Item one: Note to right-wing "media" and all you fantasists who believe them: This is what judicial sleaze actually looks like. |
Pam Bondi was approved by the Senate to be attorney general on February 4. On February 5, she was sworn in. And on February 10, five days into her already ghastly tenure, she committed an act so electrically sleazy that in a normally ordered world, she’d be forced from office immediately. Why Bondi? Why is my wrath not limited to Emil Bove, the acting assistant attorney general? After all, it was Bove (apparently rhymes with "no way") who wrote the instantly infamous memo ordering Danielle Sassoon, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, to dismiss all charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams "as soon as is practicable." (Sassoon quit instead.) True enough, Bove’s Bond-villain name and his broodingly pharaonic countenance help finger him as an easy bad guy. But read the damn memo. Here’s how it starts: "You [Sassoon] are directed, as authorized by the Attorney General, to dismiss the pending charges in United States vs. Adams." As authorized by the attorney general. There it is. The top law enforcement officer of the United States, five days on the job, ordered that corruption charges, painstakingly assembled over a multiyear period by prosecutors in New York’s Southern District, be dismissed. Why? Well, your average fair-minded person, presented with the facts as I’ve laid them out so far, would assume that said attorney general and her people had discovered new information that exculpated the mayor. That’s how justice works in the movies, right? But not here. In fact, Bove’s memo admits the opposite! It reads: "The Justice Department has reached this conclusion without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based." Couldn’t be clearer. Bondi’s decision—and please, please, call it that; Bondi’s decision, not Bove’s—had nothing to do with evidence. So what did it have to do with? |
|
|
Two factors. The first is timing. The memo states: "It cannot be ignored that Mayor Adams criticized the prior Administration’s immigration policies before the charges were filed." That’s a staggering sentence. It assumes an almost casual and universal corruption on the part of prosecutors in the Southern District generally, and the U.S. attorney in particular. This is an outrageous charge: that prosecutors are working to exact political revenge for presidents. That is a morality that Fox News and others have gotten millions of American to cynically buy into. It is not the real-life morality of the Southern District, which for decades has rightfully enjoyed an apolitical reputation. Even when there have been politically ambitious U.S. attorneys in charge who were clearly bringing cases that might benefit them politically—most obviously, Rudy Giuliani prosecuting corrupt Democratic bosses in the 1980s—it had to be admitted that the prosecutions were legit. Giuliani won convictions in those cases, and the city was better off. But this is an accusation—by the nation’s top law enforcement officer—that the Southern District is, or was, a priori corrupt. It’s the kind of accusation, history instructs us, that is usually made by people who are guilty of exactly that which they allege. And it is an accusation lodged specifically at former U.S. Attorney Damian Williams. Yes, Williams was appointed by Biden. Yes, Williams is a Democrat. But what is his record of politically selective prosecutions? Well, let’s see. He oversaw the indictment of former New York Lieutenant Governor Brian Benjamin—a Democrat and, for what it’s worth, like Williams, a Black man (I mention this only because the right-wing media would surely claim the fact as relevant were it expedient to do so). He oversaw the indictment of Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey. In 2018, as an assistant U.S. attorney in the same Southern District, he helped secure the indictment and conviction of Sheldon Silver, the powerful former speaker of the New York State Assembly—and, yes, another fellow Democrat. And bear in mind, of course, that the investigation of Adams stretched back years. Read the indictment. It’s more than 50 pages, and it tracks events going back to 2016. You don’t assemble that in a week. Southern District investigators were obviously building an Adams case for years—probably before Williams was even named U.S. attorney, which happened in 2021, and long before Adams cozied up to Donald Trump. On top of all that, suspicion of corruption has swirled around Adams’s head practically since he took office. The notion that the filing of the Adams indictment was somehow tied to his refusal to talk nice about Kamala Harris before the election is the kind of absurd conspiracy that used to be laughable in this country, consigned to the John Birch margins, before the right-wing media promoted this kind of thinking to the extent that it became imprintable on millions of fevered minds. But remember—that’s only the first factor cited by Bove (and Bondi). The second, if you can believe it, is far more ridiculous. The indictment against Adams needs to be dropped posthaste, Bondi