Jack Smith‘s final report on Donald’s Trump’s attempt to steal the 2020 election doesn’t contain much new information, but what timing it has.

Released around 1 a.m. Tuesday—less than a week before Trump’s inauguration—the document takes aim at Trump’s and his lawyers’ contention that the end of Smith’s prosecution amounts to the “complete exoneration” of the president-elect.

“That is false,” Smith writes in a letter included with report, pointing out that the cases against Trump were dismissed not because he was acquitted, but simply because he won an election.

Smith makes it as clear as he can that the sole reason he dropped the January 6 case—along with the separate case regarding Trump’s attempts to hang on to classified documents he removed from the White House—was a Justice Department policy that bars prosecuting a sitting president.

“The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution,” the special counsel, who resigned last week, wrote in the concluding lines of the report. “Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

It’s normal for federal prosecutors to determine they can convict people they charge; they rarely bring cases they expect to lose. But this is the first time that prosecutors have asserted, just days before inauguration, that they would have been able to convict the incoming president of felonies.

Trump clearly hopes that his return to power marks the end of January 6 as a blight on his record. He even seems to view his reelection as validating his lies about his 2020 defeat. Smith’s report reads like an attempt to ensure that Trump, despite avoiding criminal conviction in the matter, will never be free of responsibility for causing a violent attack on Congress in an attempt to illegally retain power.

Even in a footnote explaining why he decided not to charge Trump with violating an anti-riot law or conspiring to impeded or injure an officer of the United States, Smith states: “The Office also had strong evidence that the violence that occurred on January 6 was foreseeable to Mr. Trump, that he caused it, and that he and his co-conspirators leveraged it to carry out their conspiracies.”

The report also suggests that Smith was eyeing criminal charges against some of the six co-conspirators mentioned, but not named, in Smith’s August 2023 indictment of Trump. “The Office’s investigation uncovered evidence that some individuals shared criminal culpability with Mr. Trump,” the document says. It also notes that the investigation found one of the conspirators “may have committed” unrelated crimes, which it referred to a US attorney’s office.

While not named by Smith, the alleged co-conspirators are identifiable. They include Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer; Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official; and former Trump lawyers John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro, and Sidney Powell. Media reports have also identified Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn as another uncharged co-conspirator. All have denied wrongdoing in the case.

It’s not clear which of these individuals Smith considered charging or which he believes may have committed unrelated crimes. Smith wrote that his report “should not be read to allege that any particular person other than Mr. Trump committed a crime, nor should it be read to exonerate any particular person.”

Trump responded to the report in series of posts early Tuesday morning that called the findings “fake” and attacked Smith. “Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide,” Trump wrote in one of his early morning posts. “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”

It’s possible to argue that it’s unfair for Smith to insist he would have convicted Trump at trial, when he was unable to actually get either case before a jury. That complaint would be stronger if Trump had not worked so openly and aggressively to delay his trials until he could avoid them entirely by winning the election.

Still, Smith’s report, in asserting Trump’s guilt, highlights the epic failure by the federal justice system to resolve the issue of Trump’s criminal responsibility for subverting the 2020 election before the next one was held.

Critics can fault Attorney General Merrick Garland’s slow start on a high-level January 6 investigation, the partisan Supreme Court’s wish to create a presidential immunity doctrine that served Trump’s interests, or the ease with which rich defendants can slow cases. In any event, the system failed. The result is a tragedy for American politics.

On July 10, 2020, Terry Tamminen wrote a letter to the board chair of Waterkeeper Alliance, the clean-water group founded and led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to say that he wanted out.

Tamminen, a veteran, highly-regarded environmentalist and co-founder and longtime board member of the organization, had become concerned about the outfit’s finances—so worried that he was tendering his resignation. At issue was at least $67 million that Kennedy’s group had received and passed along over the previous six years—an eye-popping amount for a non-profit that prior to this influx of money had annual revenues of about $4 million, according to its tax filings. Tamminen noted in his letter that he had repeatedly asked Kennedy and other top WKA officials for an explanation regarding these funds—the source of the money and its ultimate use—and had received no satisfying response. He wrote that either there was “no proper documentation” covering this large flow of funds or such documentation was being “withheld” by Kennedy and the staff.

Tamminen had come across a situation that had raised questions among staff at WKA and people within the group’s orbit about the organization and Kennedy’s handling of tens of millions of dollars. His letter was prompted by a legal complaint that claimed WKA had “funneled millions of dollars to the Bahamas” to assist Louis Bacon, a hedge-fund billionaire, in his purported effort to “destroy and damage” Peter Nygård, a Canadian fashion mogul, who owned an estate next to Bacon’s on the island nation. The complaint, filed in a lawsuit brought by Nygård against Bacon, alleged that WKA had engaged in “illegal and/or improper activities” to benefit Bacon, a major financial backer of WKA. It also claimed Kennedy had “carried out illegal and improper activities to further [Bacon’s] scheme to damage [Nygård’s] business and property at the direction of, under the supervision of, at the request of or on behalf of [Bacon].”

