Trump's indictment and the vicious propaganda war it spawned

As expected, a vicious, mendacious, deeply immoral Republican Party propaganda war over the Trump indictment is underway. This 8 minute video with Trump supporter Lindsey Graham goes over what appear to be about the best arguments that Trump supporters can come up with. This is loaded with hyper-partisan political lies, slanders and sleaze.

If you could stomach that dreck, here's a fact-based analysis of Lindsey's lies and deceit.

Hillary's emailgate: The DoJ under Trump had four years to go after Hillary for her alleged crimes, but nothing happened. From that lack of indictment and prosecution, I believe that there was not enough evidence to prosecute Hillary. Presumably, the available evidence was insufficient to prove criminal intent. Given that, Graham's blither about Hillary committing crimes by smashing cell phones with hammers is pure Republican Party bullshit and lies. 

Hunter's laptopgate: Waddabout Hunter's laptop? Wikipedia comments: 

Trump attempted to turn the [Hunter's laptop] story into an October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign, falsely alleging he had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine while in office. The hard drive data had been shared with the FBI and Republican operatives such as Trump advisor Steve Bannon before it became publicly known. In December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury, the FBI seized the laptop from Mac Isaac. .... Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by him, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by May 2023. 

So, the FBI and DoJ had from December 2019 until January 21, 2021 to investigate the evidence in Hunter's laptop. But again, there was no indictment and prosecution. Therefore, the laptop scandal was another insulting GOP vaporware nothingburger, regardless of what insulting lies Lindsey spews. A detailed WaPo analysis suggests that laptop evidence could be challenged as unreliable and/or tampered with.

Bill Clinton's Lewinskygate: Lindsey also drags Bill Clinton into this. Clinton was impeached by the House for obstructing justice and committing  perjury. The Senate acquitted so the impeachment died there. 

Both obstruction and perjury are actual crimes. But neither violated the Espionage Act, which is what most of the crimes Trump is accused of having committed. After Clinton left office, Bush was in office for 8 years. In those 8 years, there was no criminal indictment and prosecution for those crimes. 

So, Lindsey dragging Bill into this looks like another insulting Republican nothingburger. 

Whistleblowergate: Lindsey then howls in sanctimonious moral outrage that whistleblowers who turn national security secrets over to foreign nations get prosecuted for espionage. He then argues that Trump did not turn secrets over to any other nation and therefore no espionage was committed. This lie is Lindsey's most subtle deceit. Trump is charged under 18 U.S. Code § 793(e), Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, which is part of the Espionage Act. That law reads as follows:

 

18 U.S. Code § 793, Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information   

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;  

 

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

The part in red specifies that anyone, not just a foreign agent or enemy, who is illegally willfully shows the defense information shall be fined or imprisoned. That makes Lindsey's comments a lie. The last highlighted part specifies that simply refusing to turn over defense information to the government violates the law. Trump refused repeatedly. That also makes Lindsey a liar. 

The subtlety in Lindsey's lie here is that he says Trump did not commit espionage. That may or may not be true, depending on how espionage is defined in the law and Lindsey's mind. But Trump clearly did violate the Espionage Act law by retaining the 31 national defense documents and not turning them over when asked. That violated 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) 31 times. What is less clear is how many documents Trump showed to other people, which would violate the provision of the law highlighted in red.

Trump's plea deal offer(gate): In a show of arrogance and contempt for the rule of law of galactic proportions, Newsweek reported that Trump has mulled a plea deal contingent on the government paying him damages: "Trump further predicted that he will not be convicted on the federal charges stemming from the documents case. He also stressed that he would not accept a plea deal unless he was presented one 'where they pay me some damages.'" And, Trump might also demand that the US government has to issue an apology for indicting him and reinstall him immediately as president, while immediately jailing Bill, Hillary, Joe and Hunter because they are all horrible, communist, criminal, pedophile lizard people who need to be locked up!!

