It wasn’t the first time Donald Trump whined about General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but it may be the time that will cost him. There was some interesting reporting, at least to these ears, from the New York Times yesterday on the tape that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith presented to the grand jury looking into Trump’s mishandling of classified documents. The Times reported that the tape was made during a meeting in July of 2021 between Trump and two writers who were working with former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on a memoir of his 10 month – wow, ten long months!
In the end it will be Trump's hubris that brings him down. Why are our politics filled with men of grievance, combining excessive hubris, coupled with a huge inferiority complex like Rafael Cruz, Clarence Thomas, and Trump. They know that they could never be the cool kids, like Obama, and can't get over it, trying now again and again to punish the rest of us for excluding them.
Matthew C. MacWilliams, On Fascism: 12 lessons from American History (St Martin’s Publishing Group, 2020)
Reviewed by Zak Kizer (Iowa Lakes Community College)
The United States is a country that prides itself on the egalitarian principles upon which it was founded almost two hundred and fifty years ago: government through popular will, equality of opportunity and a litany of individual freedoms. However, throughout our history, from the days of the Framers to the 2020s, those ideals have consistently been challenged and even undermined by authoritarian policies. This is particularly evident in the aftermath of the Trump administration and the 2020 election. The era of Trump began with endless claims of fake news and alternative facts, only to end with the president launching an unprecedented (and ultimately abortive) attempt to overturn millions of legitimate votes to stay in power. It is in this climate that Matthew MacWilliams (2020) wrote On Fascism: 12 Lessons from American History, and his short but informative book is a bitter but essential pill for twenty-first century America to swallow.
MacWilliams begins his tome with a list of statistics compiled by the Index of American Authoritarian Attitudes (IAAA), with each bullet point displaying troubling data on American sympathies towards undemocratic worldviews. The book’s introduction places these statistics in context and demonstrates how they contradict the ever-popular myth of America’s immunity to authoritarian rule. Each chapter is labelled a lesson, and each one details specific examples of authoritarianism in US history. Lesson One covers the 1858 Senate race between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, framing Douglas’s victory via the electoral vote as choosing “othering inequality” over American Enlightenment values (21). Lesson Two analyzes Donald Trump’s inaugural address point-by-point through the lens of Richard Hofstader’s “paranoid style,” a conspiratorial form of rhetoric that warns of apocalyptic threats to America and uses that fear to justify illegal or seditious actions (22).
Lesson Three analyzes the role of technology in spreading hate and paranoia, and how in the Digital Age the “guardrails of democracy” are woefully inadequate to stop the spread of manufactured scandals and conspiracy theories on the Internet (37). Lesson Four examines the Sedition Act of 1789, and how President John Adams used the “political monopoly” his party held at the time to enforce the unconstitutional censorship of writing critical of his administration (46). Lesson Five dissects the origins of the forced relocation of Native Americans, detailing the Jackson Administration’s constant violation of Indian treaties even when ordered to cease by a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Cherokee Nation. Lesson Six tackles America’s long and repulsive history of lynching, an “instrument” used by whites to maintain power over minority communities that still has not been outlawed at the federal level (61). Lesson Seven covers the xenophobic restrictions placed on Chinese immigrants from the 1880s to the 1940s, making note of the hypocrisy of such legislation being enacted just prior to the publication of “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus.
Lesson Eight describes the abuses of federal power during the First Red Scare following World War One, namely the nationwide arrests of suspected communists without warrant by Attorney General A Mitchell Palmer and his protégé, a young J Edgar Hoover. Lesson Nine tackles the appropriation of US historical imagery by American fascists prior to World War Two, specifically in the German American Bund’s rhetoric of the “militant white man” and “Aryan character” that built the nation out of a savage wilderness (93). Lesson Ten examines the internment of Japanese Americans following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, noting that “public fears” and “media fearmongering” were more than enough to overpower objections from the left, right and center (102). Lesson Eleven describes the parallels between the rise of Donald Trump with that of Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, with the caveat that Trump lacks many obstacles faced by his predecessor due to relentless online misinformation and influential media sycophants. Lesson Twelve details the modern surveillance state and lack of government transparency since 9/11, calling the covert continuation of mass data collection on Americans (despite public denouncement of such programs) the US government’s “big lie” (128). MacWilliams concludes his book with ten steps to reduce the polarization of the American people and to reverse the erosion of our basic freedoms. In addition, MacWilliams provides three appendices that detail the IAAA’s survey questions, the chicken-and-the-egg relationship between bigotry and authoritarian attitudes, and the qualitative research that continues to shape the study of authoritarianism around the world.
The strength of MacWilliams’s book is its lack of sensationalism. Each of his lessons is backed by real-world examples and statistics, and thus MacWilliams skillfully avoids the tempting trap of false equivalency and hyperbolic language. For example, Lesson Two meticulously dissects Trump inaugural address using Hofstader’s framework (MacWilliams, 2020). Specifically, the author links Trump’s promises to “unite the civilized world” against and annihilate radical Islam “from the face of the Earth” to the paranoid style’s calls to fight a “totally evil and unappeasable enemy” that must be destroyed at all cost (MacWilliams, 2020, 27). In an age where words like “Fascist” are thrown out as insults with little nuance or depth, a work grounded in a detailed and refined understanding of authoritarian history and politics is most refreshing.
However, MacWilliams’s work is limited in two areas. First, while the book’s relatively short length helps to make it accessible to a wider audience, it also leaves out noteworthy information that could have strengthened the author’s arguments. A key example of this is Lesson Nine, which discusses the American fascist fringe but doesn’t acknowledge the more mainstream political connections between the US and the Third Reich (MacWilliams, 2020). According to Whitman (2018), the anti-Semitic laws crafted at Nuremberg in 1935 were built off the framework of the American segregation system, and many Nazi intellectuals viewed the United States as a “laboratory for experimentation” in revoking the rights of minority citizens (43). While the militant Far Right of decades past certainly offers eerie parallels to recent events, a longer text could have painted a more complete picture of Fascist sympathies in 1930s America.
The second limitation is not the fault of the author but because of the timing of the book’s release. Having come out in March 2020, the author, for obvious reasons, was unaware of the fruitless efforts of the Trump campaign to reverse their loss to Joe Biden. In what The Week labeled a “failed coup,” Trump and his allies launched a torrent of baseless lawsuits alleging mass voter fraud in multiple states, as well as publicly promoted conspiracy theories that blamed the alleged fraud on everyone from the Democratic Party to the Venezuelan government to the companies who provided electronic voting machines (“Trump’s failed attempt to overturn the election,” December 4th, 2020, 4). In addition, election officials across the nation have reported intimidation and even acts of violence from Trump supporters, in what The Washington Post has called an explosion of passions that potentially could form a new rhetorical playbook for floundering politicians going forward.
