As I mentioned here, ABC reported that the lie charged in the Jim Comey indictment pertains to whether he authorized Dan Richman to share information anonymously, not whether he authorized Andrew McCabe to do so.

Sources told ABC News that “PERSON 1” is Clinton and “PERSON 3” is Richman, a longtime law professor who — as ABC News previously reported — met with federal prosecutors last week after being subpoenaed in the matter.

Charlie Savage has the best piece on the likely theory of the indictment. I’d like to expand on that to explain why I think it more likely we’ll obtain proof that Kash Patel lied to Congress as a result of this prosecution than that Jim Comey did.

As you read the following remember that Kash assured the Senate Judiciary Committee — including in this exchange with Mazie Hirono — that he would not “go[] backwards” to investigate Jim Comey.

Senator Hirono (02:18:49):

Do you plan to investigate James Comey, who’s on your list?

Kash Patel (02:18:54):

I have no intentions of going backwards-

Except it appears that Kash did precisely that.

The indictment appears to accuse Comey of authorizing Dan Richman to serve as a source for this article on the Hillary and Trump investigations, especially this passage about the SVR document purporting to report that Loretta Lynch had told Amanda Renteria she would intervene to protect Hillary (the charge the grand jury rejected was also focused on these SVR documents, which I explained here).

During Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention.

The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document.

Read one way, it was standard Washington political chatter. Read another way, it suggested that a political operative might have insight into Ms. Lynch’s thinking.

Normally, when the F.B.I. recommends closing a case, the Justice Department agrees and nobody says anything. The consensus in both places was that the typical procedure would not suffice in this instance, but who would be the spokesman?

The document complicated that calculation, according to officials. If Ms. Lynch announced that the case was closed, and Russia leaked the document, Mr. Comey believed it would raise doubts about the independence of the investigation.

[snip]

But some time after that meeting, Mr. Comey began talking to his advisers about announcing the end of the Clinton investigation himself, according to a former official.

“When you looked at the totality of the situation, we were leaning toward: This is something that makes sense to be done alone,” said Mr. Steinbach, who would not confirm the existence of the Russian document.

Former Justice Department officials are deeply skeptical of this account. If Mr. Comey believed that Ms. Lynch were compromised, they say, why did he not seek her recusal? Mr. Comey never raised this issue with Ms. Lynch or the deputy attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, former officials said.

Importantly, Richman was a named source for the story, which will make it hard to prove that Comey authorized Richman to serve as an anonymous source. (Hilariously, Pat Fitzgerald’s meticulous mapping during the Scooter Libby trial of the difference between an “anonymous” source and a “background” source might, by itself, defeat this case.)

As part of an investigation into the sources for this story (which targeted Jim Baker closely), John Durham seems to have discovered either details of how the FBI authorized people to weigh in on stories or that Dan Richman served as a cut-out for Comey, I’m not sure which.

The reopened Arctic Haze investigation was biased against Comey

That discovery led DOJ to reopen a bunch of investigations into 2017 stories pertaining to the Russian investigation, documented in these filings, which I wrote up here.

As part of that, DOJ investigated whether Richman was the source for the SVR details in the April 2017 NYT story. Before closing the investigation, DOJ asked Comey for the phone he used at the time, and found nothing relevant.

[redacted] on June 29, 2021, Comey provided consent, via his counsel, for the FBI to conduct a limited search of his Apple iPhone. The FBI conducted a forensic examination of the telephone. The examination indicated the telephone contained four voicemail messages, four instant messages, two email messages, and 51 images from December 1, 2016 to May 1, 2017. None of this material contained information relevant to this investigation.

They also interviewed Richman, who among other things, told the FBI that, “Comey never asked him to talk to the media” (though it appears earlier, as described in redacted passages, he may have said Comey did).

The substance of the November 2019 Richman interview confirmed that Comey had told Richman bits about the SVR documents, but that when Mike Schmidt came to Richman and asked him about it in January 2017, Schmidt already knew more about the documents than Richman did.

On November 22, 2019, the Arctic Haze investigative team interviewed Richman. According to Richman, Comey and Richman talked about the “hammering” Comey was taking from the media concerning his handling of the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman opined Comey took comfort in the fact Richman had talked to the press about his feelings regarding Comey’s handling and decision-making on the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman claimed Comey never asked him to talk to the media.

According to Richman, he and Comey had a private conversation in Comey’s office in January 2017. The conversation pertained to Comey’s decision to make a public statement on the Midyear Exam investigation. Comey told Richman the tarmac meeting between Lynch and Clinton was not the only reason which played into Comey’s statement on the Midyear Exam investigation. According to Richman, Comey told Richman of Lynch’s characterization of the investigation as a “matter” and not that of an investigation. Richman recalled Comey told him there was some weird classified material related to Lynch which came to the FBI’s attention. Comey did not fully explain the details of the information. Comey told Richman about the Classified Information, including the source of the information. Richman understood the information could be used to suggest Lynch might not be impartial with regards of the conclusion of the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman understood the information about Lynch was highly classified and it should be protected. Richman was an SGE at the time of the meeting.

According to Richman, he and Schmidt had a conversation shortly after the meeting with Comey in or around January 2017. Richman claimed Schmidt brought up the Classified Information and knew more about it than he did. Richman was pretty sure he did not confirm the Classified Information. However, Richman told the interviewing agents he was sure “with a discount” that he did not tell Schmidt about the Classified Information. Richman did not know who gave Schmidt the Classified Information. Richman acknowledged he had many discussions with Schmidt about the article as an SGE and even after he resigned as an SGE. Richman acknowledged he contributed more to the article than what was attributed to him by name. Richman also stated he knew Schmidt talked to numerous other government sources for information on the article. [my emphasis]

DOJ ultimately decided they couldn’t charge either Comey or Richman, because even if Richman were a source, he would be a confirmatory source, which DOJ had never charged (they claim, though I think that’s incorrect).

They did some more interviews but — and this may sink EDVA’s case even if everything else doesn’t — they only interviewed people who would have a motive to protect Comey, not those with a motive to slam him.

After discussing the status of investigative leads and resources available with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Department of Justice’s National Security Division (DOJ NSD), the FBI investigative team was directed to interview only those officials who might have had a motive to protect Comey. Therefore, the FBI only interviewed eight of these officials who consisted mainly of former FBI officials. All of these officials denied providing the Classified Information to the New York Times. [my emphasis]

At a time when they could have charged this, Bill Barr’s DOJ assumed that the original detailed sources for the SVR story must be Comey allies.

There are at least two reasons why that was a dumb theory.

First, as the DOJ IG Report on this that investigators read — but didn’t explain in the unredacted parts of the case file — Comey and people around him believed the claims in the document were “objectively false” Comey even alluded as such in his 2018 OGR testimony (also cited in this closing document) — which Kash Patel would know personally. “So far as I knew at the time, and still think, the material itself was genuine, which is a separate question, though, from whether it was what it said was accurate.”

This entire passage is premised on the document being true.

More importantly, the sources for it are pissed off that Jim Comey announced the end of the Hillary investigation himself.

Plus, there’s no mention that one of these two SVR documents said that Jim Comey was going to throw the election for the Republicans. If someone were really familiar with the documents themselves, rather than just discussions of them, you’d expect they would suggest that maybe Comey was overcompensating out of worry that he would be deemed partial to Republicans.

The blind spot about that part of the SVR documents, notably, is replicated in the HPSCI document on which Kash was the original author.

HPSCI simply leaves out the Jim Comey allegation in one of the SVR reports, which if true, would explain why Putin wouldn’t have to (and didn’t) dump damning intel close to the election: Because Putin believed that “Comey is leaning more to the [R]epublicans, and most likely he will be dragging this investigation until the presidential elections,” something that turned out to be true. In other words, they cherry pick which Russian spy products they choose to parrot, one of the sins they accuse the ICA team of, but they do so with years of hindsight that made clear how foolish that was.

The entire right wing, including the current FBI Director, have vast blindspots about these documents (Kash even seems to believe they’re not fabricated!!). And those blindspots appear to have been replicated in the investigative choices for that investigation. That means the selective prosecution of this prosecution is built on top of the selective investigation of the Richman investigation.

Nevertheless, the investigation was closed without charging Richman for confirming classified details.

Kash did look backward

Where this becomes proof that Kash lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, claiming that “I have no intentions of going backwards” to investigate Comey is that there’s no reason to reexamine the issue (except that Comey answered a question focused on Andrew McCabe on which the statute of limitations has not yet expired).

The leak itself, if it could be pinned on Comey and Richman, could not be charged. Bill Barr did not reopen the investigation after seeing Comey’s September 2020 testimony, even though he remained busy trying to discredit Crossfire Hurricane.

