From Israel's Iron Dome to a migrant fighting league, Trump tosses out ideas with seemingly little thought, indicating he is not a serious candidate for the WH

Israel's Iron Dome, from ground level (CNN)

 

Count me among the millions of Americans who long have held doubts about Donald Trump's fitness for president. Still, it was mighty convenient for Trump to take a campaign swing through Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia on Saturday and wind up erasing all doubts about his fitness for high office. We addressed those rallies in our post of Monday (6/24/24).

To his credit, and in a peculiar way, Trump raised some important issues at the two rallies -- law enforcement, domestic and international defense, the price of groceries, and crime. He even touched on issues related to the Ultimate Fighting Championship (AFC), but in typical Trump fashion, he did it in a way that was demeaning to Latinos and suggested that he, and perhaps his MAGA followers see them as sub-human. 

Owen Levine, of The Daily Beast, provided a detailed account of the promises Trump made to his audiences in D.C. and Philly. In spotlighting Trump's remarks about selected serious issues of the day, Levine helped show that the "Orange Turd Blossom" proves to be "an emperor with no clothes." In short, Trump tends to reveal that he has no clue what he is talking about on matters of governance.

If, like me, you are a Never Trumper who believes our country needs leaders with serious credentials and ideas -- plus an interest in governance and a desire to lead (Trump appears to have neither) -- Trump's Saturday campaign swing should erase any doubts in your mind about his fitness to be president. He is, in fact, glaringly unfit, and our hope is that huge majorities of Americans come to that realization before it is too late -- and Trump drives us off a cliff, Thelma and Louise style, toward a second term that is likely to be a much bigger disaster than his first one.

Let's take the issues that Owen Levine lays out for us, then examine Trump's remarks about those ideas to show that he is not even close to being fit to serve as president. Our impression is that many Trump doubters have tended to focus on his lack of an appropriate temperament for the job he seeks. But we have concluded that Trump simply is not very smart; in fact, it would be fair to say he is ignorant when it comes to matters related to governance -- and that is not exactly a quality any of us should be looking for in a president.

Let's review Owen Levine's reporting on Trump's most recent campaign swing, and we will show 9issue by issue) that, to put it bluntly, he is too dumb to be president.

(1) Immunity for law-enforcement officers

First, what is "qualified immunity," the kind that usually applies to police officers, sheriff deputies, and the like. Here is what the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) says about it:

Qualified immunity has protected law enforcement officers and other government officials from being held accountable when they violate people’s constitutional rights for decades. The doctrine of qualified immunity allows state and local officials to avoid personal consequences related to their professional interactions unless they violate “clearly established law” and has been repeatedly used by police officers to escape accountability and civil liability for engaging in violent and abusive acts against the public. In practice, this often means that, unless there’s a case with nearly identical facts on the record, these officials can violate a person’s rights without being held personally responsible for their actions.

LDF also calls qualified immunity a "judge-created doctrine," indicating it has roots in the courts. It also has roots in Congress, and that brings us to at least three major problems with Trump's take on this issue:

a. Trump says he wants to give police "immunity" to be rough with suspects. But here is how the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) describes the issue's roots in Congress:

The evolution of qualified immunity began in 1871 when Congress adopted 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which makes government employees and officials personally liable for money damages if they violate a person’s federal constitutional rights. State and local police officers may be sued under § 1983. Until the 1960s, few § 1983 lawsuits were successfully brought. In 1967, the Supreme Court recognized qualified immunity as a defense to § 1983 claims. In 1982, the Supreme Court adopted the current test for the doctrine. Qualified immunity is generally available if the law a government official violated isn’t “clearly established.”

b. The history of police immunity indicates Trump probably would not be able to unilaterally give police the protection he promises. First, the U.S. Supreme Court is involved. In a case styled Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), the high court held: that immunity does not attach when "a reasonably well-trained officer in petitioner's position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause, and that he should not have applied for the warrant."

c. Trump "lamented that police officers are “treated so badly” that they lose their jobs and their pensions “if they do something that’s harsh to stop a crime.”

Mrs. Schnauzer (my wife, Carol) and I have dealt with police immunity in an up close and personal way, and we know that cops are not always the benevolent beings Trump would have us believe. They have been known to enter a home with guns drawn when they have every reason to know such entry is unlawful, they have caused serious physical, emotional, and financial injuries, including breaking bones that required eight hours of trauma surgery for repair. They have brought false criminal charges against the victim of their abuse and lied about their handiwork under oath, in court.

They also have the favor of judges who have no problem cheating victims in order to protect their cop and sheriff friends. One such judge is M. Douglas Harpool (see photo at the end of this post) in the Western District of Missouri. We will show how Harpool ignored all kinds of legal precedent, engaging in breathtaking corruption, to protect his buddies in the law-enforcement world -- in a case where he likely was disqualified from taking it in the first place. We will have many more posts on this subject coming soon.

(2) An "Iron Dome

This involves a missile-defense system that was designed for the geographic and logistical challenges Israel faces. As such, it has no practical application for the United States. Here are details about Israel's Iron Dome, from Wikipedia:

Iron Dome is an Israeli mobile all-weather air defense system,^[8] developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries.^[7] The system is designed to intercept and destroy short-range rockets and artillery shells fired from distances of 4 to 70 kilometres (2–43 mi) away and whose trajectory would take them to an Israeli populated area. From 2011 to 2021, the United States contributed a total of US$1.6 billion to the Iron Dome defense system, with another US$1 billion approved by the US Congress in 2022.

Iron Dome  is designed for use against the enemies in Israel's neighborhood, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. It is designed to intercept missiles fired from less than 43 miles. Can anyone think of an enemy that might fire missiles at the U.S. from 43 miles or less? Would it be Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica. El Salvador?

Trump appears to be looking for a way to waste billions of dollars, and since Congress has the "power of the purse" in our style of democracy. it's likely Trump would not get the funding he craves.

