Donald Trump -- an admirer of Hitler -- now has the word "fascist" hung around his neck, thanks to Gen. Mark Milley, Kamala Harris, Liz Cheney, and others

Adolph Hitler (USHMM)

 

Roughly one week ago, it was rare to hear anyone refer to Donald Trump as a "fascist." But with Gen. Mark Milley and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris leading the way, the term became commonly attached to Trump in just a matter of days. How did that happen? Jonathan Weisman, of The New York Times proves to be a trusty guide on that question. Under the headline "Harris and Democrats Lose Their Reluctance to Call Trump a Fascist; Since Gen. Mark Milley was quoted as saying Donald Trump is “fascist to the core,” a term avoided by top members of the Democratic Party is suddenly everywhere," Weisman writes:

The word “fascist” has hovered around former President Donald J. Trump from the moment he rode down his golden escalator in 2015 to warn of Mexican rapists and drug dealers in the memorable opening of his bid for president. But for most top Democrats, it was a provocative term loaded with dread, historical import and potential incitement — best left unsaid.

Until Vice President Kamala Harris this week made clear — again and again — that it would be just fine with her to use the word.

On Tuesday, as the radio host Charlamagne Tha God interviewed Ms. Harris, he interjected as the vice president contrasted her vision with her rival’s. “The other is about fascism,” he said of Mr. Trump’s vision. “Why can’t we just say it?”

Ms. Harris’s response: “Yes, we can say that.”

It did not take other political types long to follow Harris' lead. It did not take Weisman long to pick up on it:

On Wednesday, speaking in Washington Crossing, Pa., Ms. Harris quoted Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Mr. Trump, describing his former boss as “fascist to the core,” as detailed in a new book from the journalist Bob Woodward.

“America,” she said, “must heed this warning.”

The quotation of Mr. Milley may have opened the floodgates for Democrats, granting new permission with the authority of his uniform and his unique closeness to the inner workings of Mr. Trump’s administration. But an element of political risk remains, even as Mr. Trump freely uses the word himself against Ms. Harris.

For years now, Democrats have avoided calling Mr. Trump a fascist in part out of fear of alienating his followers, said Timothy Snyder, a Yale historian of Central Europe and the Holocaust. For one thing, Democrats did not want a repeat of Hillary Clinton’s dismissal of Trump supporters as “a basket of deplorables.”

Even President Biden, who has made Mr. Trump’s threat to democracy central to his case against the former president for years, only inched up to the term when in 2022 he spoke of “the entire philosophy” of Mr. Trump’s movement: “I’m going to say something, it’s like semi-fascism.”

But as Mr. Trump steers his rhetoric toward nativism, racial resentment and overt threats against his political enemies, reticence has fallen away.

That third item -- Trump's overt threats against his political enemies -- prompted John Kelly, Trump's former chief of staff, to label him a "fascist" who craves "absolute power" and will "govern like a dictator." For good measure, Kelly also said Trump had expressed admiration for Adolph Hitler, claiming several times that the late Nazi leader had "done some good things."

Citizens of America led the charge to fight off the scourge of Nazism in World War II, but a significant number of Americans now tell pollsters they support Trump and plan to vote for him. Are Americans' memories really that short? Have they forgotten about the more than 405,000 Americans who gave their lives to fight off Hitler and the Nazis -- plus the countless others who put their lives at risk to save Democracy. Are these "Americans" going to go to voting sites and mark their ballots for a man who openly expresses admiration for Hitler? Anyone who would even think of doing that should be ashamed of themselves -- assuming they are capable of feeling shame. Weisman has a warning for Americans who might be thinking of voting for Trump, an admirer of the mad man behind the Nazis. Weisman writes:

 

“You have people like General Milley, who are telling voters that Donald Trump will usher in an era of fascist America,” said Paul D. Eaton, a retired major general and leader of the liberal veterans group VoteVets. “In so many countries throughout history, we have seen fascism take hold only because the voters enabled it to take hold.”

