Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

It’s Happening Right Now

Garret Graff wrote an op-ed for the NY Times today. (gift link)

We have seen much debate over the merits and timing of a legal case against Mr. Comey,but any such discussion misses the most important point: We don’t want to live in a country where the president of the United States dictates, publicly or privately, who should be targeted by federal prosecutors and then pressures any prosecutor unwilling to bring said politically motivated charges. The Justice Department and the attorney general are supposed to keep an arm’s length distance from the president, not be his personal score settlers.

[…]

Mr. Trump’s future plans are worryingly clear. Hours before the Comey charges became public, he signed an presidential memorandum that outlined how he hopes the full weight of the federal government will be turned against domestic terror groups. The sweeping order so twists the definition of “domestic terror” that it is likely the intent could be to sweep up progressive activist groups, think tanks, their funders (the MAGA bête noire George Soros appears a likely target) and groups like the League of Women Voters.

Graff explains further in his Substack today:

The oped grew out of a frustrating segment I did Wednesday night on CNN with Laura Coates, where the other two guests immediately got into the weeds about the strength of a Comey indictment and whether or not he deserved an indictment and whether there was a workable case against the former FBI director.

I argued that was all missing the point: The Comey indictment should stand as a bright line — President Trump decreed that Comey should be indicted and found a sycophantic lawyer who was willing to be appointed to a position she was manifestly unqualified for where her sole job is to undermine the Justice Department’s independence and do the president’s bidding. Over the objections of senior and career federal prosecutors, who said there was not a case here to be made under DOJ standards, he then was indicted.

That’s something we’ve never seen in modern times — and a line that every president since Richard Nixon has tried hard to stay way clear of. Exactly a month before the Comey indictment yesterday, I argued America has tipped over that invisible line into authoritarianism and fascism. It’s hard to think of a more clear example of an authoritarian regime than a political enemy being charged with crimes simply because the president wants him to be. As Peru’s fascist leader General Óscar Benavides famously said: “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”

Today we live in a country where the same standard applies.

It seems depressing to put it that way but I actually find it bracing. Better to be clear on where we are.

There are still vestiges of our constitutional republic that are working as we’ve seen this week. These people are working very quickly and they’re sloppy. The Comey indictment is ridiculous and if our courts are working properly it’s inconceivable that he will be convicted. Perhaps the country needs to see this play out in order to understand it.

ABC and Sinclair both backed off of canceling Kimmell largely, it appears, as a result of the economic blowback. People have power. If we are able to exercise that at the ballot box next year, we may be able to stop some of this before it is totally institutionalized.

The damage will be incalculable and it will take a great deal of imagination and energy over many years to create something new and better out of the rubble but it is possible as long as people realize that they still have the capacity to fight back.

An Important Right Wing Influencer Isn’t Wrong

Imagine that

If you read this blog regularly you know that Christopher Rufo is a very talented right wing propagandist. He’s a partisan operative with tremendous influence, one of the major leaders of messaging strategy for the GOP. Imagine my surprise to read the following which is actually a fairly level headed analysis of the recent spate of mass shootings, including Kirk’s.

Let me say upfront that his thinly veiled transphobia is predictably obtuse but considering what most of these people say on a daily basis, it’s pretty mild. But his overall analysis is right:

In recent years, a new form of terror has emerged: decentralized, digitally driven violence organized not around coherent ideologies but around memes, fantasies, and nihilistic impulses. The perpetrators of this low-grade terror campaign do not belong to hierarchical organizations or pursue concrete political aims. More often, they come from ordinary families and lash out in acts of violence without discernible purpose.

At the close of this summer, two such incidents underscored the trend: the attack on schoolchildren at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk in Orem, Utah. Though the first resembled the school-shooter archetype and the second evoked a JFK-style political assassination, both share psychological and sociological roots that make them more alike than they initially appear.

The new terror campaign is defined by a particular kind of psychopathology. It is perhaps tautological that anyone willing to kill innocent schoolchildren as they are praying or to assassinate a popular podcast host in broad daylight is pathological. But in these cases, both alleged killers—Robin Westman (formerly Robert Westman), and Tyler Robinson—left behind several warning signs that were psychological in nature.

