Trump ran Oval Office meeting like a mob boss, and Vance spewed one lie after another, so no wonder Zelensky was disinclined to act like a supplicant

 

Volodymyr Zalensky leaves the White House (NY Times)

Hardly anyone could have foreseen the eruption of rancor that marked Donald Trump's meeting last Friday with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. But no one should be surprised that the meeting went badly, according to an article at Axios. Under the headline ""Three strikes": Inside the Trump-Vance fury with Zelensky," Alex Isenstadt and Marc Caputo write:

Friday's Oval Office shouting match was shocking. But it wasn't too surprising to anyone close to President Trump or Vice President Vance.

• Why it matters: Privately, Trump sees Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a pro-Biden, ungrateful lightweight destined to lose to Russia. And Trump advisers believe Zelensky sees Trump as a pro-Putin, delusional fool destined to make him lose to Russia.

To Trump's team, it was three strikes — and now officially out of favor — for Zelensky. In their eyes, Zelensky already had two strikes against him when he sat down with Trump and Vance.

• That was the backdrop for a conversation that would become perhaps the most epic televised foreign policy row in history — an argument that rattled Europe and vividly illustrated a sharp turn in U.S. foreign policy toward Russia. 

It began with what Trump's team saw as Strike 3 against Zelensky: He disagreed publicly with Vance, who accused Zelensky of trying to "litigate" his case before the media.

• Vance said Zelensky didn't show enough thanks to the U.S. for funding Ukraine's defense — or to Trump for trying to bring peace.
• After a tense nine-minute exchange, it ended with Trump stopping the 50-minute meeting and essentially showing Zelensky the door.

Strike 2 came just before Friday's meeting, when Zelensky arrived at the White House without a suit or jacket, as requested. It was perceived by White House staffers as disrespectful.

• Strike 1, as first reported by Axios, came Feb. 15, when Zelensky publicly trashed a proposed mineral rights deal with Ukraine that he privately had discussed the day before in Munich with Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The big picture: At the heart of the discord is Trump's view of the conflict, which continues to challenge the United States' long-held alliances in Europe.

• Trump sees geopolitics in terms of negotiations between powerful countries and big personalities. Russian President Vladimir Putin is a coequal in this paradigm. Zelensky — the leader of a smaller country surviving thanks to American largesse — isn't.

Trump also approaches politics like a business deal or, as a former casino owner, as a type of poker. In one telling moment, he told Zelensky he had a bad hand without the U.S.

• "I'm not playing cards. I'm very serious," Zelensky said. Trump shot back: "You're playing cards. You're gambling with the lives of millions of people."
• Quick to temper and desiring of flattery, Trump demands a high degree of obeisance from supplicants. Zelensky didn't show that — and Vance was quick to try to put him in his place.

That last bullet item succinctly summarizes what caused the meeting to go off the rails. Trump and Vance were looking for a fight, and some observers have called the meeting an "ambush." Zelensky, who has kept his country afloat during three years of an unlawful and unprovoked attack from Russia (see Wiki re: fatalities), 

understandably was in no mood to kiss anyone's fanny. When he refused to stay quiet in the face of untruthful assertions from Vance -- especially the claim that Zelensky had been insufficiently thankful for U.S. assistance in the war -- that is what set off the conflagration heard 'round the world. Isenstadt and Caputo report:

Trump's expectation of deference from Zelensky is particularly high because of the massive aid the U.S. has sent to Ukraine (an amount Trump inflates, and most of which came on Joe Biden's watch.)  The two have had a fraught relationship since 2019, when Trump was impeached for trying to leverage Zelensky for political gain against Biden. Vance has long had antipathy for Zelensky and funding Ukraine's fight against Russia's invasion. In his 2022 Senate race in Ohio, Vance ran on a platform of ending Ukraine aid.

• During the presidential election, Zelensky visited a Pennsylvania arms factory and signed missiles with President Biden. Vance cited that episode Friday, accusing Zelensky of "campaigning with the opposition." 

In short, Zelensky walked into a dysfunctional, falsehood-filled environment in the Oval Office, and many observers seem to see his response as something to be expected, appropriate for the assault he was under. Isenstadt and Caputo write:

Between the lines: Democrats and European allies, who were far more aligned with Biden than Trump, were aghast at the Oval Office spectacle and at how Trump seemed to be shrugging off Putin's aggression against Ukraine.

