Sen. Rand Paul pulls out his bully routine at Senate hearing on origins of COVID-19, but Dr. Anthony Fauci responds by calmly refusing to answer questions from Paul's committee

(KYW Radio, Facebook)

Our lead story yesterday was about a Republican attempt to blame damage at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on former U.S. Olympian David "Davy" Hearn. Now, less than 24 hours later, our lead story is about Republicans trying to blame Dr. Anthony Fauci for the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Has the sole purpose of the postmodern Republican Party become finding scapegoats to blame for the fallout that lands in America's lap when the GOP's disinterest in governing (along with its general ineptitude) hits home? That is a reasonable question in the wake of a U.S. Senate committee meeting in which Fauci, who became the leading voice for America's response to spread of the coronavirus, was to answer queries from a GOP panel about origins of the pandemic that resulted in more than 1.2 million U.S. deaths. Fauci apparently took note that the panel seemed to be more interested in partisan gamesmanship than eliciting science-based facts about the virus' origins and spread.  

To Fauci's eyes, a particularly dubious character at the hearing probably was U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the committee chair who has carried on a yearslong feud with Fauci. In his opening statement, Paul demonstrated an "elite" level of objectivity by stating that he wanted to see Fauci -- who has worked in the U.S. public-health sector for 50 years and served under every president since Ronald Reagan -- "behind bars." 

Fauci must have sensed that he was not going to get a fair hearing before Paul and his fellow GOPers, so when questions came his way, Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer -- over and over again.

That seemed to agitate Paul, who issued more than one threat to his witness. But Fauci did not seem shaken by the experience or perturbed about what might come next. Was that because he was confident about acting in the right? Perhaps that was the case, and it raises this question: Did Fauci do anything improper or unusual? Let's take a look at what transpired and see what we can take from a sort of play-by-play.

That comes our way via a report at Politico under the headline "Paul says Fauci will face 'repercussions' for taking the Fifth. That could get complicated." The following sub-header provides details: "The Kentucky senator called for a vote on contempt of Congress. President Joe Biden last year granted his former top health official a preemptive pardon." The reporting team of Simon Levien, Josh Gerstein, and Kyle Cheney writes:

Rand Paul says Anthony Fauci can expect consequences for the former Covid czar’s decision to exercise his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before Paul’s Senate committee on Wednesday.

“It’s against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress. There will be repercussions for your refusal to testify,” Paul told Fauci, the longtime top government health official who led the pandemic response. Paul scheduled a vote of his Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Aug. 5 on a resolution declaring Fauci in contempt of Congress.

The Politico team reports that Paul might not have a firm leg to stand on. That's because Fauci simply invoked a constitutional right, probably one of the most familiar such rights to the American public. In this instance, any further proceedings might not be smooth sailing for either side. Both seem to have fairly solid arguments for how things should move forward. From the Politico report:

The Fifth Amendment, which gives people the constitutional right to avoid making statements that they believe could incriminate them, usually precludes consequences for rebuffing questions at congressional hearings.

But Fauci is in an unusual position: President Joe Biden pardoned him for all of his official conduct from 2014 to 2025, meaning Fauci cannot be subject to federal criminal prosecutions for many of the pandemic-related decisions and actions Paul sought to grill him about.

Republicans contend it means he cannot claim fear of prosecution for questions about the time the pardon covers. However, Fauci could theoretically face state or local prosecution, as well as federal prosecution for making any false statements to the panel. And Fauci said he was convinced Paul’s goal was to trip him up and trigger a perjury allegation.

The rules governing Congressional testimony tend to be arcane and outside the grasp of the general public -- even the press. One might say the rules hardly are a model of clarity. The Politico team writes:

Complicating the equation further is Congress’ power to hold recalcitrant witnesses in contempt. The Senate could seek civil contempt sanctions against Fauci, pursuing a court order requiring him to testify and exposing him to fines or incarceration for refusing. In theory, the Senate could have its sergeant-at-arms arrest and detain Fauci, but this “inherent contempt” power hasn’t been used for nearly a century.

The Senate could also pursue criminal contempt, voting to turn the matter over to the Justice Department for potential prosecution. Two former Trump aides — Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon — were convicted of contempt misdemeanors for refusing to testify to the Jan. 6 committee. Unlike Fauci, they failed to appear for their depositions and cited executive privilege rather than the Fifth Amendment. Each served four months in prison.

Paul acted in a heavy-handed fashion when it came to dealing with Fauci's attorney, and that might prove to be a mistake on the chair's part. The role for attorneys in Congress is different from their role in courtrooms. They are allowed to be present under what is called a regulated privilege, guided by rules established by the House and Senate. They can quietly advise their client on Constitutional rights. They cannot object to the committee's questions, and they cannot interrupt the proceedings. They cannot cross-examine members of Congress or make formal legal arguments during the hearing. 

