It’s Time to Give Up the Lie We Keep Telling Ourselves About Donald Trump
Susan Matthews – March 28, 2024
If you’re an American news consumer, it’s hard to escape feeling like you’ve been suspended in a state of limbo over the course of the past year or so. The election—it’s coming, but it’s not here yet; well, not quite. Much of America isn’t really paying attention right now, avoiding at all costs the feeling of impending doom inherent to the election rematch no one wants—and I don’t blame them. We all know Trump is coming back to dominate our news feeds again, just as we know that he never really went away, he just finally became possible to turn off for a while. I understand the desire to tune it out, for now, for as long as we can, for just a little bit longer.
But the problem is that Donald Trump, presumptive Republican nominee for president of the United States, is coming back. Just as he battles as hard as he can on every front possible to evade the justice system (though it’s approaching at a rapid clip), and as the Republican Party’s base remains at his beck and call, he is coming back to terrorize America again, which means the Trump show is coming back on, to every television screen near you, no matter what channel you want to tune in to.
The problem is that Season 2—or whatever season we are in at this point—is going to be much worse in so many key ways compared to the last one. The last one had the element of surprise, which kept things shocking for a while in a way that was honestly a bit distracting and roller coaster-y, like when a detective show gives you the cliffhanger just before it streams right through to the next episode. So we all watched and watched because it was ever-present and just a little bit titillating.
But it’s not just that it’s boring this time—even though it is so boring. It is going to be worse this time in the sense that the stakes are higher, the violence is more flagrant, and the way out is harder and harder to see. Nothing—not all of the plaintive and ongoing pleas from us members of the press to remember how awful Trump is and snap out of it—makes this as clear as the documentary Stormy does.
Ahead of Trump’s first criminal trial, now set for April 15 in Manhattan, Stormy happens to be the perfect memory refresher, and not just about all of the horrific things that have happened to Stormy Daniels since she became national news. Watching this documentary brought me right back into hours and hours spent watching White House press conferences, the whole tone immediately recalling the feeling of the chaotic first years of Trump’s presidency, when “the resistance” was only slightly embarrassing as a concept and there was still real solidarity in opposing the president. Oh my god, right, I thought, watching Michael Avenatti’s rise to fame. We were just desperately looking for someone—literally anyone—to save us. For a while, sure, it felt convincing that a brash lawyer who loved the spotlight as much as Donald Trump does might be that person. Oops, it turns out he was embezzling from literally all of his clients. What a twist!
There is a deeper message in Stormy, though, and one that makes it even more understandable why we’ve all wanted to tune out, while simultaneously underscoring the reason why we have to tune back in. As much as the first two-thirds of the documentary are a romp through the hilarity found in a “Make America Horny Again” tour, the documentary takes a turn after showing a few videos from Jan. 6, 2021. It cuts to the more recent past, to the indictment, to Daniels reading through tweets, something she does a lot during the documentary. These later tweets are … a lot worse than what she reads early on. I don’t know exactly what percentage of that can be attributed to how much worse Twitter, aka X, has gotten after Elon Musk’s takeover (certainly some). But the brazenness of the violence is several degrees higher than it was before.
Part of that increase in the violence—and the ho-hum response we’ve all been giving it—feels like it stems from the fact that their guy isn’t in office anymore; it’s much easier to laugh things off from a position of power. And, on the flip side, there’s so much more reckless desperation from the brink of irrelevance, where Trump’s supporters surely found themselves as their hero was indicted again and again. But Jan. 6 also opened doors that legitimately changed what was thought of as normal speech—we’ve spent years since then watching Republicans downplay and minimize what happened, calling the violence freedom, and its perpetrators “political prisoners.” The message stuck. The thugs think they are righteous. That was always Trump’s goal.
The worse reminder in Stormy is of the misogyny that living through Trump being the main event of all of our lives brings with it. This is a chance to rewatch the infamous Access Hollywood tape for the first time in a while. This is a chance to see what it means to be Stormy Daniels, a woman who seems to own her sexuality—and who also is constantly surrounded by men, most of whom seem to be fucking her or fucking her over. This is a woman who insists that what happened between her and Donald Trump wasn’t rape—and then admits later on that the way she felt when Trump cornered her in her hotel room is the way she felt when she was 9 years old being molested by her neighbor, and oh yeah, that trauma probably does have something to do with how she got into porn, if she thinks about it.
The past eight years of being a woman in this country has been to ride the roller coaster from Access Hollywood to #MeToo through the Kavanaugh hearings and eventually into losing Roe. It’s amazing that in the midst of all that, having a president who calls one of his former sexual partners “horseface” still ranks as something to be mad about. But Donald Trump is coming back—and when he does, he will give us something to be mad about every stupid day. And we won’t be able to turn it off, because once again, he’ll be the star of the show.
Trump earlier in the day released a video of himself holding the $60 “God Bless The USA Bible” as he insisted that the Bible is his favorite book and that he has “many” in his home.
“Many? Many? Many?” Klepper repeated in disbelief. “How does that thing not burst into flames immediately?”
Trump’s version of the book, done with country singer Lee Greenwood, contains the lyrics to Greenwood’s hit song “God Bless The USA” ― which is played at Trump rallies ― as well as the texts of the Pledge of Allegiance, the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
“Trump is mashing together the Bible and the Constitution like it’s a Pizza Hut-Taco Bell,” Klepper cracked. “I know people will say that you’re not supposed to mix the Bible and the Constitution, but what you have to understand is Trump has never read either of them.”
Klepper also predicted where this would lead.