(3) Crime

On this topic , Trump reverts to his usual tactic of lying.

a. This is from our Monday post:

Trump then turns to his usual tactic of simply lying, blaming Democratic incumbent Joe Biden for a crime rate that supposedly is soaring, when in fact, violent crime is at a near 50-year low. You can get a sense of the problems that can come from a president who is a chronic liar.

(4)  Migrants Fighting

Here is how The Hill summarized this whacko idea from Trump:

Former President Trump over the weekend mused about the creation of a migrant fighting league to rival the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), characterizing migrants as “tough” and “mean” during stump speeches.

Trump brought up the idea during two separate events Saturday — one during a gathering of Christian conservatives in the nation’s capital and later at a rally in Philadelphia.

“These people are tough. They’re so tough,” Trump said in his speech during the Faith and Freedom Coalition event in Washington, D.C.

In both addresses, Trump recalled that he had floated the idea to UFC head Dana White.

“I said, ‘Dana, I have an idea for you to make a lot of money. You’re going to go and start a new migrant fight league, only migrants,” Trump recalled during the rally.

He suggested the migrant league champion and UFC’s champion could ultimately battle each other.

“I think the migrant guy might win, that’s how tough they are. He didn’t like that idea too much, but actually, it’s not the worst idea I’ve had,” Trump told the Christian group. “These people are tough and they’re nasty, mean.”

Audience members at the events could be heard laughing as Trump mused about the idea.

White told media members during the UFC Saudi Arabia postfight press conference that the conversation had indeed happened as Trump recalled. He took it as a joke.

“It was a joke. It was a joke,” White told reporters. “I saw everybody going crazy online. But yeah, he did say it.”

trump admitted that White was not big on the idea. Why not?  It's possible that White is familiar with personal injury (PI) insurance coverage, the kind you need when someone gets hurt on your property or is injured because of your alleged negligence.

To put two untrained migrant fighters in an octagon and encourage them to beat up each other, likely would unleash a flood of personal injury lawsuits, and White probably knows the expense of such claims can add up in a hurry. That Trump does not seem to grasp this is another sign that the guy is not too bright.

(5) Trump's "wounds"

This subject took Trump's nuttiness to new heights. Here's how we addressed it our Monday piece:

Trump also bizarrely told the crowd that he has “wounds all over my body,” assuring them that if he “took this shirt off, you'd see a beautiful, beautiful person but you’d see wounds all over me.”

“I’ve taken a lot of wounds. More than, I suspect, any president ever,” Trump added. Evidently, he has not heard of John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan or William McKinley.

This sounds like Trump's malignant narcissism talking, but it also suggests he he is not a serious student of history -- and that is a subject about which a president should know a thing or two.

(6) Education

Here is how we addressed this issue in our Monday piece:

Trump also assured his audience he will “shut down the Federal Department of Education,” before promising to spend less than “half” of what President Biden is currently spending on education.

“There will be two people in Washington, the two people will make sure that, we will have to guarantee that they are teaching a little English,” Trump said of his plan for the Department of Education.

That is a plan for education? Doesn't sound like there is much to it. In fact, it does not sound serious. Maybe that's because Trump is not a serious candidate, and even he struggles to pretend otherwise.

Doug Harpool

 

Trump uses bizarre rhetoric to promise "immunity for cops, an Iron Dome, and lower bacon prices"; does anyone seriously think this guy is fit to be president?

Trump delivers a speech in Philadelphia on Saturday (YouTube)

 

If there was any question about Donald Trump's fitness to serve as president, the candidate conveniently opened his mouth over the weekend and erased any doubt. During a Saturday campaign swing through Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia, Trump must have set a record for most inane, ignorant, and insipid remarks by a major-party presidential candidate. If you are a serious voter who believes America needs a president with serious credentials and ideas, you will come away from an account of Trump's most recent utterances convinced that he is NOT that guy. 

Let's turn to Owen Levine, of The Daily Beast, whose account offers proof that Trump suffers from Foot In Mouth Disease -- perhaps the most outrageous case of it to ever appear on the American political stage. Under the headline "Trump’s New Promises: ‘Immunity’ for Cops, an Iron Dome, Cheaper Bacon," Levine writes of a candidate, one who has a habit of talking too much, watching his rhetoric veer wildly off the rails.

Trump's "promises" are based on serious issues, but his remarks on them are about as unserious as the mind can imagine. It would have been like a comedy routine gone horribly awry had Trump not made it clear he was offering up ideas as part of an attempt at legitimate political discourse. Levine provides details on campaign stops that must have left audiences -- assuming they were paying attention -- scratching their heads. From The Daily Beast report:

Police will have “immunity” to be rough with suspects, migrants may or may not be herded into a “fighting league” akin to the UFC, and bacon will be cheaper if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election—according to him.

The former president work-shopped some new lines during two campaign events on Saturday. “I’m giving immunity to police all over the country,” he said, a pledge that he repeated to supporters in both Washington, D.C. , and Philadelphia.

He lamented that police officers are “treated so badly” that they lose their jobs and their pensions “if they do something that’s harsh to stop a crime.”

Trump did not elaborate on what his “immunity” would cover.

He also vowed to ensure that America gets its own “Iron Dome.”

“Israel has it, why don’t we have it?” Trump asked the crowd before telling them he would build a “great Iron Dome” in the U.S. if he is elected. He promised that the construction of the missile-defense system would “create jobs,” though he offered no specifics whatsoever.

That last paragraph involves important matters of domestic and international defense. It would be nice to have a president who knows a thing or two about such matters. But Trump makes it clear he does not have a clue. (How do we know Trump doesn't know what he's talking about? We will address that question, and others related to Trump's promises, shortly.) Trump then turns to his usual tactic of simply lying, blaming Democratic incumbent Joe Biden for a crime rate that supposedly is soaring, when in fact, violent crime is at a near 50-year low. Levine writes:

Elsewhere in his speech, Trump blamed his Democratic opponents for rising crime that he claimed had forced stores to lock up all their soap.

“The pharmacies have to lock up the soap. The soap. You want to buy a little bar of soap? You got to go through a big deal. Open up the glass. Open up the steel. You can’t keep a bar of soap,” he complained.