How did Paul handle Fauci's attorney? Not well, in my view, essentially denying Fauci even the presence of his lawyer:

After Paul said Fauci would face consequences, David Schertler, Fauci’s lawyer, sought to speak, arguing the Constitution should shield his client. Paul had security remove Schertler from the hearing room.

“It was outrageous for Sen. Paul to exclude his counsel for making a legitimate legal point,” Schertler said in a statement. “It proves the baseless and vindictive nature of this proceeding and Rand Paul’s personal vendetta against Dr. Fauci.”

Any event that has the trappings of a legal proceeding comes with risk, and that applies even to a respected, well-known figure such as Fauci. The Politico team reports: 

A key risk Fauci, 85, faces is that if a court rejects his Fifth Amendment claim, he may have no sanctuary in arguing he was relying on his attorneys’ advice in declining to answer the committee’s questions. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1961 that the so-called advice-of-counsel defense isn’t available to those charged with willfully defying Congress.

In recent rulings, some judges have expressed skepticism about the rationale of that decision but the appeals court has thus far refused to revisit it.

After Paul at his committee hearing accused Fauci of covering up Covid’s origins — Paul believes the disease emerged from a Chinese lab that had received U.S. research funding — and of unnecessarily closing schools and churches, Fauci repeatedly refused to answer questions.

“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution,” he said. 

Is it possible Fauci chose relative silence because it appeared Paul was not informed enough to even ask intelligent questions about COVID and steps that were taken to help limit its spread. He accused Fauci of "unnecessarily closing schools and churches." But it's a matter of public record that Fauci did not order such closures and did not have the authority to issue such orders. Fauci has correctly stated that closure orders for schools, churches, and businesses were issued by state governors, local health departments, and municipal leaders, rather than federal scientists.

Either way, it's  clear Fauci does not trust Paul -- and probably with good reason. From the Politico report:

Fauci said in his opening statement he thought Paul aimed to entrap him, citing his “obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution, his repeated slanderous comments about me, and recently his publicly releasing my unredacted personal diary aimed at embarrassing and intimidating me.”

Paul said he would explore “appropriate actions” to pursue Fauci further.

Dozens of witnesses in recent high-profile congressional probes have pleaded the Fifth to avoid testifying, from Joe Biden’s physician to a slew of witnesses called by the House’s Jan. 6 select committee. Those assertions effectively doomed that committee’s bid to compel their testimony — since litigation would likely have taken months or years to resolve.

From grand-jury "irregularities" to "state-sanctioned kidnapping" to "false arrest," and defamation with damages, Trump's Reflecting Pool case appears to be falling apart and "exploding" at the same time

(Reuters, Kylie Cooper)

Lawyers for a man who was arrested for allegedly vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool are asking a court to release documents they say likely will reveal flaws in the grand-jury process that led to their client being indicted. That is just one of several relatively new issues that could arise in court before a scheduled trial date of Sept. 28. Some legal analysts have said the government's case is so weak it already is "leaking."

The Reflecting Pool case might seem like a relatively minor event at a time when the U.S. is at war with Iran, the words "explosive diarrhea" have become an unwelcome addition to the American lexicon, and ICE agents have developed a disturbing habit of fatally shooting people under questionable circumstances. But here is the No. 1 reason the Reflecting Pool case, which involves former U.S. Olympic canoeist David "Davy" Hearn, matters: Throughout Donald Trump's nightmarish second term as president, the number of individuals and institutions that have caved when the administration brought or threatened to bring criminal or civil actions against them runs well into the dozens. These include universities, law firms, corporations, media organizations and more.

David Hearn, on the other hand appears determined to fight back -- and with the highly regarded Norm Eisen as lead counsel, he has the legal support needed to wage a serious battle with the White House.

To be sure, Hearn is not the only person or entity to fight back against Trump in court. The Lawfare blog keeps a litigation tracker that currently shows 332 active cases challenging Trump administration actions. The cases highlighted at Lawfare are ongoing -- and many appear to involve complex legal matters -- so the outcomes might not be known for some time. The Hearn case, however, is moving quickly so far, and he appears to have a solid chance of reaching a favorable outcome on multiple fronts. A motion to dismiss the charges already has been filed, and in our view, it should be granted. But if it is denied, Hearn still has plenty of avenues for prevailing. If that happens, I can see a movie being made someday with a title like "America's lone canoeist uses moxie and legal grit to beat down Trump's Evil Empire." I Think I'm going to reserve tickets now, and we suggest you follow suit. So, how is the Hearn case shaping up? Let's take a look . . . 

For now, the grand-jury issue is front and center, and a jointly published article at Associated Press (AP) and Yahoo! News has details. Under the headline "Ex-Olympian charged with damaging Reflecting Pool sees 'irregularities' in grand jury proceedings," Michael Kunzelman writes: 

A former Olympian charged with deliberately damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is seeking access to all of the closed-door testimony that led to his indictment, pointing to "irregularities" in those grand jury proceedings.

