A version of the below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial. Last month, when The New York Times published a news article reporting on Tucker Carlson’s recent statements defending Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the progressive Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan, and assailing former Rep. Mike Rogers, the GOP contender in that race, the paper described the former Fox host as an “influential far-right podcaster…known for his nativist rhetoric [who] once said immigrants were making the United States ‘poorer and dirtier.’” (Carlson had slammed Rogers as a “toady to Israel” and the “embodiment of the cruelty and stupidity of the national security state.”) A few days later, NPR named Carlson a “Newsmaker”—that is, one of the “most influential people of our time”—and posted an hourlong interview with him conducted by host Steve Inskeep. At the start, Inskeep introduced Carlson as a commentator who “has commanded an audience for decades as a cable TV pundit, as a Fox News star, and then, after his firing, as the head of an independent network frequently broadcasting from this barn in Maine.” During the interview, Carlson argued that President Donald Trump should be removed from office for launching the war in Iran (“the most profoundly destructive thing any—any single decision a president has made in our history”) and for threatening to annihilate that country with nuclear weapons. He railed against Israel and its influence on US policy, denied he was antisemitic, and slammed Trump for being corrupt. (He also called the Trump–Russia scandal a “totally absurd plot to discredit Trump.”) At the end of their conversation, Inskeep said to Carlson, “You’re a thoughtful guy.” In both The New York Times piece and the NPR interview—especially the latter—Carlson’s bigotry and conspiracy kookery were downplayed, and he was cast as a respectable political opinion influencer. The Times did note that Carlson has embraced conspiracy theories, been accused of antisemitism, and once “conducted a friendly interview” with Nick Fuentes, a Holocaust denier. But even that does not capture the fullness of his extremism. > Two years ago, Carlson disgustingly called Nazi apologist Darryl Cooper “the > most important popular historian working in the United States today.” In recent years, Carlson has become a leading champion of right-wing racism and nuttery—a matter Inskeep avoided in the one-on-one. He has been a proponent of the “great replacement theory,” which claims nefarious elites are trying to replace white Americans with dark-skinned migrants. (Some ultra-right adherents of this notion assert Jews are responsible for this anti-white plot.) When he was a Fox host, Carlson supported the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, though he privately denigrated election denialists pushing that crap. He peddled the bonkers idea that the January 6 riot was a false flag operation orchestrated by the Deep State so it could round up Trump supporters, and he said the rioters were “right” to believe the election had been rigged. There’s practically no limit to Carlson’s ideological thuggery. Two years ago, he hosted on his podcast Darryl Cooper, a Nazi apologist, who claimed that Winston Churchill, not Adolf Hitler, was the “chief villain of the Second World War” and that the Holocaust was merely the result of poor planning on the part of Hitler’s regime. The Nazis, Cooper said, “launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners…They went in with no plan for that and just threw these people into camps.” Accidental concentration camps, right? That was why “millions of people ended up dead there.” Carlson disgustingly called Cooper “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.” And Carlson has been an adoring fan of Vladimir Putin. Prior to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, he noted he would root for Russia over Ukraine in any war between the two nations, and, once Putin attacked Ukraine, he amplified Kremlin disinformation that claimed the United States had been operating biological weapons facilities within Ukraine. > In an appearance on RT, Carlson proclaimed that diabolical forces within the > US government were deploying “mass migration” to destroy “the English-speaking > West.” Carlson was also sued by a booker and producer who alleged that she had been bullied and subjected to antisemitic remarks while working on his Fox show. Carlson maintained he had never met her. Fox settled the lawsuit for $12 million, according to the accuser’s lawyer. In 2022, on his Fox show, Carlson promoted the quackery of “testicle tanning.” Yes, Carlson’s been a real thoughtful guy, bolstering Trump’s attempt to destroy our constitutional republic, providing a platform to Nazi apologists, and amplifying Russian disinformation. Several weeks prior to the Times article and NPR interview, Carlson appeared on RT, the Russian state-controlled propaganda mill that also runs covert influence and disinformation operations. On that show, he proclaimed that diabolical forces within the US government were deploying “mass migration” to destroy “the English-speaking West” and trying to whip up a war with Russia because it was “the last big white Christian country on the planet.” That is, an evil Deep State wants to annihilate Russia because it’s white and Christian—and it was willing to risk global nuclear warfare to do so. He didn’t identify who in the United States was perpetrating this evil scheme. Could it be…the Jews? While on this RT show, Carlson never once mentioned Putin’s invasion of Ukraine or Russia’s attacks on civilian targets, its alleged war crimes, or its kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children. Ukraine is “not a sovereign country fighting for its freedom,” he argued, just a “client state of NATO and the United States” that’s being used to wipe out Russia. That’s Putin’s BS line. And he praised Putin for practicing restraint in response to attacks on Russian soil. Carlson called Russia “a beautiful country, an amazing country, my favorite country I’ve ever visited.” There was no talk of Putin’s repressive ways or suppression of democracy. He’s all in on Putin. > He may not be a secret Nazi. But he’s an overt racist, conspiracy monger, > Hitler defender, Putin supporter, and far-right extremist. Earlier this month, Carlson again got into Hitler trouble during an interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg, a far-right British politician. He questioned why Britain had entered World War II, and Rees-Mogg countered, “Otherwise, we’d be speaking German.” Carlson shot back: “Who cares? There are a lot of people in Britain who can’t speak English. So it would be nice to have at least a European language spoken in your country.” Racism and Nazi apologia go nicely together. Arguing with Rees-Mogg, Carlson declared that Hitler “repeatedly said, ‘I do not want to go to war with the UK’”—as though the Nazi dictator could have been taken at his word and there was no reason for the Brits to honor their alliance with Poland and declare war on Germany following the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939. (In 1934, Hitler had signed a non-aggression pact with Poland, vowing not to attack the country.) Rees-Mogg observed that Carlson was “verging on defending Hitler.” He added, “I think this is not really what you want to be doing.” Carlson answered with snark: “Yeah, I guess I’m just a secret Nazi.” He may not be a secret Nazi. But he’s an overt racist, conspiracy monger, Hitler defender, Putin supporter, and far-right extremist. Because he has an audience and influence on the right, the media ought to pay attention to him and his comments. But they also should remember that viewership does not equal legitimacy. He poses as a thoughtful fellow, but he slings false, bigoted, and dangerous swill. Journalists who do not characterize and contextualize Carlson accurately aid and abet his malignant agenda.

A version of the below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial. With so much going on these days—ICE murders, Venezuela, Epstein documents, and Melania—one development has not gotten enough attention: Donald Trump’s plan to become king of the world. Last month, Trump announced he was establishing a so-called Board of Peace to oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, and the chair of this august group would be…him. And the executive board would include Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, Trump Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Gabriel, and Trump donor and billionaire investment banker Marc Rowan, as well as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and World Bank head Ajay Banga. Not a very independent board, is it? By the way, the latest release of Jeffrey Epstein documents shows that Rowan, the CEO of Apollo Global Management, according to the Financial Times, had “wide-ranging discussions” with Epstein, though Apollo previously insisted it had not done any business with the sex criminal. (Former Apollo chief Leon Black resigned his position in 2021 after an independent review showed he paid $158 million to Epstein for financial services.) And fun fact about Gabriel: During the January 6 riot, when he was a White House speechwriter, he sent a text message saying, “Potus im sure is loving this.” Each member of the executive board, the White House said, will oversee “a defined portfolio critical to Gaza’s stabilization and long-term success,” and a Gaza Executive Board within the Board of Peace will also be set up, with Kushner, Witkoff, Blair, and Rowan as members, along with several others, including a Cypriot-Israeli billionaire, an Egyptian intelligence official, and a UN official. No Palestinians were recruited for either of these boards. So it looked as if this Board of Peace would be a Trump-dominated, crony-ish operation deciding the fate of 2 million Gazans. Not surprising. But it’s turning out to be much more. > The opportunities for graft and grift are immense. Shortly after the White House unveiled this outfit, it released the charter for the Board of Peace. Oddly, the document said nothing about Gaza. It proclaimed that the Board of Peace would seek to “promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” That is, anywhere in the world. Under the rules presented in the charter, Trump would be the chairman and the US representative to the Board of Peace…forever. That is, until he resigns or is booted due to “incapacity”—which would require a unanimous vote by the executive board. And, according to the charter, he decides who’s on the executive board. Each member serves entirely at his pleasure (and whim). Even after he leaves the White House, Trump will rule this competitor to the United Nations (which now is in danger of financial collapse). And the charter gives him “exclusive authority” to “appropriate,” which seems to mean total control over the funds. Also, he determines what nations can join. Nations can only serve a three-year term, subject to renewal by, of course, Trump. But if a country ponies up $1 billion (in cash) to the Board of Peace, the three-year limit is waived. Trump is essentially cooking up a global slush fund over which he will exert complete control. Countries that get in early—while he’s president—will certainly be in a strong position to request preferential treatment in state affairs. The opportunities for graft and grift are immense. He will probably ask Congress to kick in the $1 billion pay-to-play membership fee to guarantee he’ll have a pot of money to spend (or pocket) at his fancy. > What’s to prevent him from naming Ivanka Trump his successor? Or Don Jr.? Or > Jared? (Talk about a succession battle!) Under this charter, Trump could > establish an international monarchy of sorts. Hail King Barron! That’s not all. How will Trump’s successor as chair be picked? Silly to ask, right? By Trump, naturally. Per the charter, he will designate a successor who “shall immediately assume the position” if Trump leaves or is—ha ha ha—pushed out because he cannot do the job. The charter, as I read it, doesn’t say how long the successor will reign—presumably, under the same terms as Trump. What’s to prevent him from naming Ivanka Trump his successor? Or Don Jr.? Or Jared? (Talk about a succession battle!) Under this charter, Trump could establish an international monarchy of sorts. Hail King Barron! At the recent World Economic Forum shindig in Davos, Trump held a charter signing ceremony for the Board of Peace, with representatives from Argentina, Turkey, Hungary, Bulgaria, Bahrain, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Qatar, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Morocco, Paraguay, and Pakistan. Not to be condescending, but this is not the A-team, and many of these nations have assorted human rights problems—an issue absent from the charter. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who backs this Trump venture, couldn’t be there because he’s subject to an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes in Gaza. He was present in spirit, no doubt. Conspicuously missing from the lineup were the United States’ most important allies. To add to the absurdity, Trump has invited Russia and China to join. Offering a spot on the Board of Peace to Vladimir Putin while his invasion force is killing civilians in Ukraine is quite a bad joke—and an insult to those Ukrainians losing their lives and their loved ones to combat Russia’s aggression. > Trump’s Board of Peace is another Trump scam—though much grander than Trump > Steaks or Trump’s meme coin (which has dropped about 90 percent in value since > being launched a year ago). In fact, the whole thing is a bit of a joke. As Charbel Antoun, a writer who specializes in foreign policy, points out, “The Board of Peace lacks the basic components of a functioning international institution: no defined legal status within existing international law; no enforcement tools or dispute resolution procedures; no accountability mechanisms; a mandate that drifts from Gaza reconstruction into a vague promise to ‘address global crises.’” It can’t really do anything. Except be a platform for you-know-who. Meanwhile, it’s unclear what the Board of Peace will be doing about Gaza. At Davos, Kushner unveiled a Gaza development plan that called for glittering high-rises on the coastline and gigantic data centers and industrial parks inland. He had a nifty PowerPoint presentation but apparently had not consulted with any Palestinians. He arrogantly signaled this scheme was not open to discussion, remarking, “There is no Plan B.” Kushner did not say who would finance this makeover—or profit from it.   Trump’s Board of Peace is another Trump scam—though much grander than Trump Steaks or Trump’s meme coin (which has dropped about 90 percent in value since being launched a year ago). Trump is looking to shake down nations that want to earn his favor—it’s only a billion bucks!—and set up an outfit he can exploit once he has wrung the Oval Office dry. The charter calls for an official seal for the organization—and the logo Trump approved shows only half the world—but it left out what Trump really wants: a crown.

A version of the below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial. Toward the end of 2024, several weeks before Donald Trump would regain power, I wrote an article headlined, “Donald Trump Will Need a Police State to Implement His Agenda.” In this piece, I observed, “Trump has many plans for his return engagement at the White House. Several will require police-state tactics”—foremost his vow to round up and deport 11 million or so undocumented immigrants. Peering into the future, I wrote: > Such a program would require deploying a paramilitary force—or even the > National Guard or the military—to locate migrants, apprehend them, and guard > them in a network of prisons and detention camps. (Executives at private > prison, security, and surveillance software companies are already salivating.) > This system would depend on Trump ramping up monitoring of workplaces and > neighborhoods, and on anonymous tip lines susceptible to abuse and false > leads. (Have a problem with a neighbor? Report ’em.) Perhaps the forces > rounding up migrants will be afforded special powers to evade civil liberties > protections. As in East Germany during the Cold War, an atmosphere of terror > and intimidation will pervade. I bring this up to make two points. First, what we are seeing in Minneapolis with the murders of Renée Good and Alex Pretti was entirely foreseeable. I’m no Nostradamus, and it was obvious to me this horror was coming. (By the way, Nostradamus was no Nostradamus.) No one should be surprised that Trump, Stephen Miller, JD Vance, Kristi Noem, Gregory Bovino, and others have unleashed a violent and unlawful wave of terror upon the nation. Any Trump supporter aghast at this has no excuse. (I’m looking at you, Joe Rogan.) Trump had a long history of encouraging and excusing violence. He praised authoritarians who resort to violence. He plainly spelled out his intention to remove over 10 million people. Such a profound disruption of American life could not be achieved without force and cruelty. > Barbarity on the ground requires malice in the highest offices of the land. Second, even though I feared Trump would turn to police-state tactics, I and others who expected some of this did not fully envision the lawlessness, savagery, and viciousness that now infuses Trump’s regime. But we should have known. Barbarity on the ground requires malice in the highest offices of the land. Troops that are sadistic and ruthless follow the lead of those directing them. It’s a sign of the Trump crew’s depravity that we now are not shocked that following the extrajudicial execution of Pretti, an ICU nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital, the men and women in charge of our government immediately branded him a “terrorist” and falsely claimed he had tried to kill ICE and CBP agents. Stephen Miller, the Minister of Hate, was one of the first out of the gate with this deplorable gaslighting. In response to a tweet from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who urged Trump and his henchmen to watch the “horrific video” of the lethal attack on Pretti, Miller posted on X: “A domestic terrorist tried to assassinate federal law enforcement and this is your response.” There was no evidence of any of that. In fact, multiple videos that became publicly available right after the killing clearly demonstrated that Pretti had not attempted to “assassinate” the agents. He was trying to help a woman being assaulted by them and in doing so became a target of their wrath. Without an ounce of humanity, humility, or sympathy, other Trumpers joined in, as they did with the murder of Good, to demonize the victim of a summary execution. (Days later, Miller engaged in a partial pullback, noting that the CBP team that killed Pretti “may not” have been following protocol. But he did not retract his foul description of Pretti or apologize for defaming him.) On CNN, the Border Patrol’s Bovino huffed, “The victims are the Border Patrol agent. The suspect put himself in that situation.” On ABC News’ This Week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent justified the killing by saying that Pretti had been armed. When host Jon Karl pointed out Pretti had not brandished the gun, Bessent smugly and disingenuously replied, “I’ve been to a protest—guess what? I didn’t bring a gun. I brought a billboard.” So now the Trump administration is in favor of killing people who carry weapons to protests? > The message is obvious: Oppose us and we will kill you—and then lie about you. > For Trump’s brownshirts, there is no accountability. Kash Patel added to this dissembling chorus. “You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want,” he said. “It’s that simple. You don’t have a right to break the law and incite violence.” Actually, you can. In many places, the law—thanks to conservatives like Patel—allows people to bring a gun to a rally or anywhere else. (This month, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a law in Hawaii banning gun owners from bringing their weapons onto private property open to the public without approval from the property owner. The Trump administration filed a brief supporting the challenge.) Patel’s claim that Pretti had incited violence was slanderous. In a menacing manner, he added, “You do not get to attack law enforcement officials in this country without any repercussions…We not messing around.” Here was the FBI director essentially saying federal agents have the right to shoot you dead if you get in the way. In law enforcement agencies across the land, that is not justification for the use of lethal force. But the message is obvious: Oppose us and we will kill you—and then lie about you. For Trump’s brownshirts, there is no accountability. What was going on was no mystery. A standard play of authoritarian and fascist governments is to brand critics and opponents “terrorists.” Vladimir Putin does this. He recently labeled the anti-corruption organization founded by Alexei Navalny a “terrorist” outfit. And terrorists obviously are legitimate targets of extreme measures. Anyone who cooperates with Navalny’s group can now be imprisoned for life. All this follows Trump’s routine use of hate-fueled divisive rhetoric. He regularly denigrates his political opponents as “the enemy within” and asserts that Democrats, liberals, and the media are in league with “lunatic radicals,” communists, and antifa to destroy the United States. For years, he has been vilifying his foes and detractors as direct threats to the nation, frequently saying they pose more of a risk to the country than Russia or China. It is a small step from that to decrying Pretti and other protesters as “terrorists.” Once you do, it’s open season on these Americans. > Those who challenge the administration cannot be patriotic Americans. They > must be that enemy within— subversives and terrorists. As part of this phony and dangerous demagogic narrative, Vance and other Trump lieutenants are suggesting a nefarious force is behind the anti-ICE protests. “The level of engineered chaos is unique to Minneapolis,” the vice president posted on X. “It’s the direct consequence of far left agitators, working with local authorities.” And Bessent exclaimed, “There are a lot of paid agitators who are ginning things up.” This is the sort of accusation J. Edgar Hoover and others hurled in the 1960s: The antiwar movement was funded and controlled by communists; the civil rights movement was funded and controlled by communists. President Ronald Reagan said the same about the nuclear freeze movement in the 1980s. Those who challenge the administration cannot be patriotic Americans. They must be that enemy within—subversives and terrorists. They deserve no quarter and no protection of the law. They must be crushed. They must be eradicated. That is the police-state mentality. I suppose you can’t run a police state without it. If you deploy a paramilitary force to terrorize the public—which certainly was the goal of flooding ICE and CBP agents into the Twin Cities—you must support your thugs and back up the narrative that the people they brutalize and perhaps kill had it coming. You can’t enforce rules and regs for this force. That will reveal contradictions and undermine your Manichean tale of good (us) and evil (them). This is about power and decidedly not about the rule of law. The aim is to obliterate the rule of law. > What will the majority do to stop Trump and his gangsters? Can it yield a > resistance fierce enough—in the courts, at polling places, on the streets, > online, and elsewhere—to beat back Trump’s hostile takeover of the nation? So are we now in a police state? Not quite. As thousands of kind-hearted and brave Minnesotans have shown us, the right to protest and challenge Trump’s reign of violence remains, even if his masked goons have made it perilous to do so. Police states don’t allow such demonstrations. But Trump, Miller, and the rest are attempting to smother opposition to the point they’re justifying and whitewashing the brazen murders of American citizens. They are hellbent on establishing an environment of fear and terror. They don’t mind a Kent State every week. The chaos, the disorder, the violence—these are their tools and their ends. They have not yet won. They are ferociously employing the strategies and tactics of a police state. Most Americans, though, oppose this. Even some Republicans have expressed concern or anger about the killing of Pretti. The question is, what will the majority do to stop Trump and his gangsters? Can it yield a resistance fierce enough—in the courts, at polling places, on the streets, online, and elsewhere—to beat back Trump’s hostile takeover of the nation? Trump has transformed the national political discourse from skirmishes over his assorted harebrained ideas and extreme actions (Venezuela, Greenland, vengeful criminal prosecutions, mass deportations, the destruction of the public health establishment, his war on universities, tax cuts for the rich, and so on) into a debate over the fundamental nature of the United States. Will it become a full-fledged authoritarian-led police state? That’s the fight at hand. Trump and his miscreants are eager for it. They may attain their fascistic fantasy—unless enough Americans say no.