• But Trump's close Republican allies loved the tag-teaming against Zelensky. White House officials said a message was sent.
• Zelensky "has refused to accept that people are tired of funding this war, and that there is a new sheriff in town," a senior White House adviser said. "He did not come in with that understanding of reality." (If people are tired of funding the war, why don't they address that with the man who started it,Vladimir Putin. Perhaps they could start by telling "Vlad" to get his troops the hell out of Ukraine -- and to stay out, and to pay for reconstruction of his neighboring country.)

What they're saying: Critics say Trump acted more like a crime figure than a president or law enforcement officer.

• "Trump runs the White House like a mob boss. He looks at Russia and China like they're other mob families; he sees Zelensky as a nobody," said Trump critic Lev Parnas, who was Trump's Ukraine fixer during the president's first term, spent time in prison afterward, then penned a tell-all book and a documentary.
  

• "He thinks [Zelensky] should just beg and then shut up," Parnas said.
• On Friday, "the wildcard was Vance," Parnas added. "I think [Zelensky] would've swallowed whatever Trump was gonna offer, but JD Vance set it off. ... He never liked Zelensky."

Vance advisers say he hadn't plotted to blow up the negotiations, though one privately acknowledged he's "prone to think Zelensky is a liar."

• The meeting was largely uneventful until Zelensky addressed Vance directly and asked how diplomacy would work with a lying killer like Putin.
• "No one expected Zelensky to walk in there and act like such a petulant child, constantly frowning and shaking his head and DJT and JD had had enough," one Republican close to the administration told Axios via text.
• "I'm not sure this is salvageable," the senior White House adviser summed up. "Three strikes and you're out."

Zoom in: Inside the White House, there was a feeling of unease among Trump advisers Friday when they saw Zelensky arrive without a business suit or a blazer. He was dressed instead in a three-button, skintight, long-sleeved black athletic shirt.

• "Wow look, you're all dressed up today," Trump said in a seemingly friendly way that advisers say masked annoyance.
• Brian Glenn, a conservative reporter and boyfriend of Trump ally Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), seemed to voice the attitude of Trump's team in the Oval Office when he asked Zelensky, "Why don't you wear a suit? … Do you own a suit?" Vance laughed out loud. (What on earth was MTG's boyfriend doing there? No wonder some have described the event as a "s--t show."
  
• "I will wear a [suit] after this war will finish," Zelensky said. "Maybe something like yours. Maybe something better ... maybe something cheaper."

After Trump canceled a lunch and press conference that was planned after the Oval Office meeting, Zelensky left the White House.

• Later he posted on X, thanking "POTUS, Congress and the American people" for the visit.
• That was interpreted differently by members of the administration. Some thought he was tweaking Vance for having scolded Zelensky. Others thought Zelensky was bending a knee.

  What we're watching: Whether Trump and Zelensky can get back to the negotiating table and arrive at a peace deal for Ukraine. If not, Friday's clash could go down in U.S. foreign policy history as even more significant than it already appears.
  

Jack Smith's report on Jan. 6 investigation shows Donald Trump and his MAGA thugs responded with threats, violence, witness tampering, and more

Trump supporters take over part of the U.S. Capitol (Getty)

Special Counsel Jack Smith, in his final report on the investigation of Donald Trump's election-interference case related to Jan. 6, 2021, said he considered bringing a charge under the Insurrection Act that could have brought a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and would have disqualified Trump from ever holding any office under the federal government.

Smith also said a major challenge during the investigation was persistent threats against witnesses from Trump and his allies. That, of course, raises this question: Why weren't Trump and his associates charged with witness tampering? Is that another case of the justice system letting them off the hook on a viable charge?

In a joint report at USA TODAY and the Microsoft Network (MSN), Smith consistently used language alleging that Trump acted outside the rule of law, with fraudulent intent. Smith makes it clear that he and his team could have achieved a conviction if their efforts had not been short-circuited under Department of Justice (DOJ) policy that forbids pursuing criminal actions against a sitting president -- and Trump is to be inaugurated on Jan. 20. Once Trump "won" the election on Nov. 5, 2024, Smith faced an insurmountable barrier to pursuing a prosecution. Note: I use quotation marks around the word "won" because substantial evidence points to the election being hacked to benefit Trump and steal it from Democrat Kamala Harris. A Nov. 28 post here at Legal Schnauzer provides background on the election-theft issue. In short, the focus of Smith's report might be a man who did not actually win the election, meaning the U.S. could be set to inaugurate an imposter on Jan. 20:

Several news outlets -- including Newsweek, The Economic Times, and  the New York Post are reporting that the Kamala Harris campaign team is preparing a fund to pay for a hand recount in the 2024 presidential election. The news indicates Harris is ready to join an effort, led by U.S. election- and computer-security expert Stephen Spoonamore, which is attempting to determine if Harris actually won a contest that was awarded to Donald Trump, even though Spoonamore and his team say the election appears to have been maliciously hacked to benefit Trump.  In short, the Spoonamore group is trying to determine who actually won the election and should be installed as America's next president, given signs the election was "willfully compromised."

