Heather Cox Richardson: Trump's latest binge-posting spree indicates he is mentally unwell, claiming perceived enemies are traitors and calling for arrests

After reading multiple reports about Donald Trump's latest binge posting spree on Truth Social, which apparently was extraordinary even by his lofty standards, I decided to conduct a research study, funded by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), based in Bethesda, Maryland. (Researcher's Note 1: I made up the part about my study being funded by a grant from NIMH. I added that because I thought it might be fun, should Trump and Elon Musk come across this post, to imagine they might think -- if even for a nanosecond -- that I received federal dollars for research on Trump's declining mental health. After all, NIMH and its parent institute (NIH) were prime targets of the attack by Trump and Musk (via DOGE) on scientific research -- along with similar entities, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

My research consisted of randomized trials centered on three Google searches of phrases connected to Donald Trump's mental health: (1) "Donald Trump and rants"; (2) "Donald Trump and meltdowns"; (3) "Donald Trump and melt downs." Item No. 3 was needed because our preliminary investigation determined that some people use the spelling "meltdowns" (one word), while many more people use the spelling "melt downs" (two words) (who knew?)

I used advanced computational methods -- also known as the calculator app on my laptop -- to produce final results that are ready for presentation to an external review committee. The results are as follows:

* Search No. 1 ("Donald Trump and rants") produced 42,400,000 results;

* Search No. 2 ("Donald Trump and meltdowns") produced 9,680,000 results;

* Search No. 3 ("Donald Trump and melt downs") produced 62,700,000 results

When Search Nos. 2 and 3 are combined, the total is 72,380,000  results. When Search No. 1 is added the total becomes 114,780,000.

Research Summary: This study supports our hypothesis that massive numbers of people on "this particular planet" are freaking out about the shaky status of Donald Trump's mental health. I further hypothesize that longitudinal studies will reveal particularly high numbers of freak-outs in the following countries: Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Greenland, Denmark, Mexico, Canada, Cuba, Nigeria, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Panama, Iraq, and the Gaza Strip -- all countries that Trump has attacked or threatened during his second term. The United States is expected to be the No. 1 producer of Trump-related freak-outs -- especially in Maine, where some Democrats and Independents seem convinced, as if by magical thinking, that an oyster shucker with a Nazi tattoo can function effectively as a U.S. senator.

Researcher's Note 2: I'm heartened to know that I'm not the only academician concerned about Donald Trump's mental health. Heather Cox Richardson, a professor of history at Boston College, seems to be thinking along the same lines. Thanks to her wildly popular "Letters from an American" Substack page, which has 2.5 to 3 million subscribers (making her the No. 1 creator on Substack), Cox Richardson might be the most influential and widely read historian in . . . well, American history. Heck, I know people who couldn't stay awake in high school history class and now read Cox Richardson religiously. In a country that is going backwards on many fronts, I would call that progress.

In a post dated May 12, 2023, and published yesterday, Cox Richardson writes on her concerns about Trump's mental health. If she and I are thinking along the same lines, I will consider myself in fine company indeed. It turns out that Cox's concerns for our country go beyond Trump's mental health, and we will examine those in a moment. But let's start at the top, where Cox Richardson writes:

The biggest story in the country, today and always, is that the president of the United States is mentally unwell.

Over the course of three hours last night, he posted on social media 55 times. Those posts accused a number of those Trump considers his personal enemies, including former president Barack Obama, of treason; claimed that investigations of the ties between his 2016 campaign and Russian operatives were an attempt to damage Trump; insisted the 2020 presidential election was stolen; reposted a fake quotation from Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) accusing Obama of making a personal fortune of $120 million from the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare; labeled Obama and others “traitors” and called for their arrest; and demanded to know why acting attorney general Todd Blanche hadn’t indicted any of those people yet.

This morning, he started in again with a long screed attacking the New York Times for its coverage of his alterations to the reflecting pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., and insisting that Democratic presidents Obama and Joe Biden had “botched” renovations that he was now fixing for “a ‘tiny’ fraction of the cost!” He posted an AI image of Obama, Biden, and former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) apparently swimming in a filthy version of the reflecting pool with the caption: “Dumacrats Love Sewage.” Then he posted an image of himself on the $100 bill. And then he was back to calling House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) “Low IQ.”