“Where did that money go? The whole thing stunk. It was obvious they were hiding something. They have never provided good answers.”

Tamminen’s letter suggested that he was concerned about possible misconduct at Waterkeeper Alliance, a network of hundreds of organizations across the globe that protect bodies of water, and that he worried that Kennedy was not being straightforward about the matter. The Nygård complaint was ultimately dismissed. But with Kennedy, an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist, tapped by President-elect Donald Trump to run the massive Department of Health and Human Services, this episode—involving millions of dollars—could shed light on his managerial experience and competence.

A Mother Jones investigation has found that charities associated with Bacon, the co-founder and CEO of Moore Capital Management, did contribute at least $63 million to WKA and that these funds were subsequently sent by WKA to Save the Bays, a small environmental group that Bacon, Kennedy, and others had started in the Bahamas and that filed multiple environmental suits against Nygård.

This money flow occurred at the same time Bacon was involved in a bitter feud with Nygård. The two owned adjacent estates in Lyford Cay, a posh community for the super-rich in the Bahamas, and a property dispute—they shared a driveway—had evolved into wild combat costing each millions of dollars. And Save the Bays and its lawyer had become involved in Bacon’s battle with Nygård.

Some WKA staff and associates considered these large transfers of funds to Save the Bays unusual and wondered how this modest outfit was absorbing and spending tens of millions of dollars. For them, it was a sign of Kennedy’s autocratic management of WKA. “You couldn’t really ask questions about this,” a former staffer says. “There was a cult of Bobby.”

Through 2023, the amount of money routed through Kennedy’s organization to finance what was described in its tax records as a program in the Caribbean totaled $79 million. A WKA trustee replying on behalf of the group to queries from Mother Jones maintains this money financed environmental-related litigation mounted by Save the Bays in the Bahamas. Former WKA staff say this is a tremendously high figure for such cases and assert there was no sufficient public documentation that this funding was appropriately handled. “Where did that money go?” asks Bob Shavelson, a former founding WKA board member. “The whole thing stunk. It was obvious they were hiding something. They have never provided good answers.”

Tamminen’s queries about WKA’s finances in 2020 were triggered by a news report about the years-long feud between Bacon and Nygård. Their titanic battle had come to involve multiple lawsuits in varying jurisdictions, private investigators, gang members, phony websites, an allegation of a murder plot targeting Bacon, charges of harassment, political intrigue, secret recordings, and accusations of sexual assault against Nygård.

Eventually, Nygård ended up being convicted in Canada last year of sexual assault and sentenced to 11 years in prison, while still facing trials for sex crimes and other charges in Montreal, Winnipeg, and New York. And Bacon won a defamation case against Nygård and a $203 million judgment, but in November that award was tossed out.

Tamminen had spotted a story about the complaint Nygård had filed on April 30, 2020, in a New York federal court alleging that Bacon and others had engaged in a pattern of illegal conduct for years to defame him and destroy his fashion brand. Nygård listed a host of people and organizations supposedly involved or knowledgable of this alleged scheme, including Waterkeeper Alliance, Kennedy, and Fred Smith, a Bahamian lawyer and co-founder and board member of Save the Bays, the group that Kennedy and Bacon had helped to start. (Smith was also a member of Waterkeeper Alliance.) Launched in 2013, Save the Bays had sued Nygård for dredging and other activity that, the group contended, had despoiled Clifton Bay, which Nygård’s gaudy and palatial estate overlooked.

There is “no way you can spend $79 million on this type of litigation. You can buy a whole ecosystem for that amount of money… Without details, there’s no way you can explain these numbers.”

Nygård’s complaint stated that Save the Bays had relied “heavily on funding and support from Waterkeeper Alliance.” The filing also cited a 2010 Denver Post story in which Kennedy had praised Bacon, noting he was the “single largest supporter” of the Waterkeeper Alliance. A lawyer who has worked with WKA describes Bacon as “one of Bobby’s rich-guy friends.”

After reading about this complaint, Tamminen wondered about WKA and Kennedy’s connection to the Nygård-Bacon face-off. According to his resignation letter, on July 2, 2020, Tamminen emailed Mary Beth Postman, the deputy director of WKA, and asked, “Did we run any litigation funding for this case through WKA? Some rumors flying around, but I don’t recall anything like that on our 990s.” He was referring to the annual tax return that nonprofits must file. WKA’s public 990s indicated that tens of millions of dollars had been sent to the Caribbean without detailing what they financed. A onetime WKA associate says, “This looked totally smelly.”

