No Big Thing, Evidently

With no sense of irony, Politico editor and columnist Michael Schaffer writes

A few ew weeks ago, my POLITICO colleague Nicholas Wu and NBC’s Sahil Kapur ran into D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton in the Capitol. Like good congressional reporters, they jumped at the opportunity to pepper a lawmaker about the news of the day. In this case, one question concerned Norton herself, a civil rights icon who is now the oldest House member: Would she run for another term next year, by which point she would be 89 years old? “Yeah, sure,” Norton said.

Coming on the heels of multiple stories about Norton’s alleged cognitive decline, the statement made news. But a few hours later, Norton’s office began unmaking that news. The Democrat “wants to run again but she’s in conversations with her family, friends, and closest advisors to decide what’s best,” a spokesperson told Wu. There was still no final decision.

It was all awkward and embarrassing- and did little to buttress Norton's insistence that she's as shar as ever. And then, amazingly, it happened again. Last week, Kapur once again approached the delegate and asked about her plans. Once again she said she's running. "Yeah, I'm going to run for re-election." And once again, her spokesperson quickly walked back the comment, telling Axios that "no decision has been made."

The spokesperson, Sharon Nichols, did not offer any explanation for the discrepancy.

Well, maybe because the discrepancy was trivial. Admittedly, the concern has been precipitated by a legitimate fear that veteran 88-year-old legislator Norton has lost her fastball just as the District of Columbia "faces escalating threats to its home rule" from a hostile Trump Administration. Alert Thompson and Jake Tapper! Eleanor Holmes Norton was asked whether she will run for re-election and said "yeah, sure" while there still had been no final decision

This in turn comes on the heels of the scandal captivating Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper about the last 12-18 months of the Biden Administration. When the duo was doing the rounds before publication of their book, Thompson remarked "beginning in 2023, the ration of that functioning and non-functioning starts to change dramatically and also non-functioning Biden is getting worse."  Tapper claimed (emphasis his) "we're talking about to the point of you not being able to have a conversation. You are not able to come up with data information, knowledge, names that you should have at the ready."

So of course, this has prompted controversy: No, actually not:

Donald Trump took off on a winding rant about his summer vacation plans Tuesday when asked a crucial question about “Alligator Alcatraz.”

During a press conference at the ICE facility in the middle of the Florida Everglades, the president was asked whether there was an “expected time frame” that detainees would be kept at the hastily constructed immigrant detention center, and whether it would depend on the immigration judges staffed there.

“When you say, uh, what was the first part of your question?” Trump asked, clearly confused.

“Is there a specific time frame you expect the detainees to spend here—days, weeks, months?” the reporter repeated.

“In Florida?” Trump asked.

“Yes, here at Alligator Alcatraz,” the reporter responded, but the president had already jumped into a response about how much he loves the Sunshine State.

“I’m gonna spend a lot of—this is my home state. I love it. I love your government. I love all the people around—these are all friends of mine. They know me very well. I mean I’m not surprised that they do so well. They’re great people,” Trump said, singling out Governor Ron DeSantis, who previously campaigned against Trump but now acts as a cheerleader for his new wetland-themed concentration camp.

“I feel very comfortable in the state—I’ll spend a lot of time here,” Trump continued. He said that he would continue to visit despite his current digs at the White House, which had allowed him to “fix up” the “little Oval Office.”

“But I’ll spend as much time as I can here. You know my vacation is generally here ’cause it’s convenient. I live in Palm Beach. That’s my home. And I have a very nice little place—nice little cottage to stay at, right? But we have a lot of fun,” Trump continued, joking about his massive estate at the Mar-a-Lago resort.

Sometimes, Trump's meanderings are referred to as an "off-the-cuff style," as when he told West Point graduates at a commencement ceremony six weeks ago about the trophy wife of the late real estate developer, William Levitt. Sometimes it's joking, or being "playful," or even a "preternatural gift." 

Whatever is wrong with Donald Trump- and there is, and has been for a few years, something wrong with him- we must not call it "cognitive decline."  You see, "cognitive decline" is Joe Biden in physical decline with a terrible debate performance or Eleanor Holmes Norton's uncertainty about seeking another term. 

Yet, the President of the USA is standing immediately in front of us, in real time, claiming divine intervention for everything which works in his favor. God did this, God did that, says the ultra narcissist who shut out God while leaning on the power of positive thinking until he was wounded by shrapnel last summer in Butler, Pennsylvania.