A version of the below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. One accused him of obstructing justice and mounting a cover-up to impede the investigation of the Watergate break-in. Another charged him with defying congressional subpoenas requesting documents for the Watergate investigation. A third alleged he had abused his executive power by interfering with and misusing the FBI, the Justice Department, and other federal agencies. All three articles were approved on bipartisan votes. The article on abuse of power received the most votes. When it comes to using government agencies for corrupt purposes, Donald Trump outdoes Nixon. He has turned the Justice Department and the FBI into his personal revenge police. It’s tough to keep track of the many ways Trump has sicced the bureau and the DOJ on his foes and critics. The targets include former FBI Director Jim Comey; Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell; Fed governor Lisa Cook; Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); New York Attorney General Letitia James; Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Calif.); Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.); Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.); Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Penn.); Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Penn.); Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.); Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a Democrat; Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; and John Bolton, who was national security adviser during Trump’s first term. Using a grand jury in Florida—under the supervision of US District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, a total Trump lackey—a Trump-appointed US attorney is trying to mount a criminal conspiracy case against former CIA director John Brennan that could rope in other past Obama and Biden officials, as well as former special counsel Jack Smith. The goal reportedly is to prove there was a never-ending Deep State conspiracy waged by government officials to destroy Trump, stretching from the Russia investigation to Smith’s investigations of Trump’s alleged theft of White House documents and his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Brennan’s lawyer has accused the Justice Department of engaging in “irregular activity” to kickstart this criminal inquiry. > Nixon could not have dreamed of such a revenge-fest. Trump and his aides have identified other targets for possible federal prosecution, including Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.); Andrew Weissmann, who was a prosecutor for special counsel Robert Mueller; and Lisa Monaco, who was deputy attorney general in the Biden administration. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) is being investigated by the Defense Department. This is some rundown. Nixon could not have dreamed of such a revenge-fest. All these cases are bullshit—except perhaps for Bolton, who is accused of mishandling classified information. Trump has turned the Justice Department and the FBI into his private retribution squads, ordering investigations of his foes in a manner unprecedented in American history. As those Watergate-era legislators noted, this is impeachable conduct. Trump is running the government like a mafioso, utilizing its power to intimidate and, if possible, take out his perceived enemies. There’s been some resistance with US attorneys refusing to handle some of these cases. But those folks have been shoved aside, as Attorney General Pam Bondi has been delighted to serve as both Trump’s consigliere and lawfare hitman. (Hit-woman?) Trump’s use of the Justice Department and FBI might even be criminal. It’s a federal felony to “defraud the United States or any agency thereof.” (Look up 18 U.S.C. § 371.) Usually fraud involves conning someone out of money or property. But the Justice Department website helpfully informs us that fraud extends beyond pocketing ill-gotten gains. It cites Hammerschmidt v. United States, a 1924 Supreme Court case in which Chief Justice William Taft defined “defraud” this way: > To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the > Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or > obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or > trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that > the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, > but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by > misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying > out the governmental intention. Interfere with…one of [government’s] lawful governmental functions. I’m no constitutional (or criminal) lawyer, but ordering up phony or baseless criminal investigations might fit that description. Of course, Trump is beyond federal prosecution. Justice Department policy is that a sitting president cannot be federally indicted. And two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative comrades granted Trump (and future presidents) broad immunity for official actions. Moreover, let’s be real: How could a corrupt Justice Department investigate the guy who’s corrupting it? > Trump is crime-ing 24/7—a-griftin’ and a-graftin’. But Trump’s perversion of the Justice Department ought to be near the top of a (metaphorical) bill of indictment—and a possible line of inquiry for any future impeachment proceedings. That is, admittedly, a crowded category. Trump is crime-ing 24/7—a-griftin’ and a-graftin’. One example: He and his crew are clearly selling pardons—which might also be considered a defrauding of the government. One of the most recent outrageous pardons went to Julio Herrera Velutini, a Venezuelan-Italian banker, facing felony charges for allegedly bribing the governor of Puerto Rico. His daughter donated $3.5 million to MAGA Inc., a Trump super-PAC, and—presto!—Trump hands daddy a get-out-of-jail-free card. On his last day in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich, a sleazebag who owed $48 million in taxes. Rich’s ex-wife had made hefty donations to the Clinton library and the Democratic National Committee. The Rich pardon triggered outrage; even some of the Clintons’ most prominent supporters denounced it. A federal investigation was launched, but it yielded no charges. Trump is doing the equivalent of this over and over—and spurring much less of an uproar. And he has violated international and US law with his attacks on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and his assault on Venezuela. He and his Pentagon even stand accused of a war crime called “perfidy”—using civilian-looking aircraft as bombers. > Words have no meaning for the Trump crew. Let me rephrase that: Laws and the > Constitution have no meaning for them. You can’t swing a dead cat in the White House without hitting an illegal action. Take the Mad King’s absurd but dangerous threat to impose tariffs on European countries if Denmark doesn’t hand him Greenland. The Constitution clearly states that the power to impose tariffs resides with Congress, not the president. Trump claims the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 allows him in emergency situations to slap other nations with tariffs. But that legislation doesn’t mention tariffs, and no president before has sought to use it to justify tariffs. Besides, what was the emergency that demanded his earlier tariffs or these new ones? Trump’s authority to apply tariffs is now before the Supreme Court, and a decision could come any day—maybe even before you read this. But one thing seems rather obvious: The acquisition of Greenland is not an emergency. When Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was asked about this by Kristen Welker on Meet the Press on Sunday, he said, “the national emergency is avoiding a national emergency.” This was ridiculous. A national emergency usually means an imminent threat or danger. Under Bessent’s definition, anything can be a national emergency. Words have no meaning for the Trump crew. Let me rephrase that: Laws and the Constitution have no meaning for them. Trump is a crime boss, and this is a lawless regime. With his purposefully cruel deportation crusade, he has turned ICE into a violent secret police. In recent weeks, he has been trying to rally his base for the midterms, declaring that he expects to be impeached if the Democrats win control of the House. Let’s hope someone is keeping a list. It gets longer every day.