While investigators this time around are chasing a parallel theory that the FBI covered up their focus on SVR documents that only exists in the fevered imaginations of people like Kash (that is, if Comey actually lied about any of this it would be material to their fevered conspiracy theories in the other part of the investigation), it would not have been material at the time, because Ted Cruz was seeking a gotcha about his fevered imagined conflict between McCabe and Comey’s testimony. The underlying 2017 question from Grassley incorporated Richman, but if Cruz’s did, there’s no hint of that. He explicitly focused on McCabe.

Nor would it be material to the Durham investigation. The Durham Report actually says that Comey refused to be interviewed, pointing instead to testimony just like this. So if there’s something in this exchange that would be usable, Durham didn’t do so.

Nevertheless, somehow, the FBI decided to go revisit this gotcha question from five years ago, which — even if Comey were lying — would not change the public understanding of Comey’s self-righteous justifications for his decisions in the Clinton investigation one bit. Outside the fevered imagination of people like Kash, or the decision to look backward to investigate a guy listed on your enemies list, there’s no reason you get to these files.

Now, Comey may have opportunity to ask Kash, under oath, how the FBI decided to go unpack the closing file for an investigation closed over three years earlier — which is why I say we may get proof that Kash lied to SJC.

But the only new information that I could conceive of that would lead the FBI to reconsider this is if the FBI spied on the NYT and found materials from Mike Schmidt saying that Richman was his source and Comey told him to leak it. Which, if it happened, would be a ten times bigger scandal than we’ve already got.

I would be shocked if Comey didn’t ask for some explanation — other than the revenge to which Trump confessed publicly — behind the predication of this investigation. I would be unsurprised if Judge Michael  Nachmanoff, who is presiding over the case, offered him that opportunity.

And if he does, Kash is going to be stuck trying to make up some excuse that doesn’t amount to a confession he lied, as a private citizen, to SJC as part of his effort to get the job he’s using to weaponize government against Trump’s enemies.

Kash Patel wrote a book in 2023 targeting Jim Comey.

When asked whether he intended to use the FBI Director position to investigate Jim Comey, Kash claimed, under oath, that he had no intentions of going backward to do so.

And then he proceeded to do just that.

The evidence that Comey lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee is paper thin.

The evidence that Kash lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee is abundant.

And here’s the picture of Scattery Island I referenced. Here’s a story about Moneypoint halting coal burning.

Listen on spotify (transcripts available)

Listen on Apple (transcripts available)

Let’s talk about all the lies that someone at EDVA would have to wade through to actually convict Jim Comey.

Lindsey Halligan’s disclaimer of signing the Comey indictment

First, there’s the weirdness with the indictment itself. As NBC and WaPo reported from the courtroom, Lindsey Halligan actually handed the magistrate judge, Lindsey Vaala, two charging documents. When Vaala asked what was going on, Halligan said she did not see the second one. Vaala noted that she had signed the document.

There was some confusion in the courtroom and from Judge Lindsey Vaala, who appeared puzzled by the multiple charging documents filed for one case. Vaala asked why there were two documents in the same case. Halligan told her, “I did not see,” to which Vaala replied, “It has your signature on it.”

Vaala then had Halligan make handwritten changes to one of the documents and said both documents would be uploaded to the docket for the record.

That may well lead to further scrutiny. One of the two charging documents is the indictment that includes the charge that grand jurors rejected.

But the only writing on either document that appears to have been added is where (marked with the red box) someone noted, “count 1 only” (which is, indeed, the charge that was dropped). But there’s another irregularity with the document. The rest of it (and the indictment that was filed) looks like it was scanned — with a line down the center and a shadow, as I’ve marked in red.

But the second page lacks both of those things.

And both the charge on page two and the one on page three are called, “COUNT TWO.” Which may suggest someone just put the second page of the failed indictment in between the two pages of the one approved by the grand jury.

All that’s enough that Comey might ask questions about the conduct of the grand jury — something he normally would not be able to do. Given Halligan’s claim she never saw the indictment, it also might raise questions about whether Halligan signed the indictment before or after the grand jury approved it.

And then Halligan would have to explain why she never saw the indictment that she herself signed. Because she’s the only attorney on this filing, she would have to explain the irregularities herself.

That’s not the only question Halligan will face.

It’s not entirely clear under what legal authority she is play-acting as US Attorney. But when Alina Habba was challenged for play-acting as US Attorney after her temporary period expired in New Jersey, a judge ruled that the interim appointment is per position, not per person, meaning that Erik Siebert — the guy Trump fired on Friday — would already have used up the possibility of such an interim appointment in May.

In other words, Halligan may not be US Attorney at all, and unless she fixed that problem by Tuesday, the entire thing might just disappear.

In any case, while EDVA has a rocket docket (meaning this would otherwise go to trial quickly), Halligan’s temporary status could become be a problem before this goes to trial if Comey mounts a vindictive prosecution challenge (LaMonica McIver’s vindictive prosecution challenge is only now fully briefed, three months after her indictment). Then EDVA could be left with an indictment charging Jim Comey but no one willing to stand in a courtroom to prosecute it.

The vindictive prosecution challenge

Even if Halligan survived that long, it is exceedingly likely that Comey would not just get to present a vindictive prosecution claim, which Trump has confessed to over and over, but also to ask for discovery on how that all came about. If granted, I’m sure he’d ask to:

• Depose Kash Patel, both about his children’s book naming Jim Comey a “government gangster” but also his conduct in this and related Comey investigations.
• Depose Siebert, who decided there wasn’t even probable cause to charge this, much less the ability to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Depose Todd Blanche, who reportedly agreed with Siebert and advised Trump not to fire Siebert.
• Depose Pam Bondi because why the fuck not??
• Depose Halligan.

Just deposing Kash alone would be a huge problem, because he only got confirmed by lying to the Senate about prosecuting the people in his Government Gangster book.

This indictment proves Kash lied, not that Comey did.

It proves something else, too.

Halligan tried to charge Comey with two lies. I’ll come back to the one that survived — basically, the indictment accuses Comey of lying in 2017 when he said he had never authorized anyone to leak information anonymously to the press.

The Russian disinformation that Chuck Grassley falsely claimed was a Clinton plan

The one the grand jury rejected charged Comey with lying when he said he didn’t recall being told (which the indictment transcribes as “taught”) this memo.

There are multiple problems with the question — posed shortly after Kash Patel and John Ratcliffe released it in 2020.

First, we now know that the “plan” was in fact Russian disinformation sown by fabricating several emails. Investigating based off this document commits precisely the crime that John Durham investigated for years: investigating someone based on something you know to be false.

Worse still, according to every witness that Durham interviewed, no one remembered receiving this memo at all. It’s possible Kash thinks he has found a copy (that seems to be part of what he’s investigating in WDVA), but Durham never did.

Finally, and most insane of all, as I noted here, the redactions in this document and the representation Kash and Ratcliffe made about what it is appear to be badly misleading. That is, this referral appears to be a referral about the Russian plot targeting Hillary, not about Hillary. It is only right wing fever dreams and deceitful redactions that made it into something else.

If Comey had seen this document, he would not remember it in the way that he was asked about it.

So not only is it ridiculous to charge someone for not remembering something that wasn’t that big a deal, but it’s crazier still to charge someone for not remembering a document that you’ve redacted in misleading fashion and then described as the opposite of what most people understood it to be.

All that wasn’t charged, but nevertheless, according to John Durham’s logic at least, Kash committed several crimes by investigating this at all.

Jim Comey will get to expose Ted Cruz as a liar, again

Which finally brings us to what did get charged, part of the exchange above.

1. On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES B. COMEY JR., did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, Fictitious, and fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United Stales, by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate Judiciaiy Committee hearing that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.

2. That statement was false, because, as JAMES B. COMEY JR. then and there knew, he in fact had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.

Before Cruz asks the question that got charged, he asked one after another question based on false premises. Comey had to correct the following Cruz lies:

• The FBI did not surveil the Trump campaign
• The Carter Page IG Report did not show that FBI lied to the FISC 17 times
• Cruz misrepresented the email that Kevin Clinesmith altered (it was not used in any submission and Cruz misstated the import of the change)
• The FISC was alerted to the political source of the Steele dossier
• Cruz falsely claimed that Comey stated that the FISC was informed that the DNC paid for the dossier
• Cruz misstated what Comey said about his own knowledge about the funding

Cruz also misstated the facts about Igor Danchenko, but Comey didn’t know enough to correct those.

The actual charged lie starts after 6:30 in the video. Cruz reads Comey’s testimony from 2017, in which he responded to a question from Chuck Grassley whether he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?”

Cruz then made another misstatement — three actually, that Andrew McCabe, “has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it.”

Comey did not correct Cruz this time, but he said he stood by the testimony he gave in 2017.

Already, what Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer said in the indictment is a stretch. Comey did not say the words quoted in the indictment. He said only he stood by his earlier testimony. (Effectively, this is an attempt to charge Comey for something he said 8 years ago.)

