We begin today with
Margaret Sullivan of The Guardian, writing that the indictment of Donald Trump for the “willful retention of defense information” does represent “democracy in action”—even if in this case, Trump remains privileged in the context of America’s justice system.
The spectacle, the lies, the whining – all predictable, and in some ways, meaningless. What matters is that, in a democracy, laws matter and they should apply to everyone.
[...]
… Trump is at a huge advantage in the justice system. With his array of lawyers, his deep pockets, his cult following, the federal judges he appointed, his ability to sway public opinion and his immense political power, he is light years from being a singled-out victim.
So yes, it’s heartening to see some modicum of the rule of law holding sway in Trump’s latest arrest. It’s encouraging to see the myriad ways that the legal system is beginning to catch up to him in New York, in Georgia and in Washington.
But justice for the lawless Trump has been far too long in coming. And who knows whether he really will be held responsible in the long run, or whether he’ll find a way, as usual, to escape accountability.
Philip Bump of The Washington Post points out that for Trump, his legal case and his political case are the same thing.
But perhaps because the public case against Trump is so robust or perhaps because Trump would be inclined to respond to any indictment in the same way, he finds it useful to use the indictment not as a moment to hunker down and defend himself but to bolster his political position. He followed the arraignment on Tuesday with a campaign-style stop at a Cuban restaurant in Miami and then closed out that day with his campaign-style speech. It is not a normal approach.
That’s because there’s another way in which this entirely unprecedented situation is unprecedented: Trump’s freedom may be contingent not on the success of his trial but of his campaign.
This isn’t normally the case, even for elected officials. There are no boundaries in place to block the indictment or incarceration of sitting mayors or members of Congress or state legislators. It’s only at the presidential level where there exist prohibitions against indictment or prosecution.
Douglas Bloomfield of The Jerusalem Post, citing Trump’s disclosure of Israeli secrets to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, notes that Israel has a stake in knowing what defense information Trump possessed—with some, apparently, disseminated (pushing fair use a bit here).
Israel’s closely guarded secrets were among the earliest
Trump handed over to a hostile foreign power. He’d been in office less than four months when he invited the
Russian foreign minister and ambassador to the Oval Office.
[...]
THAT WAS only the tip of the iceberg when it came to Trump’s reckless handling of this country’s – and our allies’ – most sensitive security secrets.
[...]
The most damning passage in the indictment reads:
“The classified documents Trump stored... included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries; United States nuclear programs; potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack; and plans for possible retaliation in response to foreign attack. The unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military, and human sources and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods.”
[...]
Trump was indicted under a law that he signed in 2018 as president that was intended to punish [Hillary] Clinton, Newsweek reported. His own criminal case could have been avoided had he followed the law and returned all the documents or even later complied with the subpoenas.
On this last paragraph, I had to do some fact checking. Bloomfield is correct that Trump
signed a law in 2018 that authorized changes to
18 U.S.C. § 1924.
However, as indicated on pages 1, 28, and 33 of the indictment, Trump is not charged with any count based on the retention of “classified information of the United States” under 18 U.S.C. §1924. Instead, Trump is charged with the “willful retention of national defense information” under
18 U.S. Code § 793€.
I will note that in no subsection of 18 U.S. Code §793 do I see the adjective “classified” used. That may or may not mean something.
Josh Kovensky of Talking Points Memo begins to read into “The Case of the Missing Documents at Bedminster.”
The Trump indictment was chock-full with cameos by Mar-a-Lago employees, including military-grade Diet Coke valet Walt Nauta, discussing how and where to move boxes of records that included classified information, and one now-infamous photo of a bathroom (and shower) filled to the ceiling with stacks of boxes.
But prosecutors alleged in the indictment that the records didn’t only stay in Mar-a-Lago’s chandelier-bedecked bathrooms, ballrooms, and storage rooms. They claim in the document to know of at least two episodes in which Trump moved “boxes” to his estate and golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey.
Trump brandished classified records at Bedminster, prosecutors say, including a supposed invasion plan of Iran and a map. CBS
reported last week that Trump attorneys had told the DOJ that they couldn’t find the Iran invasion plan.
Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor who has also defended national security cases, told TPM that “we don’t know what happened with that document, but you can bet that they’ll be talking about it at trial.”
David Lerman of Roll Call reports that a Republican Study Committee budget plan includes raising the age when future retirees can get Social Security.