A version of the below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial. In 1984, George Orwell observed that a fascist state relies upon its ability to control—or obliterate—memory. As Winston Smith, the ill-fated protagonist, ponders the Party’s ability to manipulate reality and history, Orwell writes, “Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.” Another passage in the novel describes the Party’s relentless effort to construct the dominant narrative: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” Sound familiar? It’s been five years since a mob of thousands of Donald Trump supporters—which included Christian nationalists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, Confederate flag wavers, militia members, and other extremists—assaulted the US Capitol to try to halt the peaceful transfer of power from an outgoing president to an incoming president. The basic facts are well established: Trump refused to accept legitimate election results. He falsely claimed he had won the 2020 contest and spread baseless lies and conspiracy theories about the election. He spent weeks scheming to overturn the election and remain in power. Promoting these falsehoods, he incited that insurrectionist attack on Congress in which more than 140 law enforcement officers were injured. While the melee was occurring, he abandoned his duty to defend the Constitution and waited 187 minutes before calling on his brownshirts to leave the Capitol. > Like the Party in Orwell’s dystopia, Trump and the Republicans have sought to > rewrite history and erase the stain of Trump’s profound betrayal of America. This is all undeniable. Yet Trump and his cult refuse to accept these fundamentals. Like the Party in Orwell’s dystopia, Trump and the Republicans have sought to rewrite history and erase the stain of Trump’s profound betrayal of America. He pardoned the violent marauders, and his henchmen in charge of the FBI and Justice Department have fired agents and prosecutors who participated in the investigation and prosecution of these thugs. And Trump’s MAGA legions mounted a disinformation campaign that advanced various conspiracy theories—the FBI did it! Antifa did it!—to absolve Trump and his thugs. More important, an entire political party and tens of millions of American voters memory-holed Trump’s war on American democracy and his embrace of political violence. What is perhaps the gravest transgression ever committed by a US president has been airbrushed out of the picture and the perp allowed (by a majority of voters) to return to the scene of the crime. This is one of the most worrisome turns in American history. If our democracy cannot protect itself from such peril and repel such a dangerous threat, can it survive? Trump’s triumph over reality was made clear this past week. On New Year’s Eve—one of the deadest times for the news cycle—the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee released the closed-doors testimony it had recently received from Jack Smith, the special counsel who led the investigations that indicted Trump for conspiring to overturn the 2020 election and for allegedly swiping highly sensitive White House documents. Both cases ended after Trump won the election in November. (Under Justice Department policy, a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for federal crimes.) > Smith insisted on a public appearance, apparently knowing he had the goods on > Trump. The Republicans said no and questioned him in a private session—all the > better for controlling the narrative. Smith, as you know, has been repeatedly denounced by Trump as a lunatic who waged witch hunts and investigated hoaxes generated by his fellow Deep Staters, the Democrats, and the media. And Republicans hauled Smith in as part of their never-ending crusade to find (or concoct) evidence to bolster Trump’s paranoid fantasies and conspiracy theories—and to buttress their hyperbolic charge that Trump and Republicans have been the victims of what they call the “weaponization of government.” Smith insisted on a public appearance, apparently knowing he had the goods on Trump. The Republicans said no and questioned him in a private session—all the better for controlling the narrative. The fact that they made public the transcript on a holiday night tells you what you need to know about who got the best of whom. The 255-page transcript is an important document that every citizen should read. (I know, I’m being fanciful.) Smith ran circles around the GOP committee members and their staff. “Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power,” Smith said at the start. He added, “Our investigation also developed powerful evidence that showed that President Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after he left office in January of 2021, storing them at his social club, including in a ballroom and a bathroom. He then repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents.” > Trump tried to take advantage of this spasm of cop-beating violence to > illegally remain in office. That foul deed should have disqualified him from > ever holding any position of authority. Yet… Smith patiently explained how Trump’s (alleged) crime related to January 6: “January 6th was an attack on the structure of our democracy in which over 140 heroic law enforcement officers were assaulted. Over 160 individuals later pled guilty to assaulting police that day. Exploiting that violence, President Trump and his associates tried to call Members of Congress in furtherance of their criminal scheme, urging them to further delay certification of the 2020 election.” This is an accusation that sums up Trump’s perfidy: He tried to take advantage of this spasm of cop-beating violence to illegally remain in office. That foul deed should have disqualified Trump from ever holding any position of authority. Yet… A key exchange occurred when a Republican staffer (whose name is redacted in the transcript) asked, “The President’s statements that he believed the election was rife with fraud, those certainly are statements that are protected by the First Amendment, correct?” This has been a central contention of the Trump cult: You cannot prosecute Trump for stating his opinion that the election was rigged against him. But Smith fired back: “Absolutely not. If [these false statements] are made to target a lawful government function and they are made with knowing falsity, no, they are not.” Statements made to promote a fraud are not protected by the First Amendment. Later on in his testimony, Smith remarked that the elections case against Trump was much like an “affinity fraud”—that’s when, he said, “you try to gain someone’s trust, get them to trust you as a general matter, and then you rip them off, you defraud them.” Trump, he told the committee, “had people…who had built up trust in him, including people in his own party, and he preyed on that.” And once again, Smith reiterated, fraud is not covered by the First Amendment. This Republican staffer took another shot at it and said, “There’s a long history of candidates speaking out about they believe there’s been fraud [in an election]…I think you would agree that those types of statements are sort of at the core of the First Amendment rights of a Presidential candidate, right?” Not at all, Smith replied: “There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case. As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use knowing—knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. That he was not allowed to do. And that differentiates this case from any past history.” The Republicans kept trying to mount a theoretical defense for Trump. This staffer pointed out that during the hullabaloo over the 2020 election, Trump was receiving information on supposed election fraud from Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, and Sidney Powell, and he asked, wasn’t Trump just “regurgitating what these people have told him?” Smith had a sharp retort: > No. And, in fact, one of the strengths of our case and why we felt we had such > strong proof is all witnesses were not going to be political enemies of the > President. They were going to be political allies. We had numerous witnesses > who would say, “I voted for President Trump. I campaigned for President > Trump. I wanted him to win.” The speaker of the house in Arizona. The speaker > of the house in Michigan. We had an elector in Pennsylvania who is a former > congressman who was going to be an elector for President Trump who said that > what they were trying to do was an attempt to overthrow the government and > illegal. Our case was built on, frankly, Republicans who put their allegiance > to the country before the party. Call 911. There was a murder in this Capitol Hill office, as Smith decimated the various lines of defense Trump’s handmaids hurled at him. He forcibly denied Trump’s indictments were political acts or that his office had been “weaponized.” In an exchange with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), he explained the importance of his investigation. > Jayapal: What happens if there is election interference and the people who are > responsible for that are not held accountable? > > Smith: It becomes the new norm, and that becomes how we—how we conduct > elections. > > Jayapal: And so the toll on our democracy, if you had to describe that, what > would that be? > > Smith: Catastrophic. The Smith transcript generated headlines…for a day. Like most everything else in our information hypersphere, this story did not have much staying power. Trump’s attempt to blow up the constitutional order has become old news. Ho-hum. He got away with this allegedly criminal act because he won the election. His pardons of the violent criminals who attacked hundreds of cops is just one item on a long list of outrages that quickly come and go. > Many Americans, it seems, couldn’t hold on to a clear memory of January 6 for > even a few years—or couldn’t be bothered to. A high-profile public appearance in which Smith vigorously presented the case against Trump might not at this point change the overall public perception of Trump’s attempted power grab and the violent raid he triggered. But that would have drawn more attention and served the truth. Which is why Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chair of the committee, and his fellow Republicans made damn sure that did not happen. Today is the fifth anniversary of January 6—a shameful day in American history. And in the last election, the nation—or about half of its voters—welcomed back into the house the arsonist who tried to burn it down. The past 10 years have sadly showed us that a wannabe authoritarian in the United States can succeed in denying reality and wiping away history. Trump did that with the Russian attack on the 2016 election, which he aided and abetted by echoing Vladimir Putin’s false claims that Moscow had not intervened and by insisting ad nauseum that it was a hoax. And he has done the same with January 6, hailing it a “day of love” and “a beautiful day” and calling the rioters “great patriots.” Many Americans, it seems, couldn’t hold on to a clear memory of January 6 for even a few years—or couldn’t be bothered to. This demonstrates how susceptible people can be to what the Party did in 1984: Erase the past (even the most recent past) and then erase the erasure. Trump is back in the White House, pushing his agenda of authoritarianism far beyond what he could only dream of during his first term. Future historians—if there is history in the future—will wonder about much in this era. But what might puzzle them the most is how the man who nearly annihilated our constitutional republic was able to worm his way back into the presidency. Gore Vidal once referred to the nation as the “United States of Amnesia.” On this dark anniversary, it’s good to remember that Trump is in power today because there’s been too much forgetting.

