are unwilling to fight for themselves.

The money is actually to support infrastructure for US troops overseas, and it did manage to pass. But the world is watching.

The Atlantic’s McCay Coppins has published a piece on how the Europeans are viewing the current state of our politics. He spent weeks talking to leaders, activists and journalists in various countries this spring and the consensus seems to be that we have finally gone over the edge. For some reason they’re all convinced that Trump has the election in the bag (probably from reading the US mainstream media) and that an American pull out from NATO is inevitable. In the wake of Russian aggression in Ukraine and Putin’s broad hints about possible incursions into Eastern Europe, they are nervous and anxious that the United States is no longer committed to democratic values and is abandoning its role as a security guarantor to pursue a solely self-interested, transactional relationship with the rest of the world.

As they told Coppins over and over again in country after country, this represents an existential problem for them. Marjorie Greene’s comments about them being unwilling to fight for themselves to the contrary, they are starting to talk about arming up, including obtaining a nuclear arsenal which is one of the reasons the US decided after WWII to take the responsibility as security guarantor. The last thing this world needs is more nuclear armed countries but that’s exactly what we’re going to get if the US pulls out. Trump and his movement don’t understand that.

Joe Biden does understand it. In an interview with TIME Magazine this week he said this:

I’ve always believed that there are two elements to American security, and the biggest element, and our normative example, is our alliances, our alliances. We are—we have, compared to the rest of the world, we have put together the strongest alliance in the history of the world, number one. Number two, we’re in a situation where we are able to move in a way that recognizes how much the world has changed and still lead the world. And it’s our security.

As we commemorate the 80th Anniversary of D-Day tomorrow I would hope that some people on the right who know better would set their personal ambition aside for a moment and contemplate one of the reasons that horrific slaughter happened in the first place. Coppins quotes NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg:

“The United States left Europe after the First World War,” he said, adding, with a measure of Scandinavian understatement, “That was not a big success.”

It would be a massive mistake to put this new America First movement in charge of the US government. They have far more in common with the original than people realize. The results could be catastrophic.

Salon

When Trump shows you who he is….

Steve Benen examines Donald Trump’s recent campaign rhetoric about imprisoning political opponents:

Last year, as his legal crises intensified, Donald Trump grew explicit about his intentions to retaliate against his perceived foes with politically motivated criminal cases. In September 2023, for example, the former president suggested he’d have “no choice” but to prosecute his political opponents in a possible second term.

The Republican added soon after that when prosecutors took steps to hold him accountable for his crimes, “what they’ve done is they’ve released the genie out of the box.” (I assume he meant “bottle.”) This came on the heels of Trump vowing to appoint a “real” special prosecutor to go after President Joe Biden and his family.

That’s all Trump means by “Great Again.” Be cruel and criminal enough that no one will dare cross him. That’s it. Sell ’em snake oil. Deliver retribution. Commit more crimes as president for his own sick pleasure and for MAGA’s entertainment. He plans to turn the U.S, as Rome turned, from “from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust.”

Trump told Newsmax in a Tuesday interview:

“So, you know, it’s a terrible, terrible path that they’re leading us to, and it’s very possible that it’s going to have to happen to them,” Trump said when discussing his guilty verdict.

“Does that mean the next president does it to them? That’s really the question,” he added.

Why does such bluster matter? Benen explains:

1. Trump is promising to abuse the system. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee is talking about deliberately trying to prosecute his perceived political foes, not because there’s evidence of them doing anything wrong, but because he was held accountable for his own crimes and feels the need to retaliate. Trump is, in other words, effectively promising voters that he’ll commit impeachable offenses.

2. Trump already tried do in the recent past what he’s promising to do in the near future. While in office, the Republican went to great lengths to weaponize federal law enforcement in the hopes of seeing his opponents get prosecuted without cause. Those efforts fell short, but Trump intends to learn from the failures and have greater prosecutorial success in a second term.