After posting a number of AI images showing the U.S. military destroying the Iranian military, Trump posted: “When the Fake News says that the Iranian enemy is doing well, Militarily, against us, it’s virtual TREASON in that it is such a false, and even preposterous, statement. They are aiding and abetting the enemy!”

Then he posted an image of a map with Venezuela overlaid with the U.S. flag. The caption read: “51st State.”

Trump seems to be comforting himself by lashing out at his perceived enemies and insisting he is competent and popular. Before he left for China today, he claimed: “We have Iran very much under control. We’re either going to make a deal or they’re going to be decimated. One way or the other, we win.”

Mosheh Gains, Courtney Kube, and Monica Alba of NBC News reported today that if Trump decides to restart major combat operations against Iran, military leaders are considering renaming the operations with a new name, like “Operation Sledgehammer,” to suggest those operations would be different than the current “Epic Fury.” They argue that renaming the military operation would restart the clock of the 1973 War Powers Act that requires congressional authorization to continue it after sixty days, a deadline that ran out on May 1.

War Powers Act expert Brian Finucane, who was a lawyer for the State Department, commented: “Nope. Changing the name of the authorized war with Iran does not alter the application of the War Powers Resolution’s 60-day clock.”

In the meantime, there is no apparent movement toward opening the Strait of Hormuz, even as numbers released today by the Department of Labor show that inflation in April hit its highest level since 2023. Trump’s own intelligence agencies assessed earlier this year that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Iran’s leader had not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003. An assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency said that Iran would not be able to reach the U.S. with an intercontinental ballistic missile until 2035.

Nonetheless, the administration and its supporters appear to have settled on the idea that the cost of the war has been worthwhile because the U.S. was under imminent threat of nuclear attack by Iran. When a reporter asked Trump today, before he left for China, to what extent Americans’ financial situation is motivating him to make a deal with Iran, he answered:

“Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran—they can’t have a nuclear weapon. I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing—we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That’s all.”

A CNN/SSRS poll released today shows that 70% of Americans disapprove of the way Trump is handling the economy.

Trump is, however, thinking about his own financial situation. Tonight Andrew Duehren and Alan Feuer of the New York Times reported that the Department of Justice is in talks to settle Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for damages after a contractor during Trump’s first term leaked tax information, including his, to the media.

The judge in the case has ordered Trump’s lawyers and the Department of Justice to file briefs by May 20 explaining why this is a true case in which the two sides are opposed when Trump both is the plaintiff and runs the agency that is the defendant. If they settle before then, the judge will not be able to say much about whether the case was valid in the first place.

Duehren and Feuer note that the Department of Justice has fought similar cases brought because of the leak, arguing that the government can’t be held liable for something a contractor does. The government settled a case with hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin in 2024 by making a public apology.

The New York Times journalists report that one of the options for settling with Trump would be for the IRS to drop any audits of Trump, his family members, or his businesses. Since 1977, IRS policy has been to conduct a mandatory audit of the sitting president every year, although it failed to audit Trump’s taxes for his first two years in office during his first term. Clearly, he would like for it to fail to audit his taxes this time around as well.

Let's turn to Cox Richardson's concerns that go beyond Trump's mental health. I will highlight in yellow the first sentence or two of the new sections:

The special treatment certain people enjoy in the U.S. that enables them to get around accountability was in the news earlier today, too, as the victims of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein testified before a panel made up of the Democrats on the House Oversight and Reform Committee. The top Democrat on the committee, Robert Garcia of California, began the day by introducing a new report called “The Price of Non-Prosecution.” It explained that the sweetheart deal U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Alexander Acosta—later Trump’s secretary of labor—negotiated with Epstein to protect him from federal prosecution left him able to continue his sex-trafficking operation and to expand it.

The survivors recounted their anger and frustration when they discovered the federal government had made a secret deal with Epstein. One survivor, who identified herself as Roza, detailed how Epstein sexually assaulted her over three years when he was supposed to be serving a jail sentence. She broke down as she recounted how the Department of Justice under then–attorney general Pam Bondi continued that favoritism, exposing her name publicly while leaving the names of the perpetrators’ names redacted.