Liz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman and staunch opponent of Mr. Trump, said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that she had great respect for General Milley, and that “I see no reason to disagree with that assessment.”

Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump’s opponent in 2016, chimed in on Monday in a social media post: “Trump’s rhetoric has become blatantly fascist.”

All of that has come after Mr. Trump’s running mate, Senator JD Vance, singled out the term “fascist” as an incitement to violence that was beyond the pale.

“Vance is a very smart guy,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor at New York University whose recent book, Strongmen, looked at autocrats and fascists from Benito Mussolini to Mr. Trump. “He knows the power of the word.”

John Kelly, one-time chief of staff to Donald Trump, says his former boss frequently praised Adolph Hitler, and if re-elected, would prefer to govern as a dictator

Adolf Hitler addresses Nazi officials (Flicker)

 

Donald Trump's chief of staff from 2017-19 has issued a blistering critique of his former boss, labeling him a "fascist" who craves "absolute power" and will "govern like a dictator." John F. Kelly, a former U.S. Marine general, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, and secretary of homeland security (under Trump) has no shortage of credibility -- and his words could be damaging, even devastating, to Trump's hopes of being re-elected on Nov. 5. Kelly also said Trump had expressed admiration for Adolph Hitler, claiming several times that the late Nazi leader had "done some good things."

Stephanie Kaloi, of Yahoo News!, has the lowdown on Kelly's brutal takedown of a candidate who is used to tossing out insults, rather than being on the receiving end of them. Under the headline "Trump’s Former Chief of Staff John Kelly Warns He’s the ‘Definition of Fascist,’" Kaloi writes:

Donald Trump “certainly falls into the general definition of fascist” his former chief of staff John Kelly told The New York Times in an expansive interview published Tuesday.

Kelly opted to read a definition of fascism that he found online to support this conclusion. “Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy,” he said. “So certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America.”

“The former president is in the far-right area, he’s an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure,” Kelly added.

In their time working together Kelly also observed that Trump “certainly prefers the dictator approach to government.” Trump sought a kind of absolute power, he continued, and “never accepted the fact that he wasn’t the most powerful man in the world — and by power, I mean an ability to do anything he wanted, anytime he wanted.”

Kelly has spoken out against Trump before, but he was not planning on adding his voice to the pre-election chorus of analysts and critics this year. But he changed his mind when Trump started talking about using the power of the U.S. government to go after his perceived rivals for political reasons, likely without a hint of due process. Kelly's words now make it clear that he believes Trump should never again be allowed anywhere near the White House. Kaloi writes:

Kelly didn’t always plan to speak against Trump, but the latter’s repeated “enemy within” comments prompted him to take action. “And I think this issue of using the military on — to go after — American citizens is one of those things I think is a very, very bad thing — even to say it for political purposes to get elected — I think it’s a very, very bad thing, let alone actually doing it,” the former Marine general added.

Trump has proven himself to be an extraordinarily selfish person, with little understanding of sacrifice, especially for one's country. The thought of such a person serving as commander in chief, overseeing U.S. military personnel, became a growing concern for Kelly. He has seen how Trump's self-centered personality plays out, in up-close terms. From the Yahoo! report: 

Kelly was equally concerned about another aspect of who Trump is as a person: his general lack of empathy. The pair were touring Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day 2017 near where Kelly’s own son, who was killed in 2010 while serving in Afghanistan, was buried.

Trump asked Kelly “what was in it” for servicemen and women who died in combat.

“‘And I thought he was asking one of these rhetorical kind of, you know, questions,’ Mr. Kelly said. ‘But I didn’t realize he was serious — he just didn’t see what the point was. As I got to know him, again, this selflessness is something he just didn’t understand. What’s in it for them?'”

Kelly’s interview was published the same day The Atlantic reported Trump said in a private conversation at the White House, “I need the kind of generals Hitler had.”