Germaine's letter to the State Bar of South Carolina(gate): Lindsey graduated from the University of South Carolina law school in 1981. His public** bar credentials page indicates that he is an inactive member of the bar, but in good standing. Germaine might write a letter to the state bar there suggesting they look into Lindsey's comments. Since his screed on TV was loaded with easily verified lies, maybe there's some basis in South Carolina to discipline a scumbag, even if it is an inactive member. Germaine is unsure if it's worth the cost of a stamp to point out that Graham is a bald faced liar to the SC bar. Much confusion reigns in poor Germaine's fevered mind. 

** No, I am not doxxing Lindsey. His bar page is public, just like mine is here in California. Anyone can look him up.

This guy is in good standing??

What does it take to be in bad standing,

shoot someone on 5th Ave. in broad daylight?

In the interview, one can easily hear Lindsey Graham's frustration, loud and clear. One has to concede that. Unfortunately for America and democracy, Lindsey is an expert vicious, lying bag of insulting sleaze. And, he's a good actor. 

Far worse, Lindsey is probably right to say that what he says in this interview is what most Republicans actually believe. That is terrifying.

Acknowledgement: Thanks to PSS (Primordial Soup Susan) for bringing up the Graham interview on ABC.

Cults and Religions…

First, let me plant this conundrum in your head:

At what point does a religion become a cult?  Or, is it a cult that can become a religion, when it can get enough “community backing/validation?” (see for example orthodox religions)

Like the chicken and the egg, can one be the predecessor, or successor, of the other?  Okay, hold that thought…

Next, let’s get some working definitions from Mirriam-Webster, so that we can all be on somewhat the same page:

Cult

1 :

a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (not genuine, false)

also : its body of adherents

2

a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work

b : the object of such devotion

c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

3 :

a system of religious beliefs and ritual

also : its body of adherents

4 :

formal religious veneration : WORSHIP

 

Religion

 

1 :    

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

2 :

a:         (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural

(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

3 :       

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I guess a lot of mixing and matching can happen here.  Also, some essentially contested concepts (ECCs) are scattered throughout.  But let’s try to work with what we got. 

Here are the questions:

Q1: Where do you draw your line in distinguishing between a cult versus a religion?  What is the defining/pivotal quality(ies) that make them one or the other?  I.e., those “gotta haves” that the other doesn’t. 

Q2: How do you know when someone has crossed over the religion line into becoming a cult member?  What does that take?  E.g.,

• When their religion occupies xx% of their day/week
• When there is a manipulative element to their activities
• When they seem to have lost all ability to think for themselves and depend on a figurehead for instructions
• Other

News bits: What's up with John Roberts?; The potential for violence ratchets up; Etc.

A Supreme Court decision last week, Allen v. Milligan, was about voting rights. It surprised a lot of people who expected the six authoritarian Republican Supreme Court justices to continue attacking voting rights. In an unexpected turn of events, chief justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh voted to protect black voters from further gerrymandered disenfranchisement in Alabama. Some partisans immediately seized on this as evidence the Republicans on the Supreme Court were not just predictable authoritarian Republican partisans. 

For what it's worth, I instantly dismissed the pro-voting rights decision as an aberration in view of the decades of blatant hostility that Republican Party elites, specifically including John Roberts, have shown toward voting rights. The Milligan decision was a misdirection to keep criticism of the court down. 

And don't forget that in Milligan, four of the six radical Republicans voted to blow another massive hole in voting rights. Only God knows what Kavanaugh got in return for his vote with Roberts.

40 second video clip

Classic clip from 1980: Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn't want people to vote. He complains that fellow Christians have "Goo-Goo Syndrome": Good Government.  As of 2007, Weyrich continued to gave weekly strategy sessions to Republicans.

Weyrich: "As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." 

The Guardian writes about the Allen v. Milligan decision:

The US supreme court ruling delivered on Thursday by John Roberts marks a departure for the chief justice from his 40-year battle to whittle down racial equality protections enshrined in the crowning glory of the civil rights movement.