In a court filing Monday, David Hearn's attorneys requested an order for the government to turn over a complete transcript of all grand jury proceedings. They also want prosecutors to disclose the legal instructions they gave to grand jurors about the elements of Hearn's alleged crime.

Hearn pleaded not guilty earlier this month to one felony count of property destruction and has a trial scheduled to start Sept. 28 in D.C. Superior Court. The charge, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years upon conviction, accuses Hearn of causing at least $1,000 in damage to the pool.

But his lawyers question whether prosecutors properly presented the grand jury with adequate evidence to support the amount of damage alleged in Hearn's indictment. A National Park Service official testified that the pool already was damaged before Hearn allegedly touched it, couldn't quantify any damage attributable to Hearn and said the same repairs would have been required regardless of his conduct, defense attorneys said.

According to NBC News, prosecutor Jeanine Pirro presented only one witness to the grand jury, and much of what he said was favorable to Hearn. How in the world did Pirro, under those conditions, land an indictment? That might be a question for the D.C. Bar Association to ponder, with possible sanctions in mind -- especially since the Trump-controlled U.S. Department of Justice is not likely to do anything about possible skulduggery. This is from the NBC report:

The witness’ testimony, according to Hearn’s lawyers, “established that the pool had substantial preexisting damage requiring repair before any alleged conduct by Mr. Hearn.”

“Simply put, the government’s witness could not identify any additional cost caused by Mr. Hearn’s alleged conduct. Indeed, the witness did not even say or suggest that the alleged conduct had compromised the liner at all,” they wrote.

The witness testimony also raised questions about whether the grand jury was properly instructed about the core elements of the alleged crime, which “bears directly on whether the felony indictment was lawfully returned,” Hearn’s attorneys wrote. 

“The Government’s only witness on that element testified that the property was already deteriorated, that the identified repairs would have been needed even without Mr. Hearn’s alleged conduct, and that he could not quantify any loss caused by that conduct,” they wrote. “Consequently, the grand jury’s indictment of Mr. Hearn is hard to explain. Mr. Hearn needs to learn whether the grand jury was properly instructed that the charge required him to have caused over $1,000 in damages, when the testimony failed to establish that he caused any damage at all.” 

What other issues might come before the court? Here are several to keep an eye on:

*  Hearn has said he was detained for five hours following his arrest for touching a piece of detached coating. If a court finds that Hearn was arrested without probable cause, that might bring false arrest -- into the equation. In some jurisdictions, false arrest can be brought as a criminal charge, usually a misdemeanor As a prosecutor, Pirro probably would enjoy immunity from a false arrest lawsuit. But such a claim might successfully be brought against the officers who made the arrest and the department for which they work, perhaps alleging that they did not have lawful authority to take such a step. A classic example of such a case would involve a department store clerk or security officer who arrests someone for suspected shoplifting. 

* Here is where the Hearn case could get very interesting. What if it is determined that Donald Trump ordered Hearn's arrest and ordered Pirro to prosecute regardless of whether she had a valid case. The U.S Supreme Court (SCOTUS), of course, famously granted former presidents absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. But what about civil immunity? In the 1982 case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, SCOTUS found that a former president has absolute immunity from civil damages for official acts while he was president. Civil immunity, however, does not apply to unofficial conduct or actions taken before the president was in office. 

What if Donald Trump is found to have ordered David Hearn to be unlawfully arrested and prosecuted. Could the president face criminal charges and/or civil claims because of that? I think the answer might be yes, if Democrats unleash a Blue Wave in the midterms, take back both houses of Congress and start undoing the massive damage Trump has done to our justice system. On the criminal side, a key question would be "Does any president have the authority to order federal arrests or prosecutions? The Justice Department Manual plainly says the president should not be involved in charging or non-charging decisions. I think that language would make it difficult for Trump to argue that ordering criminal charges against David Hearn is part of his official duties. On the civil side, any actions Trump took against Hearn would almost have to be seen as unofficial conduct that would not trigger immunity. At least, that's how I think an uncompromised court of law -- if we can return to the days of having such entities (at least sometimes) -- would see it.

* That Hearn was detained brings "false imprisonment" into the matter. Imprisonment does not refer only to situations where a subject is placed in a cell, behind bars. It also refers to any detention that takes away a person's freedom of movement. And if that detention (five hours in Hearn's case) is unlawful -- and his almost certainly was -- then he would have grounds for a false imprisonment lawsuit. (Note: This brings us to the idea of what I call "state-sanctioned kidnappings." Such actions have exploded during the second Trump administration, as he has granted extraordinary powers to ICE, promoted the militarization of law enforcement, unlawfully used the military for domestic purposes, and demonized migrants while attacking their right to due process.