3. Republicans are on board. If there was a point in which GOP officials were uncomfortable with the idea of Trump deliberately abusing the powers of the presidency and using the levers of power to retaliate against his domestic enemies, that point has since passed: Too many Republican policymakers are now enthusiastic proponents of retaliatory prosecutions based on conspiracy theories that don’t make any sense.

4. The logic is stark raving mad. To hear Trump tell it, fair is fair: Since he was prosecuted by critics, it stands to reason that he can return the favor if he’s returned to power. But that’s not how any of this works. If a police officer arrested a thief caught in the act of stealing a car, it does not mean that the thief would be justified in trying to later arrest the police officer. The suspected criminal could not credibly go to court and argue, “Well, the cop released the genie out of the box.”

Logic has nothing to do with it. Law has nothing to do with it. Emotionally stunted and feral at what pea-sized core he possesses, Trump the Petulant means to strike back at those what done him wrong for his wrongdoing. How dare they.

Benen concludes:

5. Trump is proving Biden right: President Joe Biden and his re-election campaign are eager to make the case that Trump is an authoritarian who intends to undermine our justice system and abandon the rule of law. The more the Republican talks about prosecuting his foes without cause, the more he proves Biden right.

Trump cares little about being right. He cares a lot about getting even.

Makes your American hearts swell, doesn’t it?

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.

Stop the handwringing

A friend asked yesterday if we have a chance this election.

Well, considering we (local Democrats) have over three dozen candidates on our fall ballot, we have a lot of chances, I said. What he meant, of course, was the race atop the ballot featuring Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

Buck the f#&k up! Voters want to support winners. Maybe start acting like winners?

Do Republicans doubt themselves like this? Hell, no. They declare themselves winners before all the votes are counted. They try to litigate (or intimidate) wins when they’ve clearly lost. They are acting like 2024 winners even now, after a string of high-profile, post-2016 losses and with a presidential candidate just convicted of 34 felonies, three more cases pending, and more charges on the way.

Ed Kilgore rolls his eyes at New York magazine:

One of the most notable aspects of the 2024 presidential contest has been how often voices have been raised in the left-of-center commentariat calling on Democrats to abort Joe Biden’s reelection campaign before it’s too late. In February, the New York Times’ Ezra Klein created an enormous buzz with a podcast episode suggesting that Biden “step aside” and let his party choose a more electable (and non-octogenarian) nominee. My colleague Jonathan Chait has discussed this possibility as well. And the idea was raised again quite recently by polling-maven-turned-pundit Nate Silver:

If Biden is still struggling in August he needs to consider stepping aside.

It's not a great situation for Ds either way, but you have to do due diligence on the question. It's an important election, obviously. It shouldn't be taboo to talk about. https://t.co/JaJvtLFuQt

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) May 23, 2024

I’m on record as raining on this particular parade for multiple reasons, including the overreaction to marginally adverse polls it represents, the extremely unlikely Biden self-defenestration it would require, and the lack of any Democratic consensus on a “replacement” nominee. But if it’s odd how many Democrats have proved ready to panic and consider previously unimaginable survival strategies after a few bad polls, it’s downright weird that there is no such talk in Republican ranks after that party’s presumptive presidential nominee was found guilty of 34 felony criminal charges. Might that prove to be a problem in November? And if so, might Republicans, who frequently complain that the nation cannot survive another four years of Joe Biden as president, do well to choose someone from their own “bench” who has somehow managed never to be indicted for and convicted of a crime?

MAGA Republicans present a united front behind the most vile candidate in presidential history while running on the most anti-American agenda since secession. They reject the very notion of equal rights, flirt openly with overturning the Constitution, deny the rule of law can touch them, and plan to turn the country into an autocracy worthy of Viktor Orbán, if not worse. MAGA Republicans are The People of the Lie, a collective, blank-eyed rejection of all that is good and holy in this imperfect republic. And Democrats doubt themselves?

Trump’s convictions have yet to seep into national consciousness, but will as soon as Americans have time and attention to spare. Joe Biden is a decent man, a dedicated public servant and — dare we say it? — a real Real American™, flaws and all.