According to Tamminen’s resignation letter, he soon spoke with Kennedy and asked for records related to this funding, and Kennedy, was “unable to provide the documents (or a verbal explanation).”

Afterward Postman informed Tamminen that the WKA had a “fiscal sponsorship agreement” to support work in the Bahamas. This meant WKA was receiving, as a pass-through, money for the Bahamian group. Acting as a pass-through is a common practice for nonprofits, but they can only do this to support charitable activity, usually a project in sync with their own missions. They can charge a percentage of the funds for this service, often in the 7-to-14-percent range, and, according to the WKA trustee who replied to queries from Mother Jones, the organization did receive a cut. The trustee would not say how much.

Tamminen pressed Marc Yaggi, the CEO of WKA, for documentation and details on the source of the millions sent to the Bahamas, the recipients of those funds, and how this money was spent. “We can’t be funneling millions of dollars (3X our own budget as shown on 990s) to [nongovernmental organizations] without full transparency about how the money is being spent and an unambiguous contract with those recipients about what is allowable and, specifically, what is not,” he wrote in his resignation letter.

Finally, according to the letter, Tamminen was sent a spreadsheet from WKA trustee William Wachtel indicating that the majority of the more than $67 million in question went to the Coalition to Protect Clifton Bay, an earlier name for Save the Bays, and “an invoice for reimbursement by WKA from lawyers involved in the [Nygård-Bacon] litigation…in the amount of $1,752,193” for a three-month period in 2020.

Tamminen deemed this reply insufficient. At this point, he threw up his hands and decided to quit, noting in his letter, “I have a fiduciary responsibility to understand the organization’s finances” and stating that because Kennedy and his staff had not provided adequate documentation he could not perform this basic task.

Tamminen declined to comment.

In response to a long list of questions sent to Kennedy by Mother Jones about WKA forwarding money to the Bahamas, RFK Jr. texted, “The coverage on me from mother John’s [sic] has been consistently hostile and inaccurate. MJ was once a counter culture journal that spoke truth to power It now seems to be yet another propaganda bullhorn for the DS Regime.” (Might “DS Regime” refer to a Deep State Regime?) Asked if this text was his full response to the list of queries, Kennedy did not reply.

Tamminen’s letters, Shavelson says, was a “damning piece of evidence.” His resignation drew attention within WKA and its large network of local Waterkeeper groups to a curious question: Why had Kennedy’s organization passed along so much money to the Bahamas? “We didn’t really know who was giving us this money,” a former staffer says.

The WKA’s 990s show that through 2023, the total amount that passed through what the group called its Central America/Caribbean program was $79 million. On the 990s available to the public, the name of the recipient of those funds were redacted. (This is unusual; grantees tend to be identified.) A former WKA staffer says that the recipient listed on the 990s was the law firm of Fred Smith, the Bahamian lawyer who, with Kennedy and Bacon, helped organize Save the Bays and who was associated with Bacon’s wide-ranging fight against Nygård. That battle included a lawsuit charging Nygård with sex crimes.

WKA staff and associates of the Waterkeeper Alliance were suspicious of this funding arrangement. The amount of money going to Save the Bays was “off-kilter,” a former WKA staffer says. “It was disproportionate to the size of the program. They had an office that was maybe 400-square-feet with one full-time staffer and some part-timers. We did not know the source of the money going down there.”

Save the Bays has run a radio show and a youth education program. Its website is no longer operational, and the phone number listed on its Facebook page is out of service. “I’ve never heard of that amount of money being spent on that type of litigation,” Shavelson says.

“This money was orders of magnitude greater than anything in my experience in my 30 years of practice as an environmental lawyer,” says Daniel Cooper, the founding partner of Sycamore Law, a firm that specializes in filing environmental enforcement cases for grassroots nonprofits. (He was not involved in the Save the Bays litigation.)

The former WKA staffer adds that “there was a very closed loop on that money, with Bobby involved.” Some staffers at the time questioned whether some of the funds going to the Bahamas were being used for the ongoing conflict between Bacon and Nygård beyond the environmental lawsuits Save the Bays had filed regarding Nygård.

A key issue was the source of the funding. A review conducted by Mother Jones of charitable organizations associated with Bacon—Moore Charitable Foundation, Belvedere Charitable Foundation, and Bessemer Trust—shows that these entities donated a hefty amount, nearly $63 million, to the Waterkeeper Alliance from 2014 through 2023. (Unlike the Moore and Belvedere foundations, the Bessemer Trust, a multifamily office that oversees more than $200 billion for endowments, families, and foundations, is not controlled by Bacon. But Bacon’s contributions to its Bessemer Giving Fund closely matched the contributions it sent to WKA.)