“Trump getting into business with God can only mean one thing: God is gonna end up bankrupt and serving a three-month prison sentence for lying under oath,” he said.
See more in his Tuesday night “Daily Show” monologue:
It is an overcast, unseasonably warm morning on Wednesday, Nov. 6, and the world has woken up in shock as Donald Trump has emerged as the winner of the U.S. presidential election. America’s cities are once again full of mute, stunned liberals avoiding eye contact with one another on the morning commute, as the grim reality of what Trump might do with this power begins to set in. At his victory speech just after 2 a.m., when the networks called Wisconsin, and thus the election for him, Trump took the stage and declared, “Judgment Day is coming for America’s enemies, and no Marxist, Harvard leftist, gender-radical, illegal, or criminal thug in our great country will be safe come January.” And in some ways that bleak morning might represent the high point of the next four—or 40—years, given what Trump and his allies have in store for us.
This is a worst-case scenario. But it’s far from impossible. A Trump restoration is in the works—and it should feel like an existential threat to everyone who cares about liberal democracy and the incomplete but tangible social, racial, and economic progress that has been made since the New Deal era.
And yet, President Joe Biden’s manifest flaws are dangerously obscuring the scale of the threat of a second Trump term. There is no sense in denying it: Biden looks and sounds very old, and his speaking style, never particularly inspirational, has deteriorated to the point that he is a clear political liability. While he brought what passes for his A-game to the State of the Union, he will need to sustain that level of energy and coherence through an eight-month-long slog to the election to improve his chances of winning.
His decision to run for a second term has not only jeopardized his many achievements but put the very existence of U.S. democracy at much more serious risk. His administration’s staunch support of Israel, a defensible posture in the aftermath of the unconscionable Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, has become a genuinely baffling study in Biden’s inability to pivot or use America’s considerable leverage to do the right thing. The White House hasn’t settled on a winning strategy to address the lingering consequences of post-pandemic inflation, preferring to boast about the very real low unemployment numbers and robust GDP growth that simply have not moved the needle politically. And the Biden administration has remained curiously inert in the face of growing public frustration with the migrant crisis, preferring to blame Congress for refusing to fix it.
Nevertheless, allowing Donald Trump and his friends to plunge our country into a dystopian nightmare of authoritarianism will not help anyone in Gaza, in the grocery store, or at the border. It will worsen, not rectify, America’s history of writing blank checks to far-right governments in Israel. It will not lead to humane policy options for asylum-seekers but instead deliver them into the hands of morally bankrupt demagogues. Electing Trump would merely add more considerable suffering and trauma to theirs, and deprive us all of the ability to do anything about it.
Much has been made of the far-right Project 2025—a blueprint for radically restructuring and reorienting executive-branch policymaking, created by a network of right-wing think tanks and pressure groups—and its terrifying implications for U.S. democracy. But that document concerns only the threats Trump’s reelection poses to executive-branch agencies (and contains many unresolvable contradictions between dismantling and wielding the “administrative state”). Myriad public dangers emanating from the Trump and GOP legislative agenda, as well as the possibility of an even harder-right Supreme Court, are getting far less attention. That needs to change.
Let’s start with the court. That Sonia Sotomayor, who will turn 70 this year, is still sitting on the Supreme Court means that Democrats have yet to grasp how strategic retirements work in the new hyperpartisan political order. Unlike Democrats, who still seem to view a Supreme Court seat as a personal sinecure bestowed upon the righteous for a lifetime of achievement, the leaders of the far-right judicial movement understand the stakes and will place enormous pressure on the oldest Republican appointees to retire under a second Trump term. Clarence Thomas, who has been on the court since 1991, turns 76 this year, and Samuel Alito turns 74. Even John Roberts, who would turn 70 just after Trump’s inauguration, might go.
Think about it this way: If Republicans replace this trio with three early-middle-age ideologues like Amy Coney Barrett, the court will be in the GOP’s hands until everyone reading this article is dead or nearing retirement. If Trump gets to replace Sotomayor, who suffers from a health problem (Type 1 diabetes) that significantly reduces life expectancy, the far right would have an unassailable 7–2 majority with which to remake American society for a generation.
Very little that liberals or progressives care about is likely to survive another 20 or 30 years of reactionary control of the Supreme Court. Although much of the focus has justifiably been on Dobbs, and the looming threat to Obergefell, birth control, and IVF, a conservative supermajority would also likely gut a century of jurisprudence around taken-for-granted features of the American political and economic order, including bargaining rights for organized labor, the constitutionality of federal programs like Social Security and Medicare, and—it nearly goes without saying—the Affordable Care Act. We will effectively return to the early 20th century’s Lochner era, when the Supreme Court repeatedly struck down worker protections and rights for more than 30 years until FDR threatened it with court packing.
Sure, “Vote for Biden so the conservative supermajority can’t get younger and larger” is tough to fit on a bumper sticker, and no one in the party from Biden on down seems to have the stomach for the necessary escalation or a political vision for the court that can be communicated to voters. But unless you want to spend the rest of your lives watching Brett Kavanaugh and his friends upend your lives one right and benefit at a time, you have to hold the line here.
SCOTUS is, of course, also right now at the very center of Trump’s threat to American democracy. The court’s galling decision to repeatedly delay Trump’s trial for the 2020 post-election coup attempt and the Jan. 6 insurrection means that he probably won’t face justice until after he could conceivably win reelection. Most concerningly, this off-the-rails Supreme Court has bafflingly decided to take up the question of a president’s absolute immunity after Trump’s team argued that he should be free from any consequences of anything he did as president. Though cooler heads may in the end prevail over the Thomas-Alito wing, the fact that this is up for debate at all is incredibly alarming.
