I do think the PRA stuff needs to be put in its proper context and the WSJ just flailed at it. Basic principles - the PRA helps divide up who owns what when it comes to Presidential papers. This was passed to avoid the post-Nixon mess where the government actually paid him millions to make sure it retained access to his tapes and papers. Even if one makes the crazy assumption that the former President somehow retained ownership of most or all of the stuff in “his boxes” - if it’s classified/national defense info, the government still makes the rules about where and how it’s kept and whether people without clearances can see it. It may come as news to folks, but the private sector owns trillions of dollars of classified info. Nuclear power plant designs, satellite technology, how to build an F-35 - this info is all owned by corporations. It doesn’t mean that the CEO can take the blueprints home and leave them in her bathroom. All just a long way of saying I’ve learned a lot more by paying attention to Josh and Ken White on this stuff than I do by perusing the cable news networks who often devote minutes/hours/days to diversionary issues like these.
I just think of all the things Trump might have lifted from the White House, that it should have been documents - that must really have been taken capriciously, at random, since he famously doesn't read - is the most bizarre aspect. Ashtrays, WH flatware, stuff like that I could see.
Well said. To those who say Trump should be excused from this or that law because politics, I say: "Okay - amend the statute. Write down exactly how the statute should be revised to excuse Trump's conduct in this case (or the many other potential cases). And while you're at it, explain how to reconcile giving Trump a pass with the American credo that no one is above the law." I'm not holding my breath.
It's astounding to me that in a country born from a rebellion against monarchy, so many people are eager to treat the President as a de facto King.
Acknowledging who/what Trump is would mean admitting what kind of person they've been supporting the last 7 years, so doubling down is the easiest option.
Like I said above, he is the manifestation of his base's collective Id. That's why they love him so much. I've found that when you talk to a lot of the MAGA crowd one-on-one, in private, most will admit he's a clown, a liar, and a criminal, but they love him because he "owns the libs," fighting the silly culture wars they wish they could fight.
“The WSJ is right to say the 2024 election is likely to be a referendum on Trump and his crimes, and they’re right to think that’s worse for the country than having an election that’s actually about policy issues.”
I was a child Republican from a Republican family, who’s now (and has been for a couple decades) a liberal who votes for Democrats. Biden was my 5th or 6th choice in 2020, depending on day of the week. Of course I voted for him in 2020.
That’s one more data point that elections at the national level, at least, aren’t about policies. At least not the policy an individual voter prefers.
Another data point is 2016, when Hilary’s personality (and gender) got in the way of her winning, at least enough for the 77,000 votes that doomed her. And us.
Policy is for local elections, which is why there is even lower turnout there.
Same. My favorite politicians are mostly moderate conservatives (Charlie Baker, Chris Sununu) and I want lower taxes without drama, which should make me a conservative. But at the federal level it’s just not a GOP offering
Hearing one side of a story and then coming to a conclusion is easy. Hearing both sides can be just as simple, and given the evidence, that might be the case here. But we have not heard both sides and should not conclude how the public might respond to a more complete picture. Nothing would be more refreshing for our democracy than for everyone to realize that the crimes are serious and that the former president should be penalized. Except, perhaps, if we repeated the same exercise for other politicians who might be accused of mishandling documents.
I agree patience is generally good and to wait for Trump's side of the case.
But so far he has gone out to defend himself politically and has offered no contestation of the facts. Really nobody is arguing the facts at all, neither here nor in the NY case. And that's what makes the NY case so weak and this case so strong. In NY people are arguing the legal issues around the accepted facts. That's really not a place to be in for the first prosecution of a former president. It should be very clearly squarely in the case of "this is illegal and it's not unusual for us to prosecute people for the same thing."
That's why Smith's indictment is so damning and Bragg's is such weak sauce.
Sure, but what do you imagine the other side might be? To date, I've yet to hear Trump assert any legally cognizable defense, and he doesn't seem the type to hold his cards close to the vest so you would think if he had such a defense we would have heard it by now. He's claimed he declassified all of the documents in question, but declassification would not be a legally valid defense under the applicable statutes. He's claimed the documents are his property, but that is obviously not the case with respect to national security documents prepared by governmental agencies. He's claimed he cooperated with NARA and the FBI, but has offered no explanation for why the FBI found so many national security documents after Trump certified that all relevant documents had been returned.