The WKA trustee confirms that the Bacon donations to WKA were the source of the funds that Kennedy’s outfit passed to Save the Bays. If so, that means Bacon was sending money to WKA—a group for whom he was a major supporter—that Kennedy’s organization, after taking a cut, was forwarding to a group that Bacon, Kennedy, Smith and others had formed, which subsequently filed lawsuits against Bacon’s archnemesis.

For years prior to Tamminen enquiring about WKA’s activity in the Bahamas, Save the Bays had been a controversial organization on the island nation and had prompted questions about its funding and relationship to Bacon. During a 2016 television interview, Fred Smith refused to acknowledge that Bacon was a major financial supporter of Save the Bays. “It is often used as some measure of criticism against us,” he said. When the host suggested that Bacon had used Save the Bays “to get at Peter Nygård…to discredit Peter Nygård,” Smith replied, “Louis Bacon doesn’t need Save the Bays to do what you are suggesting.” In this interview, Smith said, “I have never been paid by Save the Bays… I’m a director of Save the Bays.” (About that time, Minister of Education Jerome Fitzgerald claimed Save the Bays, through its environmental lawsuits, was trying to destabilize and “overthrow” the Progressive Liberal Party government—a charge Smith denied in this interview. Nygård, a PLP supporter, once bragged he had donated $5 million to party.)

After Tamminen’s resignation caused a fuss for WKA, the law firm run by WKA trustee William Wachtel conducted a review of the money sent to the Bahamas and produced a private report. Wachtel was part of this review, according to the trustee who spoke to Mother Jones. In a one-page statement, the WKA board of directors called this inquiry an “independent assessment.” It said that the review found “no red flags” and concluded there was “no clear evidence of misuse of funds” and “no clear evidence of donors improperly gaining benefits from donations”—presumably a reference to Bacon. The statement did not mention Bacon, Save the Bays, or the Bahamas.

Former WKA associates point out that this was not an independent investigation, given that it was conducted by a trustee. “This was a bogus audit,” Shavelson says. A onetime WKA associate says, “To have a trustee conduct an investigation that then says ‘nothing to see here’ doesn’t pass the smell test.”

The inquiry’s final report was shared with an audit committee of the WKA board, not the full board.

The WKA trustee says this inquiry showed that the $79 million was mostly spent on litigation conducted by Smith and his law firm for Save the Bays and that the inquiry reviewed billing documents and invoices from Smith and determined they were accurate and covered legitimate expenses. “We saw nothing spent for anything other than the litigation that went on,” the trustee says. A former board member, who has not seen the review, says that they learned the litigation billing included expenses for lavish hotel suites, limousines, and security services.

Save the Bays and Smith did indeed engage in environmental-related litigation. In 2015, the group launched a legal action regarding pollution attributed to a power plant. It successfully sued Nygård for illegally dredging Clifton Bay to expand his property, and that case led to the Supreme Court of the Bahamas seizing his property in 2018. It also filed a legal action claiming Nygård had engaged in unauthorized construction. In 2021, Save the Bays and Waterkeeper Bahamas filed a case to compel judicial review of foreign oil development in the Bahamas.

But former WKA associates say the nearly $79 million price tag for Save the Bays litigation seems exceedingly high. “The cost of an illegal dredging case is in the tens of thousands of dollars,” a former WKA staffer says. Shavelson asks, “Where’s all this litigation? There would have to be a mountain of stuff for those billables. I’ve never heard of that amount of money being spent on that type of litigation.” Another former WKA associate says that the typical cases that Waterkeeper Alliance members bring range for $10,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars and that there is “no way you can spend $79 million on this type of litigation. You can buy a whole ecosystem for that amount of money.” This source adds, “Without details, there’s no way you can explain these numbers.”

While Smith was filing environmental cases for Save the Bays, he was a key ally of Bacon in the billionaire’s fierce fight with Nygård. According to a lengthy New York Times account of the Bacon-Nygård clash, Smith worked with private investigators and found 15 Bahamian women to participate in a sex crimes lawsuit against Nygård. He also encouraged women who claimed to be Nygård victims to go to the Bahamian police. The newspaper noted that Smith created a nonprofit called Sanctuary, which he and Bacon funded, and that it paid Bahamian lawyers and investigators involved in putting together the sex crimes lawsuit against Nygård. Smith and the private investigators, according to the newspaper, compensated at least two witnesses who located alleged victims.

Nygård reportedly spent $15 million on a smear campaign against Bacon, which included television and radio ads, doctored videos, and outlandish accusations, and Bacon said in court that he expended $53 million for investigators and lawyers in his legal fight with Nygård.