The outlet also noted Trump’s “desire to force U.S. military leaders to be obedient to him and not the Constitution” as well as his “denigration of military service, his ignorance of the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, his admiration for brutality and anti-democratic norms of behavior, and his contempt for wounded veterans and for soldiers who fell in battle.”

Kamala Harris, Trump's Democratic opponent for the presidency, has made Trump's selfishness -- and especially his alleged admiration of Hitler -- issues in the 2024 campaign. Kaloi writes:

Retired General and Vietnam veteran Barry McCaffrey told The Atlantic, “The military is a foreign country to him. He doesn’t understand the customs or codes. It doesn’t penetrate. It starts with the fact that he thinks it’s foolish to do anything that doesn’t directly benefit himself.”

Days before, The Atlantic published another piece that was more pointed: In “Trump Is Speaking Like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini” Anne Applebaum writes that specific words used by Trump “belong to a particular tradition” — a tradition carried out by the aforementioned fascists and authoritarians. Chinese politician Mao Zedong and Cambodian leader Pol Pot also used similar rhetoric about their political foes and perceived enemies.

“In each of these very different societies, the purpose of this kind of rhetoric was the same,” Applebaum wrote. “If you connect your opponents with disease, illness, and poisoned blood, if you dehumanize them as insects or animals, if you speak of squashing them or cleansing them as if they were pests or bacteria, then you can much more easily arrest them, deprive them of rights, exclude them, or even kill them.”

Kamala Harris touched on Trump’s fascist leanings during a town hall hosted by Charlamagne Tha God. After a caller named Bobby said he was worried Trump would use the Alien Enemies Act to “put anyone that doesn’t look white in camps” (the Act was last used to intern Japanese-Americans during World War II), Harris answered, “He is running full-time on a campaign that is about instilling fear, not about hope, not about optimism, not about the future, but about fear. And so this is yet another example.”

Trump “would prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem,” she added. “And he’s running his campaign in a way that he does these rallies — where people, by the way, walk out — to try and instill fear around an issue, where he actually could be part of a solution but he chooses not to, because he prefers to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem, and we’ve got to call it out and see it for what it is.”

New poll shows favorability turning in Kamala Harris' favor, forcing Trump to look at playing catch-up as his standing turns shaky in the 2024 presidential race

 

(Data for Progress)

Favorability matters in modern political polling, and a survey released Monday shows Kamala Harris is surging ahead of Donald Trump in that important category. The New Republic (TNR) provides details under the headline "Kamala Harris Just Got Some Great News; Newly released highly credible polls show her with strong advantages with two weeks left to go." Reporter/Producer Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling writes:

Vice President Kamala Harris may have better odds in the presidential election than previously predicted.

A poll published Monday by the Associated Press and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago suggests that Harris has more than a marginal lead in favorability over the Republican presidential nominee, but is actually surging by double digits.

The nationwide poll, conducted last week, found Harris’s favorability to be significantly higher than Trump’s, with 51 percent of registered voters viewing Harris as a favorable candidate compared to just 40 percent who felt the same about Trump. Independent voters, notably, were equally split on their opinions of Harris, while the majority of independent voters—58 percent—felt negatively about Trump.

Surveyed voters also leaned toward the Democratic presidential nominee on a wide range of issues. Harris led with voters by 20 percent on election integrity, by 12 percent on middle-class taxes, by 11 percent on natural disaster relief, by five percent on the national housing crisis, and by two percent on jobs and unemployment. Trump, meanwhile, led with voters on immigration and crime, which he led Harris by eight percent and five percent, respectively.

But perhaps no Democratic stance resonated more with voters than abortion, which saw Harris lead Trump by 23 percent.

It has been known for months that abortion rights are a difficult  issue for Republicans. But this poll seems to take the issue and slam it directly into the GOP's face, in a way that likely is painful to read. Houghtaling writes:

Abortion has become a losing issue for Republicans nationwide. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn abortion access proved disastrous for Republicans that November, resulting in major midterm losses in districts where abortion was a key talking point. Post-election, at least some members of the conservative party had a stunning reversal, with GOP consultants referring to the turning tide on the issue as a “major wake-up call.”