Westman, the alleged Annunciation shooter, left a diary detailing fantasies and inner turmoil related to his transgender identity. While he decorated his weapons with pithy slogans, including “Kill Donald Trump,” “Burn Israel,” and “Nuke India,” these were memes and ironies, designed to give the appearance of ideology, concealing a potentially more disturbing motive. He was in the throes of a transgender identity crisis and had fantasized about being a demon and wanting to watch children suffer. The ideology was a brittle shell around a deeper emptiness that could only be satisfied with horror.

Robinson, Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin, reportedly spent thousands of hours playing video games, had an account on sexual fetish websites, and played a “dating simulator” game involving “furries,” muscular cartoon characters that are half-animal and half-man. Officials claim that Robinson had moved in with a boyfriend who identified as transgender and to whom he confessed the crime. Like Westman, Robinson inscribed slogans on the shell casings he used in the assassination, including a message about noticing the “bulge” of male genitalia through women’s clothing. The fact that Robinson waited until Kirk began to answer a question about transgender mass shootings seems to reinforce the point.

In addition to their shared fixation with transgenderism, both Westman and Robinson immersed themselves in peculiar digital subcultures. These online spaces were not hubs of Marxism—or even transgenderism, strictly speaking—but of memes, attitudes, copycatting, in-jokes, and irony that, in certain cases, spilled over into violence. Both men allegedly acted out their fantasies not to advance a coherent ideology shaped by study or political organizing but to gratify an obscure personal urge.

In a note to his transgender boyfriend, Robinson wrote that he wanted to stop Charlie Kirk’s “hate.” While this may hint at a nascent ideology, the remark was perfunctory and incidental to the crime. Robinson did not seek to change policy or dismantle a system of government. He seems instead to have wanted to kill a man who spoke openly about transgenderism and embodied a vague notion of “hate.”

Another striking pattern in these crimes is that, at least from initial reporting, the alleged perpetrators came from ordinary, middle-class, Middle American families. Westman’s mother, for example, was active in her Catholic parish in Minneapolis. These were not visibly broken homes but functional households that nonetheless produced monsters—what we might call “radical normie terrorism.”

Radical normie terrorism poses a new challenge for law enforcement. As a veteran FBI agent told me, domestic law enforcement has no systematic program to identify, assess, and respond to this kind of online radicalization. The Bureau still relies on old-fashioned methods—processing tips, knocking on doors, interviewing witnesses—and, in most cases, cannot intervene against disturbed individuals until after they strike.

These acts of terror reflect something dark in our nation’s soul. The perpetrators were so dissatisfied with their middle-class lives that they sought to destroy the highest symbols of their society: murdering children in church pews, an attack on God; and murdering a political speaker in cold blood, an attack on the republic.

Stopping similar killers in the future will be a major challenge. The Internet is hard to police and culture hard to reform. But we should keep the stakes in mind as we work to protect the things we love and grapple for a solution, however elusive it may seem.

Again, the focus on these two particular shooters’ transgender relationships is misplaced. There are many more examples of this phenomenon in which there is no transgender connection at all. But there is definitely something going on in these dark corners of the internet where alienated young people are finding an identity in violent nihilism and “meme culture.” And whatever is driving it aren’t the easy shibboleths about broken families and urban decadence. These people come from what appear to be, on the surface at least, the quintessential Real America.

It’s hopeful that someone in Rufo’s position is at least admitting that this isn’t ideological. Maybe there can be some common ground after all?

Dr. Trump Is On Call

If your kid has a fever just let it run. Sure there are serious complications from high fevers but Dr Trump knows best. The rest is completely incoherent and wrong but that’s ok too. His uncle taught at MIT.

Even Nixon didn’t give medical advice.

JD Vance’s America

Right:

Blood libel? Seriously? They act like thugs. Do they expect respect for this behavior? In front of her little kids…

This is happening every single day in cities and towns all over this country. It is depraved.

Whiskey Pete A Go Go

Who’s minding the store?

Headline at The Washington Post.

The Department of War(?) head Pete Hegseth in an extraordinary development has summoned top U.S. military brass stationed around world by the hundreds for an impromptu tête-à-tête. They’ll gather at Quantico Marine Base in Virginia on Tuesday. No one knows why. Nobody’s talking. You should be worried.

The order “applies to all senior officers with the rank of brigadier general or above, or their Navy equivalent, serving in command positions and their top enlisted advisers,” the Washington Post reports. That’s over 800, although it’s unknown how many must attend in person.

Newsweek adds:

Vice President JD Vance said Thursday the gathering is “not particularly unusual.” Asked about it during an Oval Office appearance, President Donald Trump appeared unaware of the details and said, “I’ll be there if they want me but why is that such a big deal?”