If she’s thinking this is about McCabe, it also builds on Ted Cruz’s lie. First of all, the IG Report on McCabe (and his public comments) was about the Clinton Foundation — not Clinton, but the Foundation, not Person-1 but the foundation ran by her spouse.

Second, it was not a leak, anymore than Kash Patel’s non-stop frequently inaccurate blabbing on Xitter amount to leaks. It was an authorized conversation with the press.

Third of all, the specific authorization in this case was from McCabe to Lisa Page to serve as a source; it didn’t involve Comey.

McCabe thereafter authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to talk to Barrett about this follow-up story.

Where McCabe’s testimony differs from Comey’s is about what McCabe said to Comey after the fact. McCabe said that he told Comey and Comey thought it was a good idea.

McCabe said that he told Comey that he had “authorized AD/OPA and Special Counsel to disclose the account of the August 12th call” and did not say anything to suggest in any way that it was unauthorized. McCabe told us that Comey “did not react negatively, just kind of accepted it.” McCabe also told us Comey thought it was a “good” idea that they presented this information to rebut the inaccurate and one-sided narrative that the FBI was not doing its job and was subject to DOJ political pressure, but the Department and PADAG were likely to be angry that “this information made its way into the paper.” McCabe told us that he did not recall telling Comey prior to publication of the October 30 article that he intended to authorize or had authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to recount his August 12 call with PADAG to the WSJ, although he said it was possible he did.

Comey said when he spoke to McCabe about the story afterwards, McCabe denied knowing the source.

Comey told us that, prior to the article’s publication, he did not have any discussions with McCabe regarding disclosure of the August 12 PADAG call. According to Comey, he discussed the issue with McCabe after the article was published, and at that time McCabe “definitely did not tell me that he authorized” the disclosure of the PADAG call. Comey said that McCabe gave him the exact opposite impression:

I don’t remember exactly how, but I remember some form or fashion and it could have been like “can you believe this crap? How does this stuff get out” kind of thing? But I took from whatever communication we had that he wasn’t involved in it. . . . I have a strong impression he conveyed to me “it wasn’t me boss.”

Importantly, Comey disavowed any conversation with McCabe about this particular story before the fact.

Comey told us that, prior to the article’s publication, he did not have any discussions with McCabe regarding disclosure of the August 12 PADAG call.

That’s consistent with what McCabe said.

that he did not recall discussing the disclosure with Comey in advance of authorizing it, although it was possible that he did;

What McCabe has said elsewhere is that Comey had generally permitted just the two of them to speak with the press. But that was not specific to this story at all.

In other words, Ted Cruz got it wrong. Comey’s testimony to the Senate — which on follow-up was specifically about the WSJ story — was utterly consistent with McCabe’s.

Cruz lied. Comey didn’t.

Now it’s possible that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer is attempting a gimmick, by claiming that Comey authorized Dan Richman to share information about the Hillary investigation (we know this is about Hillary because she is Person-1 in the charge the grand jury rejected). That is, Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer may be trying to apply this Comey answer to Richman.

Except — even assuming he had spoken to Richman about Hillary (the right wing belief, until Richman’s testimony in the last few weeks, is that Comey authorized Richman to talk about the Trump investigation) — Comey could easily say his answer here was about the McCabe reference. [Update: ABC is reporting that it is Richman.]

But if this thing were ever to go to trial — if Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer is really the US Attorney, if the indictment really is what the grand jury approved, if this doesn’t get booted on a vindictive prosecution claim, if Pat Fitzgerald fails to argue that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer is confused about which FBI Director is a criminal — Comey can almost certainly call Teddy Cancun as a witness, at least to testify about materiality.

It would soon become clear that Comey’s answer, even if it were a lie, could never be material, because Ted Cruz was going to believe what he already believed. Cruz was committed to his false beliefs, no matter what Comey said in response.

But under questioning by a skilled attorney — and Fitz has questioned far bigger blowhards than Ted Cruz, if you can believe it — such testimony would force Cruz to either double down on his lies, or to confess he was the one lying all those years ago.

Right now, there’s not a shred of evidence that Comey lied in his statement.

There is, however, abundant evidence that Kash lied under oath and that Cruz lied in the same way he lies all the time. And if this were ever to go to trial, Cruz would, for once, have the opportunity to face consequences for any lies he told.

Update: CBS got the transcript of the exchange between Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer and Lindsey the Magistrate Judge. It seems clear that the Insurance Lawyer juggled her papers.

[T]wo versions of the indictment were published on the case docket: one with the dropped third count, and one without. The transcript reveals why this occurred.

“So this has never happened before. I’ve been handed two documents that are in the Mr. Comey case that are inconsistent with one another,” Vaala said to Halligan. “There seems to be a discrepancy. They’re both signed by the (grand jury) foreperson.”

And she noted that one document did not clearly indicate what the grand jury had decided.

“The one that says it’s a failure to concur in an indictment, it doesn’t say with respect to one count,” Vaala said. “It looks like they failed to concur across all three counts, so I’m a little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that are inconsistent.”

Halligan initially responded that she hadn’t seen that version of the indictment.

“So I only reviewed the one with the two counts that our office redrafted when we found out about the two — two counts that were true billed, and I signed that one. I did not see the other one. I don’t know where that came from,” Halligan told the judge.

Vaala responded, “You didn’t see it?” And Halligan again told her, “I did not see that one.”

Vaala seemed surprised: “So your office didn’t prepare the indictment that they —”

Halligan then replied, “No, no, no — I — no, I prepared three counts. I only signed the one — the two-count (indictment). I don’t know which one with three counts you have in your hands.”

“Okay. It has your signature on it,” Vaala told Halligan, who responded, “Okay. Well.”

Probably, nothing will come of it. Probably, the only price Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer will pay for this is 1) disclosure of the no bill record 2) exposure of the charge grand jurors refused and 3) humiliation in her first big show.

But it creates surface area and, as I suggested, the possibility that Comey will use it to pierce the secrecy of everything else that went on in the grand jury, including why it took until 6:47 to indict this.

In her reply memo arguing she is entitled to legislative immunity in conjunction with her oversight visit to Delaney Hall on May 9, which led to assault charges after ICE unlawfully arrested Ras Baraka, LaMonica McIver described the charges against her this way:

The indictment charges a sitting Member of Congress for conducting oversight of a controversial ICE facility and for continuing to undertake that oversight in the face of ICE obstruction that included deliberate delays, deception, an armed and masked response team of over a dozen agents, and the arrest of the Mayor of Newark in the middle of a crowd of civilians on a baseless trespassing charge.

This reply was, admittedly, submitted after the indictment of Jim Comey on Trump™ed up charges. Indeed, McIver even cited the Comey situation in her vindictive prosecution reply.

The government’s efforts to explain statements of the President and Justice Department officials fare no better. The President’s declaration that the “days of woke are over” in connection with this prosecution is evidence that the charges are based on party and ideology and are part of a broader partisan agenda of ending “wokeness.” The statement is consistent with the President’s actions just last weekend when—concerned that “delay” in prosecuting specific political rivals is “killing our reputation and credibility”—he pushed out a “Woke RINO” U.S. Attorney who was inhibiting retributive prosecutions.6 The President’s statements may be inconvenient for the prosecution, but they accurately reflect his intent that the Department of Justice implement his political will. And the officials at DOJ have heard that call.7

6 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Sept. 20, 2025, at 18:44 ET), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115239044548033727; see also Alan Fuer et al., Trump Demands That Bondi Move ‘Now’ to Prosecute Foes, N.Y. Times (Sept. 20, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/us/politics/trump-justice-department-us-attorneys.html. 7 Sadie Gurman & Lydia Wheeler, James Comey Indicted on False Statement Charges, Wall St. J. (Sept. 25, 2025), https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/james-comey-indicted-on-false-statementcharges-2c896df2?st=gX4Tob&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink.

But here we are, four months after first Ras Baraka and then McIver were charged — and four years after Michael Sussmann was charged on a single false statement charge on the last day before the statute of limitations expired — and the mainstream press has only just now discovered that Donald Trump has weaponized DOJ against his adversaries.

Really?

I’ve already used past politicized investigations to describe where things are headed (note, too, the report that a flunky with a DWI conviction ordered six US Attorney offices to investigate the Open Society Fund).

But I want to point to something else from McIver’s prosecution.

Four months after she was charged, DOJ still hasn’t provided her basic discovery.

Over a month ago, DOJ agreed to give McIver video of the tour she took of Delaney Hall after the alleged assault. But it has instead stalled on editing the video.

First, the government asserts that some of the Congresswoman’s requests are “moot because the Government has agreed to provide her with what she seeks.” Opp. 69. In particular, the government has agreed to produce the video recordings from inside Delaney Hall that related to the Congresswoman’s tour of that facility on May 9. ECF No. 19-15 (Cortes Decl. Ex. M). But it is now more than six weeks since the government made that promise, and the defense has not received that material.