These passions exploded spectacularly on January 6th, 2021. On that day, a mob of Trump supporters stormed and briefly occupied the US Capitol in order to stop the certification of the election results. This attack was instigated by the previous lies about voter fraud, which Trump reiterated with gusto at a rally he held at the White House earlier that day. So consecutive were these events that the President’s call to challenge his loss has been deemed an “implicit blessing” of the siege. While the siege was unsuccessful at changing the outcome of the election, within a week Trump became the first US president to be impeached twice. In addition, Trump was banned from using several social media networks (including the giants of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube) claiming the intent to preventing him from encouraging violence, a sanction unprecedented for an American head of state. While MacWilliams certainly cannot be faulted for not foreseeing these events, they are nonetheless very relevant to his arguments and would make for an interesting point of discussion in a future edition; perhaps even a thirteenth lesson.
Overall, MacWilliams’s On Fascism is an accessible yet provocative highlight reel of still-relevant US history. Despite its focus on dark chapters of America’s past and present, this book manages to offer a stirring and thoughtful road map for the future of American politics, emphasizing the vitality of communication and working for the common good in an age defined by deep polarization all along the political spectrum.
References
Whitman, J.Q. (2018). Hitler’s American model: The United States & the making of Nazi race
thanks for posting this review, Richard. I immediately bought the e-book.
Mike Tomasky's "If We Can Keep It" is also an excellent source, although they're different kinds of books (Tomasky isn't quite as focused on "fascism" specifically, but systemic dysfunction in general).
what they have in common is the fact that they both came out well before the 2020 election and "big lie" bullshit, which...do I have to finish the sentence?
Liked for "Trump's hubris" will bring him down, added link* to suggest a book about the historical perspective that is demanded: WHY, for example, is what you and I and millions of others comprehend as `hubris,' the same characteristics admired by his base?
Could there have been a long prequel to this "Trump era of quasi-fascist buffoonery and even sedition," stretching back into some of the darkest trends and events in American history?
Amazing the things that are trickling out. You are the best lookout; keep it up! Your insight into the military and the discipline, loyalty, and perseverance they have are jewels of the republic......... Thank you. 👍
I have the funny feeling that Jack Smith is going around his office cheering and fist pumping..because this kind of manna from heaven doesn't happen to every prosecutor, and he knows it.
Because the evidence he probably has is good, but this seals the fate of one Donald Trump and he's gonna be the messenger.
It will be a day of celebration for all patriotic Americans including General Milley, who will probably be dancing a jig
My bottle of Irish Mist is awaiting the indictment. I shall toast Jack Smith and all those hard-working DOJ people who have dedicated their lives to our country. They will earn every penny of their salary to bring Trump to justice.
Maybe it's because most photos of Jack Smith are so dour and "just the facts, ma'am" that I can't imagine him cheering and fist pumping for any reason. At least not where anyone can see him!
Jack Smith does make me think of John Brown, single-minded crusader for justice. Can you think of two real names that sound more like pseudonyms? Maybe "Jack Smith" is an alias and his real name is Justice.
I wrote a paper on John Brown for a "History of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties" course at the U, the research led into some of the Bloody Kansas period after the pro-slavery mob burned Lawrence - altered my perspective a bit, on his most extreme tactics, if they were really reasoned out at all, and not egregious acts of revenge executed as vigilante justice.
It was such a frenzied atmosphere, repaying atrocity with atrocity, it seems as if even that was understandable if not justifiable --- hindsight is 20. 20 and all that.
*****
LAWRENCE was the center of Kansas's anti-slavery movement. It was named for AMOS LAWRENCE, a New England financier who provided aid to anti-slavery farmers and settlers. This group went beyond simple monetary aid. New England Abolitionists shipped boxes of Sharps rifles, named "BEECHER'S BIBLES," to anti-slavery forces. The name for the rifles came from a comment by HENRY WARD BEECHER, the anti-slavery preacher who had remarked that a rifle might be a more powerful moral agent on the Kansas plains than a Bible. The lines were now drawn. Each side had passion, and each side had guns.
The administration of PRESIDENT FRANKLIN PIERCE refused to step in to resolve the election dispute resulting from the "border ruffians." In the spring of 1856, JUDGE SAMUEL LECOMPTE demanded that members of the anti-slavery government in Kansas, called the Free-Soil government, be indicted for treason. Many leaders in this government lived in Lawrence. On May 21, 1856, the pro-slavery forces sprung into action. A posse of over 800 men from Kansas and Missouri rode to Lawrence to arrest members of the free state government. The citizens of Lawrence decided against resistance. However, the mob was not satisfied. They proceeded to destroy two newspaper offices as they threw the printing presses from the Free-Soil newspaper into the nearby river. They burned and looted homes and shops. As a final message to Abolitionists, they aimed their cannons at the FREE STATE HOTEL and smashed it into oblivion.
Although the Bill of Rights had been around for a long time, it was not until World War I, according to University of Minnesota historian Murphy, that the issue of civil liberties became an important and continuous factor in American legal and political life. Even prior to U.S. entry into the war, Wilson had spread suspicion about the ""Americanism"" of recent arrivals; and once American involvement was a fact, that suspicion bred repression. On the basis that any opposition to government policy on the war was treasonous, Wilson got an Espionage Act passed in 1917 that amounted to carte blanche for the Attorney General to suppress whatever was deemed ""disloyal."" During the war, Murphy shows, the government stepped in to sanction the private power of industry--outlawing strikes and suppressing labor organizations in the name of wartime necessity. ""Hyphenates""--German-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc.--were suspected of loyalty to their native lands, and beatings and threats were common. Left-wing and pacifist magazines and organizations from the Masses to the IWW were victimized by the government. All this and more took place in a context that was devoid of legal precedent for the protection of free speech and assembly; as Murphy shows, the Supreme Court upheld the government down the line. But, gradually, opposition groups began to form, and Roger Baldwin's Civil Liberties Bureau--predecessor of the ACLU--was formed to give legal assistance to dissenters. Once the war ended, the continuation of repressive measures proved self-destructive, as Republicans seized on the suppression issue to attack Wilson. When Justice Holmes issued his ""clear and present danger"" dissent it was, says Murphy, an effort to protect civil liberties as against preceding events. Murphy's account of the period is thorough, and the narrative is not upset by the legal considerations. The story is a shameful one, but well told.