I know from firsthand experience that state-sanctioned kidnappings predate the political rise of Donald Trump and MAGA. I was the victim of a state-sanctioned kidnapping in Alabama, one that took away my freedom of movement for five months and drew national and international press coverage. It also drew the attention of several groups devoted to First Amendment freedoms. My wife, Carol, also was targeted for a state-sanctioned kidnapping, but she managed to elude capture and played an essential role in getting our story out to the world. She and I have been denied justice at every turn and at almost every level in our court system, short of the U.S. Supreme Court. We obviously have a strong personal interest in the subject of "state-sanctioned kidnapping," and we will address the issue in upcoming posts. That it happens routinely under Trump and predates his second term by at least a dozen years or so should terrify everyone who still believes in democracy and the rule of law.

For now, David Hearn and the Reflecting Pool case are the matter at hand, and we have one more issue that we think might become prominent in that case . . . 

* For weeks, Trump has been blaming damage to the Reflecting Pool on vandals, although he has provided no evidence to support that claim. David Hearn was the first person to be publicly identified as an arrestee. According to NBC News three other individuals -- Justin Carreno, Cameron Thiers, and Sophie Dennison-Gibby -- now face misdemeanor destruction of property charges. Hearn remains the only person charted with a felony.

The legal landscape became more complicated when The Independent reported on July 14 that Trump had  stated the following in a Truth Social post: 

“The Parks Department had to empty the water in order to fix the water tight basin. It will be refilled and put back into service soon. These country-hating sleazebags should pay a big price for the damage done.”

The sentence highlighted in yellow could bring defamation into play. In general, a defamation plaintiff must prove (1) a false statement of fact; (2) publication to a third party; and (3) resulting harm to their reputation.

Hearn, as the only person charged with a felony, is by far the best-known defendant in the case. Trump, however, did not mention Hearn by name, so could a defamation claim still exist? The answer is yes, based on the following from the Digital Media Law Project under the heading "Who can sue for defamation": 

In order to be actionable, a defamatory statement must be "of and concerning" the plaintiff. This means that a defamation plaintiff must show that a reasonable person would understand that the statement was referring to him or her. Of course, if a blog post or online article identifies the plaintiff by name, this requirement will be easily met. The plaintiff need not be specifically named, however, if there are enough identifying facts that any (but not necessarily every) person reading or hearing it would reasonably understand it to refer to the plaintiff. 

Once Hearn can establish the Trump statement is "of and concerning" him, he probably could claim the statement is false in two respects. One, Trump refers to Hearn as a "country-hating sleazebag." Hearn can make a strong case that he, in fact, loves his country. He represented the United States in three consecutive Summer Olympic Games and multiple World Championships/World Cups. He won 13 World Championship medals (including eight golds) and 23 World Cup medals.  Two, Trump says Hearn should "pay a big price" for the "damage done." But what if there is no evidence that Hearn did any damage, and he is found "not guilty." That means Trump falsely claimed he had "done damage" and owed a "big price" for it.

What about the issue of civil immunity for Trump? Is he going to try to claim that it is an "official act" for him to call a decorated U.S. Olympian a "country-hating sleazebag." As a matter of law, a judge with integrity should hold that Trump is not protected by immunity.

As for damages, the main evidence probably would involve loss of income, and expert testimony could show the extent of harm Hearn has suffered. In an age where fame, media, endorsements, and reputation matter, Hearn's damages could be considerable, and we can hope they come right out of Trump's pocket -- unless one of his authoritarian buddies, such as Vladimir Putin, is willing to pick up the check.

From CNN's Kaitlan Collins to Fox News' Jacqui Heinrich, Trump demeans and objectifies female journalists in what amounts to sexual harassment, but media execs don't push back

Julie Roginsky (Lift Our Voices)

Donald Trump's featured speech Friday night at the 2026 White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD) was supposed to be a homecoming of sorts, marking the return of a president who had skipped the event for 15 years -- since Barack Obama famously roasted him in 2011 and apparently left some bruised feelings in the process. Trump's return, however, proved to be a master class in sexual harassment, according to Julie Roginsky, former Democratic Party strategist; television personality (at Fox News and CNBC); co-founder of the Lift Our Voices nonprofit, which has helped produce landmark civil-rights legislation; and author of the Salty Politics Substack newsletter.

Under the headline "The president sexually harassed female journalists on Friday night. Why won't the press say so?" Roginsky writes:

Donald Trump did not merely “take potshots” at the media at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Friday night. He did not simply deliver an “insult-filled” speech that occasionally “veered off script.” He did not participate in some unusually graceless version of the traditional presidential roast.

The president of the United States stood before a ballroom full of journalists and sexually harassed women whose livelihoods require them to continue showing up at his workplace every day. Their colleagues sat in the room, watched these women get abused, and refused to speak up for them — either by walking out en masse or at least covering this event honestly after the fact.

Roginsky's article includes the following sub-heading: "The #MeToo movement was supposed to teach institutions that harassment flourishes when powerful men can disguise degradation as humor." The WHCD provides evidence, Roginsky argues, that this lesson has not been learned in some (perhaps many)  quarters:

When the press describes what happened at the dinner as Trump “mocking” reporters, it launders sex-based workplace degradation into entertainment. It turns harassment into banter, abuse into “barbs,” and female journalists into supporting characters in yet another exhausting story about Trump’s eccentric behavior. 