I think it's clear that Trump's strategy will be to pursue jury nullification by claiming that witnesses are lying, that the FBI fabricated or planted documents, and by bloviating about the "deep state," "Hillary's emails," and the "Biden Crime Family." He will resort to the old maxim attributed to Carl Sandburg that "If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell."
Jury nullification happens only when the jury believes you're guilty but refuses to convict. If Trump convinces [one member of] the jury that the FBI fabricated or planted documents or that witnesses are lying, that wouldn't be nullification.
It’s hard not read your admonishment of the WSJ editorial page and their utter obsequiousness to Trump and think “Forget it Jake, it’s the Wall Street Journal editorial page”.
Fine analysis! This indictment reminds me of a story Howard Baker used to tell about a Tennessee sheriff who comes home with a long face after a day on the campaign trail. His wife says Pa, you're looking peaked. What's the matter? He replies, Ma they're telling lies about me and they're proving them.
Lunch pail Joe should be looking a little peaked too. Hunter's laptop is real. So are the irregularity reports filed with Treasury. So are the banking records the Rs are chasing down. They are documents that can't be cross-examined. Then there's Tony Bobolinski and the whistleblowers, ready to testify under oath. Pay-to-play is a crime, just like obstruction of justice.
Merrick Garland will ultimately have to decide where his loyalties lie; to his president or to the institution he heads.
Once upon a time I clerked for US District Court Judge Clarence W. Allgood, in Birmingham Alabama, who presided over every federal criminal prosecution in that Court's jurisdiction. Behind the scenes, Judge Allgood ran the Democratic Party in Alabama - except for the George Wallace faction. Democrats who wanted to run for local or national office went to Judge Allgood to get his blessing. Today, I think Judge Allgood would be revolted by the Democrats and the Republicans.
As for the classified documents indictment, it is merely that, an indictment. A jury will decide if Trump is guilty. The Department of Justice chose to prosecute Trump in south Florida, which is very red, instead of in Washington, D.C., which is very blue. It takes a unanimous jury to convict. One hold-out juror, Trump walks. One Trump ringer on the jury, Trump walks. The DOJ could prosecute Trump again, but mostly likely, would not.
What might be in jurors' minds? How about Trump is nuts, and that's why he kept the classified documents after being asked to return them. Nuts is a good defense, if the Defendant pleads he is nuts, not responsible for his actions. Of course, pleading that defense might disqualify Trump from running for president again. But, a good defense lawyer very easily could plant that seed with the jury, without it being official.
A good defense attorney might put Trump's Attorney General Bill Barr on the witness stand and let him analyze Trump's Achilles heel- his giant ego blinds him to anything but his giant ego. He really does love America, but he's just too self-absorbed to see how his giant ego gets in the way. The classified documents were retrieved. It was ugly. But no harm, no foul.
Right. Did Trump actually damage national security? I think that will be on the jurors' minds. Can DOJ prove Trump actually damaged national security? Can Trump argue he is not getting equal protection under the law, because Hillary Clinton damaged national security, and she was not prosecuted? Can Trump argue to the jury that he only did what Hillary did, but he didn't actually damage national security like Hillary did?
What is not been talked about in the news I see online and on television, even if Trump is convicted, even if he is in prison, he still can run for president. He still can be elected. What a circus that would be, taking George Wallace's 3rd party candidacy to levels never before imagined by the craziest conspiracy freaks!
I told a black preacher friend yesterday, that it looks to me that Hunter Biden might be as sorry as Donald Trump, and it also looks to me that Hunter got to where he is today with help from his father, when he was President Obama's vice-president, and perhaps when his father was president. I think the DOJ needs to do to Hunter what is being done to Trump. I think the DOJ should do to Hillary what it is doing to Trump.
In 2016, I published many times at my blog that Trump and Hillary both should be locked up, in adjoining cells. After Trump beat Hillary, I published that the Democrats ran the only candidate Trump could beat.