Back in drag racing’s heyday, they used to invite amateur fans to “run what ya brung” and go for it. The die is cast. Commit to it. Reach inside and find that reservoir of grit. Live the plot point where the reluctant hero sets her/his jaw, the eyes go fiery, and determination settles in their guts. Read some Simon Rosenberg, for heaven’s sake.

Republicans are in unshakable solidarity with Donald Trump despite his criminal record because they truly don’t see an alternative path. And that’s true even if they privately fear he will lead them to defeat, and after that, to another denial of defeat that could end in another attempted insurrection or at a minimum in horrific civil discord. For all their famed irresolution, proneness to panic, and “bed-wetting” tendencies, Democrats still belong to a party where free speech is possible. If their nominee was convicted of multiple felonies, at least some Democrats would be looking actively and publicly for a replacement. But Republicans belong to a cult of personality where any hint of rebellion is punished ruthlessly. And that’s the party that will take power with Trump if he manages to get back into the White House.

Be the freakin’ heroes of your own stories.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.

I’m confident that no one who was on Trump’s Manhattan jury reads this site but if they do, I am begging them to stay anonymous. Maybe some day, if we ever get past this MAGA Madness and half the country recovers some basic sense of decency, they might give an interview. But not now. Don’t do it.

As Josh Marshall writes:

Trump supporters are trotting out any number of responses to Trump’s string of felony convictions last week. One of the most perverse and malign is the demand or “request” for jurors to come forward and explain their reasoning. Part of the idea is to suggest that the logic of the verdict is obscure or hard to justify and thus requires explanation. “Can you explain how you came to this very hard to understand verdict?” Neither is the case. The logic of the verdict is very straightforward. There may be some room for debate about how the judge interpreted the relevant law. But within those interpretations the jury verdict is elementary. The other part is to suggest something odd or suspicious in the fact that none of the jurors have yet gone public in the press.

It’s an apt illustration of the mix of disingenuousness and predation that is at the heart of Trumpism. Perhaps one of these jurors will come forward to discuss the case. It’s entirely their right to do so. But who could honestly question why they might not want to? Even by the standards of other high-profile court cases, doing so could be reasonably interpreted as an act of self-harm.

The one I saw was from Trump lackey Byron York who framed his “request” with appeals to their patriotism. To hell with that. They did their duty. They have no obligation to put their lives at risk over it.

Philip Bump noticed an interesting bit from Trump’s Fox and Friends Weekend interview:

There was an element of the discussion, though, that hasn’t attracted much attention. It centered on a question from Rachel Campos-Duffy, co-host of “Fox & Friends Weekend,” the show on which the interview first aired.

“Americans have lost a lot of trust in institutions, and I think there’s been a lot of discussion, especially online, especially with young people,” Campos-Duffy began. “How do we rebuild that trust in institutions — the CIA, the FBI — all those institutions?”

“You’re right,” Trump replied — but before he could answer, Campos-Duffy jumped ahead.

“Some people think that one way to build trust is to declassify things that everyone’s talking about,” she said. Then she offered a rapid-fire list of things he might be interested in declassifying, putatively to restore trust in institutions.

“Would you declassify the 9/11 files?” she asked, to which Trump replied, “Yeah.”

“Would you declassify JFK files?” she continued, again yielding a “yeah.” But this time, Trump appended: “I did. I did a lot of it.”

This is a good reminder that Trump had the opportunity to declassify this information previously but — particularly in the case of material related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy — didn’t.

“Would you declassify the Epstein files?” Campos-Duffy asked, referring to the disgraced financier who was linked to some prominent Americans.

“Yeah,” Trump replied. “Yeah, I would.”

Next up was a question from host Pete Hegseth … at least in the program that aired. A fuller version of the interview posted on YouTube shows that Trump had more thoughts on Epstein.

“I guess I would,” Trump continued in the YouTube version. “I think that less so because, you know, you don’t know — you don’t want to affect people’s lives if it’s phony stuff in there, because it’s a lot of phony stuff with that whole world.”