Let’s be very clear about what happened. The president stood on stage and read a speech — presumably written and vetted by his staff — that objectified highly accomplished women, portraying them as nothing more than, at best, a piece of eye candy. The most insulting riffs, about CNN’s Kaitlin Collins, were not ad libbed. Trump read them off a prompter, which means that someone — or likely a group of someones —decided objectifying and demeaning a female reporter (while throwing in a transphobic joke for good measure) was a great way to spend a Friday night.

Minutes earlier, Collins had received a White House Correspondents’ Association award for her coverage of Trump’s Oval Office confrontation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump responded by declaring the award “fake” and saying that Collins did not deserve it.

That was the professional attack. Then came the harassment. 

Roginsky reminds us that sexual harassment is "inextricably intertwined" with the workplace. In fact, the work environment seems to provide a kind of rich soil that allows sexual harassment to take root. In the case of a well-known journalist such as Collins (who grew up in my former home state of Alabama, which has the kind of corrupt legal and political environment that provided the backdrop for our early reporting at Legal Schnauzer), the workplace is broader than many of us might realize. In some instances, it appears her workplace is CNN studios and surrounding facilities. But in others, her work site is anyplace that Donald Trump and his associates gather. And that brings us to the point Roginsky drives home:

Trump called Collins a “young, attractive woman” and repeatedly commanded her to smile. “Smile, Kaitlan. Just smile.” he instructed her. (Ladies, how many times have you felt a burning rage when walking down the street and hearing some stranger tell you under his breath as he passed that you would be a lot prettier if you just smiled?)

Trump then compared Collins’ appearance to that of transgender actress Dylan Mulvaney, using both women as the objects of a transphobic joke about Bud Light. (I suppose we are to assume that Trump also finds Mulvaney — Collins’ supposed doppelgänger — “attractive.” Make of that what you will.) In a Truth Social post yesterday, Trump doubled down, sharing a photoshopped image of Collins’ face on Mulvaney’s body.

This is not normal political criticism. It has nothing to do with whether Collins’s reporting is fair, accurate, or insightful. This is the most powerful man in the world publicly evaluating a woman’s attractiveness, policing her facial expressions, and using another woman’s gender identity to humiliate her in front of approximately 700 colleagues, competitors, government officials, and media executives.

One observer noted that Trump seems to be "triggered" by Collins. But he doesn't limit his unwelcome critiques to her. For a president who does not favor equal opportunity in many instances, Trump sure can be an equal-opportunity harasser, Roginsky suggests:

Trump did something similar to Jacqui Heinrich, Fox News’s senior White House correspondent and the incoming president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. “She can be very tough as a reporter, I will tell you,” he said. “She can be nasty. She looks so beautiful, but she can be so nasty. How could that happen? But she just got married to a very successful congressman, very good congressman. I'd like to have a couple of more votes from it. That's okay. On occasion, he chose a little independence. We don't like that. But now, he's a very professional guy and, he loves our country.”

Think about the message embedded in that statement. Heinrich’s appearance is relevant. Her demeanor is subject to Trump’s judgment. Her professional toughness is “nastiness.” Her marriage is a potential avenue of political influence. In short, her accomplishments are secondary to how attractive Trump finds her and to her status as the wife of a powerful man. 

By contrast, when Trump discussed male journalist Josh Dawsey, he called him a “workhorse” and marveled at how many stories he produces. Trump certainly also insulted Dawsey and CNN’s Jake Tapper but only in the context of their work. He did not rate their attractiveness, order them to smile, or define them through their romantic partners. 

Technically, Trunp is not a boss to Collins and Heinrich. But in many ways, he controls the environment in which they work. Roginsky knows the landscape and provides details:

The power imbalance could hardly be greater. Collins and Heinrich are not celebrities trading insults with another celebrity. They are journalists assigned to cover the president, who controls the administration they scrutinize, the officials they question, and much of the access they need to perform their jobs. Trump has already excluded the Associated Press from parts of White House coverage and restricted access for other journalists. He has sued news organizations, attacked individual reporters, and repeatedly encouraged a government posture in which access itself becomes punishment or reward. It’s not like he does not have it in him to punish female reporters for their facial expressions or their choice of romantic partner.

Roginsky's main beef seems to be that media executives are not standing up for their female journalists on the ground. She writes:

Where, exactly, are the people who employ these women? Where are CNN chairman and CEO Mark Thompson and Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott? Neither of them is a powerless assignment editor watching helplessly from the cheap seats. They run two of the most prominent news networks in the world.

Thompson did not remain literally silent after Trump’s performance. What he offered is the kind of bloodless corporate statement designed to check a box without offending anyone who matters. “We stand by our journalists and the integrity and fair-mindedness with which the CNN team reports the news,” he said in a statement late Friday. “Honest, accurate journalism may sometimes irritate politicians, but our right to report and present that reporting to the public without government interference is fully protected by the U.S. Constitution.”