A version of the below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial. For over a decade—!!!—Donald Trump has defied political gravity. After descending that Trump Tower elevator surrounded by fake supporters who had been paid to attend his campaign announcement, Trump pulled one disqualifying move after another. He insulted war hero John McCain. He mocked a reporter with a physical disability. He made crass and crude comments. He lied relentlessly. He celebrated fringe players like conspiracy theory–monger Alex Jones. And with each of these misdeeds and missteps, the pundits declared he was kaput. But he wasn’t. Not even after the grab-’em-by-the-pussy videotape. Trump was able to survive gaffes, controversies, and scandals that would blow away any other politician. In part that was because, as one of his early advisers told me, being an asshole was part of his appeal. It was baked into the cake. How many times since he was first elected president has a commentator said—or you thought—in response to some Trump outrage, no other politicians could get away with this? That includes bear-hugging Vladimir Putin, mismanaging the Covid epidemic (which led to avoidable deaths of tens of thousands of Americans), his first impeachment, his effort to overturn a legitimate election to retain power, his incitement of political violence that aimed to destroy American democracy, and the countless instances of grift and graft he and his clan have perpetrated. It seemed that the rules of politics and public life did not apply to Trump. Yes, he lost the 2020 election, but he resurrected himself—yet again defying the conventional wisdom following the January 6 riot that he was finished politically. Trump still survives revelations and scandals that would destroy past presidencies—swiping classified documents, paying off a porn star. But the good news is that this does not mean that the political universe has been permanently upended. In recent weeks, there have been signs that political gravity does still exist and that we are not adrift in a cosmos free of all rules. > There’s no open rebellion—except for Marjorie Taylor Greene—but the 100 > percent obeisance of the GOP has dropped a point or two. The most obvious indicator was the off-year elections. History suggested that Democrats would fare well, given Trump’s falling approval numbers and still-too-high prices. And they did, even better than expected in many places. (See Governor-elect Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey, and Eileen Higgins, who this week became the first Democrat to be elected Miami mayor in three decades.) Beyond those electoral returns, we are seeing other normal political occurrences. Trump is technically a lame duck president. Given his hold on the GOP, which he has turned into a cult of personality, it might be expected that he could escape this diminished status and still dominate. And, mostly, that’s so. But there have been a few whiffs of Republican restiveness. His illegal military attacks on suspected drug boats prompted a few Hill Republicans to ask questions and even suggest the need for an investigation. That might not lead to a full-fledged inquiry. But it’s the most pushback we’ve seen from the GOP. And a handful of congressional Republicans have hinted that they are concerned by the dramatic hike in health insurance premiums that’s about to hit because Trump and the GOP killed the extended subsidies for Obamacare policies. Again, there’s no open rebellion—except for Marjorie Taylor Greene—but the 100 percent obeisance of the GOP has dropped a point or two. Then there’s MAGA. As historians of political movements will note, none of them live forever. The tea party, BLM, Occupy, the nuclear freeze—eventually they lose steam and develop fractures; leadership fights and disagreements cause fissures and sometimes cannibalistic internal conflicts. We’re witnessing that with MAGA now. There have been numerous splits and disagreements these past few months, with almost a civil war over the release of the Epstein files (and that may still transpire, depending on what the Trump administration does in response to the new law that compels the release of these documents). MAGA world had a major brawl over Tucker Carlson’s friendly and supportive interview with Nick Fuentes, the white nationalist and Hitler fanboy. On the right, there’s been a pitched battle regarding support for Israel. The aforementioned Greene, once a MAGA favorite, has cast herself out of Trump’s circle of trust after tussling with him over the Epstein records and calling Israel’s war on Gaza “genocide” and voicing worry over rising health insurance premiums. The manosphere—Joe Rogan and the army of Rogan-wannabes—have groused about the ICE raids going too far, especially when they round up day laborers outside Home Depot who are simply looking for work. Steve Bannon, the grand strategist of MAGA, is not happy Trump is handing Big Tech a blank check.  To get a sense of the insane vitriol and vituperation within MAGA land these days, check out this recent tweet from Laura Loomer, the avenging angel of Trumptown: I don’t have the time, energy, or inclination to dissect and process this particular feud—for you or for me. But the point is clear: These people are nuts, and the internecine bloodlust is high. I’m sure I’m forgetting some of the other fractures that have arisen recently. But MAGA is behaving in a familiar manner, with grifters and ideologues vying for attention, money, and turf. Trump won’t be around forever, and there’s scrambling for positioning in the post-Trump era. That’s true within the GOP for those who yearn to run in 2028, presuming there will be an election, and it’s also true for those who want to claim the MAGA mantle next. These may be separate power struggles. > Trump’s approval rating, according to the latest Gallup poll, has plummeted to > 36 percent, with disapproval hitting 60 percent. Here’s another sign of the reassertion of political gravity. After Trump won the election a year ago, there was much blathering about a strategic realignment in politics. He had increased his share of votes among Latinos, Blacks, and young people, especially men in these categories. Republicans were giddy, believing Trump had cracked a code that would bring these traditionally Democratic voters into the GOP coalition permanently. That was then. In the elections last month, these voters switched back to the Ds, even and especially young men. No, Trump did not deliver a history-defying permanent shift in electoral politics. It now looks like there’s a regression to the mean. That brings us to Trump’s poll numbers. Cheap analysis focuses on this standard marker. But it shows us that Trump is not a supernatural politician. In recent decades, all presidents decline in popularity after they enter office. Trump is following that pattern—and more so. His approval rating, according to the latest Gallup poll, has plummeted to 36 percent, with disapproval hitting 60 percent. Some surveys have Trump a few points higher on approval. Yet it’s evident he’s getting close to hitting his floor. My unscientific guesstimate is that about 30 to 35 percent of the nation fully buys Trump’s bunk. They believe his bullshit—America’s about to be destroyed by migrants; radical lunatics, commies, antifa, Democrats, and the media are scheming to annihilate the nation; the Deep State is out to sabotage Trump; and only Trump, the smartest, strongest, and most noble man in human history, can save the US of A. No matter what happens, they will stand by their man. Yet the rest of the nation is not cottoning to his mass deportation crusade, his economic policies, his razing of the East Wing, his revenge-infused implementation of authoritarianism, his brazen corruption, his plutocratic policies, and his never-ending nastiness. It’s not wearing well. If you do a lot of crap that’s unpopular, you won’t be popular. That’s a rather basic rule of politics, and Trump is not escaping that. And Republicans, naturally, are wigged out that one of the major historical trends of American politics will likely hold next year: The president’s party gets socked in midterm elections. It’s far too early to make any predictions. External circumstances can always change any political equation. What happens if there’s a war in Venezuela? Or if the White House can find a trans migrant who commits a heinous crime? And we all ought to worry about Trump and his crew concocting ways to screw with next year’s elections. Don’t put on any rose-colored glasses. Trump has done so much harm and damage. According to Impactcounter.com, the ending of US foreign assistance and the demolition of USAID has led to nearly 700,000 deaths, including the deaths of 451,000 children. There’s still much harm and damage to come, here and abroad. But it is reassuring that the laws of politics remain partially intact. Trump, the GOP, and MAGA are not immune. But their opponents need to keep in mind that these vulnerabilities do not predetermine a downfall; they only provide an opportunity for a fight.

A version of the below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial. The saga of Olivia Nuzzi consuming the polimedia-sphere has prompted me to think about my own journalistic failing regarding Robert F. Kennedy Jr. No, I didn’t become smitten by RFK Jr. while covering the anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theory–spewing oddball. Nor did I not report what I knew about him during the confirmation process that landed this deceitful promoter of disinformation and fake science in a position to oversee our public health system. But at a critical time, I did not succeed in drawing attention to an important story about Kennedy. And that haunts me. Allow me, dear reader, to explain. While I was chasing several stories about Kennedy after Donald Trump tapped him to head the Department of Health and Human Services (see here and here), a source who was once close to Kennedy told me that the scion had at least twice settled cases brought against him by women who claimed he had engaged in misconduct. In one of these instances, this source said, Gloria Allred, the famous attorney, supposedly represented the woman. When covering famous people, it is not uncommon to encounter gossip and tips about bad personal behavior, and this was not a surprising lead. A babysitter who had once worked for Kennedy had accused him of sexual assault. Her allegation had appeared in a Vanity Fair article. In a subsequent text to her, Kennedy said, “I read your description of an episode in which I touched you in an unwanted manner. I have no memory of this incident but I apologize sincerely for anything I ever did that made you feel uncomfortable or anything I did or said that offended you or hurt your feelings. I never intended you any harm. If I hurt you, it was inadvertent. I feel badly for doing so.” That was not a denial. I contacted Allred by email and asked if she had handled such a case. I noted that we could talk off the record, if she preferred. Her reply was short: “Sorry. No comment.” I tried her again. Silence. I pursued other avenues and reached out to Kennedy intimates who might have been in a position to know of any settlements. I found no one with first-hand knowledge, and one person who would likely have been aware of such an arrangement did not respond to my many calls, texts, and emails. > “I have no other comment unless I receive a subpoena, and even then I would > have to consider what I would say,” Allred replied. While doing this, I came across an article published in the Daily Mail a few months previously in which Allred said of Trump’s Cabinet appointees, “I think all nominees should be asked, ‘Have you entered into any confidential settlement with a person who accused you of sexually inappropriate behavior? And if so, will you agree to release the person with whom you settled from the non-disclosure clause from which he or she agreed?’” Coincidence? Or did she know something specific? As Kennedy’s confirmation hearings were beginning, I pestered Allred again, emailing her that I had just read an “interesting article” and linking to the Daily Mail piece with her highly relevant comment. This did not change her stance. She replied, “I stand by my quote in the Daily Mail article. I believe that all cabinet nominees should be asked if they have entered into settlements with women (or men) who have made allegations against the nominee involving inappropriate sexual conduct. I have no other comment unless I receive a subpoena, and even then I would have to consider what I would say.” Did that mean she had something to say? Or was this merely legal boilerplate? As I continued to investigate, I contacted members of the two Senate committees holding hearings on Kennedy’s appointment, as well as their staffers, and I asked if they were aware of any such cases or settlements. Had anything come up during their research and preparation for the hearings? No one had any concrete information. After the first of the two hearings, which was conducted by the Senate Finance Committee, Democrats on the panel sent Kennedy a list of written questions. It included these queries: > Yes or no, have you ever reached a settlement agreement with an individual or > organization that accused you of misconduct or inappropriate behavior? > > > > Yes or no, have you ever agreed to or been subject to a non-disclosure > agreement with any individual or organization? The following day, during the hearing held by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) raised the issue of personal misconduct with Kennedy. She referred to the former babysitter’s allegation. Kennedy denied the accusation, contradicting his response to the babysitter. Murray then asked, “Are there any other instances where you have made sexual advances toward an individual without their consent?” Kennedy replied, “No.” > As to the queries about reaching a settlement following an allegation of > misconduct or inappropriate behavior and being a party to a non-disclosure > agreement, Kennedy answered in each case with one word: “Yes.” Murray did not question him about any other allegations or settlements. I bugged Allred again and asked what she thought of this exchange. Her answer was terse: “That was not the question I suggested should be asked of a cabinet nominee.” With the hearings now behind him, Kennedy replied to the long list of written questions the senators had