ordered, because it’s distracting him from doing his job! I’m not joking: "The pending prosecution has unduly restricted Mayor Adams’ ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that escalated under the policies of the prior Administration." This is, to put it politely, not how the law works in this country. Remember that the Supreme Court ruled—unanimously—that even a sitting president can’t be immune from civil litigation on the grounds that it will distract him from his duties. But that was about Bill Clinton, a scourge of the right. For a darling of the right, the rules appear to be different. Except that the dismissal of these charges carries a big asterisk. They were dismissed "without prejudice," meaning they can be refiled anytime Bondi—or Donald Trump—wants them to be. In other words, Mayor Adams is too busy fighting crime and immigration, but only for as long as Bondi and Trump think he’s fighting it their way. Once he’s not, cuff him. So things go in a nation where it is openly declared that some people are above the law. That was not supposed to be the United States (although often it has been, in the case of rich people). It was supposed to be places like Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua. But now it is the United States. I didn’t declare it so. Trump did—more specifically, his White House counsel David Warrington did this week, in the form of a memo obtained by The Washington Post stating that it is now the official policy of the Trump administration that the president and vice president (What? Why?) and their top lawyers "can discuss ongoing criminal and civil cases with the attorney general and her deputies." In other words, Trump—or Vance—can make one phone call and set any investigation they wish in motion, or get one quashed. In other words, they are the law. But don’t forget the central role here of Bondi: "As authorized by the attorney general." She has proven in a week that she will corrupt her office to any point and in any way that Trump desires. Don’t take it from me. Take it from Sassoon—a Republican and a Federalist Society member who, far from thinking Adams innocent, was about to file a superseding indictment charging him with even more corruption, including tampering with evidence. And take it from the five Justice Department prosecutors who followed Sassoon with their resignations. This is a crisis. A legal and constitutional crisis of a sort seen only a few times in this country’s history. And yet the squashing of the Adams case will pass, as all these things pass, with nary a peep from elected Republicans because a serial liar with a mighty propaganda machine working overtime for him has convinced half the country that up is down, that honor is venality, and that integrity is just a ruse for suckers who believe all that garbage from our schoolbooks. |
{{#if }} Preparing for the Dark Days of a Trump Presidency |
To mount an effective fight for the future, we need facts. We need hard evidence and smart, aggressive reporting. But most of all, we need a well-informed public to unite against the dark days ahead. Help us fight back against Trump’s dangerous second term by subscribing today. |
{{/if}} Item two: Umm … Munich? Really? |
I’m not sure who chose Munich as the venue for this security conference, or when; but if I were Donald Trump—and JD Vance and Marco Rubio, who are actually there—I sure would have lobbied for a change of venue. I trust you know I’m referring to 1938. Here, I’ll hand the microphone to the historian Timothy Snyder, who wrote on his Substack Friday: |
One way to consider the current state of events is this: the Ukrainians have kept us in a kind of suspended 1938, a 1938 that has lasted three years. The year 1938 was far from ideal, but it was much better than 1939, and world war. By resisting, essentially on their own, the Ukrainians have created a timeline that would not otherwise have existed. The rest of us, although we live in that timeline, have done little to deserve it. Whatever the Trump administration’s other motives in appeasing Russia, that lack of appreciation is among them. Trump himself, his vice-president, the man who holds power (Musk), and their milieux in general all tend to treat Ukraine as a kind of irritant, as a problem rather than as a solution. They are very far away from understanding that Ukraine has held off chaos and war well beyond its borders. Or, perhaps, in some cases, they blame Ukraine for that very achievement, because what they want is war and chaos. |
We shall see what we shall see. It’s just worth noting: Munich has gone down in history to mean appeasement—in the 1938 case to Hitler but, more broadly, to fascism, of the sort that Vladimir Putin broadly represents in our time. Trump, saying he wants "peace," has already announced that Ukraine will not get Crimea and will not be invited to join NATO. Even if those are sincerely held positions, they should be bargaining chips that are not revealed until the appropriate moment in the negotiations. That Trump has already stated them is like a poker player revealing two of his cards right after the ante. Why would a "master dealmaker" do that? There are two possible answers. One, he’s not a master dealmaker at all. Two, what he has in mind isn’t a deal but a capitulation. It’s a dark irony that it’s unfolding, again, in Munich. |