I can imagine apocalyptic reasons why it could be a big deal: a ham-fisted, Trumpy version of the Night of the Long Knives, the Katyn forest, or the Ba’ath Party Purge. But nobody in the Trump administration has the stomach for that, not even Stephen Miller.

Thinking about how in 1979 Saddam Hussein held a party conference in which his opponents were dragged out and soon executed, and everyone who was left inside was like "Oh yeah, we're on the team, you bet"

Paul Waldman (@paulwaldman.bsky.social) 2025-09-25T15:26:19.853Z

What else? In-person loyalty oaths? “I pledge allegiance to Donald Trump and to the Monarchy for which he stands”? In an administration otherwise inclined to fire people by social media post, could an in-person purge of the military be in the offing?

Greg Williams, the director of the Center for Defense Information at Project on Government Oversight, tells The Hill:

“It begs the question of why [Hegseth] would do something on such short notice and require so many people to show up in person,” Williams told The Hill. “The absence of public justification for something so unprecedented is in and of itself, a sort of concern.”

He added that the military normally doesn’t require such large, in-person meetings for a whole host of different reasons, including the disruption of ongoing operations, security and “just the sheer safety concerns of having that large a fraction of our military leadership all in one place,” calling it “really concerning.”

Fox News Weekend host Pete Hegseth at 2018 Student Action Summit hosted by Turning Point USA, back when heavy-handed government was bad. Photo by Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0).

USA Today brings readers up to speed on the former Fox News Weekend host’s Trumpy Pentagon makeover to date:

In February, he fired Air Force General C.Q. Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with five other admirals and generals in an unprecedented shake-up of U.S. military leadership.

Last month, Hegseth fired the head of the Pentagon’s intelligence agency and two other senior military commanders.

In May, Hegseth ordered a 20% reduction in the number of four-star officers. In that May memo, Hegseth said there would also be a minimum 20% reduction in the number of general officers in the National Guard and an additional 10% reduction among general and flag officers across the military.

“More generals and admirals does not lead to more success,” Hegseth said at the time.

Now, many of those generals and admirals will be in the same room.

Now, isn’t that a rather glaring strategic vulnerability? All the military’s top leadership away from their posts “in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns”? What must be going on in the minds of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping while U.S. generals from around the globe are engaged in a team building (or team eviscerating) exercise in Virginia?

Rumor has it that Hegseth is soon to publish a new defense strategy. That in itself should send shivers down our collective spine (and NATO’s and Ukraine’s). Might top brass be asked to sign on to the U.S. pulling back from strategic defense of key allies and trade routes or else find themselves purged as well?

Worst-worst case? Preparation for Trump invoking the Insurrection Act and declaring martial law, suggests podcaster Jack Hopkins, former Republican. It’s the first time I’ve run across this guy, so take it with a grain of salt, but here’s what he recommends to watch out for:

  1. Post-Meeting Talking Points lean on “civil order” and “homeland security.”
  2. National Guard federalization ramps up…governors sidelined.
  3. Rules of Engagement quietly shift to allow “crowd control” language.
  4. JAGs excluded from the meeting. (Lawyers in the room = legal brakes. Lawyers out = no brakes.)

And the guest list? “Any White House faces present? That’s an alarm,” warns Hopkins.

No problem. I’m already alarmed.

* * * * *

Have you fought dicktatorship today?

50501 
May Day Strong
No King’s One Million Rising movement – Next national day of protest Oct. 18
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink 
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense

Are You There Yet?

Pace yourselves

Via Spocko on Mastodon. (Yes, it’s still a thing.)

Defeating Trumpism is a marathon, not a sprint.

* * * * *

Have you fought dicktatorship today?

50501 
May Day Strong
No King’s One Million Rising movement – Next national day of protest Oct. 18
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink 
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense

Comey Indicted

Trump promised he would get vengeance and he’s getting it. Comey was indicted by a Grand Jury today for lying to Congress and obstructing justice. None of the career prosecutors appeared, it was only Trump’s pageant queen insurance lawyer and one US attorney and that’s because the office knows that this is a bogus case only being pursued because Donald Trump has ordered it. The previous USAT resigned rather than bring it.

Trump is celebrating:

How many will resign over this?

They have a big mission ahead of them:

He’s inciting his rabid followers to attack regular, everyday opponents.

This is where we are people. It’s bad. Very bad.