This is happening now; a President of the United States of America. Yet, somehow he has escaped the scrutiny which a mere member of the House of Representatives and an ex-President got. Across the board, our media is failing us.

Share |

He's Lying

With all due respect to Jeff Greenfield, Donald J. Trump does have a certain, probably satisfactory, level of literacy. He also has a certain level of being raised in New York City.

I find it highly probable that Trump has no idea that “Shylock” is a term drawn from a character in a Shakespeare play, since that would require a certain level of literacy.

— Jeff Greenfield (@greenfield64) July 4, 2025

The great, longtime journalist (and Jew), Greenfield obviously realizes

"Shylock" is a Jewish character in "The Merchant of Venice." In its description of the Shakespeare play, the Anti-Defamation League notes that the character, who serves as an antagonist, is frequently portrayed as a "conniving and cruel" money lender, reinforcing stereotypes of Jewish people as money-hungry and greedy.

So of course, as NBC News reported early on Independence Day

President Donald Trump used an antisemitic slur to describe exploitative bankers during a speech Thursday as he touted congressional passage of his massive domestic policy bill.

Trump made the remark in Des Moines, Iowa, at what was billed as an event by a nonpartisan group to kick off celebrations for next year's 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. But Trump's campaign-style speech quickly took on a partisan tone, with the president expressing "hate" for the Democrats who voted against his "big, beautiful bill."

While ticking through the bill's provisions, Trump described one aimed at protecting family farmers by allowing them to pay a reduced estate tax when transferring ownership to their children.

"No death tax, no estate tax, no going to the banks and borrowing from, in some cases, a fine banker, and in some cases, shylocks and bad people," Trump said. "They destroyed a lot of families, but we did the opposite."

When asked by reporters after his speech about the antisemitic connotations of the term, Trump said, “I’ve never heard it that way.”

“To me, shylock is somebody that’s a money lender at high rates” he added....

Trump's anti-Semitic remark should be understood in the context of  his personal background, professional contacts, and political advisors. Donald Trump did not grow up in Wyoming, the Great Plains, or Mississippi in which Jews are practically unknown.

 

Instead, Donald Trump grew up in the wealthy Jamaica Estates enclave in the Jamaica section of the borough of Queens in New York City, New York. He became a real estate developer in Queens, the borough of Manhattan, and elsewhere.  Aside from certain parts of southern California and Dade County, Florida, that's the greatest concentration of Jews in the USA. And when Trump was a boy and young man, the percentage of Jews in the New York area probably exceeded that even in southern California.

In real estate, Trump had numerous Jewish acquaintances and associates, unsurprising for an individual in that line of work in that region. As an actor (The Apprentice) in Hollywood, Trump could not have avoided coming into contact with a great many Jewish people if he set out to do so. 

His daughter married a Jew, probably for reasons not dissimilar to those random individuals choose their mate. She converted to Judaism, very likely primarily because it was the religion of husband Jared Kushner. (Ivanka: "I really find that with Judaism, it creates an amazing blueprint for family connectivity.")

The 79-year-old Donald Trump has had a relationship with Jews throughout his life aside from- possibly- his years in military school. Yet, on July 3, he would use what the CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs noted is "among he most quintessential antisemitic stereotypes."

There is less interest in William Shakespeare nowadays, especially- though not completely- because classic, including English, literature is far less taught in schools at all levels than it once was.  However, most individuals reared in the 1950s and the 1960s had at least a passing knowledge of William Shakespeare. And even those who didn't have that did know what "Shylock" referred to, some invoking the term in particularly unpleasant moments.

Let's stop giving Donald Trump an out by pretending that he is illiterate or stupid. He has gotten around plenty, including with those Jews who (as with others) he believes can benefit him.  He is a bigot and it's unsurprising that a guy with a whole range of prejudices would include anti-Semitism among them.

Share |

Bleeding Ukraine

To be fair- and when haven't I been fair to Donald Trump?- I don't actually believe that this is what our President was telling her.

June 25. Trump tells a Ukrainian journalist—whose husband is on the front lines—that he’ll see what he can do to help shield Ukraine’s skies from Russian attacks.

July 1. Pentagon chief Hegseth halts vital aid to Ukraine, including support to defend cities from missile strikes. pic.twitter.com/by2js2c3h1

— Resurgam (@Resurgamhub) July 2, 2025

Attempting to appear reassuring, President Trump tells the foreign reporter "I can see you're very well- you know, it's amazing." Learning that her husband is fighting in Ukraine, Trump notes "well, that's tough, you know."  When he realizes she is asking about supplying Ukraine with Patriot anti-missile missiles, Trump states "we're going to see if we can make some available."