But much of the Republican party, especially the MAGA movement, has refused to give it up. Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance, for one, has previously likened abortion to murder, and has supported efforts to strip abortion access away from women. In 2023, the Ohio politico called for a “minimum national standard” on abortion restrictions, and his run for U.S. Senate in 2022 included language on his website that described him as “100 percent pro-life.”

Trump, meanwhile, has made abortion a key component of all three of his campaigns, repeatedly promising over the last eight years to ban the medical procedure at every available opportunity. While in office, he expressed support for a bill that would have banned abortion nationwide at 20 weeks.

Since then, he has used scare tactics to spread disinformation about the procedure, erroneously claiming that Democrats support abortions “after birth”—otherwise known as murder. And Trump’s track record includes the most egregious offense against national access—the appointment of three Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

 

 

 

 

Several recent displays of bizarre behavior have made Donald Trump's health -- both physical and mental -- an issue for the public to consider as Nov. 5 draws near

Donald Trump puts his dancing skills on display

 

Recent garbled speeches and public memory lapses have brought questions about Donald Trump's health -- both physical and mental -- back to the forefront in reporting about the 2024 presidential race. Axios addresses the issue under the headline "What we know about Trump's medical history." Sareen Habeshian and Rebecca Falconer write:

Former President Trump said in August he'd "gladly" release his medical records. But with less than three weeks to go until Election Day, his campaign has yet to release any basic health data.

Why it matters: Vice President Kamala Harris has released detailed health records and called for the 78-year-old who'd be the oldest president inaugurated if he wins in November to do the same, as questions about his physical and cognitive health mount.

• There's no mandate for a presidential candidate to publicly disclose medical details, but a large group of medical professionals joined Harris this week in calling for Trump to be "transparent" about his health and said he's "displaying alarming characteristics of declining acuity."

The big picture: Former White House physician Jeffrey Kuhlman said Wednesday that as "an overweight ... never smoker," Trump "appears in good health" for his age, but he raised concerns about his cognitive ability for critical decision-making.

• "He exhibits cognitive decline in reasoning, memory, and processing speed, consistent with his advanced age," added Kuhlman, who worked with former Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama but has never examined Trump, over email.
• The Trump campaign responded to questions from Axios and others about whether it would release updated medical records by issuing a statement saying the Republican presidential nominee has "voluntarily released updates from his personal physician."
• It linked to two July accounts from Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), who served as physician to the president in the Obama and Trump administrations, regarding the GOP leader's recovery from a bullet wound to his ear following an assassination attempt on him.
• The campaign also shared a note from Trump's personal physician issued last November describing the ex-president's overall health as "excellent."

The intrigue: Kuhlman, author of the upcoming book Transforming Presidential Healthcare, said the information released thus far is "general and vague."

• Online records indicate that Trump has not released details about his physical health, such as weight and blood pressure, since 2020, when a White House medical report showed he weighed 244 pounds, making him medically obese as defined under the Body Mass Index.
• Trump self-reported that he weighed 215 pounds when he was booked at the Fulton County jail in his Georgia 2020 election indictment.

State of play: Trump offered scant information on his health during the 2016 campaign, except for a note from his personal doctor claiming he would be "the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency." The doctor later said Trump "dictated the letter."

Is Trump trying to hide something? Given his recent behavior, a reasonable person might ask that question. Also, Trump's public displays of peculiar behavior have caused numerous medical professionals to point online to signs that his cognitive ability is declining. Habeshian and Falconer write:

• The most in-depth account about Trump's health occurred after his first physical examination at Walter Reed Medical Center in 2018.
• Jackson detailed to reporters Trump's high cholesterol and a weight of 239 pounds.
• That increased to 243 pounds at Trump's physical in 2019 — putting him at a BMI considered obese. His cholesterol levels had dropped by 2020, according to that medical report.
• When Trump was hospitalized with COVID that year while running for re-election, his medical team offered conflicting accounts about the status of his health.
  