Good luck to the District Court judge who draws this case. Please, no teevee court cameras. Voice only feed will be more than enough. Be satisfied with real time texting from a press room viewing the proceeding via a live feed and the work product of courtroom sketch artists.
Want this phase of the 8yr chitshow to end with a whimper from Trump and a collective sigh of relief from people of good will. 6Jan can be tried after the 2024 election w/Trump convicted in the Box Hoax affair. Would prolly result in more cooperation from other co-conspiracists (possibly his loud moithed sons) in exchange for lesser charges.
Will admit it is a reach for me to include his sons in 6Jan. Included them because if they were, they would do whatever they could to escape prison time. Besides, if Ivanka knows they have involvement she would rat on then to further nudge them out of what remains of the family businesses.
Larger point 6Jan, has so many moving parts and players and other off shoots it will take much longer to bring the entire affair to a GJ. A conviction in Fulton Cty.GA would help, an acquittal not so much.
His self-inflicted wounds are Shakespearean. And a giddy pleasure to behold. From now on, every day of his life is going to be better than the next one.
The wounds, yes, but Trump ain't no Macbeth or Lear, just sayin'.
There's nothing but tawdriness in Trump, down to the bone - we have no tragedy without some sense of honor, brave deeds gone awry through impulsive overreaching, some virtue ripped apart by the green-eyed monster jealousy, grand possibilities attainable but destroyed, etc.
Something beyond a malignant narcissist with delusions of grandeur babbling incoherent gibberish, in other words.
by Sidney Blumenthal, Feb 16, 2017 - source: London Review of Books
Sidney Blumenthal was a senior adviser to Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001. The second volume of his Life of Lincoln, "Wrestling with His Angel 1849-56," will be published in May.
The most enduring blight left behind by Donald Trump, long after he has smashed things up, will be the pile of books devoted to trying to make sense of him. It will grow after investigative journalists have spent years diving for hidden records, exploring subterranean corporations and foreign partners but never reaching the dark ocean bottom. It will continue after political scientists have trekked through mountain ranges of survey data seeking the precise source of his magnetic attraction for the aggrieved white lower-middle and working classes. It will outlast the pundits holding forth on TV, collecting lecture fees and cranking out bestsellers that retail inside dope gleaned, single-sourced and second-hand, from somewhere near the elevators of Trump Tower. It will not be stemmed even after the memoirs of Trump’s associates, unreliable narrators in the spirit of their leader, have been removed from the remainder bins in used bookstores.
A week after the inauguration, Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Origins of Totalitarianism were number one and number 36 respectively on the US Amazon bestseller list, but the true-life Donald J. Trump story has more to do with what Scott Fitzgerald called ‘foul dust’ than with ideas or ideology. Reckoning with Trump means descending into the place that made him. What he represents, above all, is the triumph of an underworld of predators, hustlers, mobsters, clubhouse politicians and tabloid sleaze that festered in a corner of New York City, a vindication of his mentor, the Mafia lawyer Roy Cohn, a figure unknown to the vast majority of enthusiasts who jammed Trump’s rallies and hailed him as the authentic voice of the people.
The notion of a Trump literature begins, appropriately, with an imaginary novel, 1999: Casinos of the Third Reich, contrived by Kurt Andersen, an editor at Spy, a New York magazine of the 1980s and 1990s. Over several months in late 1989 and early 1990, Andersen kept referring to the non-existent Casinos of the Third Reich and its implausible protagonist, Donald Trump, whose narcissistic exhibitionism offered a never-ending source of unintentional self-satire. ‘Who’s my toughest competitor – if not in content, only in style?’ he asked. ‘Prince Charles,’ he answered. ‘I’m thinking of becoming an entertainer,’ he also said. ‘Liza Minnelli gets $75,000 a night to sing, and I’m really curious as to how I would do.’ ‘Yes,’ Andersen wrote, ‘in the blockbuster 1999: Casinos of the Third Reich, it’s nobleman-lounge singer Donald Trump!’ Andersen simply quoted Trump, referred to Casinos of the Third Reich and sat back. Trump did all the work. The fabulous novel had no plot and the protagonist’s character didn’t develop – just like in real life. Spy assumed its readers were in on the joke about the ‘short-fingered vulgarian’. (Marco Rubio flung Spy’s slight against Trump in a debate, without noting its provenance in the defunct magazine, if indeed he knew it. Trump heatedly replied: ‘If they’re small something else must be small. I guarantee you there’s no problem.’ The Trump spectacle often ends with insult imitating satire.)
Fred Trump, Donald’s father, was a king of Queens; the Donald became a joker in Manhattan. In search of fame and greater fortune in the big city, he set out from the family mansion with its 23 rooms, nine bathrooms and, at the front, four white columns adorned with a confected family crest. A Cadillac and a Rolls-Royce were parked in the driveway, guarded by two cast-iron jockeys. Even in Queens, it was a world apart. ‘“Be a killer,”’ Fred Trump, ‘who ruled all of us with a steel will’, told him. Then he said: ‘“You are a king.”’ *****
I had the same minor "issue" with the Shakespearean thing, and thought about it for awhile in the interests of fairness. I came up with one or two possibilities, but ended up dismissing them. Coriolanus was a possibility for a while, but he's very, very good at leading actual soldiers in actual battles. Richard II has a genuine "way with words." Hotspur's a combative asshole, but is also pretty good at soldiering. going through the villains, things look a tad more promising, but they're all a lot smarter than TFF; even Aaron the Moor (in "Titus Andronicus") has the ability to plan horrible things and implement them.
so for me, TFF is definitely sub-Shakespearean. very, very sub.
if there are any Shakespeare people out there who disagree, I am prepared to have my mind changed.
You've all made me reconsider. You're right, there's not a scintilla of an iota of a jot of honor in the entire tawdry tale. Less Shakespeare, more Grand Guignol.
As for grudges and obsessions, they are what got Trump to enter the race in 2016. The occasion was the Correspondents' Dinner at which Obama humiliated him. As an FU, I can think of none greater than Trump paying Obama back, getting elected, and, oh, yes ... ruining the country.
When Mr. T. writes of "Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and his memoir of his 10 months – wow, ten long months! – in the White House" all I could think was: A memoir? From him? Even if he'd served for four years, who cares? A paler figure one cannot name.
As for Bedminster ... I still think Ivana's casket could contain some classified documents. Disrespectful, you say? The reason he buried her there was for a tax break! I cannot *wait* to see the back of him and hear no more crap. Whether in jail or the ground, let him go and spin no more.
I was thinking exactly the same thing about Mark Meadows -- like has some reasonably respectable publisher offered him an advance for his memoir? Gag. My second thought was "Those writers better interview Cassidy Hutchinson."