“I stepped forward along other survivors hoping those who allowed this to happen will be held accountable. I kept my identity protected as ‘Jane Doe.’ I woke up one day with my name mentioned over 500 times. While the rich and powerful remain protected by redaction, my name was exposed to the world. Now reporters from across the globe contact me. I cannot live without looking over my shoulder. I can only imagine the long-term impact this ‘mistake’ will have on my life.”

In Tennessee today, Tennessee House speaker Cameron Sexton removed all the House Democrats from standing committees, saying they had behaved in a way “aimed at disrupting the democratic and legislative processes” as they protested the mid-decade redistricting that broke up Tennessee’s only majority-Black, Democratic district. As Tennessee state representative Justin J. Pearson notes, this decree removed “every Black elected official in the state legislature from any committee we served on” and stripped “nearly 2 million Tennesseans from the representation they deserve” in the Tennessee state legislature.

“We will not stop fighting,” state representative Justin Jones posted. “We will not stop getting in good trouble. We will not go back!”

Donald Trump's strange claim that Todd Blanche "kept me out of jail for years" seems to be a subconscious reaction to unyielding stress created by Epstein files

Just when you think Donald Trump has said all the nutty things he can say, along comes a moment like the one Monday where Trump praised Todd Blanche for keeping him out of jail for years. What were the circumstances involved and the exact words spoken? For that, we turn to this report from Mediaite:

President Donald Trump praised acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Monday, saying the lawyer has “kept me out of jail for years.”

What was the sound you might have heard when Trump uttered those words? It was thousands (millions?) of casual listeners spewing liquids out of their mouths, in a reflexive response to the words that had just hit their ears. What did Trump mean, if anything, by his latest mangled attempt at speaking English? We will address that question in a moment. But first, here are more details from Mediaite: 

Trump nominated Blanche as deputy attorney general before elevating him to acting attorney general after Trump fired Pam Bondi last month. Previously, Blanche served as Trump’s personal attorney during the New York hush money trial in which Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 counts of falsifying records to conceal hush money payments to cover up his affair with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels. In January 2025, then-President-Elect Trump was given a sentence of unconditional discharge with no jail time and no fine.

On Monday, the president hosted an event celebrating law enforcement and praised various members of his administration. Trump had some especially colorful remarks when he got around to Blanche . . . 

We have a man who’s doing a great job, I’ll tell you. I knew it, because he kept me out of jail for years. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. He kept me out of jail. They would indict me left and right, the crooked Democrats. You know, it’s amazing. They impeach me. They indict me. Then, when I get in office, if I say something like, “Well, maybe that should be looked into.” ‘Weaponization!”

I go through court cases. I win them because they were fake indictments. But when I even mention like, I said the other day that some of the stuff should be looked into. They said, “Weaponization! He’s a terrible human being. Weaponization”… They blame me for weaponization. They are a crooked bunch and we want to keep it the way it is, what we have now. We have great law enforcement now. We have law enforcement that loves our country, not law enforcement that’s sick and dangerous.

What's going on here? Two things jump out at me: (1) Trump is lying when he says he wins court cases. He certainly did not win the Stormy Daniels hush-money case or the E. Jean Carroll civil case involving allegations of rape and defamation, and those are just the two best-known recent cases with which he has been involved; (2) Trump is projecting "weaponization" on his enemies, when no president in history has weaponized "sick and dangerous law enforcement" the way he has -- with his ICE thugs fatally shooting Minneapolis residents Alex Pretti and Renee Good.

History tells us that Trump lies and projects the way most of us breathe. When he is using those familiar rhetorical devices, it tells me at least some of his brain cells still are intact. 

And consider this: Trump mentions that Todd Blanche "kept me out of jail"  twice. And Blanche did not save him from legal peril for a short period of time; he did it "for years."

This suggests to me that Trump has a genuine concern he did something so wrong, so damning that, without Blanche's intervention, it could have landed him behind bars. We should note here that Trump uses the term "jail" probably because, like many Americans, he uses that term and "prison" interchangeably. In fact, the two terms have different meanings, with jail usually used for relatively brief stays (often while a jailee awaits trial or disposition of his case) and prison reserved for more serious offenses (often used for years or decades of incarceration).