Trump did not achieve a majority of the vote, but if the count is accurate, enough Americans went to the polls and voted for Trump -- despite his status as a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, admitted sexual abuser (caught discussing the issue on video), and serial cheater on his wives, including bedding down a porn star while wife Melania was home tending to an infant -- that, for now, he appears to be a winner. That suggests large numbers of Americans do not recognize a despicable, unfit person when they see one -- and that could be a huge problem for our country. It also is a post for another day.

How close was the 2024 race? Here is how we summarized the popular vote in a post dated Jan. 7, 2025:  

As for Trump's "mandate," it turned out to be weak. He received 77,284,118 votes for 49.8 percent -- or less than 50 percent of the vote. Kamala Harris won 74,999,166 votes for 48.3 percent. Trump's margin of victory was 1.5 percent.

Excluding Trump's 46.2 percent in 2016, you have to go back to Grover Cleveland's 46.1 percent in 1892 (124 years) to reach such a low margin of victory. A "commanding victory"? Not even by Grover  Cleveland's standards.

Trump repeatedly has referred to his victory as a "landslide," when he won by a whopping 1.5 percent. This is a fundamentally dishonest man, who in my view, resorts to lies and bullying because he simply cannot tell the truth. That is a theme that runs through Jack Smith's report, as the USA TODAY/MSN article makes clear. Write reporters Josh Meyer, Bart Jansen and Aysha Bagchi:

Special counsel Jack Smith, whose office indicted President-elect Donald Trump on charges of illegally trying to stay in power after losing the 2020 election, said in a bombshell final report released early Tuesday that he believed his team had amassed enough evidence to convict Trump if the case went to trial.

But Trump's election to a second term in November made it impossible for the case to go forward, Smith wrote in the 174-page report, which was dated Jan. 7 and addressed to Attorney General Merrick Garland. "The Department's view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind," Smith wrote in the report.

"Indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial," Smith wrote.

What about the charge Smith considered bringing under the Insurrection Act? The USA TODAY team writes:

Smith also said his team considered bringing an even more serious criminal charge against Trump – a violation of the Insurrection Act – after concluding there were "reasonable arguments that it might apply."

The Insurrection Act provides that anyone who “incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto,” could be fined, imprisoned for a maximum of 10 years – and “shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States,” according to the report.

Ultimately, the special counsel’s office opted against bringing that or other potential charges.

Trump and his legal team had fought to prevent the release of the report on various grounds, including saying it would interfere with his plans to take office on Jan. 20. But late Monday night, Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida denied Trump's emergency motion to prevent its release.

Soon after, the Justice Department delivered it to Congress.

The release of the report caps an extraordinary legal saga pitting the Justice Department – and later the special counsel’s office after Trump declared his candidacy – against the former president. Investigators focused on charges that were arguably among the most serious ever levied against an elected official of Trump’s stature, including whether he took steps to essentially try to subvert the will of the voters who elected President Joe Biden in 2020, not Trump.

After Trump won the 2024 election last November, judges dismissed the charges in both cases at Smith's request, under longstanding Justice Department policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Special counsels typically write reports explaining what their investigations revealed and the reasoning behind decisions about whether to bring charges.

Trump responded to the report's release on Truth Social, attacking Smith and the congressional committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters:

"Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his 'boss,' Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another 'Report' based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were," Trump wrote. "Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide. THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!"

Trump's lawyers were allowed to read the report before its release. In an exchange of letters, Trump's lawyers called it a “lawless publicity stunt” and Smith replied that they failed to dispute any facts in the report.

Trump has argued Garland appointed Smith illegitimately, which was why Judge Cannon dismissed the classified documents case. Smith had appealed her ruling, but withdrew it after Trump’s election.

Trump’s lawyers argued Smith “pillaged” the government for more than $20 million for the investigation they called "politically-motivated work.”