Roberts wrote the Allen v. Milligan opinion himself, forging an unconventional 5-4 majority with the support of the three liberal-leaning justices plus the partial backing of the conservative Brett Kavanaugh. The chief justice’s decision to cling closely to precedent and avoid a sweeping reframing of voting rights law took supreme court observers by surprise.

In his Milligan opinion, the chief justice pledged himself to providing “a faithful application of our precedents and a fair reading of the record”. He upheld a lower court ruling that had objected to the electoral maps drawn up by Alabama’s Republican-dominated legislature.

A key to understanding Roberts’s intentions is that he plays the long game. He likes to present himself as a bridge-builder who represents the moderate center of American jurisprudence. He is also highly sensitive to the slump in public trust in the supreme court that has followed embarrassing revelations about Clarence Thomas’s luxury holidays paid for by a Texan billionaire.

In that context, Roberts has shown himself willing to bide his time before making some of his more extreme interventions.

The pattern is seen perhaps most clearly with voting rights, where Roberts has since the early 1980s expressed profound doubts about the role of federal law in forwarding equal representation for Black citizens. Exactly 10 years ago, he delivered Shelby County v. Holder, which punched a gaping hole in the Voting Rights Act, Lyndon Johnson’s landmark legislation that was perhaps the pinnacle of the civil rights movement.

Roberts pretends he is a bridge-builder representing the moderate center of American law. That he presents himself that way is true. But that presentation is a bald faced lie. It is a sham. Roberts is playing the long game here. In due course, he will continue limiting voting rights. In time if he lives long enough, he will cement into American law unrestrained power of (i) the radicalized, authoritarian Republican Party, (ii) Christian nationalist theocracy, and (iii) radical brass knuckles capitalism.  

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it unless Roberts shows a lot more evidence that he is actually serious about (i) “a faithful application of our precedents and a fair reading of the record”, and (ii) defense of democracy, the public interest and civil liberties, especially voting rights.   

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

From the Treasonous Coup Plotters Files: The NYT writes about signs that violence is increasingly possible in response to Trump's indictment: 

Kari Lake publicly inciting violent 

insurrection and a coup

(lock her up)

The former president’s allies have portrayed the indictment as an act of war and called for retribution, which political violence experts say increases the risk of action 

“If you want to get to President Trump, you are going to have go through me, and you are going to have to go through 75 million Americans just like me,” said Kari Lake, the Republican former candidate for governor of Arizona. “And I’m going to tell you, most of us are card-carrying members of the N.R.A.” [Is that a threat of violence??]

The federal indictment of former President Donald J. Trump has unleashed a wave of calls by his supporters for violence and an uprising to defend him, disturbing observers and raising concerns of a dangerous atmosphere ahead of his court appearance in Miami on Tuesday.

In social media posts and public remarks, close allies of Mr. Trump — including a member of Congress — have portrayed the indictment as an act of war, called for retribution and highlighted the fact that much of his base carries weapons. The allies have painted Mr. Trump as a victim of a weaponized Justice Department controlled by President Biden, his potential opponent in the 2024 election.

The calls to action and threats have been amplified on right-wing media sites and have been met by supportive responses from social media users and cheers from crowds, who have become conditioned over several years by Mr. Trump and his allies to see any efforts to hold him accountable as assaults against him.

One can only wonder. Is the delightful authoritarian insurrectionist Ms. Lake auditioning for Trump's pick for Vice President? Hm . . . . sure sounds like it. 

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

On the campaign trail: The NYT writes:

Former President Donald J. Trump on Saturday cast both his indictments by prosecutors and his bid for the White House as part of a “final battle” with “corrupt” forces that he maintained are destroying the country.

The apocalyptic language came in Mr. Trump’s first public appearance since the 38-count federal indictment against him and a personal aide was unsealed — and in a state where he may soon face additional charges for his efforts to pressure Georgia election officials to overturn his 2020 election loss there. It was Mr. Trump’s second indictment in less than three months.