As a skilled politician- and actor- Trump held out the hope, without a foolish promise, that Ukraine would get the help it needed. With "it's amazing" and "well, that's tough, you know," he was extending sympathy. Unfortunately, he concluded with the utterly patronizing "that's a very good question and I wish you a lot of luck. I mean, I can see it's very important to you."

If appearances are telling- and sometimes they're not- the reporter wasn't buying it. "We're going to see if we can make some available" was vague, a wise approach because 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered a pause in sending a shipment of missiles and ammunition to Ukraine amid concern about the U.S. military’s stockpiles, according to two defense officials, two congressional officials and two sources with knowledge of the decision.

Hegseth ordered the delay weeks after he issued a memo ordering a review of the U.S. stockpile of munitions, which has been depleted after years of the United States’ sending weapons to Ukraine to defend against the Russia invasion, as well as nearly two years of military operations in the Middle East as the United States fought Houthi rebels in Yemen and defended Israel and allies against Iran, four of the officials said.

The munitions and other weapons could be held up until the assessment is complete, the two defense officials and two congressional officials said, and if the munitions are in short supply or needed in other parts of the world, they could be held back even longer.

The weapons being delayed include dozens of Patriot interceptors that can defend against incoming Russian missiles, thousands of 155 mm high explosive Howitzer munitions, more than 100 Hellfire missiles, more than 250 precision-guided missile systems known as GMLRS and dozens each of Stinger surface-to-air missiles, AIM air-to-air missiles and grenade launchers, the two defense officials, two congressional officials and two sources with knowledge of the decision said.

For some of us who are not experts in military weaponry, this sounds at least plausible. Then a member of the Administration blew the cover when

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said: “This decision was made to put America’s interests first following a DOD review of our nation’s military support and assistance to other countries across the globe. The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned — just ask Iran." The Defense Department did not respond to a request for comment.

The spokeswoman is saying "We're not running out of weapons. We simply don't want to help democratic nations when invaded by totalitarian states". The macho "just ask Iran" so precious and performative. If Iran were put under truth serum, it probably would say something quite different.

So what seems clear from the intel, is that we probably should have reloaded the B2s, and gone for a second round. Instead the impulsive toddler was desperate to have a strong ending to the movie and declare a cease fire.

This is a show to him, entertainment, and he’s the…

— Adam Kinzinger (Slava Ukraini) 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@AdamKinzinger) June 30, 2025

 

Donald Trump is so rude and crude that we tend to forget that he is a shrewd politician.  He promised merely "we're going to see" about the weapons because that is devoid of meaning. It was a moment in which he faced a young, obviously distressed woman and feigned concern. And then he proceeded with his strategy of acting as an instrument of the imperialist ambition of Russian president Vladimir Putin.

                                       HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY

Share |

Good Luck, Democracy

The Miami Herald reports

With less than five months to go before Miami residents were scheduled to head to the polls to vote on a new mayor and city commissioners, the city of Miami has postponed the upcoming November election to 2026 in a move that critics have described as a “power grab.”

On Thursday, the Miami City Commission voted 3-2 to move the city from odd- to even-year elections — a change that its proponents said will drastically increase voter turnout. But the decision also comes with fine print.

As a result, the city’s elected officials will get an extra year in office. That includes Mayor Francis Suarez and Commissioner Joe Carollo, who are both term limited. Suarez, a former city commissioner, will get a 17th consecutive year in Miami City Hall, and Carollo will get a ninth. 

Commissioners Damian Pardo, Ralph Rosado and Christine King voted in favor of the election date change, and Commissioners Miguel Angel Gabela and Carollo voted against.

Pardo, the item’s sponsor, has argued that changing to even-year elections is a much-needed reform that will significantly increase voter participation while also saving the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in election costs. But some have questioned whether the city actually has the authority to change the election date without voter approval. The city charter states that municipal elections take place in odd years, and charter changes require voter approval.

 

Four weeks ago, Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice told Steve Inskeep of NPR's Morning Edition

Unfortunately, the National Emergencies Act, even though it was passed to rein in a presidential use of emergency powers, does not include a definition of national emergency, and it doesn’t include any substantive criteria that have to be met. So the president actually has significant discretion to decide whether a national emergency is. Now, of course, even the broadest of discretion can be abused, and the word emergency does have a definition. So at least in theory, a president could go so far that the courts would step in and say, that’s not an emergency. But so far, courts have been very, very reluctant to do that.