“Finally, the release of any confidential report prepared by this out-of-control private citizen unconstitutionally posing as a prosecutor would be nothing more than a lawless political stunt, designed to politically harm President Trump and justify the huge sums of taxpayer money Smith unconstitutionally spent on his failed and dismissed cases,” Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, John Lauro and Gregory Singer wrote.

Smith replied that Trump basically objected to releasing the report rather than anything in it, while making “a variety of false, misleading, or otherwise unfounded claims.”

“That response fails to identify any specific factual objections to the draft,” Smith wrote.

Smith suggests that witness tampering was rampant throughout the probe, presenting a constant challenge for his team. Does this suggest America has a glorified thug set to enter the White House, one who can't, or won't, control the MAGA thugs who support him? It sure does. From USA TODAY:

“A significant challenge” Smith said he faced in prosecuting the case was dealing with the “threats and harassment” against witnesses, the judge and Justice Department staffers and that would follow Trump's posts on social media.

Trump acknowledged after the Jan. 6 attack that his supporters listen to him “like no one else.”

The pattern began when Trump would attack and seek to influence state and federal officials with false claims the 2020 election had been stolen. One unnamed witness reported “specific and graphic threats about his family” and a public official required additional police protection after Trump’s posts.

“After Mr. Trump publicly assailed these individuals, threats and harassment from his followers inevitably followed,” Smith wrote.

The day after his arraignment, Trump posted on social media: "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"

The next day, one of his supporters called U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s chambers and called her a racial epithet. “If Trump doesn’t get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly,” the caller said. “You will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it.”

“Those attacks had ‘real-time, real-world consequences,’ exposing ‘those on the receiving end’ to ‘a torrent of threats and intimidation’ and turning their lives ‘upside down,’” Smith wrote.

Smith's report provides the fullest description yet about the investigation that led to two federal indictments against Trump before both cases were dismissed. Smith's team previously released a 165-page summary of the election case in October that included revelations such as Trump allegedly saying "so what?" when Vice President Mike Pence had to be taken to a secure location during the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.

Now Smith has written a final two-volume report, including the newly released volume about how Trump allegedly conspired to overturn the 2020 election. The other volume, which is focused on the former president’s alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving the White House, has not been released publicly because Trump's co-defendants still face charges in that case.

In an  appeals filing, Trump's lawyers described the report as “nothing less than another attempted political hit job which sole purpose is to disrupt the Presidential transition and undermine President Trump’s exercise of executive power.”

Smith resigned from the Justice Department on Friday. Trump had said he would fire Smith upon assuming office and that Smith "should be in jail."

Smith argued in the report that it was important to bring the election-interference prosecution against Trump in order to protect the United States' electoral process. He alleged that Trump tried to obstruct the country's system for collecting, counting, and certifying the 2020 election results "through fraud and deceit."

"Protecting the well-established American tradition of a peaceful transfer of power weighed in favor of prosecution," Smith wrote.

Smith also defended the prosecution by arguing that Trump endangered the right to vote and have that vote counted. Trump, he said, urged state officials to disregard the true majority of votes in their states, pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" more than 11,000 votes, and pushed then-Vice President Mike Pence to throw out the electoral certificates that reflected millions of citizens' votes.

"An additional factor meriting Mr. Trump's prosecution therefore was the need to vindicate and protect the voting rights of these and all future voters," the report states.

Trump also engaged in threats and encouraged violence against those he perceived as his opponents, according to the report, which said 140 law enforcement officers were assaulted on Jan. 6, 2021, with some suffering "significant physical injuries."

Trump, Smith suggested, had fueled that violence by telling his supporters in a speech that day – ahead of the attack on the Capitol – to go there and "fight like hell."

"The people who took Mr. Trump at his word formed a massive crowd that broke onto restricted Capitol grounds and into the building, violently attacking law enforcement officers protecting the Capitol and those inside," Smith wrote.

Trump was indicted in Washington, D.C., for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election with baseless claims of widespread fraud. He was also charged with obstructing Congress from counting Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2021, when a riot of his supporters at the Capitol temporarily halted the count.

Trump pleaded not guilty in both cases and maintained his innocence.

“I defeated deranged Jack Smith," Trump said Tuesday. “We did nothing wrong."

Trump asked Garland not to release the report. His lawyers argued the dismissal of charges represented “Trump’s complete exoneration" and that the report would “perpetuate false and discredited accusations.”

