Trump’s Blacklist: His Fascism, Legal Fuck-ups, and Business Failures
On October 20, Peter Baker wrote a rare comprehensive story on Trump’s alleged and convicted crimes.
His businesses went bankrupt repeatedly and multiple others failed. He was taken to court for stiffing his vendors, stiffing his bankers and even stiffing his own family. He avoided the draft during the Vietnam War and avoided paying any income taxes for years. He was forced to shell out tens of millions of dollars to students who accused him of scamming them, found liable for wide-scale business fraud and had his real estate firm convicted in criminal court of tax crimes.
He has boasted of grabbing women by their private parts, been reported to have cheated on all three of his wives and been accused of sexual misconduct by more than two dozen women, including one whose account was validated by a jury that found him liable for sexual abuse after a civil trial.
He is the only president in American history impeached twice for high crimes and misdemeanors, the only president ever indicted on criminal charges and the only president to be convicted of a felony (34, in fact). He used the authority of his office to punish his adversaries and tried to hold onto power on the basis of a brazen lie.
Mr. Trump beat some of the investigations and lawsuits against him and some proved unfounded, but the sheer volume is remarkable.
The story was remarkable expecially by Baker’s terms — he has a history of pulling his punches with Presidents.
When Baker wrote a piece on Trump’s picks of Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, and Tulsi Gabbard less than a month later, Baker dropped the focus on how meritorious were the investigations into Trump — instead letting Steve Bannon claim, without correction, that the “Deep State” set out to break Trump.
If confirmed, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Hegseth and Ms. Gabbard would constitute the lead shock troops in Mr. Trump’s self-declared war on what he calls the “deep state.” All three have echoed his conviction that government is seeded with career public servants who actively thwarted his priorities while he was in office and targeted him after he left. None of them has the kind of experience relevant to these jobs comparable to predecessors of either party, but they can all be expected to take “a blowtorch” to the status quo, to use Stephen K. Bannon’s term for Mr. Gaetz.
“You tried to destroy Trump; you tried to imprison Trump; you tried to break Trump,” Mr. Bannon, a onetime White House strategist for Mr. Trump, said on his podcast on Wednesday after Mr. Gaetz’s nomination was announced. “He’s not breakable. You couldn’t destroy him. And now he has turned on you.”
To be sure, it’s common for journalists, including Baker, to let Trump air his claims of grievance without correction. It was just striking to see Baker do so so soon after writing that rare comprehensive review of Trump’s alleged and convicted crimes.
In between those two stories, CJR reports, an attorney for Trump wrote a letter to the NYT threatening a $10B lawsuit for the Baker story and three others.
The letter, addressed to lawyers at the New York Times and Penguin Random House, arrived a week before the election. Attached was a discursive ten-page legal threat from an attorney for Donald Trump that demanded $10 billion in damages over “false and defamatory statements” contained in articles by Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt, Susanne Craig, and Russ Buettner.
It singles out two stories coauthored by Buettner and Craig that related to their book on Trump and his financial dealings, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success, released on September 17. It also highlighted an October 20 story headlined “For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment” by Baker and an October 22 piece by Schmidt, “As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator.”
“There was a time, long ago, when the New York Times was considered the ‘newspaper of record,’” the letter, a copy of which was reviewed by CJR, reads. “Those halcyon days have passed.” It accuses the Times of being “a full-throated mouthpiece of the Democratic Party” that employs “industrial-scale libel against political opponents.”
The other stories include Mike Schmidt’s interview — backed by recordings!! — of John Kelly, in which Trump’s former Chief of Staff warned that he would rule as a fascist. It’s not clear about which stories from Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig Trump complained (CJR did not include the letter or NYT’s response). But they teamed up to write a damaging piece about how The Apprentice gave Trump the false appearance of success; they’ve got more dated work in which they showed how Trump made little from the inheritance he got from his father.
Whichever Buettner/Craig stories they are, now is probably a good time either to get a copy of their book, Lucky Loser, yourself, or to create demand for it at your local public library!
Unlike the frivolous complaints against CBS (for editing a transcript of Kamala Harris’ 60 Minutes interview less extensively than Fox edited the transcript of Trump’s women’s town hall) or WaPo (for reporting positively on Harris), Trump does not appear to have followed up on his threat to sue the NYT. Those other lawsuits, I suspect, were part of an effort to claim the election was unfair, in the same way Trump has wailed that he lost the 2020 election because voters were not permitted to look at Hunter Biden’s dick pics before the election.
But the letter to NYT appears, so far, to be no more than a warning shot: that he will come after them if they do accurate reporting describing that Trump is not the guy he sold himself as.
That’s telling, though. Trump has telegraphed that he believes accurate reporting debunking his con is dangerous enough he would be willing to take on the NYT about it.
Crazy, I know. But what if simply reporting the truth about Trump’s con is what he most fears? And that is where he’ll focus his authoritarian gaze first.
Peter Baker has a more critical piece today. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/trump-signals-a-seismic-shift-shocking-the-washington-establishment.html
Not much new, but sharply cast. And some good quotes.
Such as this about Trump’s Rogues Gallery:
David Marchick, a co-author of “The Peaceful Transfer of Power,” a history of presidential transitions, and dean of the Kogod School of Business at American University, called the collection of choices unlike any before.
“This is like the ‘Star Wars’ bar scene of nominees,” he said. Mr. Trump’s camp has made clear, he added, that “it’s a serious strategy to blow out the government as an institution because of their belief that it’s become too big, too powerful and represents the deep state.”
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “Innocentbystander” triggering auto-moderation; it has been edited to reflect your established username. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill; future comments may not publish if username does not match. /~Rayne]
I think that’s what Marcy would call uncontested propaganda, broadcast by the NYT on behalf of Trump.
Trump’s definition of “deep state” is personal and idiosyncratic. Basically, it means any govt employee who puts their oath of office ahead of Donald Trump’s illegal or ill-considered whims.
The propaganda part comes with the framing that the “reason” Trump wants to do these things is because the USG has become “too big, too powerful.” Trump’s base love that, because it’s how they see the power imbalance between them and the USG. It’s why Speaker Johnson says Trump’s nominees are there to “shake up the status quo,” because it’s not working for the American people.
In part, that’s true, and makes the propaganda effective. But Trump doesn’t give a shit about their perspective and will make that power imbalance worse for average Americans. What he sees is that the USG is so big, it can effectively oppose destructive uses of corporate power. Frankly, that’s its job, it’s the only institution that can do it, which is why Trump wants to stop it.
When we talk about the “deep state,” we mean COINTELPRO, Iran/Contra, and so on–rule-breaking behavior on behalf of corrupt officials. When Trump et al talk about the “deep state,” what they mean is “competent people”–just government employees, playing by the rules.
The phrase “working the refs” comes to mind.
Trump’s threat of a lawsuit had multiple specific targets.
(1) The owner and editors of the NYT – “This is your paper, and you better control your out-of-control employees.”
(2) Certain specific reporters, like Baker but also like Maggie – “I can make you toxic and freeze you out, and I can make your day with access.”
(3) Other newspapers and their owners/editors, like Bezos at the WaPo and the folks at the LA Times – “You don’t want to be getting a letter like I sent the NYT, do you?”
(4) His base in MAGA world – “I won, and it’s time to kick butt just like I said I would. Today it’s the Times, and tomorrow, who knows?” Like his pitch to Zelenskyy (“You don’t need to actually investigate Biden, just announce an investigation of Biden and leave the rest to me”), Trump knows he doesn’t need to actually file a lawsuit, just announce it and the crowd goes wild . . .
And besides, if you don’t file the lawsuit, you can’t lose it.
Also, if you don’t file a lawsuit, you never have to prove your allegations.
nor open yourself up to discovery.
But if you file and lawsuit and then drop it, the insurance premium of the journal goes up. That’s what happened to “Last Week Tonight” at some point.
Given what Peter Baker wrote, why would 53% of white women voters vote for that?
A female white voter in my work vanpool shared some insight with me. My co-worker states it boils down to women v woman competition and the jealousy woman have for other women who are successful. That this stems from mother-daughter competition and is carried on into adulthood. That this is a “dirty little secret” among women.
(I had never heard this before)
This is why an adjudicated male sexual assaulter, adjudicated rapist, received more votes than a joyful career government official who is female with judicial and legislative experience.
Does this mean that America can never have a female POTUS?
Maybe you never heard that because it is not actually a thing.
One woman doesn’t speak for all women, especially when that one woman has her head fucked up by internalized oppression.
Somebody — maybe this one woman — has fucking rationalized internalized oppression as jealousy. Total fucking bullshit.
Women who don’t vote for competent women versus lying cheating rapists are doing so because they are rewarded by white supremacy for doing so. They find ways to say “I’d rather vote for any white man than vote for a Black Asian woman who may shake up my existing world in which I am comfortable.”
Thank you for your reply Rayne and Harpie – especially yours Rayne. To be fair, my co-worker does have familial issues.
Some of the best managers I’ve had were female. And, also, one of the worst (though I would describe her as a doormat for her kids.)
Same, but then I could say the same about men.
One thing I can definitely say: regardless of gender identity, none of the best managers were criminals. One of the worst was a tax cheat.
Rayne, your last paragraph is spot on!
I’ll add, in my limited anecdotal experience, some women who voted for him were highly influenced by his The Apprentice character. And when Trump denied the allegations, it was like they heard The Apprentice character denying the allegations and wanted to believe the character.
Or they are not in fact comfortable but in fact trying to appease either a specific abuser or abusive power structure that tells them “I will protect you if you do it my way,” relying on their experiential knowledge that he/it will destroy them if they resist.
A tiny fraction of that 53% read what Baker wrote. And they read far more stories in which Trump claimed the investigations into him were all witch hunts, without correction, including from people like Baker, and so why wouldn’t they believe them.
EVERY family has familial issues and they are mostly gender-independent.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “The Winter Hawk Est. 1949” triggering auto-moderation. You have now used **FIVE** different variations of this username, each containing different punctuation and spacing, each triggering auto-moderation; it has been edited to match your first known comment. You also added content in the URL field which is not applicable; it has been deleted. **PICK A VERSION AND STICK WITH IT ON ALL FUTURE COMMENTS.** Please check your browser’s cache and autofill; future comments may not publish if username does not match.
I can’t make this more clear: you are at risk of banning because you ignored a moderator request AND you deviated even further from the site’s username policy. /~Rayne]
Donald Trump’s definition of Deep State is anyone who works to uphold the Constitution and preserve, protect, and defend the US. from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The only oath Donald Trump recognizes is an oath of personal loyalty to him.
If Donald Trump used personal NDAs with his direct reports in the WH his first go round, he’ll try to use them throughout government his next go round.
If Trump ultimately takes on the NYT while he’s President, and sues them for defamation, he will at least have Clarence Thomas in his corner, if not others. Thomas has wanted to reverse NYT v. Sullivan for years, in order to hold media to account for criticizing his political patrons.
The CJR story cites this person as the lawyer sending the letter to the NY Times:
https://bochner.law/team/edward-paltzik/
“Mr. Paltzik is not licensed to practice law in the State of Florida.”
Looks friendly.
Paltzik is licensed in NY, NJ, and Texas, so his letter to the NY-based NYT would be legit, at least insofar as his license to practice there is concerned.
The most obvious place to sue the NYT would be the district in which the defendant has its principal place of business, NYC. But Goopers prefer the radical right federal judges more often found in Texas, where Paltzik is also licensed.
“But what if simply reporting the truth about Trump’s con is what he most fears? And that is where he’ll focus his authoritarian gaze first.” Reporting the truth about his con should be what he most fears. Especially when the truth is covered simply, factually, and without obfuscation. Over and over again. He’s right to fear this.
Of course the truth about his multitude of cons is what he most wants to suppress. Everything about his campaign and recent cabinet choices says that the next administration will (in hallowed authoritarian fashion) not merely delegitimize truth but render it dangerous to utter in any form.
This is our rallying point. The truth. At whatever cost.
Circumstantial inference and opinion based on that is distant from defamation.
As to Harris, gender and race, she appeared to me to be the best candidate, lesser evil in the sense she was right of Bernie and AOC, as is Biden, but for the reason I voted Biden, I voted Harris, and yet Rayne, I agree there was bias both on gender and race in the voting. And that is an opinion based on circumstantial inference yet Trump could sue me. He’s got the lawyer and filing fee, and what else does it take to instigate a lawsuit? It is a part of the American Way, a part we should not like, the advantage of the deep pocket, but we cannot fold from fear of intimidation. That is what deep pocket litigation wants.
Trump could try to sue you but why would he bother? Have you damaged him, can he prove he’s been defamed? Is he a public figure who is likely to draw a lot of attention and therefore opinion? Is he a public employee who essentially works for you as well as the rest of the public, whose work is subject to scrutiny and feedback?
We’re still entitled to opinion, and still entitled to our First Amendment right to express it.
A number of states have it now, but California was a pioneer in enacting an Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law. It allows for an early motion to dismiss civil lawsuits of any variety brought to try to chill the exercise of First Amendment and other rights in public processes. It has been very effective at reducing the leverage of deep-pocketed, abusive litigants like Trump.
Anti-SLAPP laws are an excellent and valuable tool.
However, the mere threats of frivolous and vexatious lawsuits have deleterious effects even when the lawsuits are not filed, not least through poisoning public discourse and exhausting the targets of such tactics.