In this instance, Trump's mind probably was on prison. I suspect Trump would guffaw at the notion of jail. He almost certainly knows that someone of his wealth and status is unlikely to land in jail. After all, members of the privileged class can afford the kind of high-priced lawyers who can convince a judge their clients will appear for hearings and such.

At this point, we should consider this question: How many times has Todd Blanche represented Trump in criminal cases. TIME magazine provides the answer in a profile of Blanche published on April 2, 2026:

Prior to joining the Department of Justice, Blanche, 51, represented the President in three of the four criminal cases he has faced. In the hush-money trial in which Trump was ultimately convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a 2016 payment to an adult film star, Blanche served as his lead defense attorney. He also defended Trump—to more favorable results—in the federal cases brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith over his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and mishandling of classified documents. Both cases were dismissed after Trump won re-election in 2024.

The two Jack Smith cases, which likely were by far the strongest and most important cases against Trump, now are behind him because voters returned him to the White House. Trump has attempted several avenues to have his hush-money convictions overturned, but that has not been resolved at the time of this writing. The judge in that case sentenced Trump to an "unconditional discharge," which meant no prison, probation or fines, so that case essentially is behind him, too.

An alert reader might be thinking, "Schnauzer, Todd Blanche is acting attorney general, which means he can no longer be Trump's personal attorney." And here is my response: "Technically, you are correct. But we are talking about Donald Trump here, and history tells us he wants his AGs to make personal loyalty to the president their No. 1 priority -- with administration of justice somewhere way down the list. 

"Both Blanche and his predecessor, Pam Bondi, have proven willing to bend and/or break all kinds of rules -- including mandates of the Justice Department Manual that forbid them from considering the president's desires on charging or non-charging decisions -- to curry favor with the White House. Bondi and Blanche have proven that they are happy to essentially turn the U.S. Department of Justice into Trump's personal law firm. 

That Todd Blanche was willing to indict James Comey in the absurd "seashells by the seashore case" is proof that he happily places Trump's desire for revenge over serving the public interest.

So, where do we stand in regards to Trump's peculiar statement that Todd Blanche "has kept me out of jail for years"? In my view, Trump is making a confession, one hidden by goofy, scrambled language.

We know that all of Trump's criminal matters -- the ones that have gone to court -- are behind him, at least in terms of substantive punishment. At the risk of getting into "psycho babble," I think Trump's statement about being kept from jail was an example of his sub-conscious talking out loud, stating matters that his conscious brain was not actively planning to say. 

We know that it is not uncommon for subconscious thoughts to become vocalized, perhaps as Freudian slips or cognitive errors (slips of the tongue).

So what criminal matters could be weighing so heavily on Trump's mind? His statement that Todd Blanche has kept him out of prison "for years," suggests Trump knows serious legal jeopardy is hanging over his head. It hasn't come in the form of a court case yet, but that might only be due to his desperate efforts to keep it out of public view -- and the willingness of Blanche and Bondi to unlawfully protect him. 

Trump's subconscious seems to realize this is a matter where no statute of limitations is likely to save him. This is from a query to AI Overview:

Criminal Cases: Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3283) dictates that there is no statute of limitations for the prosecution of sexual abuse, physical abuse, or kidnapping of a child under the age of 18.

Donald Trump might not know much about the law, but I suspect he knows that. In my view, this knowledge -- even if it is buried deep in Trump's subconscious -- is the driver of his strange comments about being kept out of jail "for years." And it all points, of course, to Trump's documented ties to the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and the allegations of victims that Trump was involved in horrifying activities, including rape and murder. Trump and his allies have managed to largely stonewall the public on the full extent of his activities related to Epstein. But the president's subconscious seems to know that time is on the side of justice.

Ro Khanna goes into the lion's den to roast Donald Trump, leaving the president to whine about Fox News making it "hard to win elections" for Republicans

(Jacqui Heinrich and Ro Khanna on Fox News)

Who is the Most Valuable Player (MVP) in Congress right now? My vote goes to Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who has boldly shown he is willing to put maximum pressure on Donald Trump and his band of Republican enablers to ensure the public gets acquainted with uncomfortable truths held in the Epstein files. Khanna has not managed to take down Trump, yet, but it isn't from lack of trying. Working hand-in-hand with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Khanna has gone to the mat to make sure the Epstein documents are not just dusty files sitting in what used to be Pam Bondi's office.