Trump has a family history of dementia, and data shows that can be an important consideration in diagnosing a patient. From the Axios report:

Zoom out: The former president's father, Fred Trump, was diagnosed with dementia in 1991, at the age of 86, and was later found to have Alzheimer's disease.

• Kuhlman said a parental history of dementia is associated with roughly a twofold increase in relative risk for dementia.

• "Age remains the strongest risk factor for dementia." One in six Americans in their 80s has it, Kuhlman said. "The leading cause of death for a senior citizen (over the age of 65) is heart disease."

What they're saying: In 2020, Trump publicly talked about taking a "very hard" cognitive test as he sought to prove his mental soundness.

• More recently, Trump and his campaign have responded to accusations that his speeches can be rambling and incoherent by framing it as a "weave," where he'll "talk about, say, nine different things and they all come back brilliantly together."

Between the lines: Ben Michaelis, a clinical psychologist who's previously carried out cognitive assessments for the New York Supreme Court, said there's been "a notable decline" in Trump's speech and quality of thinking — though it's unsurprising, given his age.

• "However, Trump's consistent inconsistency and difficulty staying on track may be suggestive of some form of further cognitive decline," he said in an email on Wednesday.
• "In total, he appears as the portrait of someone who is compromised by significant cognitive decline, but his showmanlike instincts and skill at being compelling to watch is such that many people focus on the entertainment value of his presence, not what his speech suggests about his limited functioning," he added.

It is ironic that Trump's slipping cognitive ability is in the spotlight, considering his efforts to drop that issue at President Joe Biden's feet. From Axios:

Flashback: Trump mocked octogenarian President Biden's age and questioned his fitness to serve when the two were competing in the 2024 presidential race, making age a key theme of the campaign.

• Several polls at the time suggested most Americans believed both men were too old for another term, though more voters were concerned about the president's age.

Flash forward: Trump's cognitive health was again questioned this week after two medical events involving attendees at a town hall prompted him to call for over 30 minutes of music, during which he danced and swayed along.

Go deeper... Harris responds to Trump's town hall-turned "music fest": "Hope he's okay"

Rip-off Report: Donald Trump is alleged to have combined his D.C. hotel with exorbitant room rates for certain guests to form a "personal government ATM"

Trump International Hotel, Washington, D.C. (MSNBC)

A Congressional report issued last week alleges Donald Trump used the U.S. Secret Service as his "personal government ATM" by overcharging the agency to stay at his hotels.

Axios provides one of the most detailed and damning accounts of what could become an explosive story as the 2024 election draws near. Under the headline "House Dem report: Trump used Secret Service as 'personal ATM'," Axios' Andrew Solender writes:

A report from Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released Friday accuses former President Trump of using the Secret Service as his "personal government ATM" by overcharging the agency at his hotels.

Why it matters: Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) has made Trump's finances a particular focus since becoming Oversight's ranking member, and has said he will likely pursue the topic further if Democrats retake the House.

• He previously released a report in January accusing Trump of receiving at least $7.8 million from foreign countries, including China, at several of his properties while he was president.
• The reports are based on documents obtained from Trump's accounting firm, Mazars, following years of high-profile court battles.

 How sketchy were the D.C. hotel's charging practices, especially when it involved corporate and government guests -- both domestic and foreign? Solender has details that should raise more than a few eyebrows. The report particularly raises questions about the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

Driving the news: The 58-page report, first reported by NBC News, outlines findings from guest logs for Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.,  between September 2017 and August 2018.

• "While this is an exceedingly small window into the opaque web of more than 500 corporations, limited liability companies, and trusts ... it is enough to reveal hundreds of unconstitutional and ethically suspect payments he accepted while in office from domestic sources," the report says.
• The report cites documents showing the hotel charged Donald Trump Jr.'s Secret Service detail a room rate of $1,185 during a stay in November, 2017, well over the approved $201 government per diem rate.
• It also alleges that in other instances, the Secret Service was charged nearly twice as much to stay in the hotel as other guests, including those representing foreign governments and companies.