submitted. As to the queries about reaching a settlement following an allegation of misconduct or inappropriate behavior and being a party to a non-disclosure agreement, he answered in each case with one word: “Yes.” He supplied no further explanation. The tip had been accurate. I contacted Kennedy and asked, “Will you disclose what those agreements were? What was the misconduct? Who were the individuals or organizations that accused you? Did this involve women who accused you of personal misconduct? Will you release anyone who has an NDA with you related to any of those settlements from that NDA?” He did not respond. But Katie Miller, the wife of Stephen Miller and MAGA advocate who was then serving as a spokesperson for Kennedy, shot back: “As a matter of policy, we don’t respond to Mother Jones.” I thought Kennedy’s acknowledgment of these settlements—and his reluctance to explain further—was a story that warranted widespread notice. But no Democratic senator raised a fuss. Once again, I reached out to Allred. Crickets. The senators did follow up with another written question they sent to Kennedy: > Please describe the nature of the financial settlements (including > total amounts) and non-disclosure agreements reached and what these agreements > involved. Please also indicate how many of these settlements and > non-disclosure agreements you have signed. RFK Jr. replied: > Twice, I have been targeted by frivolous, unfounded allegations, which I > strenuously denied at the time and continue to deny. I entered into > confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements to prohibit these individuals > from continuing to make these allegations. This was not a full answer. The Senate Democrats had asked for the total amounts of the settlements, and Kennedy did not provide that information. Nor did this response indicate what “misconduct or inappropriate behavior” had been alleged. He was not being forthcoming. Once more, I returned to Allred and asked if one of these cases did indeed involve a client of hers, would that client care to challenge Kennedy’s characterization. Allred replied, “I have not stated that I have a client in this matter, but if I did have one the client would be informed about all of your requests and questions.” > What was most surprising was that Senate Democrats dropped the matter. It was clear: If Allred represented such a client, that woman had no interest in saying anything. Hardly a surprising circumstance. One could easily imagine the assault that would befall a person who might violate an NDA and come forward with allegations about Kennedy. Possibly my original source had been wrong about the Allred connection. Allred never confirmed to me that she had such a client. But if I had to guess… And that was it. What was most surprising was that Senate Democrats dropped the matter. After Kennedy refused to provide details about these cases of alleged misconduct, there were no further efforts to press him for more information. No press conferences with senators complaining that he was stonewalling them. He was off the hook. Perhaps he had been unfairly accused. Perhaps he had done something horrible. Kennedy would keep the public—and the senators who had to vote on whether to allow him to take this position of great responsibility—in the dark. I wrote about all this (here and here), but Kennedy’s acknowledgement of these settlements received little attention elsewhere in the media. It seemed that in the second Trump era, the possibility that RFK Jr. had engaged in misconduct or inappropriate conduct did not matter. After all, Fox News commentator Pete Hegseth had been credibly accused of sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and financial mismanagement, and he had won Senate confirmation to become secretary of defense. Such transgressions were apparently not disqualifiers in Trump 2.0. The Democrats appeared to have no appetite for demanding details about possible Kennedy misdeeds, and I did not unearth any further information on these episodes. I failed to crack the case. Kennedy was confirmed and went on to implement calamitous policies at HHS, denigrating vaccines, pulling the plug on critical scientific and medical research, and increasing the nation’s (and the world’s) vulnerability to pandemics. If the specifics of his alleged misconduct had been revealed, might that have sunk his nomination and prevented the disaster he’s wreaking? We will never know.

A version of the below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial. The appointment of Bari Weiss, the former New York Times opinion writer who started the heterodox Free Press website, to lead venerable CBS News set the media world in a tizzy. Since she had no experience in television broadcast news operations, David Ellison, the CEO of Paramount Skydance, must have selected her for ideological and editorial reasons. Weiss had positioned herself as the scourge of supposedly woke and DEI-driven liberal media, presumably a stance that appealed to Ellison, the son of tech billionaire Larry Ellison, a Trump supporter who put up much of the money that financed his son’s recent takeover of Paramount. Weiss’ first days at the network yielded worrisome signs. She asked senior staff at 60 Minutes, why does the country think you’re biased? This query suggested she buys the right-wing narrative Donald Trump propels about the media. CBS News, according to recent polling, is actually one of the most trusted news outfits, and the overall decline in popular trust in the media has been fueled over the past few decades mostly by a steep decline among Republicans—who have been the target of a concerted campaign waged by Trump and, before him, other conservative leaders (and Fox News!) to discredit the media. (A loss of trust among Democrats and independents has occurred but it’s been less pronounced.) Trump and the right’s war on the media has largely succeeded. And Weiss, whose rise to power has been a result of her crusade against the libs, seemingly accepts Trump’s terms—not a good sign. > Weiss’ inexperience, her embrace of the right-wing assault on the media, and > her eagerness to boost her political opinions over her network’s reporting are > all reasons to worry about her tenure at CBS News. Nor were other recent developments at CBS News that the New York Times reported: “In the two weeks that she has worked at the network, Ms. Weiss has not promoted any articles or reporting from CBS News on her X account, which reaches 1.1 million followers…As a Middle East peace deal came into view, Ms. Weiss shared numerous pro-Israel opinion pieces from The Free Press, and an editorial that said Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, had failed ‘the Hamas test.’” She seemed more interested in opinion warfare than news reporting. And according to Status, Weiss has been considering hiring Fox News host Bret Baier and bringing back to CBS News Catherine Herridge, who was laid off from the network last year and whose past work included credulously reporting hyped-up Republican charges of Democratic misdeeds. Weiss’ inexperience, her embrace of the right-wing assault on the media, and her eagerness to boost her political opinions over her network’s reporting are all reasons to worry about her tenure at CBS News. But there’s something else: artificial intelligence. Larry Ellison is deeply involved in the AI gold rush. He’s chairman and founder of Oracle, a critical player in the AI boom, providing cloud computing and infrastructure for many AI applications and partnering with OpenAI. (He’s predicted, with enthusiasm, that AI will give us a surveillance state in which citizens “will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.”) And David Ellison, like most CEOs these days, is looking to AI to turbocharge his company. > There’s much to worry about regarding AI—most notably, massive job > displacement and assorted doomsday scenarios about the end of humanity. But at > this moment, a potential peril is at hand: the end of truth. AI may well be the biggest story of the coming years, and a news organization owned by a corporation with huge interests in the sector and run by a person plopped into the top slot because of her views, not her broadcasting know-how, might feel pressure on this front. But what’s most concerning is indeed the issue of trust—though perhaps not in the way Weiss has approached it. We are on the cusp of a dangerous new world. There’s much to worry about regarding AI—most notably, massive job displacement and assorted doomsday scenarios about the end of humanity. But at this moment, a potential peril is at hand: the end of truth. You might have heard that before. The introduction of Photoshop years ago was going to make all photographs—and, thus, all news images—suspect. Yet we got on. The threat now is more profound. A few weeks ago, OpenAI introduced a new version of Sora, its application that allows users to create short videos entirely through AI. You want a video of yourself reaching the top of Mt. Everest? No problem. Initial reviewers—it’s not yet widely available, but it soon will be—have praised the easy-to-use program and the realistic-looking videos it produces. Sam Altman, OpenAI’s leader, has proclaimed Sora “the most powerful imagination engine ever built.” But just as Sora can manufacture fanciful creations, such as a dog conducting open-heart surgery, it can yield the deepest of deep fakes: videos of prominent people making statements they never said, of natural disasters or terrorist attacks that didn’t happen, of crimes that were not committed, or military strikes that did not occur. As the New York Times reported, “In its first three days, users of a new app from OpenAI deployed artificial intelligence to create strikingly realistic videos of ballot fraud, immigration arrests, protests, crimes and attacks on city streets—none of which took place.” The possibilities are endless—and damn scary. Faked videos could intensify or trigger conflicts, undermine elections, defraud consumers, swing financial markets, and frame people. Sora has guardrails—for now. There is a watermark noting its videos are AI-generated. You may not produce videos of living people uttering words they did not speak. The production of videos with graphic violence is not permitted. But clever folks have already found ways to evade the limitations, and other systems won’t even bother with such restraints. Very soon our social media buckets will fill with AI slop. Much of it will be irrelevant and of no import. But there will be malicious disinformation produced to inflame, defame, mislead, and frighten for political advantage, for profit, or just for kicks. How will we know what’s real? > Who or what is left to protect reality? Who’s going to vet the AI-orchestrated > falsehoods to come? This is what we need the media for. In a less imperfect world, the government might be of use in this regard and monitor and address the most malevolent and consequential AI disinformation. But liberals would not want to see the Trump administration in charge of such fact-checking, and conservatives for years have viciously assailed and beaten back counter-disinformation efforts mounted by government agencies, colleges, nonprofits, and other entities, decrying them as Big Brother censorship aimed at silencing right-wingers. I understand their concern, for Trump has essentially turned MAGA into one big disinformation operation. It’s no wonder his allies attack endeavors to confront such propaganda. Who or what is left to protect reality? Who’s going to vet the AI-orchestrated falsehoods to come? This is what we need the media for. Major news organizations will have to assume the task of quickly scrutinizing disinformation and misinformation, telling us whether the video of a tsunami heading toward the West Coast or another of thugs beating up a senator or one of explosions in downtown Chicago are legitimate. When a video appears of a political candidate confessing to a heinous crime or telling a racist joke, we will need to look to a source to determine whether that occurred. This should be the job of major news operations. Of course, the big media outlets—the New York Times, CNN, broadcast news—tend to be for-profit enterprises. Who knows if becoming all-important arbiters of reality will fit their business models? But most important will be if their vetting is trusted. These institutions will have to be believed by large segments of the population—though there will always be people who will be unpersuadable. > As the AI Matrix approaches, we are going to need large institutions with > influence and reach to help us prevent the truth from being wiped out by a > flood of lies. And we will need somewhere to turn for guidance. Thus, we return to Bari Weiss. She accurately points out that the news media has fallen on the trust scale. But she appears to have fallen for the false right-wing explanation: They’re too damn liberal. Though it’s early in her tenure at CBS News, her ideologically fueled appointment does not inspire confidence that Ellison (or the Ellisons) intend to direct CBS News in the direction where it could function as one of the essential vetters in this new and chaotic information ecosystem. Like many in the non-mainstream media, I have long been critical of various aspects and actions of major news outlets, while recognizing they often produce wonderful and consequential works of journalism. Yet as the AI Matrix approaches, my hunch is that we are going to need large institutions with influence and reach (no matter if their audiences are smaller than they once were) to help us prevent the truth from being wiped out by a flood of lies. As consumers of information, we will have to learn not to accept the first impressions caused by AI disinformation and wait for confirmation—an exercise humans are not well designed for. (In the jungle eons ago, Homo sapiens could not afford to take their time to evaluate a possible threat. That could endanger them. Immediate absorption of information and snap judgments were essential for survival.) And we will need somewhere to turn for guidance. CBS News is positioned to provide what might become the most valuable service of the news industry. Yet Weiss is not the obvious choice to guide it toward this mission. Perhaps she will surprise us. I’m rooting for what used to be called the Tiffany Network. But if we’re all left alone on the sea of AI slop, our democracy will drown.