Bacon, too, has become off-limits for many Americans, he claimed, telling the crowd: “Even I won’t buy bacon anymore, it’s too expensive!”

He said he had presented an idea to UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) President Dana White for a “migrant fighting league,” an idea which Trump said White did not like. Trump then joked, “It’s not the worst idea I’ve ever had.” (Trump probably is right about that, although the migrant fighting idea is depraved, in keeping with Trump's tendency to view immigrants as sub-human; it also suggests Dana White would make a better president than Donald Trump/)

The nuttiness in Trump's presentations was just getting started. Levine writes:

Trump also bizarrely told the crowd that he has “wounds all over my body,” assuring them that if he “took this shirt off, you'd see a beautiful, beautiful person but you’d see wounds all over me.”

“I’ve taken a lot of wounds. More than, I suspect, any president ever,” Trump added. Evidently, he has not heard of John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan or William McKinley.

He also assured his audience he will “shut down the Federal Department of Education,” before promising to spend less than “half” of what President Biden is currently spending on education.

“There will be two people in Washington, the two people will make sure that, we will have to guarantee that they are teaching a little English,” Trump said of his plan for the Department of Education.

Trump was not concerned about voter turnout, telling the audience, “we don’t need the votes, we have the votes. I don’t care, all we need to do is guard the votes... I want the steal stopped.”

Why do we know Trump is resorting to word salads -- with little intellectual value for his listeners -- and how do we know his comments make him unfit to be president? We will address those questions and more in an upcoming post.

(To be continued)

A new poll from POLITICO shows many Americans take Trump's hush-money conviction seriously, suggesting the "felon" label might drive voters to Biden

(Ipsos)

A poll released this week from POLITICO shows Donald Trump's conviction in the New York hush-money trial actually matters to voters and could be more of an electoral headache for Trump than many observers once expected. Ankush Khardori, a senior writer for POLITICO, says the poll shows the conviction has caused a significant number of independent voters to be less likely to vote for Trump than was the case before the verdict was announced. The poll also showed that the conviction would be an important factor in how voters decide to vote come November, and that is another potential sign of trouble for Trump.

Under the headline "New Polling Shows the Real Fallout From the Trump Conviction; A new POLITICO magazine/Ipsos poll shows that Trump’s criminal conviction hurts him with independents," Khadori writes:

Donald Trump’s criminal conviction didn’t instantly upend the 2024 presidential race. But the results of a new poll should be worrying for Trump.

In the weeks since the verdict, both parties have sought to shape the public’s initial reaction, with Republicans largely denouncing it and Democrats citing the result as further evidence that Trump is unfit for office. To figure out how this unprecedented moment is being processed by the electorate, POLITICO Magazine partnered with Ipsos in a new survey.

Among the most notable findings in our poll: 21 percent of independents said the conviction made them less likely to support Trump and that it would be an important factor in their vote. In a close election, small shifts among independent and swing voters could determine the outcome.

The news, however, is not all bad for Trump, as Khadori explains:

And yet there is also good reason to believe that Trump and his allies’ efforts to discredit the prosecution and conviction have cast doubt on the validity of the verdict among many people and limited the potential fallout for the former president-turned-felon.

A sizable number of Americans, including independents, question whether the verdict was the result of a fair and impartial process. And although most respondents rejected the idea that the prosecution was brought to help President Joe Biden, a large number (43 percent of all respondents) either strongly or somewhat agreed that was the rationale for the case.

Taken as a whole, the results of the poll suggest that Americans’ views on the Trump verdict may still be malleable — and could get better or worse for Trump.

Khardori notes the kinds of events that could change the outlook for Trump in one direction or another:

There are plenty of upcoming events and variables that could change public opinion before November, to say nothing of the ongoing efforts by political operatives on both sides of the aisle to influence (or not) public perceptions. That includes Trump’s sentencing in Manhattan (July 11), which could entail a period of incarceration, as well as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s testimony before Congress about the case (July 12), where Republicans are sure to hammer him.

The recent conviction of Hunter Biden on gun charges and a scheduled trial in September on tax charges could also influence Americans’ perceptions, particularly since those cases dramatically undermine Trump and Republicans’ claims that the former president has been the victim of a “weaponized” Justice Department.

POLITICO also examined opinions about the justice system itself and found that Republicans particularly have come to distrust the system -- judges, prosecutors, the works. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) now has come to be viewed as a sketchy outfit by many Americans, the poll shows. Khadori writes:

In the wake of Trump’s guilty verdict, we also sought to measure Americans’ trust in key figures in the criminal justice system — including lawyers, judges and juries — and compared the results against a survey that was taken roughly a year ago, as Trump’s criminal prosecutions were still getting underway. The data showed a drop in levels of trust among Republicans in particular.

But the least trusted actors in the legal system are not the lawyers prosecuting or defending the cases, or even the kind of state judges presiding over Trump’s case. They are the Supreme Court justices themselves, whose public approval has taken a considerable hit in recent years thanks to unpopular rulings issued by the conservative supermajority and a series of rolling ethical controversies involving Republican appointees Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

Khadori provides details about the poll, then follows with a summary of the findings:

This poll was conducted from June 7-9 and had a sample of 1,027 adults, age 18 or older, who were interviewed online; it has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points for all respondents. This is the fourth poll on the Trump prosecutions that POLITICO Magazine has conducted in partnership with Ipsos since last summer.

Here are the key findings.

1. Trump’s Conviction Is an Electoral Liability — Particularly Among Independents

The notion suggested by some pundits that a conviction might help Trump in the general election was always deeply counterintuitive, and our post-verdict numbers rebuff that prediction.

A plurality of respondents in our poll (38 percent) reported that Trump’s conviction would have no impact on their likelihood to support Trump for president, but the results were decidedly lopsided among those who said it would affect their support. Thirty-three percent of respondents said that the conviction made them less likely to support Trump, while only 17 percent of respondents said that it made them more likely to support Trump.

The results were worse for Trump among respondents who said they were political independents. Thirty-two percent of them said that the conviction made them less likely to support Trump. Only 12 percent of them said that it made them more likely to support Trump.