Among those who have been linked to Epstein, of course, is former president Donald Trump. No wonder he’s cautious about reminding Campos-Duffy that, hey, if you declassify things, some people might get the wrong impression.

“Do you think that would restore trust? Help restore trust?” Campos-Duffy asked.

“I don’t know about Epstein so much as I do the others,” Trump responded.

Gosh, I wonder why he doesn’t want to release the Epstein stuff? “Phony stuff” huh? Really? How would he know?

The piece by Bump is about trump sowing mistrust in institutions and it’s really on point. This is just one of the examples he used. But I find it very, very interesting that Trump is willing to spill the beans about everything in the US Government (including, as we know, plans to attack Iran and nuclear secrets) but he thinks maybe the Epstein stuff should be kept under wraps. I don’t suppose it has anything to do with the fact that most famous of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre was recruited for sex trefficking from her place of employment: Mar-a-Lago.

Nah.

That’s a quote from an article in the New Yorker about people who are sticking with Trump even though he’s a convicted criminal.

I love the fact that he cites Tony Soprano, the ridiculously fucked-up, penny ante, murderous gangster. It fits but I didn’t think anyone would want such a fool to run the United States of America. I don’t think it’s any accident that he didn’t pick a more standard right wing anti-hero like Dirty Harry. He was a cop and they’re not really sure about them anymore. Best go with the straight-up mobsters.

These people don’t actually want a “shock to the system.” They just want somebody to punish their enemies, period. And that’s you. And me.

Amanda Marcotte had a great piece the other day on this subject:

As the trial progressed, Trump escalated far beyond his tired litany of claims that everything was “rigged” against him, though he kept that pattern up. He’s been experimenting by trying to cast himself as a rakish outlaw. He wants voters to imagine his crimes are about standing up to a corrupt system. In reality, he is corruption embodied; a man who has never acted on anything but self-interest and who only evades justice by paying people off, usually in promised (if infrequently actualized) political favors. 

“Trump Leans Into an Outlaw Image as His Criminal Trial Concludes,” read a New York Times headline on Tuesday. In it, reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonah Bromwich outlined how Trump was laying the groundwork, pre-verdict, to spin a guilty verdict into what he hopes is an electoral asset. He’s “surrounding himself with accused criminals and convicts,” they reported, even bringing the notorious Hell’s Angel gangster, Chuck Zito, to trial with him. They note that Trump now valorizes “those prosecuted for storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021,” and that he has sold merchandise featuring his mug shot after his Georgia arrest for his coup efforts in that state. Trump’s tendency to celebrate his own criminality is so extensive that Haberman and Bromwich overlook some important examples, like how Trump repeatedly compares himself to murderous gangster Al Capone or waxes poetic about how much he adores fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter. 

No doubt there’s a long history of Americans romanticizing criminals, going back at least to Jesse James or Billy the Kid, who became icons of the Wild West. In the early 20th century, bank robbers like Bonnie and Clyde often became folk heroes. While Mafia movies like “Goodfellas” or “Scarface” usually conclude with the downfall of their criminal anti-heroes, all too often fans focus only on the early parts of the movies, when the bad guys are riding high, before the law and their own demons catch up with them. Most recently, we witnessed how all too many people thought Walter White was the hero of “Breaking Bad,” instead of a character study condemning the darkness that lurks inside many otherwise “upstanding” citizens. 

But even by those standards, there’s good reason to hope Trump’s attempt to cast himself as a charming rogue will fall flat. For one thing, his images from the court are of a tired, elderly man with bad hair and makeup. This is not Warren Beatty sexily robbing a bank as Clyde Barrow or a 2003-era Johnny Depp winking at the camera as pirate Jack Sparrow. But more importantly, Trump’s crimes aren’t a daring good time. They’re just the pathetic scramblings of a loser trying to avoid being exposed as the fraud he is

He’s not a romantic outlaw. He’s this: