"Penumbra of Fear"
Trump wants you to be afraid. Very afraid.
“President Donald Trump on Friday walked into the Department of Justice and labeled his courtroom opponents ‘scum,’ judges ‘corrupt’ and the prosecutors who investigated him ‘deranged.’
“With the DOJ logo directly behind him, Trump called his political opponents lawbreakers and said others should be sent to prison.” — Politico
And we haven’t even gotten to what he said about the lawyers or the media. Or Al Capone, eggs and bacon, Norm Eisen, or Bobby Knight.
Happy Saturday.
I know that there are a lot of claims on your time and your pocketbook. But please take a moment to consider supporting us.
You may disagree with me from time to time (and I expect you will, because I’m not promising you a safe space here). But I’ll always try to give it to you straight, sober, sane — with a dash of snark.
To the Contrary is a reader-supported publication. There are no investors. No sugar daddies. Just me. And the dogs.
To receive new posts — including podcasts and videos— please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. (And I’m immensely grateful for your generous support.)
In Case You Missed This Week’s Commentary
Sunday:
Monday:
Tuesday:
Wednesday:
Thursday:
Friday:
Trump Gives the DOJ Its Marching Orders
The phrase “penumbra of fear” comes from Josh Marshall who used it on this week’s “Talking Feds” podcast (it’s not posted yet, so watch your feed). It seemed especially timely, given Trump’s ongoing attacks on law firms, the media, and his full-throated cry for vengeance during his remarks at the Department of Justice on Friday
The NYT characterized his hourlong speech as an “acid recitation of grievances against his enemies.”
Mr. Trump veered from his prepared remarks to lash out at lawyers and former prosecutors by name in a venue dedicated to the impartial administration of justice. He also accused the department’s previous leadership of trying to destroy him and declared former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. the head of a “crime” family.
“Scum,” Mr. Trump called his adversaries, in the same room where Attorney General Robert Jackson delivered a tone-setting 1940 speech urging prosecutors be animated by “fair play” rather than a blind drive to win…
He implored his political appointees at the department not to “be deflected” by critics in enforcing his agenda. He also suggested he was preparing new executive actions to personally target the “violent vicious lawyers” who had prosecuted him or opposed his policies in court.
And, because this is Trump, it became deeply weird, as he compared the attacks against him to those faced “the great Alphonse Capone, the legendary Scarface.”
**
CNN analyst Elie Honig noted that Trump spoke in DOJ’s Great Hall, where previous attorneys general had committed themselves to the rule of law.
Now, today, by contrast, we have Donald Trump calling prosecutors “Marxist,” “scum,” “savages,” and “thugs.” We have a five-minute speech on Bobby Knight and Indiana basketball. We have talk about the price of eggs and bacon. We have stuff about Hunter Biden’s laptop. We have a riff about Norm Eisen. Why? I have no idea. We have the fact that firefighters– the “fact,” probably not a fact, but the claim that firefighters voted for him by 94%. We have mentions of Al Capone, Wyatt Earp, Rudy Giuliani.
And then it ends with, I actually thought I was hearing something wrong. Y.M.C.A., that song. They played it, and he danced to it on the stage of the Great Hall. It was disgraceful.
Disgraceful. But completely consistent with Trump’s weaponized offensive against those who dissent from the MAGA Imperium. Here are some links for your weekend reading:
Walter Olson: Trump Is Going After Big Law to Make it Difficult for His Political Targets to Get Effective Representation
Trump targets law firm Paul Weiss, restricting government access
Harry Litman: Judge Howell Calls Out Trump’s Lies
Andrew Sullivan: The Return Of The McCarthyite Chill
Schumer Agonistes
Democrats have chosen this moment to vent their rage against one another, and most especially on their feckless senate leader, Chuck Schumer. I gave you my take on his decision to cave on the CR yesterday. But since the debate continues, I wanted to share some other viewpoints, as well.
Mike Brock thinks Schumer blew it:
If you were designing the perfect opposition to facilitate the consolidation of executive power—one that provides the appearance of resistance while ultimately enabling its advance—what would it look like? It would likely make forceful statements about the threats to democracy. It would marshal righteous indignation in speeches and press releases. But when confronted with moments of consequential choice, it would invariably find reasons why resistance is too risky, too politically costly, or simply impossible.
It would train its supporters to expect and accept defeat as the prudent choice.
The genius of this approach is how it transforms surrender into a form of responsibility. Those who advocate for more forceful opposition are cast as naive, reckless, or politically unsophisticated. The language of pragmatism becomes a shield against the charge of complicity.
Joe Klein thinks Schumer ultimately made the right call:
I spent too many years writing about this sort of stuff. But the Washington press, especially the Congressional correspondents, oversell the peril every time. It was slightly different this week. Usually, it’s the Republicans who want to shut things down; now, it’s the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Chuck Schumer effectively put an end to that on Thursday, saying he would support the Senate bill. This was not exactly Henry V at Agincourt, but it was smart politics. The Dems are having a hard enough time getting away from the idea of boys on girls teams; they don’t need to be blamed for closing the government. Basic rule: Shutdowns inevitably hurt the party that causes them….
Dan Pfeiffer thinks the whole shambles was a failure of leadership:
No plan, no strategy, and no attempt to communicate honestly and forthrightly with the base. At no point did we know what Dems were fighting for or what victory would look like. Schumer and some Senate Democrats wanted to be seen as “fighting” up until the moment the fight was set to start. Everyone hoped that Johnson would fail to get the votes in the House, which would force them into negotiations with Democrats. But that didn't happen; and there was seemingly no plan for what Senate Democrats would do if Johnson did get the votes.
Josh Barro takes a more sympathetic view, pointing out why this shutdown would have been different.
Usually, a party might want to end a shutdown for a few reasons. One is that the shutdown is hampering the government’s ability to do things they care about. Another is that they care that shutdown might be unpopular and politically costly. Again: Neither of these concerns applies to Republicans today. Trump is currently in the process of starting pointless trade wars that stand to tank both the economy and his approval ratings, and seems unfazed by that prospect — why would he be worried that Republicans have lost a “blame” game about a shutdown that would be far in the rearview mirror by the next federal election?
Feel free to weigh in below….
Saturday dogs
Wolves with bright red balls are prowling the woods.
I think Trump would have either used the "shutdown" to his advantage or would've demanded and gotten an end to the filibuster. And, in any case, he'd have just continued to do whatever he wants and let the courts try to stop him.
The real blame for all of it continues to belong the idiotic American voters who elected him.
The concern about a lack of plans, goals, and a consistent strategy would be well answered by the existence of a Shadow Cabinet made up of distinguished Democratic thinkers, public figures, and speakers who have demonstrated the ability to appear in both favorable and adverse venues and discuss the activities and aims of the Republicans. There might even have been enough organized pressure to keep MAGA Mikey from getting the votes but we'll never know until/unless we try and the effort is contingent on people like Schumer getting it through their heads that we're in a serious situation that has little or nothing to do with 'politics as usual' or 'as we've always done it.'