Shamelessness Is Their Superpower

I don’t know if they realize what they’re saying and are just trolling or if they have really lost touch with reality. They have prepared their MAGA audience to take everything they say at face value and never question the monumental hypocrisy of it all so I would guess they’re probably down the same rabbit hole by now.

It has literally come down to this:

A Challenge To The Media

TPM’s David Kurtz has some bracing thoughts about the now thoroughly corrupted DOJ. I felt it fully yesterday when I watched the press conferences about the Dallas shooter and realized that I simply had no faith in what the FBI and DOJ was saying about it. That’s frightening because while it’s always good to maintain skepticism about law enforcement I don’t think I’ve ever just assumed they were operating out of purely partisan motives before. I do now and for very good reason.

Anyway, Kurtz makes an important observation about all this:

The traditional journalistic practices for covering criminal investigations and prosecutions are not up to the task of dealing squarely with a president hijacking the Justice Department and using it to, variously, punish his political foes, reward his allies, and cover up his own corruption and that of those around him…

The key thing to remember is that we’re already well beyond the event horizon in the corruption of the Justice Department. If federal judges, having dispensed with the presumption of regularity in the functioning of the government, no longer give the Justice Department the benefit of the doubt in court, then we shouldn’t either.

The implications of that shift are enormous, but too many editors and producers are not fully grappling with them yet.

I think we all know why, starting with the clown show that is the FBI director. And the news media is inadvertently helping them:

The incremental drip-by-drip news coverage of criminal cases, especially in public corruption cases — a highly competitive news environment that rewards the best access and quickest trigger fingers — now does a public disservice. Continuing to cover bogus prosecutions in the traditional ways gives a veneer of legitimacy to what should be framed instead as illegitimate retribution, abuse of power, and public corruption in its own right.

If for days, weeks, and months in advance of charges being brought, news outlets allow themselves to be used to parcel out each investigative development and procedural step in a politicized prosecution, then they’re letting themselves be co-opted by the bad faith actors in service of smearing the putative target. If the average news consumer is seeing the same old headlines they’ve always seen in the run-up to an indictment, how are they to process it as anything other than a normal prosecution?

When prosecutions are driven by naked political considerations, as they are in the Trump DOJ, then every morsel of information is at risk of being part of the underlying propaganda effort to frame the target as a villain, to tar them as criminal, and to exact maximum extra-judicial punishment in the court of public opinion. Editors and producers had a chance to learn these lessons from, among other examples, the Trump I prosecutions of Michael Sussmann and Igor Danchenko, who were ultimately acquitted, and the corrupt pardons of those legitimately convicted in the Russia investigation. Distressingly, the lessons didn’t stick.

Kurtz uses the example of John Bolton pointing out that we’ve known he was a Trump target for retribution for a very long time. Kurtz wonders how this case should be covered if it’s determined that Bolton did have some classified documents even in light of the fact that we know he was fingered for being a Trump critic.

The answer can’t be to ignore court proceedings entirely. Those proceedings, more than anything else, may reveal the corrupt nature of the prosecution. And yet, the advantage (as it always has) still runs toward the government in these scenarios. Court filings unsealed this week showed the inventory of things that the FBI recovered from Bolton’s home and office. Among them, allegedly, were documents with classification markings.

You can cover the Bolton case like you might have the Sandy Berger case, another national security adviser involved in unauthorized retention of national security documents. But you would, of course, be mostly missing the point. Or you could cover the Bolton prosecution as corrupt, as it certainly is. Or you could attempt to cover it as both, not an easy choice given the inherent tensions in the framing, the confusion it could create in readers, and the fact that actual wrongdoing by the target doesn’t justify a corrupt predicate to the investigation.

(Bolton’s lawyer said that these documents were very old and had been declassified long ago, by the way.)

He doesn’t have any answers and God knows that I don’t. I think this is the best we can do for the moment but we’d better figure it out:

I hate to urge something as anodyne as greater awareness of the inadequacies of the old way of covering criminal cases, but for now it’s a start. And perhaps it’s less about amorphous awareness and more about basic humility. We’re up against a terrifyingly corrupt president abetted by a deeply compromised Supreme Court. It’s going to take new tools and different applications of the old tools to confront the threat we face. No shame in that.

Not only is there no shame — there is tremendous honor in trying to tell the truth about what’s going on and putting it in context for the American people. I thought that’s what journalism was supposed to be.