Really? The Constitution is not what this is about. Sexual harassment is, which is why it is shocking that Thompson resorted to the First Amendment in critiquing Trump’s speech. Thompson did not name Collins or say that Trump’s remarks were sexist. He did not say that repeatedly ordering a woman to smile and publicly assessing her attractiveness is harassment. He transformed the sexual humiliation of one of his most prominent employees into an abstract disagreement about press freedom.

Collins supplied the moral clarity her own network’s leadership did not. In an Instagram post after the dinner, she shared Eleanor Roosevelt’s observation that “no one can make you feel inferior without your consent” and wrote that the evening’s most important moment was “reminding everyone why the First Amendment — and asking uncomfortable questions that people in power don’t like — matters.” After Trump’s speech, CNN did issue a statement calling Collins “an exceptional, trusted journalist,” praising her “strength and tenacity” and declaring, “We stand by her to the fullest extent.” But the statement never used the words “sexist,” “misogynistic,” or “harassment." It never condemned Trump for ordering a female journalist to smile, publicly evaluating her attractiveness, or using her as the object of a sexist and transphobic joke.

How did Fox News' leadership react to Trump's behavior? It was not exactly a profile in courage, Roginsky writes:

Scott’s cowardice is even more damning. Fox Corporation routinely pats itself on the back for appointing her to serve as CEO of Fox News. The network constantly credits her with mentoring future leaders and bringing “meaningful change” to the network — presumably after the Roger Ailes years, where many women, including me, accused Ailes of sexual misconduct. Yet Scott and Fox have been conspicuously silent about Trump’s objectification of their senior White House correspondent.

Instead, its own recap of the event the next day sanitized Trump’s performance as a night of “jokes” and “razzing,” omitting his most demeaning remarks about Heinrich altogether. Scott did not merely fail to confront the harassment; the organization she runs repackaged it as entertainment. The message to Fox’s female employees could hardly be clearer: When honesty angers Trump or threatens the audience, do not expect the woman in the executive suite to put her own power on the line for you.

If these executives cannot summon the courage to say plainly that the president is subjecting their female employees to gendered harassment, they are not protecting journalism. They are using their women as human shields to preserve corporate access or their own careers or whatever it is that has made them constitutionally unable to call out the sexual harassment before their eyes.

The #MeToo movement was supposed to teach institutions that harassment flourishes when powerful men can disguise degradation as humor and count on everyone around them to protect the relationship rather than the woman. Yet when the harasser is the president and the survivors are members of the press itself, the very people who cover sexual harassment scandals so breathlessly suddenly become passive, bloodless and evasive. They run for their favorite critique of the powerful — that they are attacking the First Amendment — rather than understanding that the First Amendment is a sideshow to this particular scandal.

Trump sexually harassed women journalists from the podium. The corporate press does not lose its objectivity when it says so. It loses its integrity when it refuses to say so.

Foreign policy expert at the Heritage Foundation -- which has close ties toTrump admin -- is arrested after trying to enter Senate office building with drugs and ammunition

(MS Now -- News Junkies, Facebook)

An official with the Heritage Foundation faces a drug possession charge after a security screening found he had cocaine and fentanyl in his possession -- along with a pistol magazine and 10 rounds of ammunition -- as he tried to enter a U.S. Senate office building. The incident took place last Friday, July 24. The NOTUS (News of the United States) website apparently was first to report the arrest, with a post that was published at 4:38 p.m. on July 24 under the headline "A Heritage employee was caught with drugs trying to get into the Senate, Police say."

The article includes a sub-heading that reads "Matthew Christopher Wingate was stopped for having a pistol magazine in his briefcase, according to a court affidavit." Daniella Diaz writes for NOTUS:

A Heritage Foundation employee faces a drug-possession charge after a security screening at a Senate office building turned what tested presumptively positive as cocaine and fentanyl, according to court records.

Capitol Police officers detained Matthew Christopher Wingate on July 14 after he entered the Russell Senate Office Building and placed his bag on the X-ray belt as part of routine screening, according to an affidavit filed in Washington, D.C., superior court.

NOTUS identifies Wingate as an employee of the Heritage Foundation -- a right-wing think tank that is credited with creating Project 2025, which generally is seen as a governing blueprint for the Trump administration. And Wingate, it turns out, is much more than a low-level employee. Diaz writes:

Wingate is the government-relations director for defense and foreign policy at the Heritage Foundation, and previously worked as a national security adviser for Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and a military legislative assistant for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), according to Legistorm.

An officer observed an image consistent with a pistol magazine inside the brown briefcase, and a secondary screening found a magazine with 10 rounds of 9 mm ammunition, the affidavit states. 

Officers placed him under arrest, the affidavit states. That was apparently because of the magazine. Firearms and ammunition are generally prohibited from being carried into Senate office buildings. 