Mother Jones sent lengthy lists of questions to Marc Yaggi and Mary Beth Postman of WKA, Fred Smith, Save the Bays, Louis Bacon (through his Moore Charitable Foundation), and the Trump transition team. It asked WKA if it would release unredacted versions of its 990s. It asked if WKA could provide an accounting of the litigation the tens of millions of dollars supposedly financed. It asked whether Tamminen’s account—including his claim that Kennedy would not provide him information to confirm the money sent to the Bahamas was handled appropriately—was accurate. None of them, except Katie Miller, a Trump transition staffer, replied. Miller emailed, “As a matter of policy, I don’t respond to left wind [sic] activists masquerading as journalists.” The Bessemer Trust did not respond to a request to comment.

Several months after Tamminen prompted a stir about the Bahamas money, Kennedy resigned as WKA president. The WKA trustee says the Bahamas project was not a factor in Kennedy’s resignation. By that point, Kennedy had become a leading promoter of Covid disinformation, and this had caused concern within WKA and among the group’s funders and supporters.

When WKA in November 2020 announced Kennedy’s resignation as president, he said, “Waterkeeper is my life’s work and will always be my proudest achievement…. I’m immensely proud of what we created.” He added, “My dreams overflow with the thousands of miles of magnificent waterways that I’ve been privileged to paddle or travel with many of you over 40 years; the mangroves, the muskies, the Spanish moss, the schooling salmon, the shrimp, crayfish, blue crab, and yellow perch, the calving glaciers and all that flowing water from the Himalayas to the Tetons, from the Andes to the Arctic, from Bimini to Homer, from Bhutan to the Jordan, and from Lake Ontario to the Futaleufú.” He did not mention the Bahamas. Upon his departure, the board named him president emeritus.

Donald Trump has won. He is set to be inaugurated on January 20, and he has convinced many Americans not only that his attempt four years ago to carry out a self-coup is not disqualifying, but that mentioning it now is kind of gauche. 

Everyone feels they know what happened on January 6. It was on TV. So were the January 6 committee hearings. Special Counsel Jack Smith charged Trump in 2023 for four crimes related to his effort to subvert the 2020 election and revealed new information about Trump’s alleged crimes in a superseding indictment in October. There isn’t much left to learn.

The same, to a lesser extent, goes for Smith’s charges against Trump for obstructing government efforts to recover classified documents he lifted from the White House and the Trump’s Friday sentencing in New York following his conviction for falsifying documents to hide hush money payments.

And yet, Florida district court Judge Aileen Cannon’s latest comically pro-Trump ruling, her order Tuesday that temporarily blocks the public release of Smith’s report on his two criminal investigations of Trump, remains a big deal. So does New York Judge Juan Merchan’s scheduled sentencing of Trump on Friday, despite Merchan’s indication that he will not impose an actual penalty. That hearing remains on after a New York appeals court refused Trump’s last-ditch attempt to block it.

Trump has evaded consequences for his crimes—those alleged and those for which he was convicted—but his efforts to evade the truth, or at least to suppress it, continue.

That is what is at stake in Trump lawyers’ frantic recent attempts to block Smith’s report and Trump’s sentencing. Those efforts are part of the incoming president’s campaign to impose a public narrative in which his election equals his “complete exoneration” from the criminal charges against him, as his lawyers recently suggested in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland. That isn’t true. Trump’s election did cause to Smith drop his cases to comply with DOJ’s policy against prosecuting presidents, and it seems to have led Merchan to plan to avoid penalizing Trump. But Trump’s narrow election victory does not make him innocent of the crimes he was convicted of and charged with.

A president conspiring to steal an election, in particular, remains bad, even if he wins the next one. Releasing Smith’s report, should Garland do that, would be a reminder of that truth.

Cannon on Tuesday dutifully complied with a heated demand from Trump’s lawyers. “The release of any confidential report prepared by this out-of-control private citizen unconstitutionally posing as a prosecutor would be nothing more than a lawless political stunt, designed to politically harm President Trump,” they wrote.

Justice Department regulations call for special counsels to submit confidential reports to the Attorney General at the conclusion of their investigations. Smith has prepared a two-volume report that is expected to detail his separate investigations into Trump’s efforts to steal the 2020 election and to keep classified government documents he removed from the White House after his defeat. Cannon has no role in the January 6 case and only an arguable one in the documents one, which she already dismissed in a widely-faulted ruling Smith is contesting before an appeals court in Atlanta. Still, Cannon’s order applies to Smith’s findings in both of his investigations.

Trump, in a news conference Tuesday highlighted by his refusal to rule out preemptive wars to seize Greenland and Panama, reacted to Cannon’s order by calling her “a very strong and very brilliant judge.”

It’s not clear if Smith’s report will remain suppressed. Cannon, in her ruling, said she was blocking publication of Smith’s report only until the appeals court rules on a separate request to prevent publication of the report. The Justice Department, which said in a filing Tuesday that it has no plans to release either report before Friday, has not said if it plans to publish either volume of the report.