A version of the below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial. It’s hard to define Trumpism without Donald Trump. So much of what Trump does arises from demagogic political self-interest, not ideology or well-formed policy. He assaults elites and decries politicians for having screwed over middle America, while gold-plating the White House, grifting his way to billions, and pushing legislation that tosses big tax cuts to the well-heeled and raises the cost of health insurance for millions. He proclaims that politicians have betrayed the citizenry, but he guts safeguards that protect consumers, workers, investors, and retirees, allowing powerful corporations to run wild. He boasts he’s pursuing an America First policy, yet he’s spending up to $40 billion to bail out his pal in Argentina. Trumpism, as practiced and presented by Trump, is a hodgepodge—a mélange of impulses, insults, contradictions, and half-baked ideas, far from a coherent set of principles. > He signed an amicus brief that contended LGBTQ people were not protected by > workplace discrimination bans. He filed lawsuits to kill the Affordable Care > Act. He sued the Biden administration, alleging it was censoring anti-vaccine > activism. He’s full MAGA. But there are others who do a better job than Trump of shaping Trumpism into a coherent ideology that melds nativism and oligarchism. And they present as much danger—possibly more?—to American society as the undisciplined, erratic wannabe-autocrat who leads the MAGA cult. One of these Trumpers is Eric Schmitt. Never heard of him? He’s the junior US senator from Missouri, a Republican, naturally. He was elected in the 2022 election. Prior to that he was the Show Me State’s attorney general. In that position, he championed Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election and supported failed lawsuits that tried to overturn the election results. He signed an amicus brief that contended LGBTQ people were not protected by workplace discrimination bans. He filed lawsuits to kill the Affordable Care Act. He sued the Biden administration, alleging it was censoring anti-vaccine activism. He’s full MAGA. In the Senate, he has not yet become a national figure. But it’s clear this 50-year-old career politician has supersize ambitions. He demonstrated his ability to be a post-Trump leader of Trumpism with a speech he gave in September at the National Conservative Conference held in Washington, DC. It’s worth considering it in detail. Proclaiming himself a champion of “national conservatism,” Schmitt defined this ideology as a “revolt,” within a “culture war,” against “the elites who rule everywhere but are not truly from anywhere.” Before explaining precisely what he meant by that, he assailed traditional (pre-Trump) conservatism for having gone along with the “Washington consensus” of foreign interventions, free trade, and pro-immigration policies that “undercut American wages, replace American workers, and transfer entire industries into the hands of foreign lobbies.” This is standard fare for Trump acolytes who have tried to bend conservatism to fit into Trump’s mold. But Schmitt devoted much of his speech to the question of who is a true American. He derided those on the right and the left who have depicted America as an “idea,” noting: For decades, the mainstream consensus on the left and the right alike seemed to be that America itself was just an “idea”—a vehicle for global liberalism. We were told that the entire meaning of America boiled down to a few lines in a poem on the Statue of Liberty, and five words about equality in the Declaration of Independence. Any other aspect of American identity was deemed to be illegitimate and immoral, poisoned by the evils of our ancestors. The true meaning of America, they said, was liberalism, multiculturalism, and endless immigration. In a speech in 1998, Bill Clinton said that the continuous influx of immigrants was—and I quote—a “reminder that our America is not so much a place as a promise.” > Real Americans, he asserted, have been betrayed: “Their true adversary did not > live in the faraway sands of some foreign nation, but in the halls of their > own government.” Not really, Schmitt insisted. The foundational principles are critical to the nation, he said, but America was not “a universal proposition” available to just anyone. He told his audience, “That’s what set Donald Trump apart from the old conservatism and the old liberalism alike: He knows that America is not just an abstract ‘proposition,’ but a nation and a people, with its own distinct history and heritage and interests.” You see where he’s heading with this? Real Americans, he asserted, have been betrayed: “Their true adversary did not live in the faraway sands of some foreign nation, but in the halls of their own government.” These Americans were heirs to a particular history: The Continental Army soldiers dying of frostbite at Valley Forge, the Pilgrims struggling to survive in the hard winter soil of Plymouth, the pioneers striking out from Missouri for the wild and dangerous frontier, the outnumbered Kentucky settlers repelling wave after wave of Indian war band attacks from behind their stockade walls—all of them would be astonished to hear that they were only fighting for a “proposition.” They believed they were forging a nation—a homeland for themselves and their descendants. They fought, they bled, they struggled, they died for us. They built this country for us. The key word here is “descendants.” Schmitt was suggesting America belongs more to some than others. (In Animal Farm, the fascist regime declares, “Some animals are more equal than others.”) America, the senator said, is not a “universal nation” open to anyone who wishes to join. After referring to the United States as “the most essentially Western nation,” he hammered this point: “We Americans are the sons and daughters of the Christian pilgrims that poured out from Europe’s shores to baptize a new world in their ancient faith. Our ancestors were driven here by destiny, possessed by urgent and fiery conviction, by burning belief, devoted to their cause and their God.” He celebrated the waves of European settlers in the 1800s, noting his own ancestors arrived in Missouri from Germany in the 1840s, and that it was the brave Christian souls who headed West “to build a home at the edge of the known world” who made America and—most important—bequeathed it to future Americans. > “We’re not sorry,” Schmitt said. “Why would we be sorry? America is the > proudest and most magnificent heritage ever known to man.” Schmitt denounced those who would dare take notice of the genocide of Indigenous people or other ills of America’s past: For some time now, we’ve been taught to be ashamed of these things that defined us—to treat our curiosity, adventurousness, and ambition as a stain on our moral conscience. We’ve been taught that, by settling this continent and building our home here, we committed a world-historical sin, and that we should rue the day that our forefathers arrived in North America, and condemn their vision, their strength, and their will as an expression of something perverse and evil. He added: “The American heritage is not a narrative of oppression and evil, but the unfolding story of our people’s pioneer spirit—a spirit that drives us to expand beyond limits, to assert ourselves upon the world…We’re not sorry. Why would we be sorry? America is the proudest and most magnificent heritage ever known to man.” As for those who would raise questions about America’s glorious past—including those Americans who joined protests after George Floyd’s murder in 2020—Schmitt said, “America does not belong to them. It belongs to us. It’s our home. It’s a heritage entrusted to us by our ancestors. It is a way of life that is ours, and only ours, and if we disappear, then America, too, will cease to exist.” Who is the “we” in that declaration? The descendants of the European Christians who claimed the West. The fight at hand, Schmitt contended, “is about whether our children will still have a country to call their own. It’s about whether America will remain what she was meant to be: the apex and the vanguard of Western civilization.” Schmitt’s speech was an articulate and sophisticated embrace of blood and soil. His message was that America is a land not for those who have come here drawn by its ideals and promises but for those whose ancestors were on the wagon trains and who conquered the frontier. American greatness is derived from the legacy of those people, not whatever values and principles a diverse and pluralistic society shares and honors. (“If you imposed a carbon copy of the US Constitution on Kazakhstan tomorrow,” he said, “Kazakhstan wouldn’t magically become America. Because Kazakhstan isn’t filled with Americans. It’s filled with Kazakhstanis!”) In his celebration of American history, Schmitt fixates on a particular set of ancestors who helped form this nation. His story does not include the contributions of enslaved people whose free labor generated much of its wealth, or the Chinese workers who laid the tracks for railroads that transformed the country, or the Mexican workers whose toil and sweat turned California into an agricultural powerhouse. Nor does his narrative include immigrants who arrived later from non-European countries. He is focused on—shall we say it?