Why would a defense and foreign-policy expert for the best known and most influential right-wing think tank in Washington, D.C., be taking drugs and ammunition into a U.S. Senate building? That is just one of many questions this incident raises. Diaz writes:

Officers ran a check through the Metropolitan Police Department’s Gun Registry Unit, which confirmed Wingate held a valid license to carry a firearm in D.C., the affidavit states.

A crime-scene officer discovered a plastic sandwich bag in the exterior pocket of the briefcase containing four capsules and three blue-pressed tablets, the affidavit states. Field testing of the blue pills, which were imprinted with the letter “A” on one side and “7 6” on the other side, returned a presumptive positive result for cocaine and fentanyl, the affidavit states.

When questioned by officers, Wingate provided some curious answers of "the dog ate my homework" variety. Diaz reports:

Under questioning, Wingate said he forgot the magazine was in the briefcase and “explained that the drugs were his and were prescribed to him from a medical professional,” the affidavit states.

Wingate did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The Heritage Foundation and Wingate’s lawyer did not respond to requests for comment.

Wingate was released from custody on the misdemeanor charge and has an Aug. 27 court date, according to court records.

Given the prominent role the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 play with the Trump administration, this could prove to be a profoundly important story, one that raises a host of issues and questions. We will be examining those issues in upcoming posts.

As a guy who long has struggled to laugh, especially at himself, Trump flounders as his jokes fall flat before a room full of journalists, not MAGA faithful

Trump's barbs fall flat with journalists at WHCD (BBC)

If you scour social media or check recent approval ratings, you are likely to get the idea that millions of Americans would like to see Donald Trump get a new job -- any job, other than the one he has now.

Unfortunately, we received evidence over the weekend that Trump likely won't be trading in his presidential gig for a spot on the comedy-club circuit anytime soon. That's because we learned from his  performance last Friday as featured speaker at the White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD) that  Trump doesn't know any jokes -- other than those who reside on his hand-picked and uniquely inept cabinet. It also seems that, even if someone writes down a rib-tickler of the highest quality for him, Trump can't tell a joke to save his make-up shrouded skin. 

That is because it has been widely reported that he has a limited, almost nonexistent, sense of humor -- mainly because of an inability to laugh at himself. Mary Trump, Donald's niece who is a best-selling author and political analyst, with a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, probably knows the president's fragile and damaged psyche better than anyone. In a May 2024 article at HuffPost, Mary talked about the incident that probably created Donald's inability to laugh:

Mary Trump said her uncle Donald Trump’s inability to laugh at himself is a “dangerous” trait that can be traced back to at least a humiliating incident in his childhood, which she called the former president’s “origin story.”

On TikTok, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s niece recalled the time her father, Fred, dumped a bowl of mashed potatoes onto his younger brother Donald’s head to stop him from tormenting their even younger brother Robert.

Donald stopped acting out and Robert stopped crying, she said. But then everyone started laughing at Donald and he “probably felt humiliated for the first time in his life,” she continued. 

The incident was frequently brought up at family gatherings and “every single time, even six decades after the event itself occurred, Donald reacted exactly the same way,” said Mary Trump, who is one of her relative’s biggest critics.

“While everybody was laughing about it, he crossed his arms. And he pouted and he sulked until somebody changed the subject,” she said.

Mary Trump also explained the significance of an incident that long ago entered family lore:

“I think it says something about Donald that even as a little kid, he was incapable of having a sense of humor about himself, which is really not great,” she said.

“Kids need to have that kind of resilience that he never had,” she added. “But worse, at seven decades later, he still does not have the ability to laugh at himself, which I think is a dangerous thing.” 

Perhaps that is why Trump's attempts at humor during the WHCD were met mostly with a combination of quiet titters and silence. In a jointly published article at CNN and Yahoo! News, Brian Stelter provides an up-close look at the proceedings under the headline "Trump bombed at the White House Correspondents Dinner -- and proved its point." Stelter writes:

President Donald Trump bombed at the White House Correspondents' Dinner Friday night. He knew he was bombing, too, and he even tried to meta-joke his way out of it.

But no. Even the president's jokes about his bad jokes fell flat, and he was widely ridiculed for the comedy routine afterward. 

Members of the media mocking a leader's dismal performance on live TV and all across the internet? In some other countries, that's a criminal offense. But in the US, it's the norm, so maybe Trump's speech unwittingly underscored the theme of the dinner: America's robust First Amendment protections.  

In a rambling hour-long speech, Trump insulted journalists by name, repurposed old nicknames for political opponents, made a strange number of fat jokes that weren't funny at all, and sounded mad at his unnamed writers for giving him weak material to work with. "Does anyone understand this stuff?" he said at one point, and the answer was generally no.

It was bad enough that Trump's timing was poor, his material was shaky and (at times) inappropriate -- even for a glorified roast. But worst of all, the president's schtick was just plain dull, as Stelter explains:

Some of Trump's remarks were "vicious," as press secretary Karoline Leavitt promised. But more than anything, the speech was just… boring.

And boring is one thing Trump never, ever wants to be. He claimed to be singlehandedly keeping the news business afloat, commenting, "When I'm gone, you're all going to be broke."