Khanna has shown a talent for getting under the tissue-thin skin that barely covers Trump's elephantine form. The latest example came on Sunday when he went on Fox News, of all places, to shine a spotlight on what is left of Trump's shattered credibility on the global stage. In typical Trumpian fashion, Dear Leader fired back, showing he still has no well of dignity or good will to draw upon when under stress. 

Occupy Democrats (OC) was on hand for the Fox-induced fireworks as Trump could only turn to his failing Truth Social site in a feeble attempt at third-grade style name calling. Occupy Democrats reports at its Facebook page under the headline "Congressman Ro Khanna brilliantly destroys Trump after he called him "SCUM" and a "SLEAZEBAG" in a deranged meltdown — and gets in a perfect Epstein jab":

This is a master class in getting under the President's thin skin... "Trump's second attack of the day on me," Khanna wrote on X, sharing a screenshot of a Truth Social post. "This is why I go on Fox. This is why I talk about an economic agenda to build steel, ship & battery plants in hollowed out communities." "This is why I talk to everyone, including Trump voters, without hurling insults. This is how Democrats will win & unite the country," he added.

Trump, of course, does not want the country to be united -- he thrives on division and chaos -- so he was left to helplessly lob insults at a rival who seemed unbothered by tussling with a supposed "master dealmaker." OC reports:

Khanna's level-headed, intelligent, truthful post stood in stark contrast to the furious Trump post that he was responding to— "You could listen to FoxNews all day long, absolutely devour it, but then, when you hear SLEAZEBAGS, like Congressman Ro Khanna, 'a wolf in sheep’s clothing,' LIE, LIE, LIE, AND LIE AGAIN, without any pushback, or competent rebuttal from an anchor, in this case, Jacqui Heinrich, the entire Common Sense dialogue that has been going on all day at Fox is completely obliterated!" Trump wrote. The suggestion that Fox News deals in "common sense dialogue" is laughable to anyone living outside of the right-wing bubble. The network peddles conspiracy theories, fascist propaganda, and overt racism. But apparently, that constant deluge of conservative garbage isn't enough for Trump, who wants to be able to watch without ever encountering a sane voice like Ro Khanna.

Did Trump point to any specific Khanna statement that amounted to a lie? Of course not. The president does not know how to deal with truth, so he was left to adopt the only role he can capably fill -- toddler in chief.  From OC:

"Why would Fox put SCUM like this on, or others, such as Low Rated Bill Maher, who gains 'credibility' by constant referral to him as though he were a Liberal source of 'Wisdom,' or very Low IQ Hakeem Jeffries, who considers the Supreme Court 'illegitimate,' and probably hates our Country," Trump continued. "No matter how 'Fair and Balanced' the day’s News at Fox may be, the end result is destroyed by professional Liars, Conmen, and Liberal, Crooked Politicians," he added. "This is why MAGA Republicans, who are actually close to 100% of the Party, hate Fox, despite the wonderful contributions made by so many of their great anchors and commentators. Hard to win Elections like this! President DONALD J. TRUMP" Of course, it's not just Khanna's messaging on the economy and manufacturing that has triggered Trump. The congressman has been one of the most outspoken voices calling for the full release of the Epstein files. Since Trump appears all over those files, including credible accusations that he's a pedophile rapist, he has marked Khanna as one of his most hated enemies. One post wasn't enough to vent that hatred, because he also penned another against Khanna. But once again, the congressman got the last laugh—

Trump actually made the following statement in a report at NJ.com. (We invite you to pay particular attention to the part highlighted in yellow.): 

“No matter how ‘Fair and Balanced’ the day’s News at Fox may be, the end result is destroyed by professional Liars, Conmen, and Liberal, Crooked Politicians. This is why MAGA Republicans, who are actually close to 100% of the Party, hate Fox, despite the wonderful contributions made by so many of their great anchors and commentators. Hard to win Elections like this!” he concluded.