Mark, a very biblical name indeed, might have to point out the obviously Christ-like side of Trump the Chosen One, though. Just a little embellishment ought to do the trick, it's Regnery Publishing's raison d'etre, the the gullibilfication of the the already hornswoggled true believers, Amen!
Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution
by Hadley Arkes
Originalism Is Not Enough {Ohhhh here we go}
In this profoundly important reassessment of constitutional interpretation, the eminent legal philosopher Hadley Arkes argues that “originalism” alone is an inadequate answer to judicial activism. Untethered from “mere Natural Law”—the moral principles knowable by all—our legal and constitutional system is doomed to incoherence.
The framers of the Constitution regarded the “self-evident” truths of the Natural Law as foundational. And yet in our own time, both liberals and conservatives insist that we must interpret the Constitution while ignoring its foundation.
Making the case anew for Natural Law, Arkes finds it not in theories hovering in the clouds or in benign platitudes (“be generous,” “be selfless”). He draws us back, rather, to the ground of Natural Law as the American Founders understood it, the anchoring truths of common sense—truths grasped at once by the ordinary man, unburdened by theories imbibed in college and law school. {{LOL, might as well remain blissfully free of any troublesome search for the truth, and especially the evils of Stealth Marxism in the Guise of American Respect for Equal Rights, dammit! What would he say about one of my instructors?*}}
When liberals discovered hitherto unknown rights in the “emanations” and “penumbras” of a “living constitution,” conservatives responded with an “originalism” that refuses to venture beyond the bare text. But in framing that text, the Founders appealed to moral principles that were there before the Constitution and would be there even if there were no Constitution. An originalism that is detached from those anchor - ing principles has strayed far from the original meaning of the Constitution. It is powerless, moreover, to resist the imposition of a perverse moral vision on our institutions and our lives.
Brilliant in its analysis, essential in its argument, Mere Natural Law is a must-read for everyone who cares about the Constitution, morality, and the rule of law.
once upon a time, Regnery actually published a couple of things a reasonable person might have wanted to read (I own one or two of them, but that's one or two books in a very large library), but that hasn't been true for a long, long time. like the rest of the country, Regnery has actually become somewhat more right-wing. which is to say, they're nuts.
Spotted this after reply to Shakespeare bit, yes, yes, and yes, have a couple of Regnery-published books somehow around here, and they have really, really lost it.
In the "paler figure" department, I don't know, Margo. Mike Pence reminds me of the flimsies we used to make copies on, and they were so pale they were almost transparent.
Also, Mark Meadows did the country a big favor by hiring Cassidy Hutchinson, even though it was totally by accident. I can't think of anything comparable that Mike Pence did -- no, wait, I'm wrong. He listened to Judge Luttig and did the right thing on 1/6. That counts for absolute sure. That counts.
It definitely counts. And he's tried to soft pedal it every since, because, well, he went against Donald Trump. By me, he's "Mr. Cellophane" from the musical "Chicago."
The Special Counsel is already investigating Trump's licensing and business with seven countries. He's in a shitload of trouble for multiple crimes. Tomorrow is not soon enough to hear from Jack Smith.
Trouble is, maximum-security prisons aren't set up to protect against that sort of danger. I doubt even putting him in isolation with no contact with the outside world would do it. The dangers Trump poses have at least as much to do with his devotees as with him, and martyrdom is a thing.
In 2017, eight stars were added to the CIA's Memorial Wall for agents killed in the line of duty. The most in a single year. And stars have been added every year since (a first), now at 139, amid concerns that Trump was disseminating HUMINT intelligence. "Trump Inquiry Fueled in Part by Concern Over Human Intelligence Sources in Documents Trump Improperly Took. Last year [2021], a top-secret memo sent to every C.I.A. station around the world, warned about troubling numbers of informants being captured or killed..."
Alas, however this ends, we will still have to live with his dumbass fans, many of them our friends, coworkers or kin. I do believe that when this is eventually all over, and the Trump family has fled to Dubai or Moscow to avoid prosecution, Trump supporters will fall into the same three camps as Hitler voters after WW2:
This time there is an accomplished Justice Department former public integrity chief Jack Smith in the position of Special Counsel. His most recent assignment was at the International Criminal Court at The Hague in the Netherlands, investigating and prosecuting war crimes. Talk is he will leave no stone unturned and seems especially qualified and experienced to conduct the investigation of Trump's extensive crimes. He is also looking at Trump's firing of Christopher Krebs, cybersecurity expert and official, after he assured the public the 2020 election was the cleanest ever conducted. Subpoenas have been delivered. Trump may manage to dodge some of the barrage of indictments coming his way, but he and his dime-store attorneys are no match for the professional investigators and prosecutors on his case this go round. His hubris knows no bounds; public political office will be his downfall.
The real question is what did MBS pay $2 billion for? Democrats should be hammering on that every. damn. day.
...and maybe also what did MBS do with what he bought, perhaps passing it on to someone else in Russia?
Whatever the worst thing we can imagine it's worse than that.
Jared should be worried.
A fish that keeps its mouth shut never gets caught.
Al Sharpton
In the end it will be Trump's hubris that brings him down. Why are our politics filled with men of grievance, combining excessive hubris, coupled with a huge inferiority complex like Rafael Cruz, Clarence Thomas, and Trump. They know that they could never be the cool kids, like Obama, and can't get over it, trying now again and again to punish the rest of us for excluding them.
thesiseleven.com/2023/02/13/book-review-on-fascism-12-lessons-from-american-history/
February 13, 2023
Matthew C. MacWilliams, On Fascism: 12 lessons from American History (St Martin’s Publishing Group, 2020)
Reviewed by Zak Kizer (Iowa Lakes Community College)
The United States is a country that prides itself on the egalitarian principles upon which it was founded almost two hundred and fifty years ago: government through popular will, equality of opportunity and a litany of individual freedoms. However, throughout our history, from the days of the Framers to the 2020s, those ideals have consistently been challenged and even undermined by authoritarian policies. This is particularly evident in the aftermath of the Trump administration and the 2020 election. The era of Trump began with endless claims of fake news and alternative facts, only to end with the president launching an unprecedented (and ultimately abortive) attempt to overturn millions of legitimate votes to stay in power. It is in this climate that Matthew MacWilliams (2020) wrote On Fascism: 12 Lessons from American History, and his short but informative book is a bitter but essential pill for twenty-first century America to swallow.