The government offers no real excuse: it merely claims that “ICE is currently reviewing the footage . . . to excise hours of video during the relevant timeframe which does not capture the Congressional tour.” Opp. 70. Yet the government provides no explanation why that process has taken so long. In fact, the Congresswoman and her colleagues were inside the facility from approximately 2:48 p.m., after Mayor Baraka was arrested, until 3:47 p.m., when the Members left Delaney Hall; surely agents are capable of reviewing those recordings from that one-hour timespan and sorting out the portions capturing the visit.

Nor does the government explain the necessity to “excise” scenes that do not relate to the Congresswoman’s tour. Certainly, the government identifies no privilege or security issue that would warrant or require such a process. Indeed, because the Congresswoman is a Member of the House of Representatives, as well as a member of that chamber’s Homeland Security Committee, there is no conceivable reason to keep her from seeing all of that footage.1 The Court should order its production immediately.

The government agreed to name the ICE officers involved in the event, but it has not even submitted a protective order it demands before it’ll do so.

The government also promised in its August 11 letter to produce the identities and ranks of any officers and agents present “at the time of the arrest of Mayor Baraka,” as well as identify which of those individuals were equipped with a body worn camera (“BWC”). Cortes Decl. Ex. M. To be sure, the letter also conditioned the information’s release on the parties’ execution of a protective order. Six weeks later, however, there is still no draft. The government merely promises that “this should be accomplished by the end of September,” with no explanation for the delay. Opp. 72.2 The Court should order the government to provide Congresswoman McIver with a proposed protective order immediately. And the Court should also order the government to prepare the production in the meantime.

DOJ claims it has turned over all the bodycam footage, but there’s at least one guy from whom McIver got no footage (and possibly a second), nor a confession that he simply didn’t turn the bodycam on.

McIver has requested the communications the officers sent during and about the event. But thus far, it appears DOJ has not collected them to find out if there is anything exculpatory in them.

First, although the officers have been “directed” to preserve that material, it is unclear who actually gave that direction or how they communicated it. Nor is there any information about the scope of the preservation. For example, were the officers instructed to retain all of their communications, whether on personal or government-issued devices? Were they told that they had to preserve all transmissions on every medium and application, including those on which messages disappear such as Signal, Telegram, and WhatsApp? Were they informed that the scope was to include any electronic or written communications with anyone, regardless of the recipients’ or senders’ relationship to the government?

[snip]

Finally, and most concerning, it is quite clear from the government’s formulation that the government has not actually collected, much less reviewed, those communications themselves. Without having done so, the prosecution team has not fulfilled its Brady obligations and cannot credibly represent otherwise to the Court or defense. That is because they do not know what is contained in the communications.

As I’ve noted, Todd Blanche is personally implicated in the competing claims of assault here. He’s the one who ordered Ricky Patel to arrest Ras Baraka in the first place.

V-1 announced a decision to arrest Mayor Baraka: “I am arresting the mayor . . . even though he stepped out, I am going to put him in cuffs . . . per the Deputy Attorney General of the United States.”

These are the kinds of allegations that right wingers claim, without merit, went on in the January 6 case: missing video, missing communications, and personal involvement of a political appointee. And the delay in production suggests there might be something bigger going on.

And yet you won’t hear that from the vast majority of the mainstream press.

As I mentioned in this post, one problem with both shutdown politics and Democrats complaining about Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer trying to win them, is that the chosen genre for Hill beat and politics reporters is hopelessly stuck in a both-sides frame.

Take this 1,200-word article from — IMO — the best team in the business, that describes how, even with what Politico claims is a built-in advantage, Republicans are still blowing it because no one is on the same page.

Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader John Thune, are trying to keep the message simple: The GOP wants to keep agencies open for a few more weeks while negotiations continue while Democrats are asking for unreasonable concessions.

Speaker Mike Johnson and the House GOP are all in on a message focusing on how the Democratic wish list would undo Republican-passed provisions barring undocumented immigrants from accessing public services.

And then there’s President Donald Trump, who delved even deeper into the culture wars Tuesday when he accused the other party of seeking to “force Taxpayers to fund Transgender surgery for minors” as part of the negotiations — an accusation that has puzzled even some fellow Republicans.

The diverging messages from GOP leaders comes after Trump reversed his decision to hold a White House meeting with top Democratic leaders — an about-face that came after Johnson and Thune privately warned him that it would undercut the party’s negotiating position.

Taken together, the visible cracks in the GOP front are raising internal concerns as party leaders face off against Democrats who are largely united behind a plan to focus on health care — particularly an extension of expiring insurance subsidies.

“There have been some unforced errors, clearly,” said one senior House GOP aide granted anonymity to speak candidly about Republicans’ strategy so far.

The silly intervention from Russ Vought merits just a short mention.

The White House further scrambled the GOP strategy late Wednesday when it circulated a draft memo instructing agencies to create plans for mass firings of federal workers if Democrats don’t relent and a shutdown occurs. That alarmed some Hill Republicans who saw it as an unnecessary provocation that, in the words of one, “would give Democrats an excuse to vote against” the GOP-led stopgap — and muddy their message that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were unreasonable hostage-takers.

What Vought succeeded in doing by threatening to do what he has already done — mass unlawful firings — is get a lot of press coverage. A number of outlets took the bait, claiming without any apparent rational thought that this would increase the pressure on Dems.

Most, when quoting Chuck Schumer’s response, are excising a key bit: Just yesterday, GSA had to order a bunch of workers back on the job.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) says a new memo from the White House budget office warning that mass firings could be on the table if there’s a government shutdown is “an attempt at intimidation.”

Schumer, who was scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House Thursday to discuss a funding deal before Trump cancelled the meeting, predicted that federal courts would overturn any attempt by the administration to use a shutdown as a justification to fire thousands of federal workers.

“Donald Trump has been firing federal workers since day one — not to govern, but to scare. This is nothing new and has nothing to do with funding the government. These unnecessary firings will either be overturned in court or the administration will end up hiring the workers back, just like they did as recently as today,” Schumer said in a statement late Wednesday. [my emphasis]

GSA just admitted that you can’t simply fire masses of people without incurring more costs down the road.

Hundreds of federal employees who lost their jobs in Elon Musk’s cost-cutting blitz are being asked to return to work.

The General Services Administration has given the employees — who managed government workspaces — until the end of the week to accept or decline reinstatement, according to an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press. Those who accept must report for duty on Oct. 6 after what amounts to a seven-month paid vacation, during which time the GSA in some cases racked up high costs — passed along to taxpayers — to stay in dozens of properties whose leases it had slated for termination or were allowed to expire.

“Ultimately, the outcome was the agency was left broken and understaffed,” said Chad Becker, a former GSA real estate official. “They didn’t have the people they needed to carry out basic functions.”

Becker, who represents owners with government leases at Arco Real Estate Solutions, said GSA has been in a “triage mode” for months. He said the sudden reversal of the downsizing reflects how Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency had gone too far, too fast.

And as Schumer noted, Vought is doing this whether or not there’s a shutdown. It is, in fact, one of the core reasons why Dems can’t simply pass a continuing resolution, because Vought has already usurped Congress’ authority.

How did the both-sides media not see this? How did they not understand that this makes Vought threat look like a desperate attempt to regain some advantage that Trump pissed away by scheduling a meeting but then — at Mike Johnson and John Thune’s request — canceling?

Mike Lawler appears to understand it. He just talked over CNN’s John Berman for 45 seconds to dodge a question about mass firings.

I remain agnostic about whether Dems can win this shutdown. This report, about how the courts would have to shut down most business in a matter of days, not weeks, cause me grave concern, for reasons I laid out here.

But thus far, Republicans seem intent on using the shutdown to demonstrate in more visible fashion the need for it.

If that’s what you want to do, bring it!

Update: Per ABC, a grand jury indicted Jim Comey on two of three charges.

Attorney General Pamela Bondi

@AGPamBondi No one is above the law. Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.

Yesterday, there was a flood of leaks describing that Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s insurance lawyer turned defense team looker turned EDVA US Attorney, is going to present an indictment to a grand jury, probably today, charging Jim Comey with lying to Congress.

MSNBC rushed the scoop first (and as a result continues to have inaccuracies). ABC has led the pack with the most important details, including a description of the declination recommendation presented to Halligan this week, which may be why the newly hired partisan but onetime AUSA Maggie Cleary (referred to here as Lindsey’s deputy) has reservations about going forward.

Earlier this week, prosecutors presented Lindsey Halligan — Trump’s former personal attorney whom he appointed to lead the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia — with a detailed memo recommending that she decline to bring perjury and obstruction charges against Comey, the sources familiar with the memo said.

A monthslong investigation into Comey by DOJ prosecutors failed to establish probable cause of a crime — meaning that not only would they be unable to secure a conviction of Comey by proving the claims beyond a reasonable doubt, but that they couldn’t reach a significantly lower standard to secure an indictment, the sources said.

