trump's Violations of Norms and the Beltway's Inability to Cope

Ben Kesling at the Columbia Journalism Review has it right: 

On Tuesday, NPR’s Quil Lawrence and Tom Bowman broke the news that Trump and members of his campaign appeared to violate federal law during an appearance at Arlington to mark the third anniversary of the deadly attack on US troops that punctuated the deeply flawed withdrawal from Afghanistan. Members of Trump’s staff had sought to film the event for a campaign video, and got into an altercation with an Arlington National Cemetery staff member who tried to stop them. Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign official, strongly denied that any altercation had taken place and said the campaign was ready to release a video to prove his point. (They have yet to release it.) It wasn’t surprising that these two NPR pros with deep knowledge of the military, and sources among veterans, were the first with the news. The Washington Post followed with a story the same day, as did the New York Times. The public took note.

As more publications followed suit, the Arlington stories suffered a dreadful fate: they all started to sound the same. News outlets ended up with articles bogged down in parsing federal law, carefully defining what exactly counts as an altercation, and quoting milquetoast official statements like “There was an incident and a report was filed.” 

Lumped together, the reporting this week left readers and listeners, especially those with no knowledge of the military, at a loss to understand what actually happened—and, crucially, why it mattered so much. The Trump campaign team had successfully muddied the waters by alleging that the photographer had been invited to the event by family members of soldiers buried there. 

But as any veteran knows in their bones, the solemnity of the ceremony is exactly why the unauthorized photographer had no business being there—regardless of who invited them...

This is a very big reason why the veterans' organizations and a lot of veterans on social media are livid towards trump right now. And yet, the Beltway media doesn't seem to understand the fury:

Readers needed to know that, when you visit Arlington, you might not know exactly what you’re supposed to do when confronted by those rows of headstones, but you damn sure know what you’re not supposed to do. But the coverage this week left many readers with the impression that the whole thing might have been a bureaucratic mix-up, or some tedious violation of protocol. It focused on bland horse-race coverage so common during election season, rather than clearly stating what really took place: an egregious and willful violation of long-standing norms...

This has been one of the most obvious problems that our mainstream media suffers when it comes to covering trump, especially those moments when trump violates not only the established norms of political comity but also the long-established norms of common courtesy.

Put aside the well-told tales by now of trump's personal inability to understand military service, and his blunt disdain for those who suffered and died in that service. trump simply has no respect or diligence for anything he can't use or abuse.

Look at how trump himself behaved during this staged fiasco. Not only ignoring the cemetery's requirements to not bring his own campaign staff - he did - and not to bring his own photographer - he did, and promptly blamed it on the families he talked into hosting his appearance - and not to turn the memorial service into a partisan event - it became clear he was going to claim the moment was an official ceremony and accuse Biden and Harris of failing to show, in order to paint THEM as disrespectful to the military - trump proceeded to preen and pose at the gravesite of the fallen soldier with a grin and a thumbs up.

I refuse to show that photo on my blog. It is offensive and obscene. It's not that he's desecrating the burial grounds by urinating on the grave marker, it's that he's violating the common custom of treating cemeteries as a solemn and sacred location.

This is on him. This is how trump behaves for ANY photo op: standing with someone or a group who must act "grateful" to be in his presence, flashing that smile like he's happy instead of the dour bad boss he often is, and giving a thumbs up like "I'm perfect, I'm winning!"

And that's trump having no sense of place, no sense of humility, no sense of the gravity or gravitas of the situation, no sense at all really.

You damn sure know what you’re not supposed to do. And trump clearly doesn't know that.

The pity is the goddamned Beltway media doesn't know what to do with trump.

The media is unable to call trump out for his inhumane, clueless, selfish behaviors. They just can't, terrified of seeming biased and getting attacked by the Far Right for speaking the obvious that the GOP standard bearer - hell, the entire Republican Party leadership - is incapable of being a goddamned normal human being. 

This isn't just on the media owners, who are clearly in the tank for a Republican Party that's going to cut taxes for the uber-rich if they regain full control of government this 2024. This is on the editors and the writers and the reporters in the field just genuinely incapable of making the moral decision to point out how immoral trump truly is.

Gods help us.

I should mention how this is a personal matter for me. In the time that this scandal's percolated to this level of trump struggling to blame everyone else for his screwup, I've remembered that my father took me to Arlington a long time ago - probably on that week my older brother got married in Maryland when I was in my 20s - to visit the gravesites of his father and mother. I never met Grandpa Wartenberg - he died in 1968 before I was born - and dad rarely talked about him. Best I recall, my grandfather served as an officer on a Navy submarine during World War II in the Pacific (Grandma died when I was 8, and was buried in another spot in that region because of how the cemetery works). If the Naval records I've read is correct, Grandpa joined the Navy in 1917 and it looked like he served until 1946. If he was on the front lines of the Pacific War, he earned that spot in Arlington. (I need to find more about his duty during the big war).