MacWilliams begins his tome with a list of statistics compiled by the Index of American Authoritarian Attitudes (IAAA), with each bullet point displaying troubling data on American sympathies towards undemocratic worldviews. The book’s introduction places these statistics in context and demonstrates how they contradict the ever-popular myth of America’s immunity to authoritarian rule. Each chapter is labelled a lesson, and each one details specific examples of authoritarianism in US history. Lesson One covers the 1858 Senate race between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, framing Douglas’s victory via the electoral vote as choosing “othering inequality” over American Enlightenment values (21). Lesson Two analyzes Donald Trump’s inaugural address point-by-point through the lens of Richard Hofstader’s “paranoid style,” a conspiratorial form of rhetoric that warns of apocalyptic threats to America and uses that fear to justify illegal or seditious actions (22).
Lesson Three analyzes the role of technology in spreading hate and paranoia, and how in the Digital Age the “guardrails of democracy” are woefully inadequate to stop the spread of manufactured scandals and conspiracy theories on the Internet (37). Lesson Four examines the Sedition Act of 1789, and how President John Adams used the “political monopoly” his party held at the time to enforce the unconstitutional censorship of writing critical of his administration (46). Lesson Five dissects the origins of the forced relocation of Native Americans, detailing the Jackson Administration’s constant violation of Indian treaties even when ordered to cease by a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Cherokee Nation. Lesson Six tackles America’s long and repulsive history of lynching, an “instrument” used by whites to maintain power over minority communities that still has not been outlawed at the federal level (61). Lesson Seven covers the xenophobic restrictions placed on Chinese immigrants from the 1880s to the 1940s, making note of the hypocrisy of such legislation being enacted just prior to the publication of “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus.
Lesson Eight describes the abuses of federal power during the First Red Scare following World War One, namely the nationwide arrests of suspected communists without warrant by Attorney General A Mitchell Palmer and his protégé, a young J Edgar Hoover. Lesson Nine tackles the appropriation of US historical imagery by American fascists prior to World War Two, specifically in the German American Bund’s rhetoric of the “militant white man” and “Aryan character” that built the nation out of a savage wilderness (93). Lesson Ten examines the internment of Japanese Americans following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, noting that “public fears” and “media fearmongering” were more than enough to overpower objections from the left, right and center (102). Lesson Eleven describes the parallels between the rise of Donald Trump with that of Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, with the caveat that Trump lacks many obstacles faced by his predecessor due to relentless online misinformation and influential media sycophants. Lesson Twelve details the modern surveillance state and lack of government transparency since 9/11, calling the covert continuation of mass data collection on Americans (despite public denouncement of such programs) the US government’s “big lie” (128). MacWilliams concludes his book with ten steps to reduce the polarization of the American people and to reverse the erosion of our basic freedoms. In addition, MacWilliams provides three appendices that detail the IAAA’s survey questions, the chicken-and-the-egg relationship between bigotry and authoritarian attitudes, and the qualitative research that continues to shape the study of authoritarianism around the world.
The strength of MacWilliams’s book is its lack of sensationalism. Each of his lessons is backed by real-world examples and statistics, and thus MacWilliams skillfully avoids the tempting trap of false equivalency and hyperbolic language. For example, Lesson Two meticulously dissects Trump inaugural address using Hofstader’s framework (MacWilliams, 2020). Specifically, the author links Trump’s promises to “unite the civilized world” against and annihilate radical Islam “from the face of the Earth” to the paranoid style’s calls to fight a “totally evil and unappeasable enemy” that must be destroyed at all cost (MacWilliams, 2020, 27). In an age where words like “Fascist” are thrown out as insults with little nuance or depth, a work grounded in a detailed and refined understanding of authoritarian history and politics is most refreshing.
However, MacWilliams’s work is limited in two areas. First, while the book’s relatively short length helps to make it accessible to a wider audience, it also leaves out noteworthy information that could have strengthened the author’s arguments. A key example of this is Lesson Nine, which discusses the American fascist fringe but doesn’t acknowledge the more mainstream political connections between the US and the Third Reich (MacWilliams, 2020). According to Whitman (2018), the anti-Semitic laws crafted at Nuremberg in 1935 were built off the framework of the American segregation system, and many Nazi intellectuals viewed the United States as a “laboratory for experimentation” in revoking the rights of minority citizens (43). While the militant Far Right of decades past certainly offers eerie parallels to recent events, a longer text could have painted a more complete picture of Fascist sympathies in 1930s America.
The second limitation is not the fault of the author but because of the timing of the book’s release. Having come out in March 2020, the author, for obvious reasons, was unaware of the fruitless efforts of the Trump campaign to reverse their loss to Joe Biden. In what The Week labeled a “failed coup,” Trump and his allies launched a torrent of baseless lawsuits alleging mass voter fraud in multiple states, as well as publicly promoted conspiracy theories that blamed the alleged fraud on everyone from the Democratic Party to the Venezuelan government to the companies who provided electronic voting machines (“Trump’s failed attempt to overturn the election,” December 4th, 2020, 4). In addition, election officials across the nation have reported intimidation and even acts of violence from Trump supporters, in what The Washington Post has called an explosion of passions that potentially could form a new rhetorical playbook for floundering politicians going forward.
These passions exploded spectacularly on January 6th, 2021. On that day, a mob of Trump supporters stormed and briefly occupied the US Capitol in order to stop the certification of the election results. This attack was instigated by the previous lies about voter fraud, which Trump reiterated with gusto at a rally he held at the White House earlier that day. So consecutive were these events that the President’s call to challenge his loss has been deemed an “implicit blessing” of the siege. While the siege was unsuccessful at changing the outcome of the election, within a week Trump became the first US president to be impeached twice. In addition, Trump was banned from using several social media networks (including the giants of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube) claiming the intent to preventing him from encouraging violence, a sanction unprecedented for an American head of state. While MacWilliams certainly cannot be faulted for not foreseeing these events, they are nonetheless very relevant to his arguments and would make for an interesting point of discussion in a future edition; perhaps even a thirteenth lesson.
Overall, MacWilliams’s On Fascism is an accessible yet provocative highlight reel of still-relevant US history. Despite its focus on dark chapters of America’s past and present, this book manages to offer a stirring and thoughtful road map for the future of American politics, emphasizing the vitality of communication and working for the common good in an age defined by deep polarization all along the political spectrum.
References
Whitman, J.Q. (2018). Hitler’s American model: The United States & the making of Nazi race
Law [eBook edition]. Princeton University Press.
thanks for posting this review, Richard. I immediately bought the e-book.
Mike Tomasky's "If We Can Keep It" is also an excellent source, although they're different kinds of books (Tomasky isn't quite as focused on "fascism" specifically, but systemic dysfunction in general).
what they have in common is the fact that they both came out well before the 2020 election and "big lie" bullshit, which...do I have to finish the sentence?