If in a year he believes Democrats are in striking distance of winning back the Senate or the House of Representatives, the President will declare a national emergency and jeopardize congressional elections. (War, anyone?) At that point, the Supreme Court may be the only institution standing between the man who has called for termination of the Constitution, declared himself the Chosen One, King, the greatest President ever. and absolute rule. And as Charlie Pierce puts it, what the mad king wants, the mad king gets.

Share |

Worth the Paper It's Written On

"They literally announced it in the Oval Office."

O.K., then, that seals it: the war in Rwanda is over!

🚨 LMAO! CNN liberal panelist gets community noted in real-time by Scott Jennings as she fails to realize Trump ENDED the Congo-Rwanda war.

PANELIST: "It's not done, it's not done!"

JENNINGS: "You didn't watch the news yesterday. They literally announced it in the Oval Office."… pic.twitter.com/2TvggqJM6N

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 28, 2025

Jennings is right about one thing: the end of the war was declared on June 27 at the White House when the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda

signed a peace deal facilitated by the U.S. to help end the decades long deadly fighting in eastern Congo while helping the U.S. government and American companies gain access to critical minerals in the region.

“Today, the violence and destruction comes to an end, and the entire region begins a new chapter of hope and opportunity, harmony, prosperity and peace,” President Donald Trump told the foreign ministers of the two countries at a White House meeting.

So, it's all over.... except when it's not, because 

While the deal is seen as a turning point, analysts don’t believe it will quickly end the fighting because the most prominent armed group says it does not apply to it. Many Congolese see it mainly as an opportunity for the U.S. to acquire critical minerals needed for much of the world’s technology after their government reached out to Trump for support in fighting the rebels.

Trump has pushed to gain access to such minerals at a time when the United States and China are actively competing for influence in Africa.

President Trump specializes in signing deals, purportedly to end wars, which leave out a major party to the war. It's how he sold out the U.S.-backed Afghan government when he signed a "peace" agreement with the Taliban in 2020 and left Kabul out in the cold. In east-central Africa

The Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group is the most prominent armed group in the conflict, and its major advance early this year left bodies on the streets. With 7 million people displaced in Congo, the United Nations has called it “one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth.”

Congo hopes the U.S. will provide it with the security support needed to fight the rebels and possibly get them to withdraw from the key cities of Goma and Bukavu, and from the entire region where Rwanda is estimated to have up to 4,000 troops. Rwanda has said that it’s defending its territorial interests and not supporting M23.

So Trump- uh, er, the USA- gets mineral rights, Congo gets military assistance, and Rwanda gets to say that it has made peace and of course, not supporting the rebel group because, well, it signed a peace treaty. Meanwhile

M23 rebels have suggested that the agreement won’t be binding for them. The rebel group hasn’t been directly involved in the planned peace deal, although it has been part of other ongoing peace talks.

Trump does it again! He makes a deal and appears to broker a peace he hasn't produced. And he has plenty of Republican stooges, Scott Jennings one of the most avid, to make way for the authoritarian.

Share |

The Supremes Give Trump the Thumbs Up

In a case prompted by, but ultimately not primarily about, the Trump Administration's effort to end birthright citizenship, the USA Supreme Court

said that universal orders likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to the federal courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion for the 6-3 court, with the liberal justices in dissent.

The court granted the Trump administration request to narrow the reach of the injunctions blocking the president's executive order while proceedings move forward, but "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief" to plaintiffs who can sue, Barrett wrote. The justices did not address the question of whether Mr. Trump's order is constitutional, and the administration has said agencies have 30 days to issue public guidance about implementation of the policy, allowing time for more challenges to be filed.

In a wrongheaded and disingenuous piece for The Atlantic, Nicholas Bagley, former counsel to Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, stated "I don't see this as a partisan issue."  In eight years as President, Barack Obama issued 276 orders and in four years, President Biden signed 162. Fewer than six months into his second term, President Trump has issued 164 such orders. Not partisan, my ass.

Noting Trump v. CASA "takes away the ability of lower-court judges to issue nationwide, Elie Mystal concedes

I’m not actually a fan of nationwide injunctions. The system can be incredibly politicized. Republican judges use nationwide injunctions all the time to stymie the agenda of Democratic presidents. Democratic judges use nationwide injunctions to slow down the Trump administration. Whether a president gets to have their agenda often depends on whether the opposition party can find a friendly lower-court judge.