What he's saying: Raskin said in a statement that lawmakers "must put legal barriers in place now to prevent the kind of rip-off corruption our Founding Fathers so strongly opposed."

"Given the need to enforce the U.S. Constitution against both foreign and domestic emoluments corruption, in the coming days, I will work with my Democratic Colleagues on a legislative fix and hope that my Republican colleagues will join us in this effort," he added.

The other side: "Ranking Member Raskin and Democrats continue to expose their hypocrisy as they suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome," a spokesperson for the Republican majority on the Oversight Committee told Axios.

• "Unlike the Bidens, the Trumps actually have businesses and made money from the services they provided. Today's report is more recycled garbage from the Democrats' fruitless and close to a decade-long investigation of President Trump.

Question: Do Republicans take anything seriously these days? Their retort to Axios about "Trump Derangement Syndrome" could make a reasonable observer wonder if the GOP even supports honest government. They mainly seem interested in being smart asses, a role they have played so well in the Trump years. For example, what does this issue have to do with the Bidens? I see nothing in the Axios story that involves them. But our domestic politics have devolved to a point that Republicans apparently think only a wise-guy response is necessary on a report that involves important constitutional issues.

U.S. Judge Tanya Chutkan releases almost 2,000 pages of Jack Smith's evidence in the Jan. 6 case, leaving Trump to mumble that the judge is an "evil person"

 

Smith, Trump, and Chutkan (AP)

A federal judge yesterday unsealed almost 2,000 pages of evidence in Donald Trump's election-interference case, which is connected to the Jan. 6 attack by Trump supporters on the U.S. Capitol that led to at least six deaths and injuries to about 174 police officers. 

Judge Tanya Chutkan, of the U.S. Court for the District of Columbia, made the ruling over arguments from Trump's lawyers, who claimed the decision could jeopardize witness safety and prejudice Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. But Chutkan sided with Special Counsel Jack Smith, whose prosecutorial team gathered the evidence and successfully argued a redacted version should be made public.

What is in the documents? CNN presents a description at this link. Sean O'Driscoll, senior crime and courts reporter for Newsweek, provides background on what likely will be remembered as one of the biggest court stories of the 2000s. Under the headline "Judge Chutkan Unseals Mountain of Donald Trump Evidence From Jack Smith," O'Driscoll writes:

Attorney General Bill Barr told Donald Trump that his claims of election fraud were "crazy," newly released prosecution documents show. Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed nearly 2,000 pages of evidence in the former president's election fraud case on Friday despite impassioned pleading from Trump's lawyers that it could damage his presidential campaign.

The testimony forms part of the evidence in Trump's election-fraud case, suggesting that Barr might be called as a witness, making him the first attorney general to testify against his president.

The prosecution documents show that at a meeting on November 23, 2020, Barr, who was then Trump's attorney general, told the president that his claims that Dominion voting machines were rigged were false.

Barr said he didn't go through all of Trump's claims but tried to focus on some of them.

"The one I specifically remember addressing was - were the Dominion machines," Barr told Representative Liz Cheney during a June 2022 meeting with the January 6 Committee.

"And I made the point that it was crazy for them to be wasting their time on this because they had been easily checked because they're tabulation machines, and all you have to do is compare the tabulation with the ballots, and I just thought it was crazy."

Did Barr's words have any impact on Trump? Apparently not, O'Driscoll reports:

Trump didn't listen to Barr's advice about the Dominion machines. He and his allies continued to create a false narrative that Dominion was fixing the election for Joe Biden.

What is at stake in the Trump case? O'Driscoll writes:

Barr said he didn't go through all of Trump's claims but tried to focus on some of them.

Did Barr's words have any impact on Trump? Apparently not, O'Driscoll reports:

Trump didn't listen to Barr's advice about the Dominion machines. He and his allies continued to create a false narrative that Dominion was fixing the election for Joe Biden.