When we visited, Arlington was a peaceful, calm, quiet place. There were others nearby visiting the graves of their family members, and everyone was solemn. Dad and I paid our respects at the markers, it might have been when dad talked about grandpa's service, but that was it. Nothing fancy. Nothing outlandish. That's all you're expected to do when you're honoring the dead.

trump just can't do that, can he.

/rage

trump's Contempt Should Be Punished More Than That

Just a quick note regarding the ongoing trump criminal trial in Manhattan: the judge held trump in contempt for his social media outbursts and threats (via Ximena Bustillo at NPR): 

Former President Donald Trump has been held in contempt of the court and fined $9,000 for violating a gag order aimed at protecting witnesses and jurors in his Manhattan criminal trial.

Prosecutors in Trump's criminal trial last month asked Judge Juan Merchan to fine him $10,000 — $1,000 each for 10 posts — for violating a gag order and rule Trump in contempt of court. Merchan on Tuesday fined Trump for nine of those posts.

Trump was ordered to pay the money by Friday, May 3, and remove seven offending posts from his Truth Social account, and two posts from his campaign website by 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday.

From what I've seen reported on Twitter (up yours, Elon) trump's handlers have indeed removed the offending posts. Now it's just a question if trump keeps pushing the limit and posts more offending/dangerous outbursts in the near future. Considering how laughably small the fines are - only $1,000 per offense? - even for a near-bankrupt con artist like trump that won't be a deterrent. 

Even Judge Merchan knows these fines are weak sauce compared to the level of punishment trump deserves (this from Jordan Rubin over at MSNBC):

Merchan noted that he was limited by the $1,000 maximum for each violation, which may not do much to deter a wealthy defendant. Given the lack of discretion to impose a more serious fine for Trump, the judge wrote that he “must therefore consider whether in some instances, jail may be a necessary punishment.” He explicitly warned the defendant in his ruling Tuesday that he won’t tolerate continued willful violations and that he will jail him if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.

Merchan didn't go straight to the jail holding because it would seem too strict a move so early in the proceedings, and trump will gleefully use that moment to make himself a martyr on the campaign trail. But the judge did put that out there as a genuine threat, and one trump (at least his lawyers) should view as a serious concern because it will tell all the non-MAGA voters out there that trump is that disrespectful of American justice.

Merchan has laid down exactly where the line is that trump shouldn't cross.

Don't be surprised if trump crosses it entirely out of panic (and not even out of spite).

And it is entirely deserved. trump and his cohort have been mocking the legal system for years, getting away with stuff that most Americans wouldn't even dare attempt.

It's not vengeance we're hoping for, trump. Not the thing that always drives you to ruin the world for everyone else.

It's for all the sins you've committed, all the damage you've done. It's punishment.

The Far Right Contempt

To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding Humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
-- The American Crisis, Thomas Paine

It's been a few months of the US House select committee investigating donald trump's call to Insurrection on January 6th, during which there's been some drama and then not a lot happening. The reason for the public inaction is that the committee's subpoenas to people close to trump and who are now known to be involved in the planning stages of trump's "Stop The Steal The Election Rally"

Welp, back in September, that committee tried to call the likes of Steve Bannon, one of trump's more reliable dirty tricksters - in spite of Bannon being on the outs every so often when Bannon tried to cover his own ass instead of his boss - to provide the documents in his possession related to January 6th as well as testify before that committee. Bannon basically told them to eat sand. The committee put it up to a House vote to hold Bannon in contempt in late October, which they did. They then referred the matter to the Department of Justice, because apparently Congress doesn't have the direct power to slap handcuffs on sons-of-bitches.

For the past month, social media was filled with call after call by people demanding the current Attorney General Merrick Garland to just hurry up and file an arrest warrant on Bannon. Even though there was evidence behind-the-scenes that the Department was being slow but diligent: Missing a step in procedure could wreck the whole case, and Bannon's lawyers made careful arguments that needed dismissing first.

Well, this Friday the wait ended. Via Carrie Johnson at NPR:

Steve Bannon has been charged with contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the legislative committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol siege.

Bannon, who was a political adviser to then-President Donald Trump, is charged with one count for failing to appear for a deposition and another for refusing to hand over documents.