"Nobody gives a damn about anybody else," he said, and proceeded to count how many stories on The New York Times front page are about him.

That sounds like the malignant narcissist that resides in Trump was rearing its ugly head.  It could not be pleasant for the assembled journalists to get an unobstructed view of a president at perhaps his most dysfunctional and dangerous. Stelter writes:

Attendees were mostly silent while Trump delivered lines better suited to a MAGA rally than a black-tie dinner.

Trump's low energy led more than one TV executive to muse that the president had stumbled upon a new technique against the media: Tank the ratings with a snoozefest.

Some attendees said they were surprised that Trump didn't bring more original material, given how highly anticipated the dinner was, in part because his attendance ended his years-long boycott of the White House Correspondents' Association's annual fundraiser.

Friday's dinner was a smaller-scale redo of the April 26 affair that was postponed after a gunman tried to rush into the ballroom of the Washington Hilton hotel.

The do-over dinner was held across town at the Waldorf Astoria, a building Trump once operated as his namesake DC hotel — and an unofficial clubhouse for his first administration.

 As a president who fancies himself an expert on all things related to construction, design, and renovation, it was no surprise that Trump became obsessed with the lighting in Friday night's surroundings:

"See those beautiful chandeliers? I can tell you everything about them," he threatened.

Trump did strike some notes of unity, praising the Secret Service and denouncing political violence. "In this country, we believe in freedom of speech," he said. "We settle our differences not with bullets, but with open and vigorous debate. And no deranged loser with a gun will ever change that."

Then he joked about dinnergoers wearing bulletproof vests under their fancy outfits, "which many people didn't want to wear because they'd rather die than look 20 pounds heavier."

That last bit was genuinely funny. It had just a hint of meanness to it, but it hit on a subject -- the fear of being seen as overweight -- to which many people can relate. If Trump has a wheelhouse for humor -- perhaps one he didn't know he had -- that joke was in it. 

The WHCD seemed to spotlight this truth about our 47th president: Trump struggles to live with the media, but he can't live without it, as Stelter writes:

Trump's remarks showed how he understands the power of the press — and that he gets angry when he can't control it. He singled out several CNN journalists by name.

In response, CNN CEO Mark Thompson said in a statement, "We stand by our journalists and the integrity and fairmindedness with which the CNN team reports the news. Honest, accurate journalism may sometimes irritate politicians, but our right to report and present that reporting to the public without government interference is fully protected by the US Constitution. CNN will continue to exercise this right."

Trump also gave shoutouts to media executives whom he views as allies, namely Larry and David Ellison, who took control of Paramount last year and are now trying to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, CNN's parent company. Paramount suffered a major setback earlier on Friday when it agreed to accept a months-long delay to the merger while legal challenges are resolved.

Invoking the fact that Paramount owns CBS News, Trump said David Ellison is "going to make, I think, fantastic changes and keep some of the great stuff going." 

Trump also made a convoluted joke about the controversial changes implemented by Ellison's handpicked editor-in-chief of CBS News, Bari Weiss: "Under my administration, a once-feared and powerful regime that relentlessly attacked America has finally been toppled. Their former leaders have been removed, and they're now being run by a gay dictator facing internal divisions. But I, for one, wish Bari Weiss all the best at CBS News. She's a wonderful woman." 

Ultimately, Trump could not resist bringing his own peculiar brand of politics into the evening:

Toward the end of the speech, the president donned a red "Trump 2028" hat. His choice of attire seemed like a deliberate troll, given the outrage that erupts every time he talks about a constitutionally barred third term. He also said that he was only kidding about running again. Earlier in the evening, during a lengthy digression about his White House ballroom addition, he remarked that "I'm only going to be using it for about six months" before leaving office, a rare acknowledgment that his term has an expiration date.

At times, Trump seemed to be losing his audience, and that probably is because the speaker and the environment did not mesh. Trump is at his best speaking before a group of MAGA loyalists, in a campaign-style, off-the-cuff way -- tossing out red meat like a zookeeper feeding the lions, not worrying about whether his words are accurate or make sense. It's just a matter of pushing the emotional buttons of people who already support him. Trying to entertain and enlighten journalists is a much more nuanced task, one for which Trump is poorly suited. Stelter writes:

The more resentful and recycled Trump's speech got, the more attendees seemed to tune it out.

CNN's Betsy Klein, who was in the room, said many people were on their phones or talking amongst themselves. Others were eating macarons from the dessert trays, using the bathroom or mingling in the lobby.

"The person at the table next to me has just poured himself a comically large glass of wine," she observed nearly an hour in.

CNN's Kristen Holmes said a Republican source of hers in the room said to her, "Whoever wrote this speech should be fired."

But a few of the jabs will surely travel well on right-wing social media platforms, and Daniel Dale predicted that "the silence in the room will be portrayed by the president's allies as evidence he roasted the 'fake news' so bad they were stunned into submission."