However

Nationwide injunctions have been a thing for a long time. The court could have addressed the issue in a myriad of other cases (including, you know, any where the Biden administration was subjected to a nationwide injunction). They chose to do so here, on this issue, where lifting the nationwide injunction will have the direct and immediate impact of letting Trump and Miller take away citizenship on a case-by-case basis....

nationwide injunctions make sense when it comes to national issues involving civil and human rights: issues like, say, the Constitution’s very clearly stated definition of national citizenship. After all, one’s fundamental rights should not wildly change if they miss their exit on the interstate.

The Court waited until a Democrat was out of the presidency and a Republican who already has called himself "King of America" was in. Moreover, as Steve M. recognizes

....the Court's Republicans know they won't try to push the boundaries of the acceptable the way Trump has.

Taking guns away from the law-abiding? That only happens in the fever dreams of Republicans. Bill Clinton was president for eight years and it didn't happen. Barack Obama was president for eight years and it didn't happen. Joe Biden was president for four years and it didn't happen. It hasn't happened in the bluest of states. Even when there have been restrictions on who can own guns or at what age a particular kind of gun can be purchased, no Democratic administration has even suggested going house to house and rounding up firearms that had previously been obtained legally. "Red flag" laws exist, but no one is being deprived of weapons without a good reason, subject to due process. And even an assault weapons ban wouldn't prevent a would-be purchaser of assault weapons from buying any other kind of gun -- or a dozen guns of other kinds -- instead.

And there simply isn't a strain of liberal legal thought that tosses the Constitution, law, and precedent out the window and says that whatever liberals want is the Framers' intention. No one who'd uphold a statewide gun confiscation program would ever be appointed to the federal bench, even if Democrats held the White House and the Senate.

And I know of no Democrats who want to deprive any religious denomination of the right to worship.

The idea that only Democrats use nationwide injunctions is false. The reason we don’t have student debt forgiveness from President Biden is because Republicans got a nationwide injunction.

This isn’t about partisanship—it’s about power and who’s willing to use it. pic.twitter.com/ZGQ6eLgWlR

— Jessica Tarlov (@JessicaTarlov) June 27, 2025

When the Supreme Court could restrain a President Biden, who needed little restraint, it chose to do so. When it faced a challenge to Trump's order to end the birthright citizenship inarguably guaranteed by the Constitution, it gave a victory on the larger issue of nationwide injunctions to a man who has called for the termination of the Constitution.

In the first 100 days of this term, President Trump had issued eight national emergency declarations, though President Biden issued only two in the same time frame, and President Obama none in the first 100 days of either of his terms. In this environment, the nation's High Court, with four far-right Justices and the intimidated Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts, has elected to give Donald Trump de facto power other Presidents were not given.  And because it is Donald Trump.

It's not completely clear where this is heading, but the Supreme Court is increasingly content to give the Administration a blank check to continue its march toward tyranny. 

Share |

The Biggest Snake of Them All

So now you tell us, Scott!

Like I said the other night - one way to keep things from leaking is to not share it with leakers. Trump totally justified in freezing out these snakes. pic.twitter.com/YKFo99CkNJ

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) June 25, 2025

In May, 2017 The New York Times reported

The classified intelligence that President Trump disclosed in a meeting last week with Russian officials at the White House was provided by Israel, according to a current and a former American official familiar with how the United States obtained the information. The revelation adds a potential diplomatic complication to an episode that has renewed questions about how the White House handles sensitive intelligence.

Israel is one of the United States’ most important allies and runs one of the most active espionage networks in the Middle East. Mr. Trump’s boasting about some of Israel’s most sensitive information to the Russians could damage the relationship between the two countries and raises the possibility that the information could be passed to Iran, Russia’s close ally and Israel’s main threat in the region.

This wasn't the most dangerous intelligence breach of the first Trump Administration- no, not by a long shot, because Donald Trump

improperly stored in his Florida estate sensitive documents on nuclear capabilities, repeatedly enlisted aides and lawyers to help him hide records demanded by investigators and cavalierly showed off a Pentagon “plan of attack” and classified map, according to a sweeping felony indictment that paints a damning portrait of the former president’s treatment of national security information.

The conduct alleged in the historic indictment — the first federal case against a former president — cuts to the heart of any president’s responsibility to safeguard the government’s most valuable secrets. Prosecutors say the documents he stowed, refused to return and in some cases showed to visitors risked jeopardizing not only relations with foreign nations but also the safety of troops and confidential sources….