Much has been made of reports that Trump plans to deploy the military to quell post-election protests under the Insurrection Act. But a Trump unchained from any conceivable repercussions for his decisions in his office is a far worse threat than just that. Imagine for a moment what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor: First of all, the effort to hold him accountable for trying to overthrow the American system of government would be over—instantly. Even more problematically, what conceivable limits would there be on a President Trump beginning in 2025 if SCOTUS has just ruled that his efforts to perpetrate a coup in broad daylight were well within the ambit of his presidential authority?
Who or what exactly would stop Trump from, say, creating a new security apparatus, abducting leftists and political enemies—as he has pledged—and dropping them out of helicopters over the Pacific like the Latin American dictators the far right still worshipsonce did? He could order the hits, then preemptively pardon the people who carry out his orders. That might seem melodramatic and far-fetched. But if the Supreme Court grants him immunity as president, no one could touch him for it legally. And if Republicans simultaneously controlled both chambers of Congress, there would be no impeachment option either. We’ve learned the hard way, far too many times, that a critical mass of elected Republicans will do Trump’s bidding no matter how grotesque his actions.
Maybe he’ll stop short of creating an American Stasi. But a president who is unbound by the law could order the DOJ to gin up investigations of leading journalists, prominent Democrats, professors, activists, and nonprofit leaders. Independent media outlets could be “acquired” by allies or buried under lawsuits and government harassment, as they have been in Trump’s favorite quasi-authoritarian regime in Hungary. Troops could be deployed to garrison blue cities, to not only find and deport immigrants but also chill and repress any dissident fervor that develops in the aftermath of his takeover. He would say he’s merely fighting crime, “illegals,” and election fraud, but Trump could conceivably place the cities he fears and despises, where his political adversaries wield most of their power and influence, under what amounts to an open-ended military occupation.
It gets worse. If Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, he is highly likely to do so while bringing Republican control of the House and Senate with him. With Mitch McConnell out of the way as party leader, there is a very good chance that the new GOP Senate leadership will nuke the filibuster and govern with a simple majority. And that means that the toxic, vengeful politics of Texas and Florida will go national. Trump showed time and again during his first term that he was not just willing but eager to subcontract his domestic policymaking to the right-wing think tanks that write most state-level legislation for Republicans. National Republicans no longer pretend to have a written or informal platform, but Trump has a campaign website with policy plans called “Agenda 47” that can be read alongside Project 2025, as well as the actual policy record of state Republicans, to give us a pretty clear sense of what they have planned.
Trump continues to spin and deflect, but under unified Republican control, Congress could obviously try to pass a national abortion ban, and he would sign it. House Republicans are already gunning for a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care, and electing a Republican trifecta this November will mean that, practically speaking, it could soon be either illegal or impossible to be transgender in the United States. The proof is in the hundreds of red-state anti-trans bills introduced and the dozens passed just since 2023, including Florida’s ban on gender reassignment surgery for minors, which also gives the state the right to kidnap children from parents who pursue gender-affirming care. Agenda 47 claims that the Trump administration will “investigate Big Pharma and the big hospital networks to determine whether they have deliberately covered up horrific long-term side-effects of ‘sex transitions’ in order to get rich at the expense of vulnerable patients.” As Masha Gessen once said, “Believe the autocrat.”
The enemies list doesn’t stop there. Trump’s promised militarized mass-deportation effort could be just the beginning of the crackdown on both legal and illegal immigration; we could also see an effort to end birthright citizenship, a move that, if it succeeds, would result in millions being suddenly stripped of their status as Americans. You will find this not in Project 2025 but in Trump’s online platform and the ugly words that frequently spill out of his mouth, like in May 2023, when he posted a video in which he argued, “I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship.” Whether you believe the “going forward” part of that promise is up to you.
And get ready for a flurry of moves against the remaining redoubts of liberalism and democracy, particularly in secondary and higher education. Radicalized Republicans in Congress will try to bar federal loans and grants from being used at any universities with policies that support inclusion and diversity. This is not speculation: Rep. Dan Crenshaw introduced a bill in the House last year to prevent public funds from being used at schools with DEI policies, based on existing Texas legislation.
They won’t stop there. Republicans would eventually try to block funding for schools with any kind of race or gender studies programs, as the state of Florida tried to do last year, and before long every syllabus in the country could be scrutinized for evidence of anti-patriotic crimes, until anyone who isn’t a right-wing ideologue is driven from the academy altogether. Trump’s Agenda 47 promises to establish a new national “American Academy” by “by taxing, fining, and suing excessively large private university endowments”—i.e., strip-mining them for cash. A Trump administration, in other words, would effectively end American higher education as we know it.
That’s to say nothing of how, under GOP rule, every public school librarian and schoolteacher in America could suddenly find themselves under siege by cranks and culture warriors like their counterparts today in Texas and Florida. Agenda 47 threatens to create a new “credentialing body” that would “certify teachers who embrace patriotic values,” to eliminate teacher tenure, and to rescind funding “for any school or program pushing Critical Race Theory, gender ideology, or other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content.” And like Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Trump would surely relish the opportunity to sign legislation banning public school teachers from going on strike.