“This is the final battle,” Mr. Trump said in the speech to several thousand activists, delegates and members of the media who gathered in Columbus, Ga.  

“Either the Communists win and destroy America, or we destroy the Communists,” the former president said in Georgia, seeming to refer to Democrats. He made similar remarks about the “Deep State,” using the pejorative term he uses for U.S. intelligence agencies and more broadly for any federal government bureaucrat he perceives as a political opponent. He railed against “globalists,” “warmongers” in government and “the sick political class that hates our country.”

Mr. Trump also described the Justice Department as “a sick nest of people that needs to be cleaned out immediately,” calling the special counsel, Jack Smith, “deranged” and “openly a Trump hater.”  

And he attacked by name Fani Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Ga., who is weighing criminal charges against Mr. Trump, calling her “a lunatic Marxist” and accusing her of ignoring violent crime and instead spending all of her time “working on getting Trump.”  

The crowd cheered and laughed throughout, and when he mentioned Democrats, the hall was filled with boos and jeers. At one mention of Hillary Clinton, a woman started chanting, “Lock her up!”  

Mr. Trump and his advisers are keenly aware that the Republican base overwhelmingly supports him in his legal battles and reflexively dismisses whatever facts prosecutors produce. The Trump campaign team has exploited that dynamic and put their opponents in the presidential primary in a lose-lose situation: Either they begrudgingly defend and praise the front-runner or they suffer the wrath of millions of voters.

That speaks for itself. 

Q: I can feel the power of the dark speech rising, can you? 

Yeah, but will my destiny be good or bad?

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

From the Job-Creating Entrepreneur Files: The Huffpost writes:

Elise Stefanik Is Already Raising Money (For Herself) Off Of Trump's Indictment

The House GOP conference chair is urging people to donate to the “Official Trump Defense Fund,” but virtually all of that money would go to her campaign

“President Trump has been indicted on federal charges,” reads the subject line of a Thursday-night email from Team Elise, Stefanik’s joint fundraising committee.

“Biden’s weaponized federal government has handed President Trump BOGUS CHARGES over the ‘Boxes Hoax,’” says the email. “They are just trying to keep him out of the White House in 2024. President Trump needs ALL of his loyal supporters to stand with him at this crucial time.”

“RUSH A DONATION TO OUR OFFICIAL TRUMP DEFENSE FUND TO STAND WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP,” the email shouts.

It’s the Boxes Hoax. It’s Boxgate!!

What went right this week: Positive News

 

This week’s good news roundup

Global emissions appeared to be flattening

The planet appears to have taken a step back from a CO2 precipice, according to analysis by Climate Brink, which shows emissions are no longer following the worst case scenario of runaway, year-on-year growth.  

After increasing around three per cent a year in the early 2000s, emissions have flattened out since 2010. Climate Brink credits the shift to the plummeting costs of clean energy driving demand away from coal – but cautions we’re still a long way off climate targets. 

Meanwhile, more number crunching by Carbon Brief suggests that China is on track to hit peak emissions imminently amid explosive renewables growth.

The country recorded an all-time emissions high for the first quarter of 2023 as it came out of lockdown (and incredibly plans to add more coal capacity), but experts believe the rapid expansion of low-carbon energy could stave off another CO2 spike. Solar and EVS are booming, and could tip China’s emissions into decline as early as next year. 

Glacial mud could be a glorious new climate ally

Mud, glorious mud – there’s nothing quite like it for cooling the blood, or so the song goes. Now scientists from the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, say it could help cool the planet, too.

Researchers studying the CO2 capture potential of rock ‘flour’ ground by Greenland’s glaciers say spreading it on farmland could trap billions of tonnes of planet-warming carbon dioxide, while increasing crop yields. The flour flows as mud beneath Greenland’s ice sheets, which produce 1bn tonnes of the stuff a year – essentially an unlimited supply.