2. Trump’s Conviction Could Drive Voters Away from Him

It is one thing for someone to say that the verdict makes them more or less likely to support Trump, but more important is whether the issue actually helps determine their vote, particularly given the array of other issues — the economy and immigration, to name just two — that are clearly important to many voters this year.

In an effort to isolate the effect of the verdict, we also asked respondents how important the conviction would be in deciding how they vote in November. Here too, the results were not good for Trump.

Twenty-two percent of respondents said that the conviction is important to how they will vote and that it makes them less likely to support Trump. Only 6 percent of respondents took the other side of that question — reporting that the conviction is important to how they will vote and that it makes them more likely to support Trump.

A nearly identical net-negative effect showed up among independents. Twenty-one percent of independents reported that they were less likely to support Trump and that the conviction is important to their vote. Just 5 percent of them said that the conviction is important to how they will vote and that it makes them more likely to support Trump.

3. Many Americans Remain Skeptical of the Verdict

There is, however, a silver lining for Trump: The numbers could be worse. In fact, our poll showed that a sizable number of Americans harbor reservations about the prosecution and the verdict.

We asked respondents, for instance, whether they thought that the guilty verdict was the result of “a fair and impartial judicial process.” A plurality of respondents said yes (46 percent), while others either disagreed (32 percent) or said that they did not know (19 percent).

Those trends largely held among the subset of independents, with a plurality of them saying that they thought that the verdict was the result of a fair and impartial process (46 percent), while others disagreed (27 percent) or said that they did not know (24 percent).

4. Many Americans Question the Origins of the Prosecution

We also asked several questions designed to probe whether and to what extent Americans associated the case with a partisan effort to prevent Trump from being re-elected, as he has repeatedly claimed. Although there is no meaningful evidence that the prosecution was designed to prevent Trump’s reelection, the numbers suggest that Trump has succeeded in casting doubt on the integrity of the prosecution.

We asked respondents whether they thought that President Joe Biden was “directly involved” in the decision to bring the case. A majority of respondents either said yes (29 percent) or that they did not know (25 percent).

The numbers were even more favorable to Trump when we asked whether they believed that the Justice Department was “directly involved” in the Manhattan DA’s decision to prosecute Trump (despite a similar lack of evidence to support this view). Roughly a third of respondents said that they thought that DOJ was directly involved (36 percent) while another third (34 percent) said that they did not know.

5. Many Americans Believe that the Prosecution Was Brought to Help Joe Biden

We also asked respondents whether they thought that the prosecution was brought to help Joe Biden.

Most respondents (51 percent) disagreed with the claim, but a still-sizable chunk of them (43 percent) agreed that the case had been brought to help Biden.

The results were roughly similar among independents: 44 percent agreed that the case had been brought to help Biden and 50 percent disagreed.

These figures may be movable, however, given other data from the poll that suggests a notable contingent of Americans still lack a firm understanding of the case. Roughly a third of all respondents (31 percent) and independents (33 percent) said that they still do not understand the details of the case well.

6. Trust in the Justice System Has Eroded Among Republicans

We also surveyed respondents about how much they trust key actors in the criminal justice system — including prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and juries.

Two notable points emerged, particularly when we compared the results with an earlier survey conducted by Ipsos in July 2023 that posed similar questions.

First, the biggest shift in opinion over that time occurred among Republicans. Democrats generally maintained or increased their levels of trust in these actors, while Republicans’ trust decreased across the board — and by greater margins.

Last year, for instance, 60 percent of Republican respondents reported that they had either “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in citizens serving on juries, but in our latest survey, that number dropped to 42 percent. A year ago, 41 percent of Republican respondents reported a great deal or a fair amount of trust in prosecutors; that figure has now fallen to 32 percent.

Second, the least trusted group of actors did not turn out to be the usual suspects — prosecutors or defense attorneys — but the Supreme Court justices. Just 39 percent of all respondents reported having a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the justices — a figure that roughly tracks the court’s historically low approval ratings under the conservative supermajority.

It remains to be seen whether the public’s trust in the court will deteriorate even further given the array of controversial issues and litigants that remain on their docket as the current term wraps up in the coming weeks.

Among them? Another Trump prosecution.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, in a new memoir, recalls his final talk with President Trump, which included an enraged Trump calling Joe Biden "that f- -ker" and vowing to "kick his f-- -king ass" and bragging that he was going to "win this f --king election" in a 2020 landslide

(MSNBC)

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who led America's fight against the coronavirus, cannot quite get over the final conversation he had with President Donald Trump. The talk was so bizarre to Fauci's ears that he still describes it as "unnerving." From Trump's end, it was filled with vitriol, rage, deceit, profane language, and attacks against those he thought had wronged him. In other words, it was Trump being Trump.

But that did not make it any more pleasant for Fauci, noted as a worldwide expert in immunology, infectious diseases, and public health, who served as a director at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from 1984 to 2022 and advised seven presidents on domestic and global health issues. Understandably, Fauci was used to being treated with respect, having earned a significant amount of international prestige.

But that was not coming from Trump, and Fauci still seems perplexed to have been subjected to such an unpleasant encounter with a president. Hafiz Rashid, of The New Republic (TNR), examines the Trump-Fauci relationship and seems to see it as another example of the dysfunction that reigned at the White House during Trump's first term. Under the headline "Fauci Recalls Trump’s Final Enraged Call: 'That F**ker Biden';Dr. Anthony Fauci revealed his last “unnerving” conversation with Donald Trump," Rashid writes:

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s  final conversation with Donald Trump was “unnerving,” according to the infectious diseases expert.

With his new book, On Call: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service, released this week , Fauci spoke in more depth about the conversation on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Live Monday night, detailing how Trump, in a phone conversation, called Joe Biden “that fucker” and promised to “kick his fucking ass” in the final days before the 2020 election. 

Maddow read an excerpt from the book, quoting Fauci’s narration of that call: 

“Everybody wants me to fire you,” the president said to me during [a] call [that day], “but I’m not going to fire you. You have too illustrious a career, but you have to be positive. The country cannot stay locked down. You have got to give them hope.