This radical agenda would surely be accompanied by an assault on Democrats’ ability to ever win another free and fair election. Congress would pursue a national voter ID law, a ban on ballot harvesting, harsh new restrictions on mail-in balloting, the elimination of same-day voter registration, and new ways to purge Democrats from voter lists—all plans that are already in the “American Confidence in Elections Act,” which has been introduced in the House. What’s left of the Voting Rights Act would be set aside or perhaps repealed. Maniacs exercising their “constitutional carry” rights would patrol outside polling stations across the country with AR-15s, and Democratic voters would be subjected to endless legal challenges. Any Democratic effort to retake a chamber of Congress in 2026 or win the presidency in 2028 would have to run through President Trump’s formidable election conspiracy machine, the army of aspiring petty autocrats who will be put in charge of the nation’s election machinery, and the elected leaders who will come under enormous pressure not to turn power over to Democrats should those Democrats win.
At that point, the vaunted separation of powers that some analysts still cling to as our last great hope won’t be of much help. With as many as seven Trump judges on the Supreme Court and a federal judiciary that will once again be stocked with his allies and true believers, even many of the brazenly unconstitutional orders and laws that are in the works will have a good chance of standing up in court. And all the while, demoralized Democrats will be pointing fingers at one another for their catastrophic loss, which—knowing Dems—could easily be pinned on Biden’s more progressive policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, whose historic climate provisions would also be reversed almost immediately. Efforts to highlight the contributions of his age and Gaza policies to this disaster would run straight into the same narrative-makers who pinned the disappointing scale of Democrats’ 2020 victory on progressive activists chanting “Defund the Police” rather than on Biden’s overcautious campaign and reliance on appealing to disenchanted Republicans.
It’s not hyperbole to say that the America that a second Trump term would create might be an almost unrecognizable realm of economic insecurity, political persecution, racist hatred, and gender tyranny, a Christian nationalist hellscape that would be virtually impossible to dismantle once it is put into place.
Joe Biden may not be the ideal man standing between us and this horror show, but he is a seasoned politician with a strong track record and a plenty competent team. (Plus, he’s all there is unless he decides to step aside.) He and every Democrat in the White House and Congress must do everything they can to shift the focus from Biden’s age and unpopularity to Trump’s very public laundry list of malevolent plans, and national media organizations must continue to do the relatively easy work of telling readers and viewers about Trump’s reactionary agenda. Readers may be completely burned out on learning about Trump’s crimes, but the alternative—that Trump gets into office and perpetrates more of them—is truly unthinkable.
“Hastening his deterioration”: Dr. John Gartner on impact of court trials on “Trump’s fragile brain”
Chauncey DeVega – March 26, 2024
Donald Trump brain scans Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images
Donald Trump’s already abominable behavior has been getting much worse in these last few weeks – and there may be a physiological component to it. In a series of conversations here at Salon, Dr. John Gartner, who is a prominent psychologist and contributor to the bestselling book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President”, has been warning that Trump appears to be suffering from serious cognitive challenges as manifest by his speech, memory, and other behavior. In an attempt to raise public awareness about Donald Trump’s apparent cognitive challenges and the extreme danger they represent to the nation if he were to take back the White House, and in essence be a type of mad king dictator, Gartner has started a petition at Change.org called “We diagnose Trump with probable dementia: A petition for licensed professionals only.”
Unfortunately, the American mainstream media – especially the elite agenda-setting news media – has largely continued to ignore Donald Trump’s apparent cognitive and other mental and emotional health challenges. The Washington Post appears to be slowly creeping towards a more direct engagement with Trump’s apparent cognitive challenges. Last week, the Post featured a story about Donald Trump’s father who was afflicted with Alzheimer’s:
Trump’s long fixation on mental fitness followed years of watching his father’s worsening dementia — a formative period that some associates said has been a defining and little-mentioned factor in his life, and which left him with an abiding concern that he might someday inherit the condition. While much remains unknown about Alzheimer’s, experts say there is an increased risk of inheriting a gene associated with the disease from a parent.“Donald is no doubt fearful of Alzheimer’s,” said a former senior executive at the Trump Organization, who worked for years with Trump and saw him interact with Fred Trump Sr., and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a confidential relationship. “He’s not going to talk about and not going to admit to it. But it’s relevant because every day he is hitting Biden with whether or not he is capable mentally of doing the job.”Trump’s father’s condition also drove a wedge into his family, which fell into years of lawsuits that alleged in part that Donald Trump sought to take advantage of his father’s dementia to wrest control of the family estate — litigation that introduced reams of medical records detailing Fred Trump Sr.’s condition.
This failure to consistently and boldly speak truth to power about Donald Trump’s apparent cognitive challenges contributes to the larger crisis in credibility that the American news media as an institution is experiencing. Any reasonable person can see that something is wrong with Donald Trump’s behavior. Many Americans have direct experience with relatives, friends, and other people they care about who have been or are afflicted with some type of brain disease related to aging. For the American news media and other gatekeepers and agenda-setters to deny the obvious about Donald Trump is a willful decision to ignore the facts and reality.
Continuing with our ongoing conversation about Trump’s apparent cognitive challenges, I spoke with Dr. Gartner several days ago via email about the failures of the American news media, the MAGA people and their devotion to their Dear Leader, and what will likely happen next if Trump’s behavior continues to trend in the same direction.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length:
At a rally in Ohio, Donald Trump again exhibited symptoms of something apparently being wrong neurologically. Trump ties to turn it all into a joke by claiming he is being intentional and it is part of his performance. But at this point such deflections have no credibility, even given the ex-president’s “challenging” relationship with the truth and reality. You and your colleagues’ warnings and predictions appear to be proven correct almost every week.