|
|
The vice president took a stab at theology to defend the administration’s rank cruelty. Then a higher authority weighed in. |
|
|
|
|
Last week’s quiz: Get those nachos ready … On the cultural history of the Super Bowl (which kicks off Sunday at 6:30 p.m.) |
1. The first three Super Bowls just featured marching bands at halftime. By Super Bowl IV, the NFL figured out that the game was a big enough deal to have a celebrity. Who was the first Super Bowl halftime-show celeb? |
A. Engelbert Humperdinck B. Herb Alpert C. Lucille Ball D. Carol Channing |
Answer: D, Carol Channing. Seriously. She was even invited back two years later! |
2. It took until 1988 for the halftime show to feature a "rock" performer, using the term very loosely; at least, it was someone from the rock era. Who was it? |
A. David Cassidy B. Gladys Knight C. Chubby Checker D. Cher |
Answer: C, Chubby Checker. Here’s the full list. It’s quite a campy pop culture artifact. No skanky rock and roll guitar sound fell upon Super Bowl audience ears until 2000, when Aerosmith shared the bill with NSYNC. |
3. Weirdly, "The Star-Spangled Banner" was not performed at one Super Bowl—Super Bowl XI, in 1977 (Oakland vs. Minnesota). Sixties pop songstress Vikki Carr sang which song instead? |
A. "God Bless the USA" B. "America the Beautiful" C. "Battle Hymn of the Republic" D. "America" (Simon & Garfunkel) |
Answer: B, "America the Beautiful." Here is a list of Supe national anthem singers. Lots of trumpeters. I wasn’t wild about Jon Baptiste’s rendition last week. |
4. Which play-by-play announcer has called the most Super Bowls? |
A. Pat Summerall B. Al Michaels C. Jim Nantz D. Curt Gowdy |
Answer: Summerall called 16 Super Bowls. He was fine when he was younger, in the Tom Brookshier days, but when he was older, he and John Madden were both terrible. |
5. How many Americans have watched the Super Bowl every year over the last decade? |
A. Around 150 million B. Around 115 million C. Around 100 million D. Around 85 million |
Answer: B, around 115 million. Last Sunday’s numbers were around 125 million, which was interesting, since the game sure wasn’t. |
6. A highly anticipated ad for this year’s game, for Hellmann’s mayonnaise, will feature a reenactment of what famous movie scene? |
A. Rick saying to Ilsa, "Here’s looking at you, kid" (Casablanca) B. Harry killing Voldemort (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) C. The government lobby scene (The Matrix) D. The diner scene; you know, that one (When Harry Met Sally) |
Answer: D, When Harry Met Sally. With Meg Ryan and Bill Crystal. It was funny. It didn’t win any polls. The Budweiser Clydesdale ad won this one. I think I was walking the dog then. |
|
|
On February 12, we gathered influential political commentators determined to mitigate the imminent threats of a second Trump term, including Jared Bernstein, Jamie Raskin, Bennie Thompson, Pramila Jayapal, Olivia Troye, Mark Zaid, Greg Sargent, Michael Tomasky, and more. |
|
|
This week’s quiz: "When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie.…" Yep, that’s amore, and yep, it’s Valentine’s Day; so, a quiz about love. |
1. Valentinus was a real person who lived in Rome and was martyred in 269 C.E. (on, duh, February 14). He is said to have done what before his execution? |
A. Chiseled a large heart into the plinth of the Senate building B. Shot an arrow into the arm of the woman he loved C. Written a note to a girl whose blindness he had cured, signed "from your Valentine" D. Given a dozen roses to the wife of the emperor who ordered his execution |
2. St. Valentine’s Day was an amorous holiday by the 1500s. What Shakespeare character said: |
To-morrow is Saint Valentine’s Day, All in the morning betime, And I a maid at your window, To be your Valentine. Then up he rose, and donn’d his clothes, And dupp’d the chamber-door; Let in the maid, that out a maid Never departed more. |
A. Ophelia in Hamlet B. Titania in A Midsummer Night’s Dream C. Timandra in Timon of Athens D. Goneril in King Lear |
3. The first mass-produced Valentine’s cards in the United States appeared in what year? |
A. 1814 B. 1847 C. 1877 D. 1890 |
4. Which chocolate company was the first to come up with the heart-shaped box of chocolates, in 1868? |
A. Russell Stover B. Hershey’s C. See’s D. Cadbury |
5. In Rodgers and Hart’s "My Funny Valentine," what word rhymes with "laughable"? |
A. Affable B. Diaphanal C. Unphotographable D. Electrocardiographable |
6. Those little heart-shaped candies with messages like "Be Mine" are called conversation hearts. How many calories are there in a suggested serving size of 12 pieces? |
Yes, I skipped the famous massacre. Too clichéd. In fact, only seven people died, which is a lot, sure, but is it a massacre? Answers next week. Feedback to [email protected]. —Michael Tomasky, editor |
|
|
The New Republic’s new senior legal columnist talks with editor Michael Tomasky about how Donald Trump is wrecking the Justice Department. |
|
|
|
|