According to Justice Department guidelines, prosecutors are generally barred from bringing charges unless they can prove a defendant will “more likely than not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by an unbiased trier of fact and that the conviction will be upheld on appeal.”

Despite their recommendations, Halligan — who has never prosecuted a criminal case in her career as an insurance lawyer — plans to present evidence to a grand jury before the statute of limitations for the alleged offense expires next week, the sources said.

[snip]

According to sources, Halligan’s deputy — a prosecutor who was briefly assigned to lead the office just a day before Trump appointed Halligan to the high-profile position — has also expressed reservations about bringing the politically charged case.

WSJ adds that Pam Bondi has reservations herself.

Trump has pushed Bondi repeatedly in private in recent days to bring charges against Comey, even as she has expressed reservations about the case, people familiar with the discussions said.

NYT, NBC, CNN, and WaPo all have versions of the story. Lawfare has a really good summary of why any decision to attempt to indict Comey would be stupid.

There are even some hints that EDVA is not just presenting an insufficient case to a grand jury — some grand jury — but that it won’t be in the Alexandria office, presenting the likelihood of venue problems if a grand jury approves the charges.

The publicity may be the point. Even more partisan Republicans in a grand jury someplace like Norfolk or Newport News would have heard of this story by now, possibly even including notice of the prosecutorial memo saying there wasn’t evidence to charge this. So while Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer might be craven enough to move forward, a grand jury sworn to uphold the law may not be.

These leaks make it far more likely that Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer will get no-billed (meaning they’ve vote against indicting Comey). And that may be the point. Indeed, her law license may be among a handful that get saved in the process.

Consider how this would look to Todd Blanche.

Blanche may not have noticed that DC added Ken Chesebro yesterday to the growing list of former Trump lawyers who’ve lost their license to practice law. But he’s no doubt aware of how common it is for Trump lawyers to lose their law licenses.

Also yesterday, the judge presiding over Luigi Mangione’s case, Margaret Garnett, gave DOJ one last warning about inappropriate public comments made about the accused killer, including by Blanche’s own Chief of Staff, before she starts sanctioning DOJ.

In her order, Garnett specifically directed Todd Blanche to clean all this up.

Accordingly, the Government is directed to respond to those portions of the September 23 Letter by October 3, 2025, and to include with their response a sworn declaration from a person of suitable authority (i.e. at least Ms. Houle or Mr. Buckley, in his capacity as Acting U.S. Attorney for this matter, if not an official at Main Justice) that explains to the Court how these violations occurred, despite the Court’s April 25 Order, and what steps are being taken to ensure that no future violations occur. The Government is also directed to advise the Deputy Attorney General, for dissemination within the Department as appropriate, that future violations may result in sanctions, which could include personal financial penalties, contempt of court findings, or relief specific to the prosecution of this matter. The Government’s declaration shall also include confirmation that this message has been conveyed to the Deputy Attorney General. [my emphasis]

This order follows Judge Dale Ho’s observation that Pam Bondi and Chad Mizelle (who is leaving DOJ in coming weeks) had violated local rules by blabbing their mouth in the Eric Adams case. DOJ also has to know they’ll face worse admonishments for DOJ officials — starting with Kash Patel but including Blanche personally —  for running their mouths if they ever charge Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer in Federal court, which they should not do, because it would endanger the Utah case.

Blanche’s personal exposure in the LaMonica McIver case goes far deeper. He is at once:

• The official who ordered DHS personnel to arrest Ras Baraka even after he had left Delaney Hall property, creating the physical confrontation in which McIver was charged, and as such, part of the law enforcement team and implicated in a potentially unlawful arrest
• The person whose office conducted the prosecutorial review previously done by career prosecutors in Public Integrity Division after that got shut down
• Because Alina Habba continues to play US Attorney after being unlawfully retained, the person in charge of the prosecution

If McIver’s own selective and vindictive prosecution claim gains any traction, we may learn far more about Blanche’s effort to criminalize a co-equal branch of government for conducting lawful oversight.

Meanwhile, Jim Comey’s daughter Maurene has filed a lawsuit alleging that she got fired for no other reason than that she is Jim’s daughter. If her lawsuit survives a motion to dismiss, Ms. Comey will be able to start demanding discovery not just about the people at Main DOJ who invoked the President’s Article II authority to fire her along with some proof that Trump was actually involved in that decision, but also — unless DOJ provides another credible explanation for her firing, like that she prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell — discovery about the witch hunt against her father, including his prosecution in EDVA. Admittedly, that’s a higher bar than some other developments and will take forever, but it presents a credible threat that documentation of everything that occurred before her firing in July will one day become public.

That’s all before you get to the specific circumstances of Trump’s insistence to go forward with the indictment regardless of the evidence.

In what may have been leaks attempting to stave off precisely this development, NYT reported that both Bondi and Blanche defended then-US Attorney Erik Siebert before Trump, but lost that argument to Bill Pulte — who’s little more than a troll who benefitted from a whole lot of nepotism.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general who runs the day-to-day operations of the Justice Department, had privately defended Mr. Siebert against officials, including William J. Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who had urged that he be fired and replaced with a prosecutor who would push the cases forward, according to a senior law enforcement official.

​Mr. Pulte’s power far outstrips his role as the head of an obscure housing agency. He has gained Mr. Trump’s favor by pushing mortgage fraud allegations against perceived adversaries of the White House, including Ms. James; a Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook; and Senator Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California.

Mr. Pulte has made use of his influence and access to a president who prefers advisers who are willing to push boundaries. He had told Mr. Trump directly that he believed Mr. Siebert could be doing more, according to several officials with knowledge of the matter.

But Mr. Blanche, like Mr. Siebert, questioned the legal viability of bringing charges against Ms. James, according to current and former department officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about internal discussions.

And, WaPo added predictably, also to Eagle Ed Martin, who in theory reports to someone at DOJ.

They added that Ed Martin, the Justice Department official who is overseeing criminal investigations based on Pulte’s allegations, also pushed for Siebert to be removed.

Having lost this battle to Eagle Ed creates real chain of command problems for DOJ, both in terms of Blanche’s credibility with the actual professionals who work there, and legally, as there are a slew of things that senior DOJ officials must approve (including politically sensitive prosecutions).

All that’s before, in recent days, it became clear that Eagle Ed had sent a menacing letter to the FBI agent who first responded to the Sandy Hook shooting as a favor for Alex Jones, which Blanche made Eagle Ed retract.

So to sum up so far: Blanche’s DOJ, and Blanche himself, already face multiple kinds of ethical scrutiny. Having been personally involved in reviewing this case, Blanche advised Trump not to do this, but Trump ignored him (and Bondi), siding instead with two men who are not prosecutors but who told Trump what he wanted to hear. That has badly undermined Blanche’s authority at DOJ and created all kinds of ethical exposure for the real lawyers involved.

And then, Trump tweeted out a signed confession, making his personal interference and malice in this plain as day.

If this gets charged, it will be child’s play for Comey to mount a vindictive prosecution claim — we all saw it plain as day — and with it to demand evidence like the declination memo that ABC described Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer seeing this week! And, in addition, Comey (who used to have Blanche’s job), will be able to demonstrate that this prosecution violates ethical rules that bind attorneys.

As ABC laid out, they cannot charge a case they know they can’t win. And someone very close to Blanche has let it be known in the press that the people with actual prosecutorial experience, including Blanche himself, don’t believe DOJ can win this.

Prosecuting this case would very likely end up in credible bar complaints targeting everyone involved.

And on top of the procedural and ethical reasons this prosecution would pose a problem for Blanche, the only other basis by which this would be legal would be John Roberts’ rash language in Trump v. USA granting the President personally special province over prosecutorial decision-making.

Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 832 (1985), and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President, Art. II, §1. For that reason, Trump’s threatened removal of the Acting Attorney General likewise implicates “conclusive and preclusive” Presidential authority. As we have explained, the President’s power to remove “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed” may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts. Myers, 272 U. S., at 106, 176; see supra, at 8. The President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

See this great column on how Roberts, in response to arguments from Blanche!!, set up this problem.

Succeeding in getting an indictment won’t be good for Halligan, Blanche’s former colleague representing Trump in Florida, because she’ll be exposed to ethical scrutiny.

And it doesn’t even help Trump, as he has signed a confession that he’s doing this maliciously.

And in the background, Maurene may one day get proof of all of this, at least everything that happened before she was fired.

Whereas if Halligan presents a case to the grand jury and gets no-billed — just one more no-bill in a growing pile awarded to Trump’s most partisan US Attorneys — then it’s likely that Comey will never get to argue how fucked up all of this is (unless he is charged in one of the other jurisdictions Kash has people chasing geese). And Eagle Ed gets slapped with his first big humiliation.