The false allegations have led to multibillion-dollar lawsuits against key Trump allies. Fox News settled a Dominion lawsuit for nearly $800 million, while Dominion has outstanding claims against former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, businessman Mike Lindell and others.

In a filing on Thursday, Trump's lawyers warned release of the new evidence could also endanger potential witnesses, "especially in light of the extraordinary media coverage of this case and the Presidential election that is less than 3 weeks away—and also irreparably harm President Trump."

They also complained that Vice President Kamala Harris has been using the released evidence in YouTube ads for her presidential campaign.

"The incumbent Vice President began featuring the special counsel's brief in political advertisements for the 2024 Presidential Election. Kamala Harris, YouTube (Oct. 6, 2024)," the filing states.

On October 2, Chutkan unsealed a 165-page evidence brief in the case. That document made headlines around the world and contained fresh information about Trump's alleged activities during the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

It included his alleged indifference to the fate of then-Vice President Mike Pence as pro-Trump rioters hunted for him in the Capitol.

The document showed that Trump had tried to get support for a flawed report into alleged voter machine fraud in Michigan. The chairwoman of the Republican National Committee refused to publicize the report and told Trump the report was "f****** nuts."

On Friday, Chutkan unsealed a substantial appendix to the 165-page evidence brief. That appendix has never been seen by the public and contains further allegations against the former president.

Trump is accused of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights in connection with an alleged pressure campaign on state officials to reverse the 2020 election results.

How did Trump respond to Chutkan's ruling? Not well. Here is how the New York Sun put it, under the headline "Trump Calls Judge Chutkan an ‘Evil Person’ for Ordering Release of Jack Smith’s January 6 Evidence; Details emerge of how the 45th president sipped Diet Coke while mobs convulsed the Capitol."

Judge Tanya Chutkan’s release, with redactions, of 1,889 pages of evidence against President Trump assembled by Special Counsel Jack Smith comes 18 days before an election that appears set for a photographic finish.

The documents relate to January 6 and Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. They are contained in the appendix to Mr. Smith’s immunity opus, which weighed in at 165 pages. That report argues that the 45th president “must stand trial for his private crimes as would any other citizen.”

Judge Chutkan’s handling of the case has so incensed Trump that, in a podcast appearance with Dan Bongino on Friday, he ventured, “Now, it’s a terrible thing, what’s happening and the judge is, this judge is the most evil person.” He also called Mr. Smith a “sick puppy” and marveled that “it’s not even believable” that the material is emerging at this juncture.

This might come as news to Trump, but the words above are not likely to score points with a federal judge. If Trump doesn't know that hat by now, it's reasonable to assume he never will learn it. That, of course, is his problem, and we will leave it for him to solve another day.

The New York Sun passage above does raise this question: Is Trump smart enough to serve as president? Any semi-intelligent adult should know it's not wise to call a federal  judge an "evil person," for no reason, in the midst of a case. Trump might have avoided using such damaging language if he had been capable of pausing to ask himself: "Is it possible I actually committed the crimes they've charged me with? Heck, I don't know a thing about the law that governs the stuff that took place on Jan. 6. I probably should have looked it up somehow, but that would make  it appear like I did something wrong, and I don't want to look that way."

It would have been so easy to avoid calling Judge Chutkan an "evil person." But Trump could not manage to compose himself and keep the words from slipping out. And to put it bluntly, that is stupid -- and it shows that Trump does not have the intellectual or emotional heft to handle the job he is seeking. Americans have roughly three weeks to reach the correct conclusion -- that Trump can't cut it. And we can't afford to have a mentally unbalanced charlatan trying to learn on the job.

For more insights, an analysis from the Law & Crime blog is available here. 

Kamala Harris holds her own -- and then some -- as she sits for a contentious interview with Fox News' Bret Baier and lands zingers on Donald Trump

Bret Baier and Kamala Harris square off in Fox News interview (X)

Kamala Harris journeyed into enemy territory on Wednesday for her first formal interview with Fox News, and it did not take long for fireworks to begin. In the end, however, Harris seemed to acquit herself well and likely earned points with undecided voters for being willing to take on a tricky task less than three weeks until election day.