Thank you for this book review. I had not heard of it before now.
Liked for "Trump's hubris" will bring him down, added link* to suggest a book about the historical perspective that is demanded: WHY, for example, is what you and I and millions of others comprehend as `hubris,' the same characteristics admired by his base?
Could there have been a long prequel to this "Trump era of quasi-fascist buffoonery and even sedition," stretching back into some of the darkest trends and events in American history?
*thesiseleven.com/2023/02/13/book-review-on-fascism-12-lessons-from-american-history/
I'd say a "very, very long prequel."
Same excellent review with PDF download option:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/07255136221074407
Amazing the things that are trickling out. You are the best lookout; keep it up! Your insight into the military and the discipline, loyalty, and perseverance they have are jewels of the republic......... Thank you. 👍
I have the funny feeling that Jack Smith is going around his office cheering and fist pumping..because this kind of manna from heaven doesn't happen to every prosecutor, and he knows it.
Because the evidence he probably has is good, but this seals the fate of one Donald Trump and he's gonna be the messenger.
It will be a day of celebration for all patriotic Americans including General Milley, who will probably be dancing a jig
My bottle of Irish Mist is awaiting the indictment. I shall toast Jack Smith and all those hard-working DOJ people who have dedicated their lives to our country. They will earn every penny of their salary to bring Trump to justice.
And I would also toast the brave folks who stood in trumps way, even Pompeo and McCarthy. But mainly Milley.
Maybe it's because most photos of Jack Smith are so dour and "just the facts, ma'am" that I can't imagine him cheering and fist pumping for any reason. At least not where anyone can see him!
Jack Smith does make me think of John Brown, single-minded crusader for justice. Can you think of two real names that sound more like pseudonyms? Maybe "Jack Smith" is an alias and his real name is Justice.
I wrote a paper on John Brown for a "History of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties" course at the U, the research led into some of the Bloody Kansas period after the pro-slavery mob burned Lawrence - altered my perspective a bit, on his most extreme tactics, if they were really reasoned out at all, and not egregious acts of revenge executed as vigilante justice.
It was such a frenzied atmosphere, repaying atrocity with atrocity, it seems as if even that was understandable if not justifiable --- hindsight is 20. 20 and all that.
*****
LAWRENCE was the center of Kansas's anti-slavery movement. It was named for AMOS LAWRENCE, a New England financier who provided aid to anti-slavery farmers and settlers. This group went beyond simple monetary aid. New England Abolitionists shipped boxes of Sharps rifles, named "BEECHER'S BIBLES," to anti-slavery forces. The name for the rifles came from a comment by HENRY WARD BEECHER, the anti-slavery preacher who had remarked that a rifle might be a more powerful moral agent on the Kansas plains than a Bible. The lines were now drawn. Each side had passion, and each side had guns.
The administration of PRESIDENT FRANKLIN PIERCE refused to step in to resolve the election dispute resulting from the "border ruffians." In the spring of 1856, JUDGE SAMUEL LECOMPTE demanded that members of the anti-slavery government in Kansas, called the Free-Soil government, be indicted for treason. Many leaders in this government lived in Lawrence. On May 21, 1856, the pro-slavery forces sprung into action. A posse of over 800 men from Kansas and Missouri rode to Lawrence to arrest members of the free state government. The citizens of Lawrence decided against resistance. However, the mob was not satisfied. They proceeded to destroy two newspaper offices as they threw the printing presses from the Free-Soil newspaper into the nearby river. They burned and looted homes and shops. As a final message to Abolitionists, they aimed their cannons at the FREE STATE HOTEL and smashed it into oblivion.
www.ushistory.org/us/31c.asp
The course's instructor wrote this:
www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/a/paul-l-murphy-2/world-war-i-and-the-origin-of-civil-liberties-i/
BY PAUL L. MURPHY ‧ RELEASE DATE: JAN. 28, 1979
Although the Bill of Rights had been around for a long time, it was not until World War I, according to University of Minnesota historian Murphy, that the issue of civil liberties became an important and continuous factor in American legal and political life. Even prior to U.S. entry into the war, Wilson had spread suspicion about the ""Americanism"" of recent arrivals; and once American involvement was a fact, that suspicion bred repression. On the basis that any opposition to government policy on the war was treasonous, Wilson got an Espionage Act passed in 1917 that amounted to carte blanche for the Attorney General to suppress whatever was deemed ""disloyal."" During the war, Murphy shows, the government stepped in to sanction the private power of industry--outlawing strikes and suppressing labor organizations in the name of wartime necessity. ""Hyphenates""--German-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc.--were suspected of loyalty to their native lands, and beatings and threats were common. Left-wing and pacifist magazines and organizations from the Masses to the IWW were victimized by the government. All this and more took place in a context that was devoid of legal precedent for the protection of free speech and assembly; as Murphy shows, the Supreme Court upheld the government down the line. But, gradually, opposition groups began to form, and Roger Baldwin's Civil Liberties Bureau--predecessor of the ACLU--was formed to give legal assistance to dissenters. Once the war ended, the continuation of repressive measures proved self-destructive, as Republicans seized on the suppression issue to attack Wilson. When Justice Holmes issued his ""clear and present danger"" dissent it was, says Murphy, an effort to protect civil liberties as against preceding events. Murphy's account of the period is thorough, and the narrative is not upset by the legal considerations. The story is a shameful one, but well told.
Good luck to the District Court judge who draws this case. Please, no teevee court cameras. Voice only feed will be more than enough. Be satisfied with real time texting from a press room viewing the proceeding via a live feed and the work product of courtroom sketch artists.
Want this phase of the 8yr chitshow to end with a whimper from Trump and a collective sigh of relief from people of good will. 6Jan can be tried after the 2024 election w/Trump convicted in the Box Hoax affair. Would prolly result in more cooperation from other co-conspiracists (possibly his loud moithed sons) in exchange for lesser charges.
I'm envisioning Trump being led away in handcuffs after the numerous guilty verdicts.
I expect his sons to sing like birds when Daddy goes down. Like father, like sons.
Will admit it is a reach for me to include his sons in 6Jan. Included them because if they were, they would do whatever they could to escape prison time. Besides, if Ivanka knows they have involvement she would rat on then to further nudge them out of what remains of the family businesses.
Larger point 6Jan, has so many moving parts and players and other off shoots it will take much longer to bring the entire affair to a GJ. A conviction in Fulton Cty.GA would help, an acquittal not so much.
Quote attributed to Lincoln: "No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar."
His self-inflicted wounds are Shakespearean. And a giddy pleasure to behold. From now on, every day of his life is going to be better than the next one.