This entire situation is a disaster for Todd Blanche. And only if Lindsey the Insurance Lawyer gets no-billed will he have a way to staunch the bleeding.

Speeches by national leaders at the opening of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) have multiple goals and various audiences. Leaders of small countries hope to raise concerns with large countries in a setting where they can be the center of attention, if only for 15 minutes. Leaders of ostracized countries often seek to justify the behavior that got them ostracized in the first place. Some speeches are aimed at the leaders in the room, while others are aimed at the folks back home. Some are aimed at allied leaders, and others at competitors and still others at enemies.

Under normal circumstances, preparation for the US president’s speech is probably on par with preparing the State of the Union address to Congress. Both speeches utilize folks from multiple agencies and both are subject to weeks and months of internal debates about what will and will not get into the speech. While the SOTU address is as long as the President wants to make it, the UN politely asks that UNGA addresses be kept to 15 minutes or less, because so many leaders will be speaking. The UNGA speech is primarily foreign policy, while the SOTU is more domestic, but both are critical to laying out the president’s – and by extension, the USA’s – positions on all kinds of things.

For UNGA, the State Department takes the lead (broadly speaking) in preparing drafts and posing options to the final decisionmakers in the White House. Other agencies like DOD, Treasury, Commerce, and DHS, as well as folks like the Director of National Intelligence, all weigh in and put their requests into the funnel out of which the final draft emerges.

While all the prep work on the speech is under way, so too is the prep work for listening to the speeches delivered by other leaders. Is it more of the same, are there new policy nuances, or even major changes of direction being conveyed? Different analysts at State, DOD, and the Intelligence community will prepare a list of “what to listen for” points as they get ready to listen to the UNGA speeches from the countries within their purview. Once the speeches have been made, these same folks will then be sharing their analysis with their superiors and the White House. “Here’s what we heard . . . , here’s what it means . . . , and here’s how it may affect our own policies and responses . . .”

Meanwhile, every other foreign ministry and intelligence service in the world does the same with the UNGA speech of the President of the United States of America. Especially when that president is Donald J. Trump.

So what will these folks notice about Trump’s speech, and what will their analysis of his speech lead them to think or do?

First, they will notice the absolute dichotomy between policy prescriptions and petty personal grievances. Yes, the speechwriting team and the professionals behind them put a lot of substantive stuff into the draft of the speech that went on the teleprompter, but Trump went off-script so much that it was easy for that stuff to get lost in the verbal flood of whining about his domestic political enemies alternated with his own personal self-promotion. If the substance was prepared to fill the 15 minute time slot, the whining and boasting filled another 45 minutes or so. That 3:1 ratio speaks volumes about what matters to Trump: “Three parts me, and one part everyone else. And that ratio is me being generous to everyone else.”

Second, even in the substantive parts of the speech, the presentation was arrogant and insulting. (Why yes, I do think Stephen Miller had a large role in shaping the speech. Why do you ask?) Trump’s “I alone can fix it” from campaigns gone by was echoed in Trump’s declaration at UNGA that he has always been right about everything. From immigration to energy to wars to peacemaking to cultural issues to history, Trump’s assertion that he is always right and that the world would be better off if everyone just bowed down and did what he said was at the center of his speech. The prepared draft of the speech might have been more polite about it, but the message was the same. All the world could see how Trump views them — little kids who need to listen to Daddy, and then do what Daddy says so that they don’t get punished.

Third, Trump’s UNGA speech was a confirmation and distillation of something these folks have seen since 2015 from Trump: facts are optional to Donald Trump. They will see that science takes a back seat to whatever Trump’s particular views and preferences are. Signed agreements, especially those signed by someone other that Trump, are optional, not binding. Historical facts that do not fit with Trump’s worldview are overlooked, ignored, or blithely dismissed as irrelevant. Leaders and nations who seek to move Trump and US policies with fact-based arguments will have a very difficult, if not impossible task if they follow this route.

Fourth, Trump has no use for the opinions of other leaders, unless they comport with his own opinions. Dozens of nations call what Israel is doing in Gaza “genocide” but Trump does not give a damn. Countries of all political stripes recognize the reality of climate change (even as they might differ in how it should be addressed), but not Donald Trump.

Fifth, this speech confirms yet again that what Trump desperately seeks is validation. In his head, he dreams of giving his own version of Sally Field’s academy award acceptance speech — “I haven’t had an orthodox career and I’ve wanted more than anything to have your respect. The first time [I won] I didn’t feel it, but this time I feel it. And I can’t deny the fact that you like me. Right now, you like me! Thank you.”

Sixth, these analysts from other nations regularly ask themselves “How long will Trump hold to a given position?” He renegotiated the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico in 2019 and finalized it in 2020, only to come back in 2025 and ask “who would have ever sign a thing like this?” Grudges over personal slights he will carry with him for decades, but agreements with other leaders and other nations are much less predictable.

The danger to all of this is one basic thing: the world is learning –again — not to listen to the United States.

• When Trump and RFK Jr. issued their untethered-to-scientific-analysis declaration that Tylenol should not be used by pregnant women, not only did the US medical community loudly shout “NO!” but so did medical leaders around the world (UK, Spain, India, Australia, etc.). The US has a long record of leadership in medical research and treatment — think of the elimination of smallpox and the work to do the same with polio — but now? Around the world, folks are asking what used to be an unimaginable question: Should we listen to anything medical coming out of the CDC?
• When Trump made his big Liberation Day announcements and sought to put tariffs on almost every nation, he followed up on this with all kinds of exceptions, adjustments, and incoherent statements. Today the tariffs might look like this, but next week they went down, then a month later some of them went higher than before . . . and what the hell will they look like next year?
• When NGOs and other leaders around the world found the rug yanked out from under them when Trump used DOGE to cancel grants for things like malaria prevention and anti-AIDS programs, as well as letting US food aid funneled through USAID rot in warehouses rather than be delivered to those who feed the hungry, they had to ask if the word of the US is worth anything any more. “We had a five year agreement – you put up this and we’ll handle that — and after 3 years, you reneged. Why should we trust you the next time you want to make a deal?”

Trump and his lackeys can laugh at the world all they want, but if the financial world follows the lead of the medical world and the scientific world, and ceases to trust that the word of the US is good, the US will be in a world of hurt. A non-trivial portion of US debt is held by foreign governments. When the Canadian public decided not to travel to the US or buy US bourbon, that hit the US hospitality industry hard. If foreign governments decide that rather than buying US treasury bonds, they’d prefer bonds from Germany or France or Australia, that will mean the US government would have to offer higher rates of return in order to get the money needed to pay for tax breaks for the rich run the US government.

In the world of international affairs, trust matters, and Donald Trump is pissing away what it took decades to earn. Good luck with that, Secretary of State/National Security Advisor/Archivist of the United States Marco Rubio.

[Corrected to fix a minor editing error regarding bond costs in the penultimate paragraph.]

The poster child for libertarianism needs some welfare. As voters in Argentina sour on Javier Milei, the government has had to invest to keep the peso pegged to the dollar.

Last month, with his sister embroiled in a corruption scandal, Mr Milei badly lost a legislative election in the province of Buenos Aires. He then suffered a series of stinging legislative losses. Markets panicked, worried that the defeat signalled the end of popular support for Mr Milei’s economic-reform project, and the potential return of spendthrift Peronists. A sharp peso sell-off began.

Since April, when the IMF launched yet another programme in Argentina, the peso has been floating within an exchange-rate band, the limits of which the Argentine government has vowed to defend. By mid-September the peso’s official rate was testing the upper limit of that band, even briefly piercing it on September 17th to reach 1475 to the dollar. Over the following two days the Argentine central bank spent some $1bn of its scarce foreign-currency reserves to defend the currency.

The bank does not have sufficient foreign reserves to keep up this level of spending for long. Drafting in the dollar-bazooka of the US Treasury should give Argentina the firepower to stabilise the peso, if needed.

And so Milei asked and Scott Bessent agreed to bail out the so-called libertarian.

NerdReich captured the significance Javier Milei’s financial woes best:

The political ideology known as libertarianism died yesterday in Argentina at the age of thirteen.

While it had been around for quite a bit longer, its basic concepts never progressed beyond the early stages of adolescent brain development. Libertarianism—which asserted that society would be better off with minimal government, laws, and taxes—succumbed after chainsaw-wielding Argentine President Javier Milei asked the United States for a massive economic bailout due to his catastrophic leadership.

Milei, a werewolf-clown hybrid in a suit who once hired a spirit medium to communicate with his dead dog, swept into office promising a libertarian-inflected miracle in Argentina. In an early preview of Elon Musk’s DOGE, he slashed government and social spending. Earlier this year, an essay published on the website of the libertarian Cato Institute mocked his critics as doomsayers who “warned that the profane self-described libertarian—who looks more like a still-touring ’80s rockabilly singer than the classically trained economist he actually is—would inflict on Argentina’s already-beleaguered economy ‘deep recession,’ ‘devastation,’ ‘economic collapse,’ and all sorts of other economic horribles.”