Our Trump dementia-watch weekly round-up is becoming a regular ritual for one simple reason: Trump can’t go a full week without displaying gross signs of what appears to be dementia. This week he said “Joe Biden beat Barack Hussein Obama. Ever heard of him?” Donald Trump is disoriented. He doesn’t know who the president is, who he’s running against in the primary, or whether E. Jean Carrol is his wife. (I’m not trying to be funny, but it reminds me of the Oliver Sacks book, “The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat.”) In my opinion, this is brain damage. There is no medically credible explanation for these occurrences that doesn’t not involve brain damage, most probably dementia. These telltale signs used to be more intermittent, but his apparent dementia is progressing at an accelerating rate, as is normal for the illness. But at some point, these patients fall off a cognitive cliff and become suddenly incapable of independent living. Given the accelerating rate of Trump’s apparent decline, it’s almost certain he would become incapacitated while in office. The man with the nuclear codes would be wandering around the White House in an angry agitated fog of confusion.
We’d like to believe his vice president and Cabinet would step in and invoke the 25th Amendment for the good of the country should this occur. But would they? The kind of corrupt officials Trump attracts, including those representing foreign interests, would benefit from a demented president they could wheel around in public and manipulate in private.
I thought electing a malignant narcissist who idolizes dictators and appears to be loyal to Vladimir Putin was the worst conceivable outcome for our country, but I was wrong. A demented malignant narcissist who basically works for Russia is a hundred times worse. In the Middle Ages they had a saying: “A bad king is better than no king. And no king is better than a child king.” We would have a child king, or at least one with the brain and character of a child.
Your petition at Change.org is gaining momentum. What is happening?
This subject was once forbidden in the press. If you searched online for Trump and dementia, as I began to do ten times a day, you wouldn’t find one article asking, Does Trump have dementia? The words dementia and Trump never appeared in the same sentence, anywhere. Instead, there were articles about President Biden’s memory and whether he was “too old.” Or pieces that quoted doctors saying we can’t know anything about either candidate’s cognitive health from what we see on TV.
But thanks to the petition, we’re breaking through. Newsweek has reported on it. And for the second week in a row, Jennifer Rubin praised Salon in her Washington Post column for breaking this story: “Salon, one of the few outlets to take Trump’s cognitive decline seriously, displayed this headline: “‘Experts are desperate to warn the public’: Hundreds sign Dr. John Gartner’s Trump dementia petition.” The article’s description reads, “They see the signs of Trump’s cognitive decline through the eyes of years of training and experience.” That succinctly spelled out the basic facts surrounding a petition signed by hundreds of mental health professionals, pointing to obvious signs of Trump’s mental dysfunction.”
The petition has filled a desperate unmet public need to hear from experts about Trump’s cognitive health. We’re up to 500 validated licensed professional signers: But far more persuasive than the numbers are their voices. I put together a tweet thread of their comments, that I add to daily, because I want America to hear in their own words, they offer their credentials and experience, explain the diagnostic criteria for dementia, give examples from Trump’s behavior, and explain why they felt compelled to sign. The petition, despite the risk to their careers or personal lives, to say in public: “our diagnostic impression of Donald Trump is probable dementia.”
The public is desperate to hear the truth from real experts about the state of Trump’s cognitive health. Don’t they deserve that? Especially when all of our lives may depend on it. As people of conscience, we are defying this absurd professional gag order, to speak the truth about Trump’s probable dementia before it’s too late.
Given what we know about Trump’s personality, how will he respond if and when he is confronted by the obvious facts about the apparent problems with his brain and thinking?
It is important that people understand that dementia worsens all personality disorders, including malignant narcissism, which is one of the worst personality disorders a human being can have. It’s difficult for us to even imagine a Trump ten times more paranoid, agitated, and impulsive than he already is. His judgment was always terrible, but Trump is heading towards a cognitive cliff where he will lose the capacity to form a coherent judgment of any kind. The White House may become a kind of nursing home where they need to medicate him at sundown.
If Donald Trump’s behavior continues to decline in an obvious way to the point where it can no longer be denied, will his MAGA followers leave him? Will seeing their personal superhero and god made mortal break the psychological adhesion?
I don’t think it will separate him from his followers. Their cultish idealization of him is an addictive drug. As long as Trump can spew hate, and do a funny little dance on stage, his followers will be satisfied, even if he’s so disoriented that he doesn’t actually know where he is. The people who can be influenced are independents and Republicans who voted for Nikki Haley. The election may come down to their gut feeling about which candidate is “stronger.” Trump gives the appearance of strength with his hypomanic bluster and braggadocio, but he is cognitively weak and closer than you might think to being completely disabled.
What do you think happens next with Donald Trump given all the pressure he is under, and specifically with his property potentially being seized in New York and elsewhere?
Every bit of stress is going to deepen the cracks in Trump’s fragile brain, hastening his deterioration. If the press deigns to show them to us, we’ll see evermore flagrant displays of cognitive decline, and more often. He can’t get through a single rally without displaying a tell that looks a lot like a symptom of dementia. I’m sure this time next week, they’ll be more fodder for discussion. But will you read about it in the New York Times or see it on CBS News? Likely not.
Trump ally Clark attempted ‘coup’ at US Justice Dept, ethics counsel says
Andrew Goudsward – March 26, 2024
FILE PHOTO: Justice Department makes announcement on opioids settlement in Washington
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Jeffrey Clark, a former senior official in the U.S. Justice Department, made false claims as he attempted to enlist the agency in former President Donald Trump’s efforts to undo his 2020 election loss, a Washington ethics lawyer said on Tuesday.
Clark is facing a disciplinary hearing which could see him lose his license to practice law. Trump tried to put Clark in charge of the Justice Department in his administration’s final days as Clark sought to pursue the former president’s false claims of widespread voter fraud.