The wounds, yes, but Trump ain't no Macbeth or Lear, just sayin'.
There's nothing but tawdriness in Trump, down to the bone - we have no tragedy without some sense of honor, brave deeds gone awry through impulsive overreaching, some virtue ripped apart by the green-eyed monster jealousy, grand possibilities attainable but destroyed, etc.
Something beyond a malignant narcissist with delusions of grandeur babbling incoherent gibberish, in other words.
historynewsnetwork.org/article/165157
A Short History of the Trump Family {EXCERPT}
by Sidney Blumenthal, Feb 16, 2017 - source: London Review of Books
Sidney Blumenthal was a senior adviser to Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001. The second volume of his Life of Lincoln, "Wrestling with His Angel 1849-56," will be published in May.
The most enduring blight left behind by Donald Trump, long after he has smashed things up, will be the pile of books devoted to trying to make sense of him. It will grow after investigative journalists have spent years diving for hidden records, exploring subterranean corporations and foreign partners but never reaching the dark ocean bottom. It will continue after political scientists have trekked through mountain ranges of survey data seeking the precise source of his magnetic attraction for the aggrieved white lower-middle and working classes. It will outlast the pundits holding forth on TV, collecting lecture fees and cranking out bestsellers that retail inside dope gleaned, single-sourced and second-hand, from somewhere near the elevators of Trump Tower. It will not be stemmed even after the memoirs of Trump’s associates, unreliable narrators in the spirit of their leader, have been removed from the remainder bins in used bookstores.
A week after the inauguration, Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Origins of Totalitarianism were number one and number 36 respectively on the US Amazon bestseller list, but the true-life Donald J. Trump story has more to do with what Scott Fitzgerald called ‘foul dust’ than with ideas or ideology. Reckoning with Trump means descending into the place that made him. What he represents, above all, is the triumph of an underworld of predators, hustlers, mobsters, clubhouse politicians and tabloid sleaze that festered in a corner of New York City, a vindication of his mentor, the Mafia lawyer Roy Cohn, a figure unknown to the vast majority of enthusiasts who jammed Trump’s rallies and hailed him as the authentic voice of the people.
The notion of a Trump literature begins, appropriately, with an imaginary novel, 1999: Casinos of the Third Reich, contrived by Kurt Andersen, an editor at Spy, a New York magazine of the 1980s and 1990s. Over several months in late 1989 and early 1990, Andersen kept referring to the non-existent Casinos of the Third Reich and its implausible protagonist, Donald Trump, whose narcissistic exhibitionism offered a never-ending source of unintentional self-satire. ‘Who’s my toughest competitor – if not in content, only in style?’ he asked. ‘Prince Charles,’ he answered. ‘I’m thinking of becoming an entertainer,’ he also said. ‘Liza Minnelli gets $75,000 a night to sing, and I’m really curious as to how I would do.’ ‘Yes,’ Andersen wrote, ‘in the blockbuster 1999: Casinos of the Third Reich, it’s nobleman-lounge singer Donald Trump!’ Andersen simply quoted Trump, referred to Casinos of the Third Reich and sat back. Trump did all the work. The fabulous novel had no plot and the protagonist’s character didn’t develop – just like in real life. Spy assumed its readers were in on the joke about the ‘short-fingered vulgarian’. (Marco Rubio flung Spy’s slight against Trump in a debate, without noting its provenance in the defunct magazine, if indeed he knew it. Trump heatedly replied: ‘If they’re small something else must be small. I guarantee you there’s no problem.’ The Trump spectacle often ends with insult imitating satire.)
Fred Trump, Donald’s father, was a king of Queens; the Donald became a joker in Manhattan. In search of fame and greater fortune in the big city, he set out from the family mansion with its 23 rooms, nine bathrooms and, at the front, four white columns adorned with a confected family crest. A Cadillac and a Rolls-Royce were parked in the driveway, guarded by two cast-iron jockeys. Even in Queens, it was a world apart. ‘“Be a killer,”’ Fred Trump, ‘who ruled all of us with a steel will’, told him. Then he said: ‘“You are a king.”’ *****
historynewsnetwork.org/article/165157
Now I know what Sid Blumenthal has been doing.
I had the same minor "issue" with the Shakespearean thing, and thought about it for awhile in the interests of fairness. I came up with one or two possibilities, but ended up dismissing them. Coriolanus was a possibility for a while, but he's very, very good at leading actual soldiers in actual battles. Richard II has a genuine "way with words." Hotspur's a combative asshole, but is also pretty good at soldiering. going through the villains, things look a tad more promising, but they're all a lot smarter than TFF; even Aaron the Moor (in "Titus Andronicus") has the ability to plan horrible things and implement them.
so for me, TFF is definitely sub-Shakespearean. very, very sub.
if there are any Shakespeare people out there who disagree, I am prepared to have my mind changed.
You've all made me reconsider. You're right, there's not a scintilla of an iota of a jot of honor in the entire tawdry tale. Less Shakespeare, more Grand Guignol.
I like Jimmy Breslin, The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.
yes
it truly warms my cockles to think that trump's cruel need for revenge could be major part of his downfall and hopefully for his incarceration.
As for grudges and obsessions, they are what got Trump to enter the race in 2016. The occasion was the Correspondents' Dinner at which Obama humiliated him. As an FU, I can think of none greater than Trump paying Obama back, getting elected, and, oh, yes ... ruining the country.
When Mr. T. writes of "Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and his memoir of his 10 months – wow, ten long months! – in the White House" all I could think was: A memoir? From him? Even if he'd served for four years, who cares? A paler figure one cannot name.
As for Bedminster ... I still think Ivana's casket could contain some classified documents. Disrespectful, you say? The reason he buried her there was for a tax break! I cannot *wait* to see the back of him and hear no more crap. Whether in jail or the ground, let him go and spin no more.
I was thinking exactly the same thing about Mark Meadows -- like has some reasonably respectable publisher offered him an advance for his memoir? Gag. My second thought was "Those writers better interview Cassidy Hutchinson."
Regnery will take it.
Mark, a very biblical name indeed, might have to point out the obviously Christ-like side of Trump the Chosen One, though. Just a little embellishment ought to do the trick, it's Regnery Publishing's raison d'etre, the the gullibilfication of the the already hornswoggled true believers, Amen!
www.regnery.com
Conservative Books for Independent Thinkers
Mere Natural Law
Originalism and the Anchoring Truths of the Constitution
by Hadley Arkes
Originalism Is Not Enough {Ohhhh here we go}
In this profoundly important reassessment of constitutional interpretation, the eminent legal philosopher Hadley Arkes argues that “originalism” alone is an inadequate answer to judicial activism. Untethered from “mere Natural Law”—the moral principles knowable by all—our legal and constitutional system is doomed to incoherence.