But the critics were correct. Instead of miracles, the self-described “anarcho capitalist” has delivered shocking disaster: collapsing institutions, chronic inflation, and the awkward realization that screeching about free markets doesn’t put bread on the shelves.

When Bessent first offered to bailout Milei, Elizabeth Warren asked the obvious question: Has Bessent decided “Argentina” — that is Milei — is a systematically important US ally because Milei, who faces a legislative election next month, is buddies with Trump?

I am writing to request information on President Trump’s plans to bail out Argentina’s financial markets and foreign investors using America’s resources. At a time when Americans are struggling to afford groceries, rent, credit card bills, and other debt payments – and with the Administration gutting funds that make health care affordable for tens of millions of people here at home – it is deeply troubling that the President intends to use significant emergency funds to inflate the value of a foreign government’s currency and bolster its financial markets. President Trump’s close personal relationship with President Milei, and the timing of this bailout ahead of a critical October 26 midterm election in Argentina, raise serious concerns that the purpose of this bailout is personal and political – and comes at the expense of the American people.

Argentina’s financial markets are currently experiencing significant turmoil. Foreign investors appear to have lost confidence in the country’s outlook due to ongoing corruption scandals and waning public support for Milei’s regime.

[snip]

I understand why President Milei, careening from crisis to crisis and unable to effectively manage the Argentinian economy, wants the American people to finance a bailout. I do not understand why it is in the interest of the United States to provide one, nor how one would be designed to ensure the best outcomes for the Argentinian people, instead of hedge fund investors.

Bessent and the White House responded with contemptuous tweets, one attacking Massachusetts. None of them denied Warren’s premise, though: Even as Republicans are taking healthcare away from Americans, Trump is spending money on a buddy overseas.

Indeed, Bessent’s long tweet laying out how he was going to bailout Argentina confirmed the tie (incorporating the Trump tweet endorsing Milei); he even promised investments in Argentina if Milei’s party wins the election.

Yesterday, @POTUS and I spoke extensively with President @JMilei and his senior team in New York. As President Trump has stated, we stand ready to do what is needed to support Argentina and the Argentine people.

Under President Milei, Argentina has taken important strides toward stabilization. He has achieved impressive fiscal consolidation and a broad liberalization of prices and restrictive regulations, laying the foundation for Argentina’s historic return to prosperity.
The @USTreasury stands ready to purchase Argentina’s USD bonds and will do so as conditions warrant. We are also prepared to deliver significant stand-by credit via the Exchange Stabilization Fund, and we have been in active discussions with President Milei’s team to do so.

The Treasury is currently in negotiations with Argentine officials for a $20 billion swap line with the Central Bank. We are working in close coordination with the Argentine government to prevent excessive volatility.

In addition, the United States stands ready to purchase secondary or primary government debt and we are working with the Argentine government to end the tax holiday for commodity producers converting foreign exchange.

Argentina has the tools to defeat speculators, including those who seek to destabilize Argentina’s markets for political objectives. I have also been in touch with numerous US companies who intend to make substantial foreign direct investments in Argentina multiple sectors in the event of a positive election outcome.

The Trump Administration is resolute in our support for allies of the United States, and President Trump has given President Milei a rare endorsement of a foreign official, showing his confidence in his government’s economic plans and the geopolitical strategic importance of the relationship between the United States and Argentina. Immediately after the election, we will start working with the Argentine government on its principal repayments.

I will be watching developments closely, and the Treasury remains fully prepared to do what is necessary. [my emphasis]

This is not a systematic risk in Latin America. Brazil, which Trump has been targeting, is doing just fine. Rather, the risk is that the failing policies of a populist will risk the larger populist project.

Even as Bessent was risking US money on Trump’s basket case buddy, China was buying up Argentine soybeans, which were made more competitive when the state eliminated an export tax.

Chinese buyers booked at least 10 cargoes of Argentine soybeans after Buenos Aires scrapped grain export taxes, three traders said on Tuesday, dealing another setback to U.S. farmers already shut out of their top market and hit by low prices.

Argentina’s temporary tax move boosts the competitiveness of its soybeans, prompting traders to secure cargoes for fourth-quarter inventories in China, a period usually dominated by U.S. shipments but now clouded by Washington’s trade war with Beijing.

The Panamax-sized shipments of 65,000 metric tons each are scheduled for November, with CNF (cost and freight) prices quoted at a premium of $2.15-$2.30 per bushel to the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) November soybean contract , two traders with direct knowledge of the matter said.
One of the traders said Chinese buyers had booked 15 cargoes.

The deals are a fresh blow for U.S. farmers, who are missing out on billions of dollars of soybean sales to China halfway through their prime marketing season as unresolved trade talks freeze exports and rival South American suppliers led by Brazil step in to fill the gap, traders and analysts have said.

“Every time China turns to South America instead of the U.S., soybean farmers and our farm families here at home lose out,” said Caleb Ragland, a farmer from Magnolia, Kentucky, and president of the American Soybean Association.

“Without a trade deal that removes retaliatory tariffs, farmers like me are left watching key opportunities slip away.”

American soybean farmers have been devastated this year, as China leverages soybean sales in response to Trump’s trade war. To make things worse, a recent NYT story talking about how dire things have gotten for North Dakota farmers revealed that Bessent has still not divested from the rental farm property he owns in the state.

For the first time in the history of their 76-year-old operation, their biggest customer — China — had stopped buying soybeans. Their 2,300-acre soybean farm is projected to lose $400,000 in 2025. Soybeans that would normally be harvested and exported to Asia are now set to pile up in large steel bins.

Since President Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese goods in February, Beijing has retaliated by halting all purchases of American soybeans.

That decision has had devastating repercussions for farmers in North Dakota, which exported more than 70 percent of its soybeans to China before Trump unveiled the new tariffs this year. Unless China agrees to restart its purchases as part of a trade deal, farmers that depend on the Chinese market will be facing steep losses that could fuel farm bankruptcies and farm foreclosures around the United States.

[snip]

The Treasury Secretary owns thousands of acres of North Dakota farmland, worth up to $25 million. The properties grow soybeans and corn in a state that exports most of its agricultural products to China. The investments have earned Mr. Bessent as much as $1 million in rental income annually, according to his financial disclosure filings.

But the fortunes of Mr. Bessent, a multimillionaire former hedge fund manager, are not nearly as exposed to China’s whims as are those of the family farmers struggling to figure out how to sell their soybeans and keep their finances from falling apart.

To farmers in North Dakota, the forces of high interest rates, high input costs and falling prices are reminiscent of the 1980s farm crisis, which hobbled U.S. agriculture for nearly a decade and hollowed out much of rural America.

“The stress level is much higher now than it was then,” Jordan Gackle, 44, said in an interview. “If we keep this going for very long, then we are going to see the kind of foreclosures that were happening.”

Bessent is literally risk taxpayer money to keep the guy poaching the Chinese markets of American farmers in office. And if farmers start to go under, he’ll just continue to consolidate his holdings in the Midwest.

This is a big fucking deal. Even as Trump prepares to shut down government, even as American consumers face skyrocketing healthcare premium costs, Bessent is instead busy propping up a right winger likewise stripping benefits from his constituents.

Update: Paul Krugman has a lot to say — none of it good — about this bailout.

But although in this case America is offering aid rather than taking it away, our new Argentina policy is part of the same Trumpian agenda.

It’s true that the plan to aid Argentina looks quite a lot like Bill Clinton’s bailout of Mexico during that nation’s financial crisis of 1994-5. But we had a compelling interest in helping Mexico, which is our neighbor and one of our most important trading partners. We had just signed a free trade agreement with Mexico, and were also trying to bolster Mexico’s transition from one-party rule to genuine democracy.

Argentina, in contrast, is not systemically important to the United States. Argentina is a miniscule player in terms of US interests. The U.S. accounts for only about 1/8th of Argentina’s imports, less than its imports from the European Union and much less than its imports from China.

It’s definitely a lot less important, both strategically and economically, than Brazil, whose economy is more than three times as big as Argentina’s. Yet Trump has completely alienated Brazil, imposing 50 percent tariffs on the nation for daring to try and convict a former president who attempted to overturn his electoral defeat. Always indulging his personal grudges, Trump has imposed sanctions on the judge who oversaw Jair Bolsonaro’s prosecution — and on his wife. It obviously doesn’t matter to him that both the tariffs against Brazil and the personal sanctions are surely illegal. Trump’s behavior has had a devastating effect on America’s interests, driving Brazil into China’s arms.

But remember that, in Trump’s world, America’s interests don’t count. Only his interests count. And Javier Milei, Argentina’s president, has been an important poster child for right-wing economics.

Congratulations to Jimmy Kimmel, whose show a right wing cabal turned into a resistance icon.