The continued grandstanding by most major Republicans, and especially the WSJ editorial board, is just baffling at this point. I know it's mostly rooted in self-preservation, but that still supposes some working theory of Trump's re-electability in the general. And what could that possibly be at this point? Trump lost pretty handily in 2020 - in no small part because of voters who went for him in 2016 and then either abstained or went Biden in 2020. How has any of his conduct post-2020 endeared himself to this crucial "swing voter"?
Longtime reader, first time commenting. This part right here got me:
"[Primary] voters don’t care if Trump mishandled classified information or obstructed justice. They don’t think he should have to follow the law; at least, a majority of them do not."
This part really got me thinking about why his base bizarrely loves him so much. To them, he's the manifestation of their collective Id. To them, it doesn't matter if he broke the law, because 1) he's making "the Libs" angry, and 2) he's inflicting as much pain and damage to a governmental system they feel let down by (for cultural reasons, primarily). The relationship between Trump and his followers is transactional; they defend him, and he "triggers" the normies.
Great read, and at this point I agree that Republicans who are going to support Trump will support him no matter what. Like many rich and powerful who have their rabid fans, the same is true here. The issue is that they are stealing classified documents or treating our national security documents to assuage their own ego. Just because something is tough and holding people accountable is difficult and not easy, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Doing the right thing is tough, holding those we elect to the highest standard is tough but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It's so interesting that the party of small government, the party that supports the law and law enforcement, only wants it enforced on other people but not themselves. We should all at least be able to agree that stealing national security documents and keeping them locked in a bathroom where foreign nationals can get access is bad...
I agree with the premise that ultimately the entire GOP apparatus continues to tailor their messaging around what primary voters seem to want. That’s a cowardly position, but one that is easy to understand.
I wonder, though, looking forward a few years, what will happen when Trump inevitably dies, as that seems to be the only way the GOP will break free of this degrading path. Do they try to regress to the mean, or is this just how GOP messaging is now, through the 2028 election cycle, anyway?
That's the best thing I've seen you write. Perfection.
I do think the PRA stuff needs to be put in its proper context and the WSJ just flailed at it. Basic principles - the PRA helps divide up who owns what when it comes to Presidential papers. This was passed to avoid the post-Nixon mess where the government actually paid him millions to make sure it retained access to his tapes and papers. Even if one makes the crazy assumption that the former President somehow retained ownership of most or all of the stuff in “his boxes” - if it’s classified/national defense info, the government still makes the rules about where and how it’s kept and whether people without clearances can see it. It may come as news to folks, but the private sector owns trillions of dollars of classified info. Nuclear power plant designs, satellite technology, how to build an F-35 - this info is all owned by corporations. It doesn’t mean that the CEO can take the blueprints home and leave them in her bathroom. All just a long way of saying I’ve learned a lot more by paying attention to Josh and Ken White on this stuff than I do by perusing the cable news networks who often devote minutes/hours/days to diversionary issues like these.
I just think of all the things Trump might have lifted from the White House, that it should have been documents - that must really have been taken capriciously, at random, since he famously doesn't read - is the most bizarre aspect. Ashtrays, WH flatware, stuff like that I could see.
Well said. To those who say Trump should be excused from this or that law because politics, I say: "Okay - amend the statute. Write down exactly how the statute should be revised to excuse Trump's conduct in this case (or the many other potential cases). And while you're at it, explain how to reconcile giving Trump a pass with the American credo that no one is above the law." I'm not holding my breath.
It's astounding to me that in a country born from a rebellion against monarchy, so many people are eager to treat the President as a de facto King.
I share your astonishment and am baffled by the cult of personality around this guy.
Acknowledging who/what Trump is would mean admitting what kind of person they've been supporting the last 7 years, so doubling down is the easiest option.
Like I said above, he is the manifestation of his base's collective Id. That's why they love him so much. I've found that when you talk to a lot of the MAGA crowd one-on-one, in private, most will admit he's a clown, a liar, and a criminal, but they love him because he "owns the libs," fighting the silly culture wars they wish they could fight.
Just from the pictures, that bathroom design and decor is a far bigger crime than some espionage act nonsense.
“The WSJ is right to say the 2024 election is likely to be a referendum on Trump and his crimes, and they’re right to think that’s worse for the country than having an election that’s actually about policy issues.”