The plan offered by the 175-member Republican Study Committee would gradually raise the age at which future retirees can start claiming full Social Security benefits from 67 to 69, a politically fraught proposal that's all but certain to appear in Democratic campaign ads.
The document also proposes a "premium support" plan that would subsidize private insurance options that compete with traditional Medicare. That would be similar to budget plans proposed by Rep. Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., during his tenure in Congress that were panned by Democrats and some Republicans, including former President Donald Trump.
While House Republicans have yet to produce a fiscal 2024 budget resolution, the RSC blueprint offers a wish list of conservative priorities that could influence the appropriations process. Chairman
Kevin Hern of Oklahoma said House leadership has promised his plan would get a floor vote.
Charles Blow of The New York Times points out that the onslaught of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in Republican states is creating a class of LGBTQ “political refugees.”
According to research by the Clark University professor Abbie Goldberg published in January by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, which surveyed 113 parents in Florida who are L.G.B.T.Q. in the wake of the passage of Florida’s Don’t Say Gay law, “56 percent of parents considered moving out of Florida and 16.5 percent have taken steps to move out of Florida.”
The study found that some respondents were already saving money and looking for jobs and houses elsewhere. But the fight-or-flight dilemma that these families face is fraught because, as the study points out, “many felt conflicted,” noting that “they loved their families, friends and communities.” They’re being pushed to choose between the comfort of their chosen tribe and the safety of their families — something no one should have to do. It’s a predicament underscoring that anti-trans laws aren’t noble, but wicked; they don’t protect, they prey.
And as the study notes, for some families with L.G.B.T.Q. members, “moving was currently impossible,” as they were “caring for older family members or other dependents or had jobs that they could not find elsewhere.” As Goldberg has
explained: “For L.G.B.T.Q.+ parents without the means to move or send their children to private schools”— where, hopefully, they wouldn’t have to be silent about their families — the stress that anti-L.G.B.T.Q. legislation creates “will be significant.” Uprooting and moving to get away from political persecution is a privileged option that’s just not feasible for everyone, at least in the short term.
For the record, I believe that I have already met a few LGBTQ+ “refugees” here in Chicago.
Moisés Naím writes for El País in English that it is not as easy to get rid of dictators as it used to be,
Of those 39 dictators currently in power, 20 of them rule with impunity in Africa, 14 more in Asia, three in Latin America and two in Europe. Three command nuclear arsenals — Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un. Others are the despots of countries with significant international influence, as Egypt, Cuba and Vietnam. Several rule the poorest countries in the world: Burundi, Laos, Nicaragua and many others whose misery stems in many cases from the
dictator’s incompetence and corrupt leadership.
Getting rid of a dictator today is far more difficult than it was a couple of generations ago. Back then, a common solution was exile. Tyrants like Idi Amin of Uganda or Baby Doc Duvalier of Haiti knew that, if push came to shove, they could discreetly board a plane with suitcases full of money and retire in a luxurious mansion, preferably in the south of France. Those days are over.
[...]
When the alternative offered to dictators is a long prison sentence and the loss of the vast fortunes they and their cronies have amassed, it is not surprising that they will do whatever it takes to avoid losing power. For dictators, staying in government is no longer about politics: it becomes an existential requirement. Partly because of this deeper entrenchment, the process that took place in past decades, when dictators left power and were replaced by democratic leaders and their followers, is now very infrequent.
Finally today,
Michael Crowley, Farnaz Fassihi, and Ronen Bergman of The New York Times report that an “informal agreement” between the United States and Iran on a few aspects of limiting Iran’s nuclear programs is “imminent.”
Iran would agree under a new pact — which two Israeli officials called “imminent” — not to enrich uranium beyond its current production level of 60 percent purity. That is close to but short of the 90 percent purity needed to fashion a nuclear weapon, a level that the United States has warned would force a severe response.
Iran would also halt lethal attacks on American contractors in Syria and Iraq by its proxies in the region, expand its cooperation with international nuclear inspectors, and refrain from selling ballistic missiles to Russia, Iranian officials said.
In return, Iran would expect the United States to avoid tightening sanctions already choking its economy; to not seize oil-bearing foreign tankers, as it most recently did in April; and to not seek new punitive resolutions at the United Nations or the International Atomic Energy Agency against Iran for its nuclear activity.
“None of this is aimed at reaching a groundbreaking agreement,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran director for the International Crisis Group, a conflict prevention organization. Instead, he said, the goal is to “put a lid on any activity that basically crosses a red line or puts either party in a position to retaliate in a way that destabilizes the status quo.”
Have the best possible day, everyone!