The emissions capture process, called Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW), is a turbo-charged version of a natural phenomenon: atmospheric CO2 dissolves in rainwater to produce carbonic acid. This breaks rock down into stable minerals which lock in CO2. Powdered rock has a greater surface area which catalyses the process. 

Prof David Beerling from England’s Sheffield University, who has worked on similar ERW studies, told Positive News: “ERW mimics the natural carbon cycle reactions that have been stabilising Earth’s climate for millions of years. It is one of the few options that can scale to a billion tonnes of CO2 removal within decades.”

A vertical forest took shape in Utrecht

At 110m it’s just over five metres short of the tallest tree in the world, however the greenery-clad walls of the Wonderwoods Vertical Forest – a new office and residential tower block in Utrecht, Netherlands – will equate to an impressive one hectare (2.5 acres) of woodland.

The building (main picture) is the brainchild of Italian architect Stefano Boeri, who has nurtured a reputation for covering his creations with vegetation. Besides housing 200 apartments, a gym and workspaces, Wonderwoods’ facades will feature almost 10,000 shrubs and 360 trees. 

The plants will not only dampen city noise, provide summer shade, and absorb an annual five tonnes of CO2, but they’re expected to draw 30 animal species to the city, including blackbirds, robins and swallows. Work is underway and should be complete by mid-2024.

https://www.positive.news/society/good-news-stories-from-week-22-of-2023/

AND there is so much more:

A new star was born in the fight against Alzheimer’s

A simple blood test for Alzheimer’s could be a step closer after scientists identified a brain cell which appears to have a lead role in the development of the disease.

The US was set for a green jobs bonanza 

A green jobs bonanza in US fossil fuel regions will outweigh losses from transitioning to net zero, according to a study by researchers at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, US.  

Help us break the bad news bias

While doom and gloom dominates other news outlets, our solutions journalism exists to support your wellbeing and empower you to make a difference towards a better future.

News bits: GOP hypocrisy on voting; Regarding the indictment

In a major reversal of past claims that voting by mail-in ballots was a major source of vote fraud and the stolen 2020 election, some extremist GOP elites now support expanding access to voting by mail. Why would they change their minds? Because the data they see suggests that curtailing voting by mail hurts Republicans more than it hurts Democrats. For radical GOP elites, this is not about defending democracy, it is about winning power until they can kill democracy. The AP writes about the change that the data analysis led the radicals to:

Republicans set to push mail ballots, voting methods they 

previously blasted as recipes for fraud

After years of criticizing mail voting and so-called ballot harvesting as ripe for fraud, Republicans at the top of the party want to change course.

They are poised to launch aggressive get-out-the-vote campaigns for 2024 that employ just those strategies, attempting to match the emphasis on early voting Democrats have used for years to lock in many of their supporters well ahead of Election Day. The goal is to persuade voters who support GOP candidates that early voting techniques are secure and to make sure they are able to return their ballots in time to be counted, thus putting less pressure on Election Day turnout efforts.

It marks a notable shift from the party’s rhetoric since 2020, when then-President Donald Trump was routinely sowing doubt about mail voting and encouraging his voters to wait and vote in-person on Election Day. As recently as last year, Republican activists peddling the stolen election narrative were telling GOP voters who received mail ballots to hold onto them and turn them in at their polling place on Election Day rather than use mail or drop boxes.

Now Trump is asking donors to chip in for his “ballot harvesting fund” – saying in a fundraising email, “Either we ballot harvest where we can, or you can say goodbye to America!”

Republicans say the shift is needed to ensure GOP victories up and down the 2024 ballot, arguing they cannot afford to give Democrats any advantage. At the same time, they acknowledge skepticism from many of their own voters conditioned by false claims of widespread voter fraud from Trump and others.  

Across the country, Republican-controlled legislatures have acted against early voting — shortening windows for returning mail ballots, banning or limiting the use of drop boxes and criminalizing third-party ballot collection.

In announcing a “Bank Your Vote” initiative for 2024, Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said the party “has never said ‘don’t vote early,’” but acknowledged the GOP will have to work to shift voters’ perceptions.