But as Trump prepares to limit dissent once he’s in office, Garland releasing the report, like Merchan going through with Trump’s sentencing, would be a modest but notable assertion of the limits of the aspiring autocrat’s power to dictate reality.

Donald Trump has won. He is set to be inaugurated on January 20, and he has convinced many Americans not only that his attempt four years ago to carry out a self-coup is not disqualifying, but that mentioning it now is kind of gauche. 

Everyone feels they know what happened on January 6. It was on TV. So were the January 6 committee hearings. Special Counsel Jack Smith charged Trump in 2023 for four crimes related to his effort to subvert the 2020 election and revealed new information about Trump’s alleged crimes in a superseding indictment in October. There isn’t much left to learn.

The same, to a lesser extent, goes for Smith’s charges against Trump for obstructing government efforts to recover classified documents he lifted from the White House and the Trump’s Friday sentencing in New York following his conviction for falsifying documents to hide hush money payments.

And yet, Florida district court Judge Aileen Cannon’s latest comically pro-Trump ruling, her order Tuesday that temporarily blocks the public release of Smith’s report on his two criminal investigations of Trump, remains a big deal. So does New York Judge Juan Merchan’s scheduled sentencing of Trump on Friday, despite Merchan’s indication that he will not impose an actual penalty. That hearing remains on after a New York appeals court refused Trump’s last-ditch attempt to block it.

Trump has evaded consequences for his crimes—those alleged and those for which he was convicted—but his efforts to evade the truth, or at least to suppress it, continue.

That is what is at stake in Trump lawyers’ frantic recent attempts to block Smith’s report and Trump’s sentencing. Those efforts are part of the incoming president’s campaign to impose a public narrative in which his election equals his “complete exoneration” from the criminal charges against him, as his lawyers recently suggested in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland. That isn’t true. Trump’s election did cause to Smith drop his cases to comply with DOJ’s policy against prosecuting presidents, and it seems to have led Merchan to plan to avoid penalizing Trump. But Trump’s narrow election victory does not make him innocent of the crimes he was convicted of and charged with.

A president conspiring to steal an election, in particular, remains bad, even if he wins the next one. Releasing Smith’s report, should Garland do that, would be a reminder of that truth.

Cannon on Tuesday dutifully complied with a heated demand from Trump’s lawyers. “The release of any confidential report prepared by this out-of-control private citizen unconstitutionally posing as a prosecutor would be nothing more than a lawless political stunt, designed to politically harm President Trump,” they wrote.

Justice Department regulations call for special counsels to submit confidential reports to the Attorney General at the conclusion of their investigations. Smith has prepared a two-volume report that is expected to detail his separate investigations Trump’s efforts to steal the 2020 election and to keep classified government documents he removed from the White House after his defeat. Cannon has no role in the January 6 case and only an arguable one in the documents one, which she already dismissed in a widely-faulted ruling Smith is contesting before an appeals court in Atlanta. Still, Cannon’s order applies to Smith’s findings in both of his investigations.

Trump, in a news conference Tuesday highlighted by his refusal to rule out preemptive wars to seize Greenland and Panama, reacted to Cannon’s order by calling her “a very strong and very brilliant judge.”

It’s not clear if Smith’s report will remain suppressed. Cannon, in her ruling, said she was blocking publication of Smith’s report only until the appeals court rules on a separate request to prevent publication of the report. The Justice Department, which said in a filing Tuesday that it has no plans to release either report before Friday, has not said if it plans to publish either volume of the report.

But as Trump prepares to limit dissent once he’s in office, Garland releasing the report, like Merchan going through with Trump’s sentencing, would be a modest but notable assertion of the limits of the aspiring autocrat’s power to dictate reality.

The staff of Mother Jones is, once again, rounding up the heroes and monsters of the past year. Importantly, this is a completely non-exhaustive and subjective list, giving our reporters a chance to write about something that brought joy or discontent. Enjoy.

Destroyed by Watergate and vilified for suggesting that presidents are above the law, Richard Nixon died in disgrace in 1994.

But it turns out he was right. The 37th president was quietly but resoundingly vindicated by the Supreme Court in its Trump v. United States decision in July, when Chief Justice John Roberts declared that “the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.”

“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

For Donald Trump—who was indicted for efforts to steal the 2020 election that were seemingly not part of his official duties—that ruling might not have been enough, had he not been bailed out by his November electoral victory. But Nixon could, and did, claim that his efforts to cover up the Watergate scandal were core parts of his duties. Indeed, on the so-called “smoking gun tape” from June 1972, Nixon told his chief of staff to order the CIA to tell the FBI to back off its investigation into the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters because the probe would compromise national security.

That wasn’t really true. But 52 years later, the Roberts court made clear that judges should defer to presidents when their “core” powers are even arguably involved. Based on the justices’ new view of the presidency, Nixon’s infamous justifications would probably have been enough.