So Trump expects Fox to help Republicans win elections? That probably is not a surprise to viewers who actually watch Fox News (I am not among them.), but the statement suggests Trump knows no more about journalism than he does about governance -- which is zero. Let's return to Occupy Democrats:

"The Sleazebag, Radical Left Congressman from the failed State of California, Ro Khanna, should not be allowed on FoxNews unless you have an 'anchor' who is capable of disputing his lies, one after another, and closing down his FAKE (Bullshit!) narrative," Trump wrote. "He is similar, but worse than Hakeem Jeffries, only with a somewhat higher IQ. This morning he tried, on behalf of the Dumacrats, to take credit for the Steel Industry pouring back into the U.S., knowing full well that the Dumbs virtually destroyed it, and I SAVED IT, through strong Tariffs (PLUS!)," he continued. "Our Country was DEAD during the last 'Administration,' and now it is hotter than ever before. We can’t allow the Dumacrats to take credit for this. If elected, they will fully destroy our thriving, and now very respected, Nation. I will NOT let that happen!!! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

Trump seems to think he should choose who anchors what on Fox News, making a network that broadcasts over public airwaves an arm of the Republican Party. This is one part laughable and two parts a sign of how dangerous Trump and the postmodern GOP have become to democracy. Let's conclude by returning to Occupy Democrats and its coverage of the fearless Ro Khanna. We need more Americans like this guy, especially in Congress:

Khanna responded with a brilliant zinger on X–– "The man building a ballroom with foreign steel probably shouldn’t call himself the champion of American steel," he wrote. "But as you learned from the Epstein files, I’m open to working across the aisle. So how about signing my steel bill to actually rebuild the American steel industry?" The most important takeaway here is that Khanna's appearances on Fox News are working. Trump is terrified that his messaging is going to penetrate through to his base and turn even more voters against his failed presidency. Getting attacked by this President is the clearest sign that you're doing something right. Keep at it Congressman Khanna!

Trump DOJ is so incompetent it can't cite actual law in James Comey "seashells" case; maybe that's because it's all just an attempt at Epstein-related distraction

(Times of India)

One of the nation's most widely read legal websites is giving the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) a much-deserved thrashing for indicting former FBI director James Comey in what has become widely known as the "seashells" case. The site says the Comey case marks a historic ethical nadir for a department that once was known as perhaps the world's foremost crime-fighting outfit.

Now, it is subject to ridicule from fellow lawyers as seen at Above the Law (ATL) under the headline "James Comey indicted for playing with seashells in new low for DOJ integrity." This is more than a blow to DOJ's image; it is a sign that a lack of seriousness has taken hold in the halls of justice. How do we know? Joe Patrice, who like a number of ATL staffers is both a journalist and a lawyer, explains that DOJ documents in the case include embarrassing snafus, including misstating the applicable law -- twice:

It’s said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. When it comes to indictments, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice has streamlined the process by skipping straight to farce and then somehow doing it twice.

A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of North Carolina has indicted former FBI Director James Comey for the high crime of arranging seashells. Specifically, posting a photo to Instagram last May of shells on a beach spelling out “86 47,” captioned “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” The indictment levels two counts — making a threat against the president under 18 U.S.C. § 871(a), and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce under § 875(c).

Because Comey arranges seashells by the seashore.

With that line, Patrice injects humor into a story that could use some. That's because it's a grim chore to ponder the incompetence and corruption that has become a hallmark of the DOJ during Donald Trump's second term. In fact, this is the second time a baseless criminal case against Comey has exposed the rot now at the core of the U.S. "justice apparatus," Patrice writes:

This indictment arrives following the DOJ’s faceplant late last year, when insurance lawyer Lindsey Halligan attempted to indict Comey for making false statements in the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan, an illegal appointment with no more authority than a random person off the street — to use the federal judge’s language — had been unlawfully appointed on top of turning in a fake indictment the full grand jury never voted on. This epic screw up resulted in the putative charges against Comey becoming time-barred.

That earlier indictment was bullshit. But at least it was serious-sounding bullshit. Going after Comey for lying about authorizing leaks seems like something a real prosecutor might charge.

By contrast, the new indictment in the Eastern District of North Carolina lacks such gravitas. The government lodged criminal charges against the former FBI Director for using Prohibition-era slang for tossing an unwelcome guest… in shell form.

