Stupid Crimes and Stupider Excuses + Wisdom from Proverbs

There’s never been a Trumpier scandal than this.

Superficially, the Stormy Daniels mess that got him indicted in Manhattan is a “Trumpier” scandal than concealing sensitive government information. There’s infidelity, a porn star, hush money, all the sordid, embarrassing things you’d expect from a guy who spent his adulthood jungled up with the sleaze merchants at the National Enquirer.

The documents scandal is Trumpier, though, because of how stupid and avoidable it was. “Mr. Trump brought these charges upon himself by not only taking classified documents, but by refusing to simply return them when given numerous opportunities to do so,” Mitt Romney said today, succinctly and correctly. The feds spent more than a year cajoling him to hand over the hundreds of sensitive documents he’d taken, an indulgence they wouldn’t have granted to anyone else in American life. He resisted anyway, per the reporting, and may even have instructed aides to hide documents on the day before the FBI visited Mar-a-Lago. He’s now facing at least one count of obstruction of justice.

Why did he take this insane risk, exposing himself to criminal jeopardy that could lead to him dying in prison? The most compelling theory is that … he just didn’t want to give the documents back. He’s never distinguished between the perks of public office and his personal interests, an authoritarian quirk that sets him apart even from wannabes like Ron DeSantis. He kept the documents because he wanted them; they’re “cool,” as he reportedly put it in newly revealed audio recorded in July 2021.

He’s thrust the country into a wrenching and needless political crisis because he couldn’t bear to part with “cool” stuff to which his old job had given him access despite many opportunities to do so without consequence. Between the immense selfishness of it and the inscrutable idiocy of his motives, it’s the Trumpiest scandal ever.

Nick Catoggio (The 'Fifth Avenue' Indictment)

He brought this upon himself.

“Like all Americans, Mr. Trump is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The government has the burden of proving its charges beyond a reasonable doubt and securing a unanimous verdict by a South Florida jury.

“By all appearances, the Justice Department and special counsel have exercised due care, affording Mr. Trump the time and opportunity to avoid charges that would not generally have been afforded to others.

“Mr. Trump brought these charges upon himself by not only taking classified documents, but by refusing to simply return them when given numerous opportunities to do so.

“These allegations are serious and if proven, would be consistent with his other actions offensive to the national interest, such as withholding defensive weapons from Ukraine for political reasons and failing to defend the Capitol from violent attack and insurrection.”

Senator Mitt Romney (statement)

Innocent people have this thing going for them that guilty people don’t: the truth.

Trump has offered several competing explanations for what he did and why he did it. That makes me suspect he’s guilty. If I’m accused of robbing a bank and I say, in no particular order, “I couldn’t have robbed it, I wasn’t there”; “I was there but I had nothing to do with the robbery”; “what happened wasn’t a robbery and lots of other people did what I did”; the “FBI is framing me”; and “as president I had total authority to take money out of that bank,” I don’t think I have to take any of your denials very seriously because they contradict each other. Trump has floated versions of all of these, from “they planted evidence,” to “of course I did it because I can.”

Jonah Goldberg (They Just Don't Care)

He shook me with his mind powers.

So if I have this right, the right-wing defense of Trump appears to be that when a president leaves office, he can take whatever secret documents he wishes, at which point they're auto-declassified. This includes highly sensitive, top-secret, national defense related documents. He doesn't have to tell anyone which documents he took, which would leave most of the federal government in the dark about what is and isn't still classified each time the White House changes hands. The ex-president can then then do whatever he wants with those documents. He could publish them in a book. Show them off as trophies. Make NFTs and auction them off.

Radley Balko (Tweet thread)

If Trump declassified them with his mind, what if Biden RE-classified them the same way? 

@voxrob

What you’re saying just doesn’t make sense on its face.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) sparred with CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday over former President Trump’s indictment in the Justice Department’s probe into his handling of classified documents.

Jordan firmly defended Trump during the segment, stressing that “the president’s ability to classify and control access to national security information flows from the Constitution” and that “he can put it wherever he wants, he can handle it however he wants.”

But Bash pushed back, noting a recording of Trump that revealed he acknowledged he couldn’t declassify documents once he was no longer in the White House.