A joint report from The Independent and Yahoo News! provides insight on the challenges both sides faced when Harris took questions from Fox anchor Bret Baier. Under the headline "Harris’s Fox interview starts off with fireworks as she gets into heated exchange over border security," The Independent's Katie Hawkinson writes:

Kamala Harris sat down for her first formal interview with Fox News on Wednesday and immediately started with arguments between her and anchor Bret Baier over the border and her opponent, Donald Trump.

The interview, which lasted 27 minutes, included several heated exchanges between the Democratic nominee and the host from the conservative network. They frequently talked over each other, and Harris was much more animated than in other recent appearances as part of her media blitz.

Harris and Baier kicked off the conversation with a feisty exchange over immigration. The vice president then wrapped with a demand for Baier to focus the interview on a “full assessment of the facts.”

What was Baier interested in discussing? His first question provided a clue. Hawkinson writes:

Baier first asked Harris how many “illegal immigrants” she estimates have entered the US during her tenure as vice president. They entered a back-and-forth, and Baier, at one point, interrupted, asking Harris for “just a number,” while she asked the anchor to let her finish.

Baier also quizzed Harris about if she supports “using taxpayer dollars to help prison inmates or detained illegal aliens to transition to another gender.”

The question comes after a 2019 questionnaire filled out by Harris came to light, where she supported using tax dollars for gender-affirming care for federal prisoners and detained immigrants. Harris responded to Baier by pointing out that incarcerated people received gender-affirming health care under Trump.

“I will follow the law, and it’s a law that Donald Trump actually followed, you’re probably familiar with it now,” Harris said. “It’s a public report that under Donald Trump’s administration, these surgeries were available on a medical necessity basis to people in the federal prison system.”

That answer probably was the first sign that interviewing Harris was not going to be a breeze for Baier. It was one of the first contentious moments in the interview, and not surprisingly, it involved Donald Trump. From The Independent/Yahoo! report: 

The vice president also distanced herself from Joe Biden, telling Baier her presidency “will not be a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency.”

”Like every new president that comes into office, I will bring my life experiences, my professional experiences, and fresh and new ideas, I represent a new generation of leadership,” Harris said.

However, she backed Biden’s mental fitness as the host pushed her on what she noticed during their time in the White House.

“Bret. Joe Biden is not on the ballot, but Donald Trump is,” an agitated Harris said, with the host talking over her.

“Bret, Bret, Donald Trump is on the ballot,” Harris implored, which Baier said he understood.

“I think the American people have a concern about Donald Trump,” Harris continued. “Which is why the people that know him best, including leaders of our National Security community, have all spoken out, even people who worked for him in the Oval Office, worked with him in the situation room, and have said he is unfit and dangerous.”

Ouch! Looks like Harris landed a serious blow to the solar plexus of Fox's MAGAfied audience. Baier was not done, but Harris probably had performed well enough to make the interview worthwhile from her standpoint. Hawkinson writes:

As the interview came to a close, Harris highlighted Trump’s treatment of military personnel and their families.

“During Donald Trump's administration, we had an American military base that was attacked, where American soldiers suffered traumatic brain injuries, and Donald Trump dismissed them as headaches,” she said. “Not to mention how Donald Trump has treated and talked about America's military and military service people and calling them suckers and losers.”

Baier then interrupted, and Harris shot back that she would like to have a conversation “that is grounded in full assessment of the facts.”

“This interview is supposed to be about the choices that your viewers should be presented about this election, and the contrast is important,” she said.

Harris has been on a media blitz in recent days, most recently participating in a discussion with radio host Charlamagne Tha God on Tuesday.

Last week, Harris appeared on CBS News’s 60 Minutes for an interview with Bill Whitaker. CBS also invited Trump to appear, but he declined and later baselessly accused the network of committing a crime, claiming they “sliced and diced” the interview.