If this wasn’t stupid enough, the indictment manages to MISSTATE THE LAW in the indictment. Count I describes Comey’s supposed crime as creating an image that “a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.” Any first-year law student who completed Crim Law — a competence bar EDNC US Attorney Ellis Boyle seemingly failed to clear — will note that the Supreme Court in Counterman v. Colorado (2023), replaced the “reasonable recipient” standard, requiring instead a showing the speaker subjectively understood that the statement would be perceived as threatening. Even if the indictment included the proper standard, the government would face an uphill battle since Comey deleted the post the same day, saying that he hadn’t realized “86” had violent connotations — which it doesn’t really, but whatever — and apologized.

The second count, that Comey then distributed the threat, suffers the same defects as the first. 

You might be thinking "the silliness has to end here," but there is more, Patrice informs us. And as you read the following "countdown to comedy," try keeping this in mind -- our tax dollars, yours and mine, are paying for these Comey indictments:

The genuinely unhinged part of the indictment appears on the next page. A forfeiture notice seeking “any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the said offense.”

Do they want the shells?

As many people learned from the Afroman case, law enforcement’s forfeiture powers are extensive and deeply corrupt. The language of the indictment flags the government’s authority to seek “substitute assets” in the event they can’t actually find the supposedly ill-gotten gains. But even with broad latitude to steal from defendants, it’s hard to imagine what the government expects to get out of James Comey. He’s not a Kardashian — he’s not paid thousands of dollars for posting viral vacation Instas. Perhaps this forfeiture language is copypasta the government mindlessly drops into every indictment. But given the cynical and petty nature of this Justice Department, it’s hard to see this as anything but a threat to rob the former FBI Director.

Kash Patel, current FBI director, has stated he considers protecting Trump's reputation to be a top priority. Does that mean anyone who tarnishes Trump's orange glow by sending criticism in his direction could be subject to legal action? Joe Patrice does not seem to think that question is far-fetched in today's environment:

In some ways, it’s fitting that the pursuit of Comey found its way back to the 8647 nonsense. When the image first appeared, current FBI Director (for now!) Kash Patel told America that he was prioritizing protecting Trump’s reputation over child sex predators. Or, more accurately, over catching child sex predators. That’s a key clarification or else the sentence doesn’t actually make sense, does it?

At least it’s not all bad news for the Comey family. A federal judge let Maurene Comey’s lawsuit go forward. Now the administration is arguing in one court that they would never retaliate against the Comey family, while in another court prosecuting Jim Comey for a beach photo.

Could the Comey indictments, like so many actions the Trump administration takes, simply be an effort to distract the public -- most likely from the president's documented ties to the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Patrice suggests the answer is yes:

Why did this loser of a case drop now? It’s pretty simple: the DOJ wants to tie this shell picture from a year ago to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner incident. The administration needs to bootstrap as much on top of that story as it can before it fades from the headlines and bring attention back to topics like Todd Blanche covering up the Epstein files or why Kash Patel is being called “J. Edgar Boozer” behind his back.

Is this prosecution frivolous? Yes. Is it an ominous uptick in the administration’s willingness to chill civil liberties and stifle criticism? Also yes. It’s an uncommon intersection: Frivolinous.

Court orders release of apparent Epstein suicide note, but case is clouded by the presence of a man with reported ties to the mob and 'gangland-style' slayings

A suicide note that appears to be written by the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein has been released as part of a court case involving The New York Times, adding to an already lengthy list of questions surrounding Epstein's 2019 death in a New York City jail.

Perhaps the four most prominent questions about Epstein's death become: (1) Did he actually kill himself? (2) Did he write the suicide note? (3) If he did not kill himself, who murdered him -- or had him murdered? (4) If he did not write the suicide note, who did and why? Here is another question that already hangs over the case: Could a handwriting analysis yield important information about the note's origin -- ruling in or out Epstein as its author, perhaps pointing to someone else?

A jointly published article at Fox News and Yahoo! News addresses a number of those issues. Greg Wehner and Michael Ruiz write under the headline "Jeffrey Epstein's purported suicide note unsealed by federal judge in cellmate's case":

A federal judge in New York has ordered the release of a purported suicide note written by Jeffrey Epstein to his then-cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione, siding with The New York Times in a request to unseal the document.