“He says point blank on tape, ‘As president, I could have declassified it. Now I can’t.’ … It’s on tape as part of this indictment that he did not declassify the material,” Bash said of Trump, referring to a transcript of an audio recording obtained by CNN.

“Saying he could have is not the same as saying he did it,” Jordan said.

“He said, ‘Now I can’t,'” Bash said.

“Now he can’t — right, because he’s not president now. But when he was president he did declassify,” Jordan said.

“Which means that it’s classified. Which means that what he was holding was classified,” Bash said as the two talked over each other.

“Not if he declassified it when he was president of the United States, for goodness sake,” Jordan said.

“But he’s saying point blank in this audio tape that he did not declassify it. What you’re saying just doesn’t make sense on its face,” Bash said.

The Hill ("Dana Bash Spars With Jim Jordan...")

The king will do whatever he wants. (Daniel 11:36 CEB)

Declassifying a trove of information about our nuclear weapons, our military vulnerabilities and those of our allies, and our contingency planning in case of attack would hand to Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Ali Khamenei, and Kim Jong-un the playbook to launch a strike against the United States. It would mean that the New York Times, Washington Post, and any media outlet could obtain the data with a mere FOIA request. Forget the “Top Secret,” “Special Compartmented Intelligence,” and “No Foreign” markings on the documents obtained when the FBI executed a search warrant on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property. Forget that the documents had been scattered about the resort on a ballroom stage, in a toilet, in hallways. In Jordan’s view, “If [Trump] wants to store material in a box, in a bathroom, if he wants to store it in a box on a stage, he can do that.”

Let that sink in. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee thinks it’s perfectly fine to store nuclear secrets in a box on an open stage. And he thinks that federal prosecutors who’ve taken an oath to protect the United States from all threats foreign and domestic are weaponizing the government if they try to secure these nuclear and other national security secrets in their rightful place.

Linda Chavez (Trump’s Best Defense Is No Defense at All)

What is wrong with you?

Sen. Josh Hawley, America’s self-proclaimed champion of “manhood,” responded to the news last night: “If the people in power can jail their political opponents at will, we don’t have a republic.”

Hawley, a graduate of Yale Law School, where he was the head of the Federalist Society, presumably knows the difference between text and subtext. On the text, he’s right. If the people in power could jail their political opponents “at will” you wouldn’t be able to say we have a republic. The subtext, however, isn’t merely asinine, it’s dangerously asinine. 

Peruse the newspapers: You’ll find nothing about Donald Trump being put in jail. You know why? Well, because he hasn’t been and he’s not about to be (and I’m agnostic that he should be, even if proven guilty in a court of law). More importantly, the people in power can’t put Trump in jail “at will.” Trump has to have his day in court. The state has to bring evidence. It has to cite relevant law. A jury and judge have to be persuaded. That’s the rule of law. That’s what makes us a republic, as Hawley claims to understand the word. But that’s the opposite of what Hawley wants you to think is happening. He wants you to think due process and the application of law aren’t happening and that he is one of the last honest men—along with Donald Trump—in a banana republic. 

Jonah Goldberg (They Just Don't Care)

Everyone knows they only lock from the outside.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) thinks it’s totally cool to keep sensitive, extremely classified state nuclear secrets in your bathroom, because bathrooms have locks.

On Monday, McCarthy was asked by a reporter at the Capitol if it was a “good look” for Donald Trump to keep boxes containing classified documents in his bathroom. The question referenced images included in the Justice Department’s indictment of former president Donald Trump that show he had stored boxes in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom.

“I don’t know,” McCarthy responded. “Is it a good picture to have boxes in a garage that opens up all the time? A bathroom door locks.”

Nikki McCann Ramirez (Kevin McCarthy Seems to Think a Bathroom Is an Acceptable Place to Store Nuclear Secrets)

Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. (Proverbs 14:34 NASB)

Governing authorities are not themselves exempt from the rule of law and must submit to the nation’s statutes, rather than mocking them...

Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God’s judgment...

We urge all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office, and to elect those officials and candidates who, although imperfect, demonstrate consistent honesty, moral purity and the highest character.

Resolution On Moral Character Of Public Officials

Light unto my feet and lamp unto my path.

The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.

Proverbs 12:22 NIV

Eloquent words are not appropriate on a fool’s lips; how much worse are lies for a ruler.

Proverbs 17:7 HCSB