Trump joined a court request by his co-defendants in the documents case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, to block its release. Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira argued Smith's work “promises to be a one-sided, slanted report” that has “a single purpose: convincing the public that everyone Smith charged is guilty of the crimes charged."

But Garland released the report "in furtherance of the public interest" regarding a "significant matter," according to department lawyers who fought for its release: Brian Boynton, principal deputy assistant attorney general; Markenzy LaPointe, U.S. attorney in southern Florida; and Mark Freeman, a lawyer in the civil division.

The report doesn't cover Trump's other federal case in Florida. Trump was charged with unlawfully retaining national defense documents after leaving the White House at the end of his first administration. FBI agents found more than 100 classified documents during a search of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022.

Garland plans not to release Smith's volume on classified documents until the charges are resolved against Nauta and De Oliveira. The second volume will be available for review by the top Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, government lawyers said.

Trump joined a court request by his co-defendants in the documents case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, to block its release. Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira argued Smith's work “promises to be a one-sided, slanted report” that has “a single purpose: convincing the public that everyone Smith charged is guilty of the crimes charged."

Smith, a former war crimes prosecutor, noted Trump's attacks on him and his team of prosecutors in a letter to Garland that accompanied the report, in which he disclosed that some of them had been threatened.

“The intense public scrutiny of our Office, threats to their safety, and relentless unfounded attacks on their character and integrity did not deter them from fulfilling their oaths and professional obligations,” Smith said of his team. “These are intensely good people who did hard things well. I will not forget the sacrifices they made and the personal resilience they and their families have shown over the last two years.”

Smith, who insisted on having an extremely low-profile throughout the course of the case, also vehemently denied Trump’s claims that it was politicized.

“While I relied greatly on the counsel, judgment, and advice of our team, I want it to be clear that the ultimate decision to bring charges against Mr. Trump was mine. It is a decision I stand behind fully,” Smith wrote in his letter to Garland.

“It is equally important for me to make clear that nobody within the Department of Justice ever sought to interfere with, or improperly influence, my prosecutorial decision making,” Smith wrote. “And to all who know me well, the claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable.”

You can read the full Smith Report at the following link.

 

The fourth anniversary of Jan. 6, 2021, rekindles memories of thugs in the U.S. Capitol -- especially since the chief thug now is set to become president

"Patriots" overtake the U.S. Capitol on 1/6/21 (YouTube)

An untold number of words were published yesterday about it being the fourth anniversary of January 6, 2021 -- one of the most awful days in U.S. history. I will submit that if you are an American of adult age, you should consider it the worst day of your life -- at least in a big-picture "the fate of our country is at stake" sense. 

Now that the anniversary is behind us, I'm not sure many Americans think much about Jan. 6, or even take it seriously. Some surely see it as a positive, although I'm not sure how warped you have to be to take that view. Perhaps we live in a diseased country, filled with warped people who genuinely believe we need to replace 250 years of democracy with some form of authoritarian government that will be based on the whims of "President-Elect" Donald Trump. (I put "President-Elect" in quotation marks because considerable evidence points to the 2024 election being hacked to benefit Trump and steal the presidency from Democrat Kamala Harris. Longtime election-integrity expert Steven Spoonamore has conducted more research and published more articles than anyone I know of on the hacking issue. I would encourage all Americans to read Spoonamore's work because he spells out how a stolen election can, and most likely did, happen here. He certainly has convinced me that I am among the millions of Americans who do not know that Trump actually won the 2024 election -- or that he will be a legitimate president when he is inaugurated in two weeks.

Of all the insightful articles published about the Jan. 6 anniversary, I must give a special hat tip for a particularly compelling piece to William Kristol, of The Bulwark. He begins by writing under the banner headline "Our National Day of Shame." Then he narrows it down to this secondary headline -- "It’s January 6th. Trump Won." I suspect that was written as a combination of grim reality and bitter sarcasm. If it was meant to be a splash of cold water in the face to those of us who believe Trump is wildly unfit to be president (and Kristol seems to fit in that group), it served its purpose.

Why is Kristol's piece so effective? He serves up some hope, but the article, as a whole, is not terribly hopeful. It's much too real for that. He serves up grim reality, but the whole article is not grim. Kristol begins:

George Orwell wrote that in our day “restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

So let me restate the obvious: January 6, 2021 is a day that should live in infamy.

But for the next four years January 6th won’t live in infamy. Because in two weeks the man who incited January 6th, the man who now excuses it—no, celebrates it—will be sworn in as our next president.