Yup, GOP will have to work to shift voters’ perceptions. That is because the GOP told voters don’t vote early. Republicans even passed laws to limit early voting. Democracy Docket points out the shameless hypocrisy:

RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel, who defeated Dhillon, agrees. In December 2022, the chair selected by former President Donald Trump in 2017 unironically complained that “[t]here were many in 2020 saying, don’t vote by mail, don’t vote early, and we have to stop that.” She failed to mention that the “many” who bad-mouthed mail-in voting included both her and Trump.

This is shameless hypocrisy practiced by shameless hypocrites. Hypocrisy doesn't faze these spin dictator zealots. The extremist's only concern is winning elections, not protecting democracy. It is ironic that to kill democracy, the Republican Party is forced to resort to relying on democracy. 

The pro-democracy/anti-democracy tactic

This pro-democracy/anti-democracy tactic is not new. In Hungary, Viktor Orban got democratically elected and then immediately turned around and destroyed Hungarian democracy. And if I recall right, that's like American communists who used to demand free and fair elections so that once they gained power, they promised they would destroy democracy and free and fair elections. 

A really interesting issue here is how the extremist elites can expand mail-in voting by people who will vote for Republicans while suppressing votes Democratic Party candidates. Sooner or later, authoritarian Republicans will probably need to pass laws that favor Republican candidates while disfavoring Democratic Party candidates. What the radical GOP sells is rejected by most American voters, so something needs to be done to fix that tyranny of the minority problem. Once that line is crossed and sanctified by the Supreme Court, American democracy will be at or near its death.

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

The indictment

From the Relevant Evidence Files: The WaPo reports about a 2021 tape made after Trump left office about declassifying documents:

The evidence leading to the historic indictment of former president Donald Trump includes an audio recording from 2021 in which he talks about an apparently secret document and says, “As president, I could have declassified it, but now I can’t,” a person familiar with a transcript of the remarks said Friday.

In recent days, it has become clear that Trump’s own words are some of the most powerful evidence against him, leading to the filing of a seven-count indictment accusing him of willful retention of national defense secrets, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and false statements, according to people familiar with the case.  

While there is a host of paper, video and witness evidence against Trump for alleged mishandling of classified information and obstruction of justice, the recording is significant because it undercuts a central claim that Trump has put forward since the investigation was opened last year — that he had somehow, at some time, declassified the hundreds of classified documents later found at his Mar-a-Lago home and private club.

If this is real, it seems to be an important piece of evidence. It shows that Trump knew his false claims of declassifying documents before he left office was a lie.   

Observations from the punditocracy: 

Fox News: The first ~33 minutes of the Hannity show last night focused on the indictment. Hannity started with a ferocious blast at special counsel Jack Smith's comment that the law applies equally to everyone. That blast was grounded mostly in whataboutism regarding (i) Hillary's emailgate mishandling of national security secrets, and (ii) Joe and Hunter's alleged acceptance of large bribes in relation to Ukraine. Hannity's guests were legal experts. Hannity equated what Hillary did with classified secrets on her private server as the same as what Trump did at Mar-a-Lago. The thrust of Hannity's arguments is that the rule of law applies to Republicans but not Democrats. There was no mention of how serious the possible security breaches were in Hillarygate compared to Trumpgate.

Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz asserted that there probably was no criminality involved in what Trump did except maybe in what was described in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the indictment. In those two paragraphs, Trump is discussing secret documents with other people.[1] Dershowitz said that the remainder of the indictment was not illegal under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), basically saying there is nothing significant in the indictment maybe except for those two paragraphs. The deceptive sleight of hand there is that The DoJ is not indicting Trump for violating the PRA. That law doesn't even seem to be relevant. Trump is being charged with violating other laws, e.g., laws in the Espionage Act. The PRA specifies that presidential records belong to the government, not a president or former president. I do not understand why Dershowitz was talking about it. Maybe I missed something. 