“I like you but so many people, not only in the White House but throughout the country hate you because of what you are doing. I’m going to win this fucking election by a landslide, just wait and see. I always did things my way, and I always win no matter what all these other fucking people think. And that fucker Biden, he’s so fucking stupid. I’m going to kick his fucking ass in this election.”

Maddow seemed to sense, Rashid writes, that Fauci found Trump's words revolting, insulting, and wildly unfitting for a president:

Maddow asked Fauci if the conversation “unnerved you a little bit.”

“You know, it did,” Fauci replied. “It was a little incongruous because he ended it by saying take care, see you soon, something like that. I wasn’t quite sure.

“It was unnerving. Even though you’re convinced you’re doing the right thing, which I had been, you know, trying to say all along, just level with the American public, you wind up being better off to do that; it is not a pleasant thing to have the president of the United States, when you have such a great deal of respect for the presidency of the United States, for the president to get on the phone and scream at you the way he did. So that was very tough,” Fauci added.

Fauci’s new book includes many new details about how Trump dealt with Covid-19 and how he felt about Fauci. Trump would “announce that he loved me and then scream at me on the phone,” Fauci wrote. Their contentious relationship was apparent even in the early days of the pandemic, with Trump reportedly flying into a rage after hearing incorrectly reported information and attributing it to Fauci.

Fauci’s time as the public face of the government’s efforts during the pandemic, as well as Trump’s treatment of him, earned him attacks from conservatives, who spread conspiracy theories about him and attacked efforts such as lockdowns and masks. He was the target of several smears on a recent visit to Capitol Hill, with Republicans proposing getting hold of his personal emails. More new revelations from his book, along with more public appearances, will likely draw him more vitriol and attacks, despite his career in public service.

As Donald Trump demands that Mike Johnson help overturn his hush-money conviction, the House speaker might find himself swimming in rocky waters

House Speaker Mike Johnson (left) and Danald Trump (AP)

 

Donald Trump is turning to House Speaker Mike Johnson for help getting his New York hush-money conviction overturned, according to a report at The New Republic (TNR). What caused Trump's demented brain to think Johnson, or Congress in general, have any control over court decisions, state or federal? It might be a sign of how seriously Trump views his current tight spot. He reportedly dropped several "F-Bombs" on the speaker during a recent conversation. That caused several members of the Republican establishment to consider a number of desperate moves to avoid a rift within the party -- probably with an eye toward placating "The Orange Turd" at all costs.

How tricky is this situation? TNR's Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling spells it out under the headline "Trump’s F-Bomb Rant to Mike Johnson Sparks Desperate GOP Moves; Trump begged the House speaker to save him after his hush-money conviction. Houghtaling writes:

After a jury found him guilty on 34 felony counts, Donald Trump knew exactly who to call for a solution: House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In a conversation reportedly laced with F-bombs, Trump urged the Louisiana Republican to find  a political solution for his legal comeuppance, Politico reported Thursday.

“We have to overturn this,” Trump told a sympathetic Johnson, according to Politico.

Johnson already believed the House had a role to play in overturning Trump’s conviction, but since that call, he’s practically done backflips to make it happen. During an interview on Fox and Friends last month, Johnson urged the Supreme Court to “step in” and overturn the jury’s verdict.

“I think that the justices on the court—I know many of them personally—I think they are deeply concerned about that, as we are. So I think they’ll set this straight,” Johnson said, before effectively promising to viewers that the nation’s highest court would step in to make the ruling go away. “This will be overturned, guys, there’s no question about it; it’s just going to take some time to do it.”

Johnson's plan is to free Trump from a guilty verdict that, based on all reports we've seen, was decided by a judge and a jury who bent over backwards to ensure Trump received due process. We are talking about a case that was decided in a Manhattan state court, so why would Trump and Johnson (who is a  lawyer by trade) think they can skip over the New York appellate process and go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court  (SCOTUS) -- essentially cutting in line ahead of many other parties and cases? Johnson's plan is brazen and dripping with apparent unlawfulness. Given that he has already dropped hints about intervening with his "personal friends" at SCOTUS on Trump's behalf, Johnson is dancing dangerously close to criminal territory, especially obstruction of justice.

How far is Johnson willing to go for Trump? He appears to be throwing caution to the wind, acting with the kind of recklessness that could put him behind bars. Houghtaling writes:

The House Speaker is looking to unravel Trump’s other criminal charges, as well. Johnson is reportedly examining using the appropriations process to target special counsel Jack Smith’s probe, and is already in talks with Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan to do so. It’s a near reversal of a position he took early last month, when Johnson told Politico that a similar idea proposed by Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene would be “unworkable.”

“This country certainly sees what’s going on, and they don’t want Fani Willis and Alvin Bragg and these kinds of folks to be able to continue to use grant dollars for targeting people in a political lawfare type of way,” Jordan told the publication. (Does Jordan have any evidence to show that is what's going on? We doubt it.)

But other Republicans aren’t exactly on board with the idea of defunding the special counsel—even if they disagree with the case against Trump.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea unless you can show that [the prosecutors] acted in bad faith or fraud or something like that,” Idaho Representative Mike Simpson told Politico. “They’re just doing their job—even though I disagree with what they did.”

Another, unnamed Republican went even further in torching the effort, claiming that attacking Smith’s case would completely undermine GOP calls against Democrats for “weaponizing” the justice system to their political benefit.

Here is the problem Johnson faces; He claims Trump has been the victim of "lawfare," in Georgia, but we are talking about the New York hush-money case here; The election-interference case in Georgia is not even fully off the ground yet, so it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. On top of that, Johnson seems to have no evidence that Trump has been the victim of 'lawfare," Even Trump has only been able to make out-of-court statements about being "not guilty," but when given the opportunity to step up to the plate and take questions under oath, he declined. In other words, Trump himself seems unable to point to anything the judge and jury did improperly in the hush-money case. 