The Justice Department's move exposes Bannon to fines and as much as a year of jail time for each count. It follows weeks of deliberation by prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, who will oversee the criminal case.

"Since my first day in office, I have promised Justice Department employees that together we would show the American people by word and deed that the department adheres to the rule of law, follows the facts and the law and pursues equal justice under the law," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. "Today's charges reflect the department's steadfast commitment to these principles..."

So there's that done. Now onto the 30 to 50 other people in trump's orbit threatening their own acts of Contempt.

Holding people in Contempt of Congress has, by the by, happened often. G. Gordon Liddy of Watergate infamy was held in Contempt, but he never served time because he pled out to a suspended sentence and was already in jail for other Watergate activities.

If you ever track the history of the Contempt charges, it's a mug's game to determine which gets upheld and which won't: Depending on who's in charge at Justice, the Attorney General (hi, William Barr!) could well play a Delay Delay Delay game until the matter disappears. Other times, those held in contempt reach an agreement to provide something to the committee that would satisfy them...

But in Bannon's case it doesn't look like he will make any deals. Because that committee wants trump on a silver platter for his role in the plotting - and there's already a number of media reports how deep trump was involved - and they're going after everybody within 6 feet social distancing of him. If Bannon gives up what he's got, he's putting the burden on others who have closer ties and bloodier hands than he does.

Bannon's smartest move here is to pull more delaying tactics, refusing to even listen to plea deals and throw every dismissal tactic in the law books to get off. This all depends of course on how many others in the Inner Circle of coup planners also get hit with Contempt warrants and find themselves in a situation where they would plead out and screw Bannon (remember in this game kiddos the ones who plea deal first get the safest deals). It also depends on if Bannon is literally held in Contempt at a district jailhouse, which would cut into his profits and his enjoyment of the rich life. You may think some guys are "tough enough" to do a stint in Cell Block 6, but one look at Bannon - Christ, he's in worse shape than me - should tell you he ain't anywhere near "tough" in the dictionary.

Here's hoping the Justice Department follows up and puts all the big names in the lockdown. And that the next round of subpoenas include trump himself.

---

Oh by the way this is my 1,997th blog post. I'm three away from 2000!!! We'll see what's happening when I get there.

Barr: Falsifying, Concealing, Covering Up, Also Being Snitty

After the rough day Attorney General Snitty Toady Barr had with the Senate committee - where he got caught dumping mistruths and denials for most of the day - it's pretty clear he doesn't want to go through Round Two against a bigger and meaner opponent.

Referring to Matt Stieb at the New Yorker:

The immediate logic is obvious. Barr, a ruthlessly competent partisan, testified before the Senate committee, where he would enjoy the aid of its chairman, Lindsey Graham. With Democrats running the show in the House, the line of questioning would be even less forgiving. Barr cited the House committee’s vote to allow staff lawyers to question him for an additional hour as the reason for his cancellation. The Justice Department defended Barr’s decision, claiming that it would be inappropriate for congressional staffers to grill a member of Trump’s Cabinet...

Which is, by the way, bullshit. Congressional staffers have questioned Cabinet members before as W. Neil Eggleston explains in Slate:

Of particular relevance to the current dispute between the attorney general and the House Judiciary Committee, witnesses who testified at the hearings were first questioned on television and in open hearings not just by the members of Congress but by lawyers on the committees’ staff. As I recall, the House and Senate committees divided the witnesses over which committees’ staff would be the first questioner. If the Senate lawyer was the first questioner, the House lawyer would take a turn at the conclusion of the Senate lawyer’s questioning. Only then did the senators and members of the House begin their questioning. There was no serious outside challenge of whether committee lawyers would conduct the questioning or members of Congress would perform that role: Both did.

Barr is essentially try to excuse his way out of getting grilled by House Democrats who will cut him no slack over every lie and sabotage he's committed while defending trump from the Mueller Report.

And Barr did lie. During his April 9th appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, he was asked about complaints from Mueller's investigation team about Barr's infamous 4-page letter that misstated Mueller's conclusions. Barr claimed he had no knowledge. Now it turns out Mueller himself sent a letter just after Barr's making those complaints known and before Barr's April 9th testimony.

I think it falls under the US Code: 18 USC 1001 - Fraud and False Statements:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

I'm not a legal expert so I might be wrong here... but his false statements fall under SOME rule that says lying to Congress is a BAD IDEA.

In the meantime, Barr is willing to confront a Contempt of Congress charge. That's under 2 USC 192:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

I hope the House Democrats take this seriously and pursue the jail time aspect of the law. Barr's being snitty here, and deserves to get that word shoved down his throat.