So the obvious if unpleasant fact is that today we as a nation are in a worse condition, facing a more ominous future, than we faced four years ago.

The mob violence of January 6th was awful. That it was incited by the president of the United States made it worse. That it was the capstone of a more comprehensive effort by President Trump and his apparatchiks to overturn the election results and to stay in power made the date even more deserving of infamy.

Warning: If you are a Never-Trumper, the following section is indeed grim - no punches pulled:

But Biden’s silence about Trump merely brings home the extent of Trump’s success. The January 6th truther-in-chief will be our next commander-in-chief. And his administration will be staffed by individuals who range from January 6th apologists to January 6th celebrators.

Meanwhile, the ranks of Trump’s party are full of such people, as is suggested by the fact that the leadership of the Republican House has refused to install a plaque honoring Capitol Police officers for their brave actions on January 6th, as required by a federal law signed in March 2023.

It is in a way fitting that one of the first acts of the new Trump administration will be presidential pardons or commutations for many of the January 6th felons. Why not? Their leader will be president. Why should they languish in prison?

Some of the more respectable supporters of the new administration are aware of how distasteful this will be. The Wall Street Journal editorial page frets that “pardoning such crimes would send an awful message about [Trump’s] view of the acceptability of political violence done on his behalf.”

But that is Trump’s view. Indeed, it’s his oft-expressed view. Indeed, he ran for office on this view—and won. The fact that some establishment types have chosen to close their eyes to this isn’t his fault.

Kristol returns to a sense of hope, and the following words could be seen as the heart of his piece:

What can be done? Here in the United States, there are thankfully many sources of possible resistance, ranging from others in government—at both the federal and state level—to institutions in the private sector and civil society. They all have a role to play in the fight against the whitewashing of history and the erasure of truth.

But in the near term, it is the Senate of the United States that can do the most to help. It is the Senate that has to choose whether to confirm Trump’s cabinet and sub-cabinet nominees. It is Senate committees that can hold hearings and get those nominees on the record on January 6th.

All senators have to do is to ask the nominees whether they agree with what President Trump said on January 7, 2021—that what happened on January 6th was a “heinous attack” and that “the demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy.”

Senators can ask this of all nominees. And Senators can refuse to confirm at least some of the January 6th deniers, especially those nominated to important positions in law enforcement and national security.

One nominee particularly deserving of decisive rejection is Kash Patel, selected to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In an important article this morning, Tom Joscelyn and Norm Eisen lay out evidence that clearly shows why Patel is unfit to serve as FBI director. They show in great detail that Patel has embraced and promulgated false conspiracy theories not just about January 6th in general, but about the very organization he’s been nominated to lead.

The authors conclude, “That is not only an insult to the memory of that day; it should be disqualifying for him to helm the bureau.”

Will it be? Will the United States Senate permit Trump to install a full-on January 6th truther as head of the FBI? Or will some Republican senators put country before party, enabling the Senate to set up some roadblocks to our steep descent on a path towards an Orwellian and authoritarian future?

Donald Trump openly talks about having a sitting president, Joe Biden, executed; What does federal law say about that, and could Trump be held accountable?

Donald Trump speaks at NRA convention (Getty)

During a speech Saturday night at a National Rifle Association convention in Dallas, TX, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump talked about having his opponent, President Joe Biden, executed (see here and here). You read that correctly. The top-line candidate for one of our two major political parties openly talked about having his opponent, a sitting president, executed.

Trump is receiving plenty of criticism in political and media circles, but does this call for more than that? First of all, Trump is dancing awfully close to criminal territory. Consider 18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the President. It reads:

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20.

Has Trump committed a crime here? As a layperson who has not studied this area of the law, I'm probably not the one to say. An  attorney with extensive experience in federal criminal law likely would need to examine a transcript of the speech to make a proper determination. The first sentence of this section emphasizes threats made via the U.S. mails, so I'm guessing Trump would be OK under Section 871.

We should note, however, that the second sentence under paragraph (a) of Sec. 871 includes this language: "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." That appears to include any such threat against the president -- one that does not involve the mail, the kind Trump made on Saturday night.

Federallawyers/com, the website for the Spodek Law Firm in New York City, focuses on an expansive view of the statute, so let's see what they have to say:

A post at the firm's blog asks this question: Are Threats Against the President a Federal Crime? Here is their answer:

The short answer is yes, threats against the President of the United States or anyone in the presidential line of succession are illegal under federal law 18 U.S. Code § 871. This law makes it a felony to knowingly and willfully make “any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.”