It does depend on the state one lives in, though.
https://anti-slapp.org/your-states-free-speech-protection
Trump is always wailing that he is being more investigated than Capone.
You know, if you commit more crimes than Capone did, you’re going to be investigated more than Capone was.
He doesn’t seem to know what happened to Capone, either.
Compared to his lingering death from syphilis, Alcatraz was a spa for Al Capone.
I wonder if Trump and his minions have seen Roxanne Gay’s NYT op-ed today. A taste . . .
That is such a refreshing read. It is kind of like the Emperor’s new clothes. Someone finally just stating the obvious.
It brings me back to NPR or maybe it was my state public radio during the campaign. No detailed policy news, just poll results and one after another after another man in the street interview. And then the “reporter” just listening to one clear falsehood after another followed by some other statement that defied reality as to why random person was voting for Trump.
I was always wondering if the reporter nodding along agreeably ever thought, “Oh, my God. Did I ever fail at my job”.
To the extent that there is public funding for NPR, Trump will defund it.
The regime wants to control the flow of information.
See https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances
Less than 1% of NPR’s funding comes directly from the federal government. It’s the indirect funding which will be threatened when Trump goes after universities and other sources of funding which receive federal monies.
Agree 100%
“Today’s” NYT op-ed?
Here’s Chris Hayes “moment perfectly sums up how fake information spreads”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SGu3hhGcstM&.
The propaganda machine always writes “look it up”, makes this garbage legit. Firstly how do you look up something that doesn’t exist and secondly that phrase seems to legitimize this garbage.
[Moderator’s note: URL edited to remove tracking. In the future, please remove everything ampersand and after from YouTube links. /~Rayne]
The last sentence of your extract from Roxanne Gay’s opinion in the NYTimes is the $64,000 question. How does one break through the fog of misinformation and disinformation?
I thought Harris had a breakthrough moment when, during the interview with Brett Baier, she called him out on his use of the wrong clip. A small leak of truth.
But it will take a much more than a small leak here or there to break through the wall of deception.
There will always be those who prefer wild conspiracy theories or fairy tales where kissing the toad is the key to unlocking the inner Prince. But there are also adults whose only source of information is right wing media. How to reach them is the question.
MAGAs think “Your facts are infringing on my right to my own beliefs.” They don’t want to find out if they’re wrong because that would make them “losers.” Their thinking is full of logical fallacies esp. confirmation bias. If they do engage in argument it’s not to find out the truth, it’s to “destroy” their opponent. Deny, distract, delay. Just like Roy Cohn and Trump.
The right wing media repeats these falsehoods over and over again. Some choose to repeat them, while others, especially elderly Republican voters, have been brainwashed by repetition.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “JSH” triggering auto-moderation; it has been edited to reflect your established username. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill; future comments may not publish if username does not match. /~Rayne]
This Roxanne Gay piece is great and gives me hope that there are enough of us to stay true to reality and hang in there for the duration.
The people who are in love with disinformation and conspiracy theories will only change when they personally feel pain- like a religious person who preaches against gays but who eventually changes their views when their favorite child comes out to them. Not a great example but feeling personal pain needs to fill in for their missing empathy.
An excellent editorial and opinion piece…
OT, but why is Marcy posting different things on Bluesky and X?
Are we going to have to still look t0 both to get different info?
I don’t know about Marcy, but I know that when I talk with reasonable people I talk one way, and when I talk with crazy people, I talk another way.
I don’t see either one. I have no great hope for Bluesky.
Marcy stated on her Friday podcast that she keeps “X” in order to bring “truth” to the site, though I think she worded it slightly differently. :-)
No Recess
Prospects for freedom of the press:
Mitch says there will be no recess
Guess we’ll see, more or less,
what the lame duck’s thugs will stress
Now that they will each be vetted
we’ll see smarmy and empty-headed
But will we learn who aided and abetted
and to whom they are indebted
Each nominee put to the test
Dirty laundry vies to be best
We wonder what will manifest
And just who will be self-possessed
What will see the light of day
What will be washed away
What are the things they can’t unsay
from each MAGA dossier
I bow humbly to your ability with words.
A feeble attempt at a limerick if I may – it applies to us all:
‘In the toilet bowl
Of life – strive to be the one
that does the flushing.’
Because you can bet the farm that these clowns will shit on our country every. chance. they. get.
I think that is a haiku rather than a limerick.
Epicurus – you are correct, thank you. I mistyped.
Epicurus went ahead and checked
Benji, who’s description was totally fekked-
More care will be shown
since this community is known
to call out attribution that is wrecked.