The best Trump can do is keep claiming the case in New York was "rigged." But even he doesn't seem to truly believe that. If he did, he would not be looking for help from Mike Johnson. 

As for Johnson, we see signs that he is getting too big for his legal britches. And with the public statements he already has made, he is handing out inculpatory evidence like Halloween candy. He would be wise to toss the Trump matter overboard, run at top speed in the opposite direction, and listen to the words of wiser heads in the Republican Party. At this point, Johnson seems so eager to help Trump that his mouth is detached from his brain.

Signs are everywhere that Trump probably knows next to nothing about the applicable facts and law in the hush-money case. His claims of innocence are based on .  . well, probably nothing. Trump seems like the kingpin of the Republican Party for the moment, but that might not be the case for long. Would it be a wise bet to go all in with Donald Trump right now? It might seem so, but Johnson could wind up regretting it.

Here are a few questions Johnson should ask himself: (1) Does Trump have a tendency to use people? (2) Why did Trump come to me? (3) Would Trump use me? If the speaker doesn't know the answers to those questions, he hasn't been paying attention.

As Democrats take digs at Donald Trump, Biden, Obama & Co. help raise a record-breaking $28 million at LA gala to help save democracy in America

Joe Biden and Barack Obama at LA fundraiser (AP)

Democrats used humor and star power to assist with the serious business of political fundraising Saturday night in Los Angeles at an event to support the Joe Biden presidential campaign. What was it like to be there? Erica Pandey, of Axios, provides insight under the headline "Biden earns record-breaking cash haul at glitzy Hollywood fundraiser":

President Biden's Los Angeles fundraiser at the Peacock Theater — an event featuring Julia Roberts, George Clooney, Jimmy Kimmel and former President Barack Obama — hauled in at least $28 million for his re-election campaign.

Why it matters: It breaks the Democratic Party record for most cash raised in one night, the L.A. Times reports. Tickets ranged from $250 to $500,000.

• The previous record was $26 million, from Biden's March fundraiser in Manhattan with former presidents Obama and Clinton.

Perhaps the highlight of the evening were the digs directed at Biden's likely opponent, Republican Donald Trump. Pandey writes:

Zoom in: Biden and celebrity comics got in some quips about Trump.

• Biden said: "Remember the pandemic, [Trump] said, 'Don't worry, just inject a little bleach.' It worked for him — the color of his hair."
• Kimmel joked about the early pandemic toilet paper shortage: "He promised he would make America great again. And the next thing you know, we are wiping ourselves with envelopes."
• Obama's response: "Is that how you handled it, Jimmy?"

Other celebrities who took the stage included Jack Black and Sheryl Lee Ralph, who both sang; Barbra Streisand, who introduced first lady Jill Biden; and Kathryn Hahn and Jason Bateman.

Before the fundraising gala, Obama stopped by an event for digital creators to discuss his personal media diet. It's not as high-minded as one might expect, reports Mike Allen, of Axios:

Former President Obama dropped by a gathering of about 80 digital content creators — including stars of TikTok and Instagram Reels — during the campaign fundraiser for President Biden in L.A. on Saturday, and told them:

• "We live in a cynical time. Let's face it: I think a lot of the people who watch you, listen to you, who are fans of you — a lot of times they feel turned off by the political discourse."
• "I get it," Obama added. "You know, I frankly watch sports, mostly. Because it feels like everything (else) is slash and burn."

Why it matters: Obama, 19 years younger than Biden, acknowledged that many of the young, progressive creators were skeptical of Biden — but argued that "he believes in the basic things that you believe in."

"Joe Biden, you may not agree with everything he does," Obama said. "By the way, you didn't agree with everything I did. And that's OK. Because in a big, messy, complicated country like this, there are going to be disagreements.

• "But Joe Biden's basic trajectory — what he believes in his core ... nine times out of 10, he's going to make decisions that accord with your core beliefs."

"I need you guys to use your influence, and it doesn't have to be boring. I don't expect you to have a bunch of charts and graphs," Obama added.

• "I understand folks are swiping or scrolling, and you've got to use humor and you've got to use other things that are engaging people."

Trump's apparent fascination with guns might come back to bite him again, this time because he's a convicted felon with a gun, a violation of federal law

Donald Trump examines the inventory at a gun store (NY Times)

 

Donald Trump might have admitted to another felony during his pre-sentence interview with probation officials. The episode provides the latest evidence that Trump is not knowledgeable -- some might say he is ignorant -- on a wide range of issues related to the law and governance, including the provisions of his own conviction in a New York hush-money case. How could this happen? Again, Trump isn't very smart, no matter how much money he might have once had, no matter how much fame he derived from his stint as host of a reality game show on primetime television, and no matter how many Americans foolishly claim to support  him in various polls. Think about it: This guy has to meet with a probation officer, but some Americans want to entrust him with the presidency. Do these people have nothing but air between their ears?

Hafiz Rashid, of The New Republic (TNR), provides details about Trump's latest visit to "Dunce World" under the headline "Did Trump Just Accidentally Admit to Another Felony? Donald Trump may have just implicated himself in another crime in his probation interview":

Weeks after he was convicted of 34 felony counts in his hush-money trial, Donald Trump confessed to having a gun—which would be illegal with his felony conviction.

New York City Department of Probation officials questioned the convicted felon and Republican presidential nominee Tuesday in a pre-sentencing interview, and part of the discussion concerned a gun registered to him in the state. Under federal law, convicted felons are not allowed to have guns or ammunition. 

A city official told CNN that Trump mentioned a gun of his in Florida, possibly one of the three firearms listed on his New York City concealed-weapons permit.

Trump turned over two of his three licensed guns to the New York Police Department on March 31, 2023, before he was arrested for paying hush money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The third gun was supposed to be “lawfully moved to Florida.” Palm Beach police told CNN that they weren’t aware of any gun Trump owned and that he hadn’t submitted one to them since his felony conviction.