“What Mr. Clark was attempting to do was essentially a coup at the Department of Justice,” Hamilton “Phil” Fox, the District of Columbia Bar disciplinary counsel said in his opening argument.
Harry MacDougald, a lawyer representing Clark, denied that Clark had violated attorney ethics rules. He said Clark was engaged in “internal debate and disagreement” within the department about the impact of voter fraud on the election.
“Mr. Clark should not be here for giving his candid opinion and independent judgment,” MacDougald said.
Clark, who served as acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division under Trump, faces a multi-day hearing on ethics charges that accuse him of attempting to take actions “involving dishonesty” and that “would seriously interfere with the administration of justice.”
Clark sought to send a letter to Georgia officials in December 2020 falsely claiming that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns” that may have led to Trump’s loss in that state, according to ethics charges filed in 2022.
The hearing is being held by a three-member committee of the Board on Professional Responsibility, an arm of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. If it finds that Clark violated ethics rules, it could recommend that his license be suspended or revoked. The full board would take up such a recommendation, with final action in the hands of the appeals court.
The D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which investigates lawyers accused of violating legal ethics rules, brought the case against Clark.
Trump is the Republican candidate challenging Democratic President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election. Trump faces criminal charges in state court in Georgia and federal court in Washington over his attempts to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden.
Clark is one of Trump’s co-defendants in the Georgia case and has pleaded not guilty. Clark is listed as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the federal case. The ethics panel is expected to delve into incidents relevant to those cases.
Justice Department leaders found no evidence of widespread voter fraud and refused to send Clark’s proposed letter. Trump backed off his plan to name Clark as acting attorney general after department leaders and top White House lawyers threatened to resign in protest.
Two of Clark’s Justice Department superiors – former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and former acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, have cooperated with the ethics probe and are expected to testify during the hearing.
Republican congressman Matt Gaetz, an outspoken Trump ally, and former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows may testify on Clark’s behalf, his lawyers said.
(Reporting by Andrew Goudsward; editing by Will Dunham, Andy Sullivan and Marguerita Choy)
Former Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark fights to save law license as disciplinary trial begins
Kyle Cheney – March 26, 2024
Jose Luis Magana/AP
Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who worked closely with former President Donald Trump in a bid to subvert the 2020 election, should face professional consequences — including the potential loss of his license to practice law — for his effort to throw the nation into chaos, D.C. bar disciplinary authorities argued Tuesday.
But a lawyer for Clark said it would be unreasonable to punish him for his work during the tumultuous days ahead of Jan. 6, 2021, when he spearheaded a proposal to encourage state legislatures to consider overturning the results. That plan was never adopted and Trump ultimately turned it down. Punishing Clark for being on the losing side of a policy dispute would set a dangerous precedent, Clark’s team argued.
The alternate realities were on display Tuesday as bar investigators began laying out their case to penalize Clark for his role in Trump’s scheme to remain in power. Investigators charged Clark with violating professional rules of conduct in late 2020 by attempting to coerce his bosses to send a letter to Georgia lawmakers encouraging them to reconsider the outcome of the election there based on “significant concerns” about the integrity of the vote.
For Clark, the opening arguments in the case — heard by a three-member panel of the D.C. Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility — were never supposed to happen. Clark has spent two years fighting legal battles intended to scrap the case altogether, contending that the D.C. Bar has no jurisdiction over the conduct of federal government lawyers. But a federal court rejected Clark’s position, and an appeals court declined to step in to block the case from moving ahead.
Hamilton Fox, the lead investigator for the D.C. Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel, said Clark’s efforts amounted to a “coup” attempt within the Department of Justice, aimed at taking out the sitting leadership in order to effectuate a plan that would have thrown the 2020 election into even further disarray. Clark held unauthorized talks with Trump, violating DOJ policies against White House contacts, and then sought to outflank then-Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and his deputy Richard Donoghue, by telling them he planned to accept an offer from Trump to take over the department unless they agreed to send his proposed letter to Georgia.
The showdown, which has been well documented by the Jan. 6 select committee and prosecutors in Georgia, led to an Oval Office confrontation on Jan. 3, 2021, in which Trump ultimately backed down from his plans to elevate Clark amid a mass resignation threat by top DOJ and White House officials. Clark has been criminally charged by Georgia prosecutors for his role in Trump’s effort to reverse the outcome of the election, and he was identified as a co-conspirator in special counsel Jack Smith’s Washington, D.C. case against Trump.
Donoghue was Fox’s first witness on Tuesday, describing his work to review claims of election fraud in 2020 and finding many of the fraud claims lodged by Trump and his allies to be meritless. He also described his conversations with Trump, recalling that Trump urged Rosen to simply declare the election “corrupt” and let him and his Republican allies in Congress do the rest. Donoghue recalled trying to educate Trump about DOJ’s limited role in elections and its work debunking many of the false allegations of fraud that had been circulating.
Disciplinary proceedings against the lawyers who formed the backbone of Trump’s effort have aired significant new details about the two months that threatened the peaceful transfer of power in 2020 and 2021.
John Eastman, one of the architects of Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election, is expected to face a disbarment ruling by Wednesday, when a California judge issues her proposed punishment for alleged violations of professional conduct.
Rudy Giuliani has similarly had his law license suspended in New York and Washington, D.C.
And other attorneys involved in failed legal efforts to overturn election results in 2020 have also faced disciplinary charges, some of which are still pending.
Clark’s case is unique, however, because he was employed by DOJ at the time as acting head of the department’s Civil Division and Environment and Natural Resources Division. He first reached Trump’s radar as a result of efforts by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), who helped connect the little-known DOJ official to the president. Trump, who had publicly expressed frustration that the Justice Department hadn’t done enough to back up his claims of election fraud, soon began floating the notion of elevating Clark to replace Rosen.