“Under Trump v. United States, Nixon’s statement would not amount to obstruction of justice because it related to his ‘official’ duties—that is, supervising the FBI and CIA,” legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin wrote in July.

Plus, what was the FBI even doing investigating a president for crimes? That may have flown in the 1970s, but these days, the Justice Department has a policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. And Roberts, in his ruling, warned against Justice Department activity that might cause presidents to hesitate from “bold and unhesitating” actions in exercising their vast powers. Fear that they might one day be held accountable for crimes could cause commanders-in-chief to fall prey, Roberts warned, to “undue caution.”

Take Nixon. Before Watergate, he exhibited the kind of “vigorous” decision-making that Roberts says leaders untroubled by potential prosecution can engage in. For example, Nixon fearlessly ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia without telling Congress. And he oversaw an extensive campaign of surveillance efforts aimed at suppressing domestic dissent.

By using the FBI for much of that surveillance, Nixon availed himself of the immunity that the high court has since revealed presidents enjoy when they engage in “investigative and prosecutorial decision-making”—a “special province of the Executive Branch”—where absolute immunity reigns.

As the Watergate scandal mounted, Nixon lost the vigor the Roberts court prescribes. The president was reportedly distracted, drinking heavily, and possibly suicidal. “Please don’t ever tell anyone that I cried and that I was not strong,” a sauced president supposedly told Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1974. He was a man left unable to “boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties”—as the Constitution turns out to demand.

Things only got worse for Nixon. After his resignation, during a televised 1977 interview with journalist David Frost, Nixon presciently explained: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” At the time, this reasoning was treated as a damning admission. Even in 2008, it was so widely accepted that Nixon was wrong that his line served as the climax of the Oscar-nominated film Frost/Nixon.

But things change. In January, Trump attorney D. John Sauer gave a “qualified yes” when asked by an appeals court judge if an ex-president would be immune from prosecution, even for having ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political foe. And the argument won! “The president is now a king above the law,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor later said in a dissent. Trump has said he will nominate Sauer as his solicitor general—the Justice Department official generally responsible for arguing before the Supreme Court.

Critics have accused Roberts and the other five justices in the majority in Trump v. US of ignoring the intent of the Constitution and inventing the “absolute immunity” doctrine in order to impose an ideological preference for expanded presidential powers—or maybe just to help Trump. But these critics fail to credit Nixon with concocting similar arguments a half-century earlier.

Nixon was not a crook. He was ahead of his time. Think he was wrong? Let’s see how Trump’s second term goes.

On a long flight in the mid-aughts, I decided to read The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz. I thought of it like giving myself an assignment, the kind of thing I tended do when I was younger. I wanted to understand an argument I expected to disagree with.

But this proved to be a mistake. The Case for Israel is not a good enough book to reward that kind of exercise. I found it chock-full of conventional pro-Israel arguments that avoid the most difficult questions about Zionism.

And yet it an important book, maybe more so now than in 2003, when Alan Dershowitz was not advising the White House.

I had occasion to reconsider the Case for Israel in 2018, when Dershowitz let it be known that he had recently begun counseling Donald Trump on Middle East policy. I reported that Dershowitz had also recently agreed to a contract to provide advice to an American lobbyist who represented Qatar, an arrangement that arguably undermined the independence of the advice he offered the White House. Asked about this, Dershowitz hotly volunteered, unprompted, that he was an “expert” on Israel because he had written books, most notably, The Case for Israel, on the subject.

The problem with this argument is that the book, which I reread this year, is terrible. It would be bad even if you agreed with it. It is, first all of, kind of a gimmick. Like one of those famous coaches hawking business tips, Dershowitz tapped his fame as a defense lawyer to structure his book as a “defense of Israel…in the court of public opinion.” There are 32 chapters where he outlines what he says are common anti-Israel arguments, which he rebuts in sections that largely summarize what even then were well-worn pro-Israeli bromides.

And the book does not actually address the most compelling pro-Palestinian arguments. You might, for example, expect a chapter titled “Did European Jews Displace Palestinians?” to answer that question. The reader may look here for the author acknowledge that yes, Israelis expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians during the Arab-Israeli War in 1947-1948, even if he then attempted to justify that ethnic cleansing.

But Dershowitz doesn’t do any of that. Instead he details the historical presence of some Jews in Palestine, which is not responsive to his own question. He says many Jews, prior to the war, bought land in Palestine from absentee landlords, which is also off topic. And he downplays the extent of the Palestinian population in Israel at the time. He just ignores the well-documented Israeli efforts to expel Palestinians. (This policy was detailed in Benny Morris’ 1988 The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, which Dershowitz cites, for other purposes, in the same chapter.)