The probation issue is not the first time Trump has stepped in gun-related doo-doo. Last September, he was caught on video at a South Carolina gun store declaring he had just bought a Glock pistol. "The Man Who Would Be President" was already under multiple criminal indictments, but he apparently never stopped to consider that his purchase of a handgun might lead to complications in those cases. From a New York Times article on the incident:

A spokesman for former President Donald J. Trump posted a video on Monday showing him at a gun shop in South Carolina, declaring that he had just bought a Glock pistol.

The post on X, formerly known as Twitter, included video of Mr. Trump, the front-runner for the Republican Party’s nomination for president who is facing four criminal indictments. He looked over the dullish gold firearm, a special Trump-edition Glock that depicts his likeness and says “Trump 45th,” as he visited the Palmetto State Armory outlet in Summerville, S.C. “I want to buy one,” he said twice in the video.

“President Trump buys a @GLOCKInc in South Carolina!” his spokesman, Steven Cheung, wrote in his post. The video showed Mr. Trump among a small crowd of people and posing with a man holding the gun. A voice can be heard saying, “That’s a big seller.

The statement immediately set off an uproar and prompted questions about whether such a purchase would be legal. Mr. Trump is under indictment on dozens of felony counts in two different cases related to his efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election and to his possession of reams of classified documents after he left office.

There were also questions about whether the store could sell a firearm to Mr. Trump if people there knew that he was under indictment.

Federal prosecutors are asking a federal judge in the case that accuses Mr. Trump of breaking several laws in his efforts to stay in office to impose a limited gag order after he made repeated threats against prosecutors and witnesses in various cases against him. Mr. Trump’s lawyers were under a late-Monday-night deadline to respond to the government’s request for the order.

But within two hours of the initial post on social media, Mr. Cheung deleted his post, and issued a statement saying, “President Trump did not purchase or take possession of the firearm. He simply indicated that he wanted one.”

Mr. Cheung must be as dumb as his boss. It also sounds like he might be a congenital liar, like his boss. Here is more from TNR about Trump's self-created gun problems related to his probation. Hafiz Rashid writes:

After his 2023 hush-money arrest, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office suspended Trump’s gun license, and with his conviction, his license will be revoked, city police told CNN. A New York official said the information on the third gun “will be referred to local authorities in Florida to take whatever steps are necessary.” (Could the third gun be one purchased in South Carolina? Hmmm . . . )

It’s ironic that Trump may be in trouble for illegally having a gun weeks after his conviction at the same time that President Biden’s son, Hunter, was convicted on federal gun charges. But Trump doesn’t like to give the authorities what he believes is his property, even when the law says otherwise. Just look at the classified documents he tried to hoard at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. He might be storing his gun not too far away.

Here is another irony: We have covered the issue of convicted felons and firearms before here at Legal Schnauzer. That story involved a felon who managed to skirt the law and obtain a firearm, eventually using it to shoot a man 11 times -- and somehow the victim survived. 

The story provides insight on how a felon can, despite the law, come in possession of a firearm and do horrific damage with it. Bottom line: Some jurisdictions don't seem to take the federal felon-firearm law seriously, and that can put innocent people in danger. We will have more on that story in an upcoming post.

In interviews with Dr. Phil McGraw and Sean Hannity, Trump fails to renounce his "revenge tour," indicating he would violate the presidential oath if re-elected

Donald Trump and Dr. Phil

 

In discussions this past week with friendly interviewers -- Dr. Phil McGraw and Sean Hannity of Fox News -- Donald Trump had opportunities  to renounce his stated plans, if elected to a second term, to seek retribution against Democrats he blames for his legal troubles. Both times, Trump failed to turn away from his plans for revenge. In the process, Trump suggested that his legal cases, especially his hush-money conviction in New York, were "rigged" or somehow conducted outside the law -- while other people in similar cases had the benefit of appearing before legitimate tribunals, with judges and jurors conducting their business in a lawful manner.

This situation, argues /Greg Sargent of The New Republic (TNR), presents a multi-pronged problem for the American public and the press that covers Trump's courtroom cases: (1) Trump refuses to accept that his conviction was the result of a properly conducted trial; (2) Trump continues to  claim that his conviction grew from a uniquely flawed process, while similarly situated defendants had their cases heard by honest courts; (3) Trump stands by his plans for revenge because he was subjected to a crooked process that other Americans have not had to face. 

Trump's whining and ranting, Sargent says, likely leave some Americans believing his statements are true. Meanwhile the press seems unable, or unwilling, to make sure the public understands Trump's words have no basis in reality.. That leaves us in a dangerous moment, with Trump loudly claiming our justice system is "rigged" and the press failing to alert the public that Trump presents no evidence to support his claim -- at least not in his own hush-money trial.

Sargent addresses this delicate situation, one that should make all Americans uneasy, under the headline "Trump’s Bizarre Moments With Dr. Phil and Hannity Should Alarm Us All; Earth to media: The criminal prosecutions of Trump are legitimate. The “revenge” he’s promising would be wholly illegitimate. Time to make that a whole lot clearer."Sargent writes:

During just this week, two of Donald Trump’s friendliest interviewers handed him big prime-time opportunities to unequivocally renounce any intention to retaliate against Democrats for his criminal conviction by a jury of his peers in Manhattan. Both times, Trump demurred.

“Sometimes revenge can be justified,” Trump told Dr. Phil McGraw, after he suggested that seeking retribution for Trump’s criminal charges would harm the country. Though Trump graciously said he was “open” to showing forbearance toward Democrats, he suggested revenge would be tempting, given “what I’ve been through.”

Trump voiced similar sentiments to Sean Hannity after the Fox News host practically begged him to deny he’d pursue his opponents. “I would have every right to go after them,” Trump said. Though Trump nodded along with Hannity’s suggestion that “weaponizing” law enforcement is bad, Trump added, “I don’t want to look naïve,” seemingly meaning that if he doesn’t seek revenge, he’ll have been victimized without acting to set things right.

These moments have been widely mocked as a sign that even Trump’s media pals can’t help him disguise his true second-term intentions. That’s true, but there’s another point to be made here: The exchanges should awaken us to what a monstrous scam it is when Trump and his allies talk about unleashing prosecutions of foes as “revenge” and “retribution.”