I was a child Republican from a Republican family, who’s now (and has been for a couple decades) a liberal who votes for Democrats. Biden was my 5th or 6th choice in 2020, depending on day of the week. Of course I voted for him in 2020.
That’s one more data point that elections at the national level, at least, aren’t about policies. At least not the policy an individual voter prefers.
Another data point is 2016, when Hilary’s personality (and gender) got in the way of her winning, at least enough for the 77,000 votes that doomed her. And us.
Policy is for local elections, which is why there is even lower turnout there.
Same. My favorite politicians are mostly moderate conservatives (Charlie Baker, Chris Sununu) and I want lower taxes without drama, which should make me a conservative. But at the federal level it’s just not a GOP offering
Everyone is getting over their skis.
Hearing one side of a story and then coming to a conclusion is easy. Hearing both sides can be just as simple, and given the evidence, that might be the case here. But we have not heard both sides and should not conclude how the public might respond to a more complete picture. Nothing would be more refreshing for our democracy than for everyone to realize that the crimes are serious and that the former president should be penalized. Except, perhaps, if we repeated the same exercise for other politicians who might be accused of mishandling documents.
I agree patience is generally good and to wait for Trump's side of the case.
But so far he has gone out to defend himself politically and has offered no contestation of the facts. Really nobody is arguing the facts at all, neither here nor in the NY case. And that's what makes the NY case so weak and this case so strong. In NY people are arguing the legal issues around the accepted facts. That's really not a place to be in for the first prosecution of a former president. It should be very clearly squarely in the case of "this is illegal and it's not unusual for us to prosecute people for the same thing."
That's why Smith's indictment is so damning and Bragg's is such weak sauce.
Sure, but what do you imagine the other side might be? To date, I've yet to hear Trump assert any legally cognizable defense, and he doesn't seem the type to hold his cards close to the vest so you would think if he had such a defense we would have heard it by now. He's claimed he declassified all of the documents in question, but declassification would not be a legally valid defense under the applicable statutes. He's claimed the documents are his property, but that is obviously not the case with respect to national security documents prepared by governmental agencies. He's claimed he cooperated with NARA and the FBI, but has offered no explanation for why the FBI found so many national security documents after Trump certified that all relevant documents had been returned.
I think it's clear that Trump's strategy will be to pursue jury nullification by claiming that witnesses are lying, that the FBI fabricated or planted documents, and by bloviating about the "deep state," "Hillary's emails," and the "Biden Crime Family." He will resort to the old maxim attributed to Carl Sandburg that "If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell."
Jury nullification happens only when the jury believes you're guilty but refuses to convict. If Trump convinces [one member of] the jury that the FBI fabricated or planted documents or that witnesses are lying, that wouldn't be nullification.
It’s hard not read your admonishment of the WSJ editorial page and their utter obsequiousness to Trump and think “Forget it Jake, it’s the Wall Street Journal editorial page”.
This is the best analysis of the situation that I have read.
It would be good to use the term right wing when describing Republicans who support Trump. 60-65% do not support Trump because they are moderates.
Fine analysis! This indictment reminds me of a story Howard Baker used to tell about a Tennessee sheriff who comes home with a long face after a day on the campaign trail. His wife says Pa, you're looking peaked. What's the matter? He replies, Ma they're telling lies about me and they're proving them.
Lunch pail Joe should be looking a little peaked too. Hunter's laptop is real. So are the irregularity reports filed with Treasury. So are the banking records the Rs are chasing down. They are documents that can't be cross-examined. Then there's Tony Bobolinski and the whistleblowers, ready to testify under oath. Pay-to-play is a crime, just like obstruction of justice.
Merrick Garland will ultimately have to decide where his loyalties lie; to his president or to the institution he heads.
Once upon a time I clerked for US District Court Judge Clarence W. Allgood, in Birmingham Alabama, who presided over every federal criminal prosecution in that Court's jurisdiction. Behind the scenes, Judge Allgood ran the Democratic Party in Alabama - except for the George Wallace faction. Democrats who wanted to run for local or national office went to Judge Allgood to get his blessing. Today, I think Judge Allgood would be revolted by the Democrats and the Republicans.