So if you make a credible threat to harm or kill the sitting U.S. President, even as a joke or political statement, you could end up facing serious criminal charges. Let’s break down the details:

(1) What Counts as an Illegal Threat?

Answer:

For a statement to be considered an illegal threat under 18 U.S. Code § 871, it must meet three criteria:

1. The statement must be a “true threat,” meaning it’s intentional and expresses a genuine intent to inflict harm.
2. The threat must target the current President or anyone next in the line of succession, like the Vice President.
3. The person making the threat must know that it’s illegal. In other words, you can’t accidentally threaten the President and end up in legal trouble.

The law is intended to prevent people from making credible and concerning threats against America’s elected leaders. It’s not meant to punish political dissent or hyperbole. For example, saying “I wish someone would punch the President” or “The President deserves to die” would generally be protected free speech under the First Amendment. But directly threatening to kill or harm the President yourself could get you arrested.

There’s often a fine line between an illegal threat and permissible political speech. Context matters a lot. In the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States, the defendant said he would shoot President Lyndon B. Johnson if given a gun. But because he made the comment during a political rally as an 18-year-old, the Court ruled it was just “political hyperbole” instead of a true threat.

(2) What Are the Penalties for Threatening the President?

Answer: 

Under 18 U.S. Code § 871, threatening the President is a Class E felony. The maximum sentence is 5 years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, 3 years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

In practice, sentences tend to depend on the specific nature of the threat and the defendant’s criminal history. First-time offenders often get probation or less than a year behind bars. But repeat offenders or those who make unusually disturbing threats sometimes face years in prison.

(3) When Can You Go to Jail for Threatening the President?

Answer:

Most threats typically need to meet a certain threshold of credibility before prosecutors will file charges. Making an offhand drunken comment about wanting to punch the President or venting frustration online is unlikely to lead to arrest on its own. The threat has to seem concerning enough that authorities need to get involved. According to FindLaw, factors like:

• Having the means and opportunity to carry out the threat
• Making detailed plans for an attack
• Stalking or confronting Secret Service agents
• Sending threatening letters or packages

Could make prosecution more likely. Most defendants also tend to have a history of mental illness or prior run-ins with the law. But sometimes even fairly casual threats said in anger lead to charges if they catch the attention of the Secret Service.

(4) What Are Some Legal Defenses?

Answer: 

Fighting federal threat charges involves showing either that:

1. The statement wasn’t really a “true threat” under the law
2. The defendant struggled with mental illness or emotional distress when making the threat

To argue the statement wasn’t a true threat, the defense may claim it was just a joke, political rhetoric, or that the person didn’t actually intend to harm anyone. The context around the threat matters a lot here.

Defendants can also argue they struggled with mental health issues like schizophrenia or severe depression that impacted their judgment. If successful, this could lead to commitment to a psychiatric facility instead of prison. But mental illness alone is rarely enough to avoid conviction altogether.

(5) When Can the Secret Service Investigate Threats?

Answer:

The U.S. Secret Service is authorized to investigate any potential threats against the President, Vice President, President-elect and Vice President-elect. They have jurisdiction even if it’s unclear at first whether the threat violates federal law. According to the Department of Justice:

The United States Attorney must carefully consider the possible adverse effect before releasing information to the public concerning cases and matters involving threats against the President (18 U.S.C. § 871) as well as other Secret Service protectees (18 U.S.C. § 879). This exercise of caution should extend to secondary sources of press information as well (search warrants, affidavits, etc.), and the use of tools such as sealed affidavits should be considered.

        So the Secret Service often keeps threat investigations confidential to avoid inadvertently                     encouraging copycats or revealing too much about their protective methods. They may conduct         surveillance, obtain search warrants, or refer cases for federal prosecution if the threats seem                 credible enough to pose a safety risk.

(6) When Can You Go to Jail for Encouraging Violence Against Public Officials?

Answer:

In some cases, people face charges for encouraging others to attack public officials rather than making threats themselves. Federal law 18 U.S. Code § 373 prohibits trying to get someone to commit a violent federal crime. For example, posting “someone should shoot the President” online or sharing information to help others plan an assassination attempt.

Prosecutors would need to prove the person intended for another individual to commit murder or assault and took substantial steps to make it happen. But repeatedly calling for violence against elected leaders could potentially lead to arrest even without explicit threats.