The framers of the Constitution regarded the “self-evident” truths of the Natural Law as foundational. And yet in our own time, both liberals and conservatives insist that we must interpret the Constitution while ignoring its foundation.
Making the case anew for Natural Law, Arkes finds it not in theories hovering in the clouds or in benign platitudes (“be generous,” “be selfless”). He draws us back, rather, to the ground of Natural Law as the American Founders understood it, the anchoring truths of common sense—truths grasped at once by the ordinary man, unburdened by theories imbibed in college and law school. {{LOL, might as well remain blissfully free of any troublesome search for the truth, and especially the evils of Stealth Marxism in the Guise of American Respect for Equal Rights, dammit! What would he say about one of my instructors?*}}
When liberals discovered hitherto unknown rights in the “emanations” and “penumbras” of a “living constitution,” conservatives responded with an “originalism” that refuses to venture beyond the bare text. But in framing that text, the Founders appealed to moral principles that were there before the Constitution and would be there even if there were no Constitution. An originalism that is detached from those anchor - ing principles has strayed far from the original meaning of the Constitution. It is powerless, moreover, to resist the imposition of a perverse moral vision on our institutions and our lives.
Brilliant in its analysis, essential in its argument, Mere Natural Law is a must-read for everyone who cares about the Constitution, morality, and the rule of law.
Published: May, 2023
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Erlinder *****
Activities
National president, National Lawyers Guild, 1993–97.
Current member, National Lawyers Guild Steering Committee.
Member, National Lawyers Guild Foundation Board.
Founding board member, National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom, Washington, DC.
Member, National Conference of Bill of Rights Defense Committees Steering Committee, Washington, DC.
Founding member, Minnesota Bill of Rights Defense Coalition.
Member, Minnesota Alliance for Progressive Action Board.
Defense Attorney at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, 2003–April 2011(Dismissed by ICTR)
In the News
NEW BOOK: THE BIOMEDICAL SECURITY STATE GIVES UNCHECKED POWER TO GLOBAL ELITES
BOOK REVIEW: ‘The Custer of the West Series’
A Bronze Star and Purple Heart Veteran Reveals the Reality of War and Recovery Like no one Before
READ MORE
Featured Video
Dennis Prager has a new Old Testament Study – WATCH NOW
SEE MORE
yup. there's always Regnery.
once upon a time, Regnery actually published a couple of things a reasonable person might have wanted to read (I own one or two of them, but that's one or two books in a very large library), but that hasn't been true for a long, long time. like the rest of the country, Regnery has actually become somewhat more right-wing. which is to say, they're nuts.
Spotted this after reply to Shakespeare bit, yes, yes, and yes, have a couple of Regnery-published books somehow around here, and they have really, really lost it.
That she still lives is a wonderment!
it's funny about that Ivana coffin thing. the first time someone mentioned it, I dismissed it out of hand; now, I'm not so sure.
of course, if the documents are buried, they can't be used for anything. not even TFF's moronic "bragging."
Thank you. I was waiting for this comment. If you hadn't said it, I would have.
In the "paler figure" department, I don't know, Margo. Mike Pence reminds me of the flimsies we used to make copies on, and they were so pale they were almost transparent.
Also, Mark Meadows did the country a big favor by hiring Cassidy Hutchinson, even though it was totally by accident. I can't think of anything comparable that Mike Pence did -- no, wait, I'm wrong. He listened to Judge Luttig and did the right thing on 1/6. That counts for absolute sure. That counts.
It definitely counts. And he's tried to soft pedal it every since, because, well, he went against Donald Trump. By me, he's "Mr. Cellophane" from the musical "Chicago."
The Special Counsel is already investigating Trump's licensing and business with seven countries. He's in a shitload of trouble for multiple crimes. Tomorrow is not soon enough to hear from Jack Smith.
My prediction is that Trump is hoping to trade the documents to stay out of federal prison.
Personally I think he belongs in the supermax in Florence Co. He is just that much of a danger to world peace.
After he is convicted I hope that the judge orders at a minimum home detention and absolutely no internet access.
I totally agree. Send him to Colorado. That would be justice.
You're kidding, right, about trading docs to stay out of prison? Wrong government, hon.
Trading documents? "hold out your arms and stand still while we put cuffs on you."
His entire life has been transactional.
I could see him trying to offer to return them in exchange for dropping the most serious charges.
Why he was hired to run, that and a total disinterest in governance and not one iota of empathy for anyone but himself.
Trouble is, maximum-security prisons aren't set up to protect against that sort of danger. I doubt even putting him in isolation with no contact with the outside world would do it. The dangers Trump poses have at least as much to do with his devotees as with him, and martyrdom is a thing.
Lock him up! Lock him up!
Yes, yes, yes!!!! You read my mind and, I'm sure, many others'.
In 2017, eight stars were added to the CIA's Memorial Wall for agents killed in the line of duty. The most in a single year. And stars have been added every year since (a first), now at 139, amid concerns that Trump was disseminating HUMINT intelligence. "Trump Inquiry Fueled in Part by Concern Over Human Intelligence Sources in Documents Trump Improperly Took. Last year [2021], a top-secret memo sent to every C.I.A. station around the world, warned about troubling numbers of informants being captured or killed..."
I'm tasting shit at the back of my throat.
Blood on his hands.
Up to his shoulders.
Alas, however this ends, we will still have to live with his dumbass fans, many of them our friends, coworkers or kin. I do believe that when this is eventually all over, and the Trump family has fled to Dubai or Moscow to avoid prosecution, Trump supporters will fall into the same three camps as Hitler voters after WW2:
1. “I don’t want to talk about it.“
2. “I never really supported him.”
3. “Long live the Führer!“
This time there is an accomplished Justice Department former public integrity chief Jack Smith in the position of Special Counsel. His most recent assignment was at the International Criminal Court at The Hague in the Netherlands, investigating and prosecuting war crimes. Talk is he will leave no stone unturned and seems especially qualified and experienced to conduct the investigation of Trump's extensive crimes. He is also looking at Trump's firing of Christopher Krebs, cybersecurity expert and official, after he assured the public the 2020 election was the cleanest ever conducted. Subpoenas have been delivered. Trump may manage to dodge some of the barrage of indictments coming his way, but he and his dime-store attorneys are no match for the professional investigators and prosecutors on his case this go round. His hubris knows no bounds; public political office will be his downfall.
I’m just waiting for a repeat of Republican President’s words after he stepped down from his high horse:
“They won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore!”