Clarks’ lawyers, though, say punishing him for taking cues from the president — the chief law enforcement officer of the United States — and advocating for a position that he genuinely believed would send a chilling effect across government. Clark’s efforts were intended to remain confidential — and the letter he drafted, which was never sent to Georgia, was supposed to remain secret, protected by various forms of executive and law enforcement privilege, until a leak to the press exposed the fraught discussions.
Clark’s attorneys said he intends to argue, using witnesses from Georgia and statistical experts that Trump has relied on in the past, that his concerns about the election were well-founded, that DOJ officials rebuffed them and the entire dispute amounts to an internal disagreement about what DOJ’s official position should have been.
“There is nothing dishonest and nothing in violation of the rules of professional conduct about proposing a change in position,” Clark’s lawyer, Harry MacDougald, argued. “Mr. Clark did nothing wrong.”
Clark is unlikely to testify in the proceeding. His lawyers have indicated he is likely to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if called to the stand.
Fox intends to rely on testimony from White House and DOJ officials — including Donoghue, Rosen and former deputy White House counsel Pat Philbin. Clark’s lawyer said he intends to call former Attorney General Edwin Meese, as well as a member of the Atlanta-area election board who opposed certifying the results.
Column: Trump wants to round up over a million undocumented migrants from California. Here’s how he might do it
Doyle McManus – March 25, 2024
Former President Trump speaks near a section of border wall in Texas in 2021. His plans for a prospective second term include using National Guard troops in mass deportation operations to seize undocumented migrants, transport them to camps in Texas and expel them. (Associated Press )
Former President Trump has focused relentlessly on illegal immigration as a centerpiece of his campaign for the White House, just as when he first ran in 2016.
“They’re poisoning the blood of our country,” he has said of undocumented migrants, using language redolent of the racist doctrines of Adolf Hitler.
He promises to launch “the biggest domestic deportation campaign in American history” on Day One of his new presidency.
His chief immigration advisor, Santa Monica-born Stephen Miller, has spelled out what that would mean: Trump would assemble “a giant force” including National Guard troops to seize undocumented migrants, transport them to camps in Texas and expel them.
“A very conservative estimate would say about 10 million,” Miller told pro-Trump talk show host Charlie Kirk.
If “unfriendly states” — like California — don’t want to cooperate, Miller said, Trump could order Guard units from red states like Texas to cross their borders to enforce the law.
The operation would be “as daring and ambitious … as building the Panama Canal,” Miller promised.
That’s a pretty bloodless way to describe a process that would uproot thousands of families, separate children from their parents and disrupt communities. But before we get to that, a preliminary question:
If he wins in November, could Trump really do that?
From a legal standpoint, the answer is yes.
If Trump invokes the Insurrection Act and declares that the National Guard is needed to enforce federal immigration law, he could send Texas troops into California whether Gov. Gavin Newsom agrees or not, legal scholars said.
“We normally don’t want the military enforcing the law inside the country; law enforcement is supposed to be provided by police forces that are local — and locally accountable,” said William Banks, an emeritus professor of law at Syracuse University. “But the Insurrection Act gives the president sweeping authority. You could drive a lot of trucks through that law.”
Newsom would presumably file a lawsuit against Trump to try to block the move, but it would almost certainly fail.
“No state has ever sued successfully to stop a deployment of the Guard under the Insurrection Act,” warned Joseph Nunn of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
There are also practical concerns. Most National Guard units are neither trained nor equipped for law enforcement missions.
“Tracking down undocumented migrants is complicated and time-consuming,” Nunn noted. “You need people who know how to do it, like ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents.
“The Guard would resist that kind of mission mightily,” added Banks. “They hate this kind of stuff. They would be better suited to patrol the border — to stand next to the wall, the fence or the river and discourage people from coming across.”
So if Trump listens to his generals — not a sure thing — he’d be more likely to use Guard units to bolster weak spots on the border and manage those newly built transit camps for deportees.
That would free up ICE agents for raids on Central Valley farms and Los Angeles sweatshops — which is what immigration agents did in earlier crackdowns, including the offensively named Operation Wetback, which expelled more than a million Mexican migrants (and some U.S. citizens) in 1954.
So legally, there may not be that much California can do. But the fallout in a state home to an estimated 1.9 million undocumented people — roughly 5% of the population — would be difficult to imagine.
The human impact of uprooting most or all of these California residents would be gigantic. Many undocumented migrants are members of families that include legal residents and U.S. citizens, including children.
Many are deeply rooted in their communities; more than two-thirds have lived in the state longer than 10 years, according to one estimate.
“When you harm the undocumented, you harm U.S. citizens too,” said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles.
“I’ve seen families devastated by the deportation of their loved ones. I’ve seen families, when the father is deported, go right into economic ruin,” Salas said. “The trauma for children, especially small children, is enormous.”
The economic impact of mass deportations would be huge, too. An estimated 1.5 million California workers, more than 7% of the state’s workforce, are undocumented. About half work in agriculture, construction, hospitality and retail, industries that already suffer from severe labor shortages.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell said this month that the growth of immigrants in the workforce had strengthened economic growth. “It’s just arithmetic,” said Powell, a Trump appointee. “If you add a couple of million people to an economy … there will be more output.” Abruptly subtracting a million or more would have the opposite effect.
Trump advisors aren’t planning to stop at removing undocumented people from the country.
Miller wants to go after some people in the country legally too.