(7) Recent Examples of Prosecutions for Threatening President Biden or Trump

Answer:

There has been an uptick in threat cases during recent administrations as political divisions widen. Some examples since 2016 include:

• An Illinois man arrested in 2022 for allegedly threatening to kill President Biden and members of Congress.
• A Florida man indicted in 2022 for making online death threats against Biden and sending disturbing letters.
• An Ohio man prosecuted in 2018 for threatening to assassinate President Trump at a steakhouse.
• A Washington man sentenced to prison in 2021 for making death threats against Trump on Facebook.

Defense lawyers accused some of these defendants of struggling with mental illness. But prosecutors say the threats still caused fear and disruption which justified charges. Several cases led to multi-year prison sentences even without evidence of actual attack plans.

(8) The Bottom Line

Threatening the President of the United States is very much illegal under federal law. Even jokes or offhand comments about harming America’s elected leaders can potentially lead to felony charges if deemed credible enough. The Secret Service and federal prosecutors tend to take these threats very seriously given the risks they could pose. So it’s wise to avoid making statements that could be interpreted as calling for violence against public officials, even if you don’t really intend to act on them.

What's my take on Trump's threatening statements against Biden, based on the insights of federallawyers.com?

* As often is the case in criminal law, a lot of discretion is left to federal investigators and prosecutors. My guess is they will let someone of Trump's fame, wealth, and power off the hook. But is that the way it should be handled? I don't think so, That suggests we have a two-tiered justice system that benefits the privileged -- and Trump already has received numerous breaks from courts -- especially the U.S. District Court in Florida (see here and here)and the U.S. Supreme Court (see here and here).

* This is not the first time Trump has threatened a public official. He has called for Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to be put to death for treason.

* This is not the first time Trump has used violent rhetoric. In fact, it has become a staple of his on the campaign trail. Consider this from an October 2023 post here at Legal Schnauzer:

In speeches, interviews and on social media in recent weeks, Trump:

• Said former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley committed "treason" and suggested he be executed.
  

• Called for Judge Engoron to be disbarred, thrown out of office and criminally prosecuted.
  

• Labeled New York Attorney General Letitia James — who's suing Trump for fraudulently inflating his wealth and assets on financial records — a "racist" and "monster."

• Said special counsel Jack Smith — who's prosecuting Trump in the Jan. 6 and classified-documents cases — is "deranged" and a "psycho" who "looks like a crackhead."
  

• Posted online, "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!" — one day after swearing in federal court that he would not intimidate witnesses in the election interference case.
  

• Mocked Paul Pelosi after he was brutally assaulted by a home intruder who was searching for his wife, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
  

• Urged police to shoot shoplifters on sight.
  

• Said migrants illegally crossing into the U.S. are "poisoning the blood of our country."

* Consider Trump's audience. He encouraged the nation's largest gathering of gun nuts to consider the execution of our president. Did Trump intend for a member of the NRA or one of his MAGA supporters, who may or may not be of sound mind, to carry out his threat? Consider these words from federrallawyers.com (FLC).

(a) In some cases, people face charges for encouraging others to attack public officials rather than making threats themselves. Federal law 18 U.S. Code § 373 prohibits trying to get someone to commit a violent federal crime. For example, posting “someone should shoot the President” online or sharing information to help others plan an assassination attempt.

Prosecutors would need to prove the person intended for another individual to commit murder or assault and took substantial steps to make it happen. But repeatedly calling for violence against elected leaders could potentially lead to arrest even without explicit threats.

(b) Evidence is mounting that Trump might have a form of mental illness, with his recent inability to speak in coherent sentences at campaign rallies. From the FLC website:

Defense lawyers accused some of these defendants of struggling with mental illness. But prosecutors say the threats still caused fear and disruption which justified charges. Several cases led to multi-year prison sentences even without evidence of actual attack plans.

 * Could Trump be counting on someone from the NRA or MAGA to carry out his idea of executing Joe Biden? Could he be engaged with someone in formulating an attack plan? I wouldn't count it out, and federal authorities should not count it out, either. At the very least, Trump and his associates need to be investigated.

* A final thought: Who would stand to benefit the most from the death of Joe Biden? The answer almost certainly would be Donald Trump. Take Biden out of the picture, and the Democratic Party goes into disarray, allowing Trump to virtually waltz to the White House and likely stay out of prison, related to the four criminal cases pending against him. Is Donald Trump that evil? Who knows how evil this guy is? We would ask Jeffrey Epstein if he were still alive.