So the Senate is going to attempt to maintain its political relevancy…may it not be for the last time. Alas, McConnell has done a lot to weaken the US Senate and the entire Constitution now for quite some time… sadly, McConnell now lives in the “interesting times” that he helped create.
I saw Alice Cooper perform once. He made me think he was an asshole who was CAPITALIZING on existing anti-establishment and or youthful rejection of adult imposed status quo.
The only song he ever did that I thought might have a reasonable excuse for its popularity was: School’s Out.
Ya, I saw him throw a live chicken into the audience. That was shitty.
Marcy Wheeler: “And that is where he’ll focus his authoritarian gaze first.”
I know that will happen, however as the Savage One alludes to at 10:03 PM yesterday ‘Mitch says there will be no recess’ is where my money is right now.
Against Addison Mitchell McConnell III.
The Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 grants recess appointment power, true enough – but what of manipulating Spineless Mike Johnson into recessing – and then forcing the Senate (Addison be damned) to adjourn for an unspecified length of time to force his shit-show picks through? Will Thune keep his backbone?
From Russ Vought’s wet dream power hungry site https: //americarenewing.com/issues/brief-on-the-article-ii-recess-appointments-clause/ (gotta love the ‘Woke and Weaponized’ subheading under the ‘Policy’ tab):
Next, the Framers very deliberately bestowed upon the President authority to adjourn the Congress when the two Houses of that body disagreed about whether to take a recess. Indeed, they are prevented from returning to their duties until the President deems that return to be fitting:
“[The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.”
This propaganda stinks like yesterdays dirty diapers. But to the legal types here – can it be done legally if the Senate capitulates their responsibility?
A very invigorating and truth-telling comment section. Thanks to you all for your comments, and especially earlofhuntingdon at top for telling the plain truth about trump’s criminal, paranoid motives. It’s always been about him exclusively.
The so-called deep state does the work of the USG. Period. But their competence scares him.
trump is petrified of being found out. His crimes are many. He stole classified material. I’m old but hope I live to see justice come down on him like rain.
Kind regards.
Thank you for this post and all the comments.
Trump wants to sue the NYT for $10B? His reputation isn’t worth that. He just looks silly asking for that amount. I’d say the man is not playing with a full deck or has an undeserved high opinion of himself.
Some people think they can get others to do their bidding or shut them up or make them go away by threatening them. Some times it works and a lot of times it doesn’t. Trump is simply displaying behaviour I’ve seen before in others.
Still laughing about the $10B. A politician’s reputation might be a big deal in a lot of cases, but in Trumps, not so much. As others have listed his behaviour above, there really isn’t much you can say about him which isn’t true.
Trump has “threatened” to do a lot of things, but my take on it is, that would just be too much work for him and he always looked a tad lazy to me. If he plans for others to do the work, he is going to need people more qualified than he is suggesting he will appoint. If he and his expect the federal government workers to do his dirty work, he may find out they know, “I was just following orders” doesn’t work.
I want to know how Trump was damaged by NYT since he managed to get elected a second time.
OnceAndFuture president, Blew A. Mic is now siccing his Rabble
on Iowa pollster Ann Selzer, calling her mistaken Nov.2 poll
“possible ELECTION FRAUD”.
BLEW A. MIC is butt-hurt because fewer than 50% of voters chose him.
LIMP! WEAK! SAD!
‘Unhinged’: Trump’s Brazen New ‘Investigation’ Demand Has Critics Sounding The Alarm The president-elect is taking his election fraud claims to an unexpected new level. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-selzer-investigation_n_673ae32ee4b0ebe12e369676
Ed Mazza Nov 18, 2024, 02:50 AM EST
I don’t know how to phrase this, but is it possible Selzer’s firm
was the victim of targeted false responses here?
What I mean is: is it possible her poll was deliberately sabotaged
IN ODER TO then be able to attack her?
Peter Baker’s piece is as nice a summary of the vile creature as I have seen reduced to writing. The resistance needs to go into full mockery mode – Stephanie Miller has the right idea. Trump is an absurd bag of trans fat with tan bronzer troweled on. To make himself appear even more ridiculous, he wears what appears to be a yellow birds nest on his head and elevator shoes, which make his valgus knees even more apparent. He is a buffoon and he sure isn’t getting any smarter or more lucid. I intend to mock him and make fun of him publicly whenever possible. Humor will destroy him.
https://bsky.app/profile/washingtonpost.com/post/3lbdiu4dmb22y
November 19, 2024 at 5:39 PM
LIMP!