The 49-page indictment centers on hundreds of classified documents that Trump took with him from the White House to Mar-a-Lago upon leaving office in January 2021. Even as “tens of thousands of members and guests” visited Mar-a-Lago between the end of Trump’s presidency and August 2022, when the FBI obtained a search warrant, documents were recklessly stored in spaces including a “ballroom, a bathroom and shower, and office space, his bedroom, and a storage room.”

The indictment claims that, for a two-month period between January and March 15, 2021, some of Trump’s boxes were stored in one of Mar-a-Lago’s gilded ballrooms. A picture included in the indictment shows boxes stacked in rows on the ballroom’s stage.

This was not done innocently or merely carelessly. Instead

Prosecutors allege that Trump, who claimed without evidence that he had declassified all the documents before leaving office, understood his duty to care for classified information but shirked it anyway. It details a July 2021 meeting in Bedminster in which he boasted about having held onto a classified document prepared by the military about a potential attack on another country.

“Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this,” the indictment quotes him as saying, citing an audio recording. He also said he could have declassified the document but “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret,” according to the indictment.

Trump even engaged others in his schemes, all the more to make them vulnerable to his blackmail. Therefore

Using Trump’s own words and actions, as recounted to prosecutors by lawyers, aides and other witnesses, the indictment alleges both a refusal to return the documents despite more than a year’s worth of government demands but also steps that he encouraged others around him to take to conceal the records.

For instance, prosecutors say, after the Justice Department issued a subpoena for the records in May 2022, Trump asked his own lawyers if he could defy the request and said words to the effect of, “I don’t want anybody looking through my boxes.”

“Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” one of his lawyers described him as saying.

This was a man actively involved in concealing his guilt, of which he was well aware. So

 ...before his own lawyer searched the property for classified records, the indictment says, Trump directed aides to remove from the Mar-a-Lago storage room boxes of documents so that they would not be found during the search and therefore handed over to the government.

Weeks later, when Justice Department officials arrived at Mar-a-Lago to collect the records, they were handed a folder with only 38 documents and an untrue letter attesting that all documents responsive to the subpoena had been turned over. That day, even as Trump assured investigators that he was “an open book,” aides loaded several of Trump’s boxes onto a plane bound for Bedminster, the indictment alleges.

But suspecting that many more remained inside, the FBI obtained a search warrant and returned in August to recover more than 100 additional documents. The Justice Department says Trump held onto more than 300 classified documents, including some at the top secret level.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case against Trump and his two co-defendants but 

The government was challenging the Trump-appointed judge’s dismissal on appeal when he won the election, which led the DOJ to withdraw the appeal as to Trump, due to federal policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Once Trump took office, it seemed like he would either pardon his former co-defendants or move to dismiss the appeal against them, and the Justice Department did the latter.

Cannon herself was grossly prejudicial toward Trump, though it no longer mattered once Trump was elected in November, 2024. The Supreme Court (in Trump v. United States) already had ruled that a sitting President is above the law and continuation of the case against the newly-elected President may have revealed that he had transferred classified documents to foreign countries. And We the People must not be aware that our President is an extreme national security risk.

As the late, great French novelist Albert Camus once wrote, "decent folks must be allowed to sleep easy o'nights, mustn't they?" It would be, he added, "shockingly bad taste to linger on such details, that's common knowledge." And we won't have to linger on the truth and other details, even though

.... the dismissal removes the rationale cited by the DOJ under then-Attorney General Merrick Garland for keeping special counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents report volume under wraps. That is, Joe Biden’s attorney general agreed not to release that volume so long as the case was technically still pending against Nauta and De Oliveira.

The report is now in the hands of the Justice Department, headed by Pam Bondi, who obviously will not release the report because it would seriously implicate the man who appointed her and expects total obedience, Donald Trump. (Similarly, she has not released most of the Epstein files, though Trump's name can be redacted the many times it undoubtedly appears in them.)

No one knows for sure what Donald Trump has done with the documents he stole (and it looks like we never will). However, he did not steal them to line the bottom of a bird cage, nor to use them as emergency toilet paper, nor to invite prosecution for a felony simply so that he could brag about what he did. He took them for a purpose, whether or not the purpose has been accomplished. So Scott Jennings should spare us the invective about "freezing out these snakes"  when in the world of snakes, Donald Trump is the top taipan.

Share |