The note had been filed under seal as part of Tartaglione’s case, in which the former police officer was convicted of multiple murders.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas ruled the document should be made public, finding no sufficient reason to keep it sealed.

In the handwritten note, Epstein appears to reference past investigations and expresses frustration, writing in part, "They investigated me for months – found nothing!!!" and "Time to say goodbye." Portions of the note are difficult to read.

Is it truly a suicide note? That is how it's portrayed in court documents, according to the Fox/Yahoo! report:

The document is described in court filings as a "suicide note purportedly authored by Jeffrey Epstein," which Tartaglione allegedly recovered while the two were briefly housed together at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan.

Epstein was found dead in his cell Aug. 10, 2019. The disgraced financier, whose death was ruled a suicide by hanging, was awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

Tartaglione’s attorneys later submitted the document as part of court proceedings, where it remained under seal for years. 

How did The New York Times get involved in the matter? Wehner and Ruiz explain: 

The New York Times sought access to the note along with several other materials tied to a legal inquiry into potential conflicts among Tartaglione’s defense attorneys, known as a Curcio hearing.

Those materials included attorney reports, hearing transcripts, and prior court orders. Karas said the note qualifies as a judicial document subject to a strong presumption of public access.

"The public has a strong presumptive right of access to certain judicial documents, established by the First Amendment, as well as a weaker presumptive right to all judicial documents, established at common law," the ruling said.

"The common law right of public access to judicial documents is one "firmly rooted in our nation’s history" that provides "a measure of accountability" for federal courts and protects the public’s "confidence in the administration of justice."

The judge raised a number of other issues that went into his decision to unseal the suicide note. He also said additional proceedings will be required before the court rules on certain matters raised by The Times:

The court found Tartaglione waived attorney-client privilege by discussing the note’s contents publicly, including in interviews.

In addition, the judge said privacy concerns were limited because Epstein is deceased and details about the note have already entered the public domain.

While the note itself will be unsealed, the court stopped short of granting the Times’ broader request for additional documents. Instead, Karas directed attorneys for both sides to propose redactions and provide legal arguments before a final decision is made on those materials.

Tartaglione long has been a prominent figure in the Epstein case, but his troubling past raises questions about credibility. His reported ties to the mob and "gangland-style murders also don't help. From the Fox/Yahoo report: 

Tartaglione, who was convicted of multiple murders tied to a drug trafficking scheme, was briefly housed with Epstein at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan while awaiting trial, according to the court. He was no longer Epstein’s cellmate at the time of Epstein’s death. 

As a central figure in the note's release, Tartaglione already has demonstrated an ability and willingness to kill people. Perhaps that is why some quickly raised doubts about whether the note is real:

Questions about the note’s authenticity have already emerged.

Epstein’s brother, Mark Epstein, told Fox News Digital he does not believe the note is legitimate and had not seen it prior to its release.

"Makes no sense," he said. "We know the event in July was not a suicide attempt. Hence, there would not be a note from then. He was not in the same cell with NT after that."

Jeffrey Epstein had previously accused Tartaglione of assaulting him about a month before he was found dead in his jail cell.

Tartaglione later told guards Epstein had attempted to hang himself, but Epstein’s lawyers and his brother disputed that account, saying he had been attacked.

The ruling marks a significant step toward public disclosure of records tied to both Tartaglione’s case and Epstein, whose death in federal custody has remained the subject of widespread scrutiny and speculation.

The court ordered that the note be formally unsealed and entered into the public record, while setting a deadline for further filings on the remaining documents. 

As for the possibility of handwriting analysis, an online query yields this information from AI Overview:

Based on reports as of early May 2026, handwriting experts have not been called to testify in open court about the suicide note attributed to Jeffrey Epstein, but legal counsel for his former cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione, did have handwriting experts examine the note privately.  

• Private Examination: Lawyers for Tartaglione, who was cellmates with Epstein during a July 2019 suicide attempt, said in 2025 that their "handwriting experts" examined the note in late 2019 or early 2020, according to The New York Times.