After the first segment, Hannity interviewed House Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan. Jordan ripped the two Bidens for being corrupt, outrageous bribe-taking sleaze bag criminals in relation to the so far non-existent Ukrainegate scandal. Since there is no special prosecutor hunting the Bidens down for their crimes, Hannity again argued that the rule of  law applies to Republicans but not Democrats. The radical right argument that the law is two-tiered and is a weapon only against Republicans appears to be the main argument that most radical right elites and their propaganda outlets are using to neutralize the Trump indictment as much as possible. Jordan wants the House to publicly release the evidence the FBI has about the Biden's alleged corruption. Jordan says it shows how corrupt the Bidens were. I hope the House does release the document, but it is irrelevant to the Trump indictment other than being a flawed whatabout argument to deflect attention.

Hannity's last guest was Trump's former government doctor Ronny Jackson. As we all recall, Jackson lied to the public about Trump's status when he had COVID. The Jackson segment was a vicious attack on Joe Biden's mental unfitness for office. Jackson was blunt in arguing that Joe has advanced dementia. Hannity argued that only radical left, deep state power keeps him "propped up" and "in the basement" as much as possible. 

MSNBC: The Lawrence O'Donnell program right after Hannity also had legal experts. That program was nothing like the Faux program. It was as if the outlets were talking about two different things. The MSNBC program made it clear that the evidence that Smith has is abundant and shockingly serious. Now I can see why Garland reluctantly appointed special council Jack Smith to investigate the mess at Mar-a-Lago. What Trump did was far worse than what I thought would probably be the case. It was so bad that even Garland the Extremely Reluctant Policeman was forced by circumstances to pursue an investigation he very likely did not want to pursue.

PBS: One of the two legal experts on an PBS broadcast suggested that Smith might have chosen to file the indictment in Florida instead of filing in D.C. to try to speed the proceedings up. If he had filed in D.C., Trump would have contested that venue and argued to have the lawsuit moved to Florida where he lives and the alleged crimes were committed. By filing in Florida, Smith could have been trying to avoid months of fighting over where to try the case. But, since radical right Trump supporter Aileen Cannon appears to be the judge on the case, she can find other ways to slow the proceedings down.  

Footnote: 

1. Paragraph 34:

34.     Upon greeting the writer, publisher, and his two staff members, TRUMP stated, "Look what I found, this was [the Senior Military Official's] plan of attack, read it and just show ...  it's interesting."  Later in the interview, TRUMP engaged in the following exchange:

 

TRUMP: Well, with [the Senior Military Official]-uh, let me see that, I'll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack [Country A]. Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this-this is off the record, but-they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.

 

WRITER:        Wow.

TRUMP: We looked at some. This was him. This wasn't done by me, this was him. All sorts of stuff-pages long, look.

 

STAFFER:       Mm.

TRUMP: Wait a minute, let's see here. STAFFER: [Laughter] Yeah.

TRUMP: I just found, isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know.

 

STAFFER: Mm-hm.

TRUMP: Except it is like, highly confidential.

STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter]

 

TRUMP:  Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this.

You attack, and-

 

***

TRUMP:   By the way.  Isn't that incredible? 

STAFFER:  Yeah.

TRUMP: I was just thinking, because we were talking about it. And you know, he said, "he wanted to attack [Country A], and what ... "

 

STAFFER:       You did.

TRUMP:         This was done by the military and given to me.  Uh, I think we can probably, right?

STAFFER:       I don't know, we'll,  we'll  have to see.    Yeah, we'll have to try to-

 

TRUMP: Declassify it. STAFFER: figure out  a-yeah.

TRUMP: See as president I could have declassified it. 

STAFFER:  Yeah. [Laughter]

TRUMP:  Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret. 

STAFFER: Yeah.  [Laughter] Now we have a problem.

TRUMP: Isn't that interesting?

At the time of this exchange, the writer, the publisher, and TRUMP's two staff members did not have security clearances or any need-to-know any classified information about a plan of attack on Country A.