As for the classified documents indictment, it is merely that, an indictment. A jury will decide if Trump is guilty. The Department of Justice chose to prosecute Trump in south Florida, which is very red, instead of in Washington, D.C., which is very blue. It takes a unanimous jury to convict. One hold-out juror, Trump walks. One Trump ringer on the jury, Trump walks. The DOJ could prosecute Trump again, but mostly likely, would not.
What might be in jurors' minds? How about Trump is nuts, and that's why he kept the classified documents after being asked to return them. Nuts is a good defense, if the Defendant pleads he is nuts, not responsible for his actions. Of course, pleading that defense might disqualify Trump from running for president again. But, a good defense lawyer very easily could plant that seed with the jury, without it being official.
A good defense attorney might put Trump's Attorney General Bill Barr on the witness stand and let him analyze Trump's Achilles heel- his giant ego blinds him to anything but his giant ego. He really does love America, but he's just too self-absorbed to see how his giant ego gets in the way. The classified documents were retrieved. It was ugly. But no harm, no foul.
Right. Did Trump actually damage national security? I think that will be on the jurors' minds. Can DOJ prove Trump actually damaged national security? Can Trump argue he is not getting equal protection under the law, because Hillary Clinton damaged national security, and she was not prosecuted? Can Trump argue to the jury that he only did what Hillary did, but he didn't actually damage national security like Hillary did?
What is not been talked about in the news I see online and on television, even if Trump is convicted, even if he is in prison, he still can run for president. He still can be elected. What a circus that would be, taking George Wallace's 3rd party candidacy to levels never before imagined by the craziest conspiracy freaks!
I told a black preacher friend yesterday, that it looks to me that Hunter Biden might be as sorry as Donald Trump, and it also looks to me that Hunter got to where he is today with help from his father, when he was President Obama's vice-president, and perhaps when his father was president. I think the DOJ needs to do to Hunter what is being done to Trump. I think the DOJ should do to Hillary what it is doing to Trump.
In 2016, I published many times at my blog that Trump and Hillary both should be locked up, in adjoining cells. After Trump beat Hillary, I published that the Democrats ran the only candidate Trump could beat.
sloanbashinsky@yahoo.com
The continued grandstanding by most major Republicans, and especially the WSJ editorial board, is just baffling at this point. I know it's mostly rooted in self-preservation, but that still supposes some working theory of Trump's re-electability in the general. And what could that possibly be at this point? Trump lost pretty handily in 2020 - in no small part because of voters who went for him in 2016 and then either abstained or went Biden in 2020. How has any of his conduct post-2020 endeared himself to this crucial "swing voter"?
Longtime reader, first time commenting. This part right here got me:
"[Primary] voters don’t care if Trump mishandled classified information or obstructed justice. They don’t think he should have to follow the law; at least, a majority of them do not."
This part really got me thinking about why his base bizarrely loves him so much. To them, he's the manifestation of their collective Id. To them, it doesn't matter if he broke the law, because 1) he's making "the Libs" angry, and 2) he's inflicting as much pain and damage to a governmental system they feel let down by (for cultural reasons, primarily). The relationship between Trump and his followers is transactional; they defend him, and he "triggers" the normies.
Great read, and at this point I agree that Republicans who are going to support Trump will support him no matter what. Like many rich and powerful who have their rabid fans, the same is true here. The issue is that they are stealing classified documents or treating our national security documents to assuage their own ego. Just because something is tough and holding people accountable is difficult and not easy, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Doing the right thing is tough, holding those we elect to the highest standard is tough but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It's so interesting that the party of small government, the party that supports the law and law enforcement, only wants it enforced on other people but not themselves. We should all at least be able to agree that stealing national security documents and keeping them locked in a bathroom where foreign nationals can get access is bad...
I agree with the premise that ultimately the entire GOP apparatus continues to tailor their messaging around what primary voters seem to want. That’s a cowardly position, but one that is easy to understand.
I wonder, though, looking forward a few years, what will happen when Trump inevitably dies, as that seems to be the only way the GOP will break free of this degrading path. Do they try to regress to the mean, or is this just how GOP messaging is now, through the 2028 election cycle, anyway?