Trump is engaged in a high-stakes game of  "spin," Sargent says, and neither the public nor the press seem to realize they are being played:

We have to stop letting Trump get away with this. It’s actually spin, and we should all say so.

The idea that Trump should pursue “revenge” and “retribution” for prosecutions is everywhere on the right. After a federal judge ordered Steve Bannon to surrender to prison, numerous MAGA influencers, including the MAGA God King himself, angrily vowed such payback. Republicans have said Trump should “fight fire with fire” (Senator Marco Rubio) and that GOP district attorneys should declare open season on Democrats (Stephen Miller). Trump, of course, has offered many versions of this, including to Dr. Phil and Hannity.

In the media, this story tends to be framed as follows: Will Trump seek “revenge” for his legal travails, or won’t he? But that framing unwittingly lets Trump set the terms of this debate. It implies that he is vowing to do to Democrats what was done to him. 

But that’s not what Trump is actually threatening. Whereas Trump is being prosecuted on the basis of evidence that law enforcement gathered before asking grand juries to indict him, he is expressly declaring that he will prosecute President Biden and Democrats solely because this is what he endured, meaning explicitly that evidence will not be the initiating impulse.

You might think this distinction is obvious—one most voters will grasp instinctively. But why would they grasp this? It’s not uncommon to encounter news stories about Trump’s threats—see here, here, or here—that don’t explain those basic contours of the situation. Such stories often don’t take the elementary step of explaining the fundamental difference between bringing prosecutions in keeping with what evidence and the rule of law dictate and bringing them as purported “retaliation.” Why would casual readers simply infer that prosecutions against Trump are legally predicated while those he is threatening are not?

Can most Americans figure out Trump's scam on their own? Sargent has doubts, and the press is not helping much. He writes:

To appreciate the challenge this poses to the discourse, imagine an ordinary voter watching Trump’s exchanges with Dr. Phil and Hannity. Both interviewers treated it as self-evident that the prosecutions of Trump are illegitimate. Amusingly, they cast Trump’s dilemma as a profoundly weighty cross for him to bear, suggesting that if his foes are granted forbearance, it might be deeply unfair to Trump—given what they put him through—but would showcase his boundless magnanimity in sparing the country from tit-for-tat escalation.

Trump, of course, played along with this framing effortlessly. Speaking to Dr. Phil, Trump sagely agreed that displaying magnanimous forbearance would be better for the country but noted that he really has been treated unfairly, so who could begrudge his musing about retaliatory prosecutions? Similarly, Trump somberly told Hannity—again displaying his profound concern for our country—that the cycle of prosecutions “has to stop.” But he left the door open to seeking out his due: “What I’ve gone through, nobody’s ever gone through.”

“Will you pledge,” Hannity implored Trump, to “end this practice of weaponization?” Trump again assured Hannity that he sees the wisdom of this. But he added, “I don’t want to look naïve” about how badly he’s been treated, as if to say: How can such an injustice stand unanswered?

Watch these interviews, and Trump’s real mission becomes clear: to obliterate the distinction between legitimate prosecutions and purely baseless, politically malicious ones. Trump is threatening something wholly unlike what he has experienced. He and his allies are laying the groundwork to undertake the persecution of Democrats that they have wanted to unleash for a long time: Note that Trump has already sought to wield law enforcement against enemies during his presidency by trying to initiate investigations of Hillary Clinton but was thwarted by internal resistance—long before getting indicted himself.

The whole idea that Trump is seeking “revenge” is itself spin. There is nothing for Trump to legitimately seek revenge in this manner for, as Biden and Democrats did not unjustly victimize him with these prosecutions; he brought them upon himself. So what’s the proper response to such elaborate levels of deception and propaganda?

Sargent makes a point that all Americans who care about our nation's future should ponder: Trump's threats to prosecute his perceived enemies fall well outside our constitutional order, and they indicate he plans to violate the presidential oath of office. In short, a re-elected Trump would take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, an oath he already has vowed to break. That presents some heavy-duty problems, Sargent writes:

One [response] is to ask media figures to lay down a marker for themselves. If casual readers will come away from their coverage without being informed as to what a given news organization itself knows to be true—that the prosecutions of Trump are thoroughly in keeping with the rule of law, while what Trump is threatening would be deeply destructive to it—then something is wrong, and more clarity is called for.

Another response is to urge Democrats to follow in the spirit of Brian Beutler’s excellent advice that they explain to voters why Trump’s criminal travails render him unfit to be president. This would entail stating more clearly that Trump’s threats to prosecute his enemies without cause are themselves wholly disqualifying.

One expert has compared Trump to a "mob boss." Are voters actually going to head to the polls and fill in the blank for president beside the name of a man who is both a convicted felon and a glorified mob boss? Do we take our national elections with even a sliver of seriousness anymore? Sargent writes:

Here, some theorizing on Trump’s form of lawless politics might offer guidance. John Ganz, in a piece adapted from his new book, suggests that Trump is functioning as a “mob boss,” which isn’t meant just polemically: Trump is offering his followers the spoils of his corruption and the thrill of feeling viscerally bonded to the MAGA clan—both as deliberate alternatives lying outside the liberal democratic order. And Jamelle Bouie explains that for Trump, the charismatic bond between him and his supporters trumps democracy and the law as the true wellspring of political legitimacy: Any outcome produced by our institutions is inherently illegitimate if it fails to maintain MAGA’s supremacy over non-MAGA America.

Democrats, then, can argue: You can’t be president if you treat the law as presumptively invalid when it is applied to you and your supporters (as Trump’s pledge to pardon January 6 rioters makes explicit). You can’t be president if you openly vow to extend the fruits of our political order only to your supporters while arbitrarily designating countless other Americans a traitorous class within, one that deserves to live in fear of lawless persecution and organized political thuggery. You can’t be president if you treat the rule of law as secondary to, in the words of David French, “the destruction of your enemies.”

Trump’s exchanges with Dr. Phil and Hannity are alarming in no small part because they show how thoroughly committed he is to proving all those assertions wrong.