—white people. > Schmitt aptly combines explicit nativism, implied white supremacy, purported > economic populism, and anti-elitism into a neat package, and he’s a damn good > salesman for this noxious brew. Schmitt deftly ties his skewed history lesson to the grievances held by white voters of today, arguing that those who don’t accept this particular view of American greatness are the same folks responsible for the economic policies and decisions that have hollowed out middle America and left many Main Streets in tatters. He is integrating racial and economic resentments, with a dash of Christian nationalism, into a coherent and divisive strategy for prosecuting the culture war against them: unidentified elites, critics of American society, and…well, fill in the blanks. All of this is present in the Trumpism espoused by Dear Leader. But Schmitt more aptly combines explicit nativism, implied white supremacy, purported economic populism, and anti-elitism into a neat package, and he’s a damn good salesman for this noxious brew. He’s a crafty and disingenuous fellow who’s skilled at performative politics. Two weeks after this speech and six days after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where FBI Director Kash Patel was the witness, Schmitt used the occasion to describe America as in the grips of a titanic battle between good and evil, with the latter being a left that encourages political violence. He cited instances of violence committed by people with left-leaning agendas, but absent from his list were shootings and massacres perpetrated by those motivated by conservative beliefs, such as the killing of Democrats in Minnesota by a Trump supporter. He also ignored January 6, the largest act of insurrectionist violence since the Civil War. Don’t give me this both-sides bullshit,” Schmitt angrily exclaimed. He claimed that political violence in the United States is happening on a “mass scale” and is “not organic.” It is part of a nefarious and orchestrated plot, he insisted, the offspring of a dark clandestine system funded in part with our own tax dollars with a large network of foundations, NGOs, activist organizations, and front groups. This system lurks behind every radical leftist movement in our nation today. The George Soros empire has financed a vast ecosystem of radicals, all working together, dropping off bricks at riots, to unleash a tidal wave of violent anarchists on our streets and to prop it up in an army of researchers, experts, and journalists, and propagandists who downplay the political violence. Schmitt’s fact-twisting—the claim that Soros’ organization supplies bricks to violent protesters has been debunked repeatedly but remains a right-wing article of faith—and his amnesia about January 6 and other horrific violence from the right show that he is yet just another MAGA fabulist willing to lie and misrepresent to exploit hate, paranoia, and distrust to score political points. Like you-know-who. But he is much better able than Trump to convey the ideology that animates Trump’s own political movement and that is the foundation for Trump’s march toward authoritarianism. That’s quite a talent, and Schmitt intends to put it to good use—that is, good for himself.

A version of the below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial. About a dozen or so years ago, a staffer for Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ultraconservative Republican from Alabama, reached out to me and asked if we could meet. I don’t hear from too many GOP aides on Capitol Hill, so I was game. We rendezvoused at a coffee shop around the corner from my office. The aide was eager to pitch me an idea. Shouldn’t liberals who care about American workers make common cause with immigration restrictionists? Fewer immigrants, he contended, would mean more jobs available for American citizens. And if these were the sort of jobs employers had trouble hiring for, those owners would then have to pay workers more—and Americans would earn more. How could unions and liberals not support this? He was quite earnest and a tad nerdy, and he discussed this notion with a missionary zeal. It was clear he was not having much success on the Hill connecting with Democrats or Republicans on this. He was an outsider and reminded me of those proud libertarians I had met in college who were certain they had figured everything out and didn’t understand why others didn’t embrace their logic-driven ideology. I told the fellow that I was hardly a representative for liberals or labor but that I would think about what he said. Nothing concrete came out of our conversation. I pinged the aide a few times with questions about in-the-news matters involving the Senate, and he replied, usually with information that was not that useful. What struck me most was that he was so sure he had found the path for America’s future and that he just needed to persuade the unenlightened (like me) to see it. His name was Stephen Miller. > When I first met Miller, he did not seem like a likely propagandist for > autocracy. I guess you never know. Years later, I was surprised to see him as a top commander in Trump’s MAGA army. Sessions, the first GOP senator to endorse Trump in the 2016 campaign, had brought him into the fold. Though Trump fired Sessions less than two years into his stint as attorney general, Miller remained in Trump’s inner circle, becoming a top enabler—perhaps the most important one—of Trump’s dangerous id and a power-hungry extremist guiding Trump’s crusade of nativism and march toward authoritarianism. When I first met Miller, he did not seem like a likely propagandist for autocracy. I guess you never know. These days, Miller, as Trump’s mini-me, has been paving the way for Trump’s war on dissent—and that’s a literal war, with Trump deploying troops to cities to do battle with protesters (who tend to be peaceful) and to show Democrats that he’s a strongman who can exert military power to seize control of their cities and states. In remarks and social media posts over the past few weeks, Miller has declared that Trump as president has unlimited power; that “left-wing terrorism” is rampant across the land; that Democrats support violence against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, back “domestic terrorists,” and are a “domestic extremist organization”; and that governors, mayors, and judges who oppose and block Trump’s deployments of troops to American cities are engaged in an “insurrection.” He claims there’s a war raging in America’s cities due to antifa, ICE protesters, and hordes of criminals; he’s obviously attempting to establish a predicate for Trump invoking the Insurrection Act and expanding his use of troops within the United States to solidify his rule. > The Trump-Miller effort to delegitimize, if not criminalize, freedom of speech > and protest has been embraced by Capitol Hill Republicans. Miller was a force behind Trump’s recent moves to designate antifa, a decentralized movement, as a “domestic terrorist organization,” which Trump had no authority to do, and to issue a National Security Presidential Memorandum that associates a variety of political views—“anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality”—with “violent and terroristic activities.” As the Brennan Center for Justice notes: This breathtakingly broad list easily encompasses everyone from labor organizers, socialists, many libertarians, those who criticize Christianity, pro-immigration groups, anti-ICE protestors, and racial justice and transgender activists, to anyone who holds views that the administration considers to be “anti-American.” Under NSPM-7, the antifascist label can be attached to any of these types of people and groups and many more besides, giving the government maximum flexibility to pick and choose its targets. As the center says, much of this memo “is squarely directed at speech and nonviolent action by organizations and individuals protected by the First Amendment.” The Trump-Miller effort to delegitimize, if not criminalize, freedom of speech and protest has been embraced by Capitol Hill Republicans. This Saturday, there will again be No Kings marches and rallies across the nation opposing Trump. Millions could turn out for this event—in a continuation of the peaceful demonstrations that were held in June that drew an estimated 4 to 6 million participants. And this seems to scare Republicans. On Friday, during a press briefing held by House Republican leaders, Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the majority whip, exclaimed that the “terrorist wing” of the Democratic Party was “set to hold…a hate-America rally in DC.” > Emmer: "This is about one thing and one thing alone — to score political > points with the terrorist wing of their party, which is set to hold a hate > America rally in DC next week." > > — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-10-10T14:25:31.189Z House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) got his licks in, too. He said the protesters would be “the antifa crowd and the pro-Hamas crowd and the Marxists.” The same day, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) said, “This will be a Soros paid-for protest for his professional protesters. The agitators show up. We’ll have to get the National Guard out. Hopefully it will be peaceful. I doubt it.” > Sen. Roger Marshall: "October 18 is when the protest gets here. This will be a > Soros paid-for protest for his professional protesters. The agitators show up. > We'll have to get the National Guard out. Hopefully it will be peaceful. I > doubt it." > > — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-10-10T14:41:54.779Z On Monday, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy chimed in, saying the No Kings rallies are “part of antifa, paid protesters.” > Sean Duffy: "The No Kings protest, Maria, really frustrating. This is part of > antifa, paid protesters. It begs the question who's funding it." > > — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-10-13T12:22:30.198Z It looks as if the Republicans are running a disinformation campaign to smear the opposition. This Miller-like denigration of peaceful protest—commies! terrorists!—is deplorable fearmongering, which has become Miller’s specialty: depicting America as land wracked with left-wing violence and lawlessness. When millions gathered in June at over 2,100 No Kings rallies, there were no violent eruptions. But in Trump’s cult, Milleresque demagoguery is contagious, and conservatives who claim to hold the Constitution near and dear have no problem lying to denounce and undermine First Amendment–protected activity.   It’s all part of Trump’s—and Miller’s—assault on constitutional rights and freedoms. Republicans, evidently worried about the pro-democracy protest this weekend, are trying to preemptively tar as extremists the citizens who gather to resist Trump and his assault on American democracy. Miller, I’m sure, has learned a lot since he came knocking on my door, a lonely Senate aide seeking attention and across-the-aisle company. One lesson appears to be that hyperbole, lies, and demonization are essential tools for an authoritarian looking to crush democratic opposition and impose autocratic rule. But I doubt Miller has changed much. He’s still a zealot—but one who finally figured out how to transform his fanaticism into influence and power.