For some time, I’ve been noting that Donald Trump has chosen his political martyrs poorly. Every person he takes out in his authoritarian abuse could serve as one more person who will inspire others to fight back.

Now’s a good time to subscribe to Kimmel’s YouTube channel, to strengthen his ability to bypass gatekeepers the next time this happens.

In his monologue, Kimmel did not pull punches. He called out Trump’s efforts to target his show because he is thin-skinned, then mocked both Trump’s escalator failure at the UN and his screed against Tylenol. He noted he was not on the air in Seattle, DC, Nashville, New Orleans, Portland, Salt Lake, and St. Louis, where Sinclair or Nexstar refused to show it, then returned to efforts to coerce ABC affiliates not to air his show. He explicitly called out Brendan Carr, highlighting his flipflop on free speech since 2022. He joked that the US had become more authoritarian than Germany.

He choked up when he addressed his comments about Charlie Kirk’s death.

By refusing to air the show (and with Kimmel’s allusions to them, though he did not name them), Sinclair and Nexstar made themselves visible in a way they were not to most consumers.

This article describes some of the tension between the local outlets and the networks.

Local TV outlets receive retransmission payments from cable and satellite operators, and the networks take a cut of those retrans dollars. (That money sent to the networks is called “reverse compensation,” because once upon a time, the networks used to pay its affiliates to carry its lineups. Now, it’s the reverse and stations pay the networks.)

But affiliates have grown concerned that networks are demanding too much of that retrans money. Right now, most stations pay fixed fees to networks for the right to carry their fare (including sports), but as the payments local stations receive from pay-TV distributors declines, they’re looking for a more variable payment model with the networks.

At the FCC, Carr has been quick to highlight the growing tension between national network operations attached to media giants and the interests of local station owners.

Did the Nexstar/Sinclair gambit work? Perhaps, at least in winning over Carr, who thanked Nexstar on social media “for doing the right thing,” seemingly putting the company in the FCC’s good graces. It was already likely this administration would lift or raise the ownership cap; now that Nexstar and Sinclair have found favor with Carr and Trump, it’s probably a done deal.

But this week’s events also now put Nexstar and Sinclair right in the middle of a national conversation about free speech and the First Amendment — and many more people who hadn’t heard of those companies before now see them as opponents in the free speech debate. That could lead to more push back from the public, guilds, unions and other entities that might aggressively fight against the idea of abolishing the station cap.

Carr has already weighed in on the side of local stations.

If you live in one of the areas where those right wing corporations are abusing their access, you can push back in two ways. First, figure out who advertised on the alternative programming last night and/or the station’s top advertisers. Then call those advertisers and tell them that you are unhappy they had a role in silencing Kimmel. After that, call the station and tell them you’re going to hold the programming decision against them and their advertisers.

ABC caved because of consumer (and also labor) pressure, and now that Sinclair and Nexstar have made themselves visible to consumers, they can be pressured in the same way.

Meanwhile, in the President’s renewed threat against ABC and Kimmel, Trump:

• Confirmed that he was involved the aborted attempt to fire Kimmel
• Whined about ratings again, like a bitter old canceled Reality TV host
• Threatened to sue

The two outbursts together — Carr’s politicization of this and Trump’s confirmation he was personally involved — will make it easier to claim that both are jawboning ABC about Kimmel, a violation of the First Amendment even this Supreme Court recently confirmed.

Now is not a time to declare victory. Now is the time to use the notoriety that the censoring screeds have acquired to push back on their efforts to extort control over free speech.

Update: On Friday, Sinclair and Nexstar capitulated.

Yesterday, Karoline Leavitt excused Trump’s demands for prosecutions of his adversaries by claiming poor Donald Trump was targeted by … Joe Biden:

The President is fulfilling his promise to restore a Department of Justice that demands accountability. And it is not weaponizing the Department of Justice to demand accountability for those who weaponized the Department of Justice. And nobody knows what that looks like more than President Trump. We are not going to tolerate gaslighting from anyone in the media or from anyone on the other side, who is trying to say that it’s the President who is weaponizing the DOJ. It was Joe Biden and his Attorney General who weaponized the DOJ. Joe Biden used this sacred American institution to go after his political opponent in the middle of an election year. And you look at people like Adam Schiff and like James Comey and like Leticia James who the President is rightfully frustrated. He wants accountability for these corrupt fraudsters who abused their power who abused their oath of office, to target the former President and then candidate for the highest office in the land. And I think the President is reaffirmed in those frustrations and his hope for accountability by the millions and millions of people who reelected him to this office with a mandate to demand accountability. And the President has not been shy about this, Gabe. In fact when he traveled to the Department of Justice earlier this year — all of you were there to cover it — he said, quote, I demand a full and complete accountability for wrongs and abuses that have occurred, the American people gave a mandate to investigate and root the corruption out of our system and that’s what the President wants to see done.

Trump’s claims of grievance are really interesting given that he just confessed none of this is justified.

The confession comes in Trump’s recently dismissed lawsuit against the NYT (he has said he’ll refile it within the 28 deadline that Judge Steven Merryday set).

Trump sued about one book and three articles:

• Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig’s book, Lucky Loser, about how Trump doesn’t have the talent his corrupt father had. (The book just came out in paperback in the US, which surely explains the timing of the lawsuit.)
• This story, based on the book, describing how much work the Apprentice had to do to make Trump look like a successful businessman.
• This story repeating John Kelly’s warnings that Trump would rule as a dictator.
• This article from Peter Baker summarizing Trump’s lifetime of corruption.

As I noted last year when Trump first threatened to file this lawsuit, “The [Baker] story was remarkable e[s]pecially by Baker’s terms — he has a history of pulling his punches with Presidents.” One premise of the story is that, “Trump makes a point of not admitting misdeeds or mistakes.” It catalogued many of them:

• His multiple business failures
• His affairs with Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels
• His adverse civil judgement in the E Jean Carroll case
• How little he paid in taxes
• How much money his Dad gave him
• The number of “contractors, bankers, business partners, customers and competitors” he stiffed
• Trump Organization’s tax fraud
• That “Mr. Mueller concluded that the Russians did interfere on Mr. Trump’s behalf”
• The 10 instances Mueller laid out where trump may have committed obstruction
• The ways in which he monetized the presidency
• The way in which Trump extorted Zelenskyy “to deliver dirt on Mr. Biden, a political rival”
• His abuse of pardons, including ” figures who he might have had reason to fear would turn against him by talking with prosecutors”
• “His concerted effort to overturn the 2020 election that he lost so that he could hold onto power despite the will of the voters”
• That Trump refused to give back the classified documents he took when he left

A whole section of the story focuses on the way in which Trump weaponized government against his adversaries.

Time and again, he publicly pressed his attorneys general — first Jeff Sessions and then William P. Barr — to prosecute Democrats or government officials who angered him. At various times, he called for the prosecution of Mr. Biden, Ms. Clinton and former President Barack Obama and lashed out when advisers resisted.

He grew particularly obsessed with prosecuting certain people, like former Secretary of State John Kerry.

[snip]

Angered that Mr. Bolton had criticized him, Mr. Trump pressured the Justice Department to block his former aide from publishing his book.

[snip]

Mr. Trump tried to put so many people who irritated him in the cross hairs of the legal system that it is hard to maintain a thorough list. He wanted prosecutors to investigate Mr. Comey as well as Andrew G. McCabe, his acting successor, and other F.B.I. officials who participated in the Russia investigation, including Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

[snip]

He also sought to use his power to help specific companies he favored and penalize those that angered him. He told aides to instruct the Justice Department to block the merger of Time Warner with AT&T, which would include the CNN network, one of the biggest thorns in his side.

But none of that is in the lawsuit. The only three things in the story that Trump claims are defamation in the lawsuit are:

• A reference to Trump borrowing a Military Academy friend’s jacket, laden with medals, to wear in his yearbook photo
• Mary Trump’s claim that Trump cheated on his SATs
• A description that Trump was investigated for mafia ties and serving as a money laundering vehicle

That’s it!!!

Effectively, in a 80-page rant, Trump offered no hint that any of the rest of those things, including Baker’s description of how Trump himself weaponized DOJ and government against his adversaries, were untrue.

This is a point NYT attorney David McCraw made last year when telling Trump to get stuffed.

Tellingly, your letter does not dispute – nor could it – the remainder of the article and its lengthy recitation of the legal problems, financial failures, and misdeeds of Mr. Trump.

Between last year’s threatened lawsuit and when Trump filed just over a week ago, Trump upped his ante. Last year, he claimed these stories had done $10 billion in damage to his fragile reputation. Last week, he demanded $15 billion. (Last year, he claimed his personal brand was worth just $15 billion, whereas last week, he claimed it was worth $100 billion, which raises real questions about how much damage these stories could have done!!)

So in effect, Trump is demanding a $5 billion premium to confess that he’s actually the one who weaponized government against his adversaries.