He has proposed expanding the criteria for deportation to include people with valid visas “whose views, attitudes and beliefs make them ineligible to stay” in the eyes of the new Trump administration.
“The obvious example here would be all of the Hamas supporters who are rallying across the country,” he said.
An immigration task force organized by the conservative Heritage Foundation and led by a former Trump administration official proposed blocking Federal Emergency Management Agency grants to state and local agencies that refuse to cooperate with ICE enforcement operations, a standard that would presumably disqualify most or all California agencies.
The task force also proposed denying federal loans and grants to students at universities that allow undocumented migrants to pay in-state tuition, a rule that would affect UC and the Cal State systems.
It adds up to a recipe for a major collision with California, the state most out of step with Trump’s determination to rid the country of undocumented migrants.
None of this constitutes a defense of the Biden administration’s policies, which have failed to deter thousands of migrants from crossing the border and applying for asylum on often-dubious grounds.
But it’s worth remembering that only a few weeks ago, Trump ordered Republicans in Congress to kill a bipartisan bill that would have increased funding for immigration enforcement and raised the bar for asylum claims — because, as he admitted, he didn’t want to allow President Biden to appear as if he was fixing the problem.
Taliban leader says women will be stoned to death in public
Akhtar Makoii – March 25, 2024
The Taliban has quickly returned to harsh public punishments in Afghanistan – Ebrahim Noroozi/AP
The Taliban’s Supreme Leader has vowed to start stoning women to death in public as he declared the fight against Western democracy will continue.
“You say it’s a violation of women’s rights when we stone them to death,” said Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada in a voice message, aired on state television over the weekend, addressing Western officials.
“But we will soon implement the punishment for adultery. We will flog women in public. We will stone them to death in public,” he declared in his harshest comments since taking over Kabul in August 2021.
“These are all against your democracy but we will continue doing it. We both say we defend human rights – we do it as God’s representative and you as the devil’s.”
Afghanistan’s state TV, now under Taliban control, broadcasts voice messages purporting to be from Akhundzada, who has never been seen in public aside from a few old portraits.
He is believed to be based in southern Kandahar, the stronghold of the Taliban.
Akhundzada has never been seen in public – Xinhua/Shutterstock
Despite promising a more moderate government, the Taliban quickly returned to harsh public punishments like public executions and floggings, similar to those from their previous rule in the late 1990s.
The United Nations has strongly criticised the Taliban and has called on the country’s rulers to halt such practices.
In his voice message, Akhundzada said that the women’s rights that the international community had been advocating for were against the Taliban’s harsh interpretation of Islamic Sharia.
“Do women want the rights that Westerners are talking about? They are against Sharia and clerics’ opinions, the clerics who toppled Western democracy,” he said.
“I told the Mujahedin that we tell the Westerners that we fought against you for 20 years and we will fight 20 and even more years against you,” he said, emphasising the need for resilience in opposing women’s rights among Taliban foot soldiers.
“It did not finish [when you left]. It does not mean we would now just sit and drink tea. We will bring Sharia to this land,” he added. “It did finish after we took over Kabul. No, we will now bring Sharia into action.”
Women ‘living in prison’
His remarks have incited outrage among Afghans, with some calling on the international community to increase pressure on the Taliban.
“The money that they receive from the international community as humanitarian aid is just feeding them against women,” Tala, a former civil servant, told The Telegraph from the capital Kabul.
“As a woman, I don’t feel safe and secure in Afghanistan. Each morning starts with a barrage of notices and orders imposing restrictions and stringent rules on women, stripping away even the smallest joys and extinguishing hope for a brighter future,” she added.
“We, the women, are living in prison,” Tala said, “And the Taliban are making it smaller for us every passing day.”
‘Feeble, Confused And Tired’: Donald Trump Torched After Bizarre Gaffe-Filled Appearance
Ed Mazza – March 26, 2024
President Joe Biden’s campaign on Monday released an unusually blunt statement tearing into Donald Trump as “feeble, confused, and tired” after an appearance marked by verbal stumbles as well as a bizarre social media post in which he likened himself to Christ.
“He spent the weekend golfing, the morning comparing himself to Jesus, and the afternoon lying about having money he definitely doesn’t have,” the statement said.
That led to a rambling appearance by Trump, which included several gaffes, including an odd moment when the former president insisted that “you can’t have an election in the middle of a political season.”
The former president added: “We just had Super Tuesday, and we had a Tuesday after Tuesday already.”
Trump also vowed to “bring crime back to law and order.”
Biden’s campaign torched the former president as “weak and desperate ― both as a man and a candidate for president” and mocked his fundraising struggles and lack of recent appearances.
“His campaign can’t raise money, he is uninterested in campaigning outside his country club, and every time he opens his mouth, he pushes moderate and suburban voters away with his dangerous agenda,” the campaign said in a statement. “America deserves better than a feeble, confused, and tired Donald Trump.”
It was time to elect a student body president. Two candidates were running. The first was a hard-working, successful student who promised to do their best to serve our school and students. The second was a boisterous bully running on promises that water fountains would dispense soda and there would be mandatory class parties every Friday.
We voted for the first candidate. I have faith America will have the same sense as Palm View Elementary’s fourth-grade class of 1967.
Kevin Ferguson, Capistrano Beach
..
To the editor: For the first time in forever, I’m happy to hear the former president babble nonsense such as his ”plans” for California and about “bloodbaths.”
With every word, he reveals his increasing mania and should show the ”tipping point” to any voters uncertain of his qualifications for the presidency.
Remember that old cliche that if someone tells you who they are, believe them? Trump is a malignant narcissist, a liar, a grifter and, most importantly, someone who openly admires dictators.