Dershowitz has been accused of plagiarizing material in this book, from Joan Peters’ 1984 book From Time Immemorial, a claim he denied so hard he once reportedly tried to get then-California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to suppress publication of a book detailing the accusation. (Dershowitz has not responded to my request for comment regarding these accusations.) Regardless, the book seems hastily written. Like other Dershowitz writing, it sounds like he dictated parts in an airport bathroom and never revised.

But despite its shortcomings, this is book which informs the views of people who are about to resume making US policy on Israel. Expert or not, Dershowitz really did advise Trump on Israel during the president-elect’s first term. And he also offered advice to Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner that informed the so-called Abraham Accords. (Dershowitz later nominated Kushner and his deputy Avi Berkowitz for the Nobel Peace prize, a proposal substantially undermined by Hamas’ October 7 attack and ensuing war.)

Dershowitz last month claimed he is assembling “legal dream team” to defend Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant in the International Criminal Court, which issued arrest warrants for the men. The former OJ Simpson defender is still very much making the case for Israel. Dershowitz is also a confidant of Mike Huckabee, Trump’s pick for ambassador and a frequent guest on Huckabee’s YouTube show. So his views continue to have influence.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting reading this book. From Time Immemorial might be a better choice. But it’s worth considering that this lazy, reflexively pro-Israel thinking is again informing Middle East policy. The Case for Israel is important. And it’s really bad.

Late last month, Donald Trump named Karoline Leavitt as his incoming press secretary, positioning her to become the youngest person ever to hold the job. That’s a big step up. Just two years ago—following a failed congressional campaign—Leavitt was putting her name on a series of op-eds in right-wing publications lauding a fugitive Chinese mogul who has since been convicted of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from fans of his purportedly anti-communist movement.

Leavitt’s articles closely echoed topics, talking points, and even specific language that had been prepared for her by supporters of exiled Chinese businessman Guo Wengui, as journalist Walker Bragman and I reported last year. I’ve since confirmed that Guo allies paid Leavitt for these op-eds.

Leavitt’s articles did not include any disclosure to readers that loyalists of Guo—the main subject of these articles—had helped her write them. That omission appears to have led one outlet, Townhall, to take down two Leavitt op-eds from its website last year, shortly after I asked about them. “This column was removed for violating Townhall’s commentary submission guidelines,” the outlet said in editor’s notes where Leavitt’s pieces previously appeared.

Leavitt told me last year that she’d written the articles herself. She did not deny that Guo associates had paid her to publish the stories. “I’m not going to comment to you about my clients or business relationships,” she said at the time.

When I contacted Leavitt recently, she did not answer additional questions or dispute my reporting. In a text message, though, she said she did not read my article last year “because you work for Mother Jones and I, like the 70+ million Americans who just voted for President Trump, don’t pay attention to your left wing propaganda.”

Leavitt, an aide in the first Trump administration who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in New Hampshire in 2022, is stepping into a job previously held by officials with more substantial resumes, some with backgrounds in serious journalism. But Trump’s selection of Leavitt, who said recently that she is prepared to take on a “hostile media,” suggests his preference for messengers who engage in performative combat with journalists.

In the United States, Guo is perhaps best known for bankrolling Steve Bannon. Years earlier, he’d made a fortune as a real-estate developer in China. He fled that country in 2014 to avoid pending criminal charges there and settled in a Manhattan penthouse. Beginning in 2017, he fashioned himself as a prominent critic of the Chinese Communist Party. He posted videos full of mostly uncorroborated allegations of Chinese government corruption that won him a large following in the Chinese diaspora. After partnering with Bannon that year, Guo launched Chinese language news outlets, nonprofits, and other organizations. He used those groups to promote himself, spread disinformation about Covid and other topics, and, in 2020, to push false claims aimed at helping reelect Trump.

Guo has long been dogged by allegations that his anti-CCP rhetoric was a cover for ongoing work on behalf of Chinese intelligence, claims Guo denies. In 2020, Guo ran into bigger problems as federal agents began probing complaints that he had defrauded investors who put up funds for financial ventures he promoted as part of a supposed effort to combat CCP influence.

By early 2023, Guo’s legal troubles were mounting. He had been held in contempt of court by a New York state judge, filed for bankruptcy, and seen many of his assets frozen by federal authorities.

Guo supporters responded with a public relations push in right-wing media. They paid broadcasters for the chance to appear to promote Guo on their shows. Guo supporters also worked to plant stories bolstering Guo’s image and attacking his perceived enemies on conservative websites. In addition to Leavitt, Guo’s backers recruited Gavin Wax, who heads the New York Young Republicans Club; Matt Palumbo, a far right pundit; and Natalie Winters, then an employee of Bannon’s streaming show, War Room, to churn out articles on his behalf.

As Bragman, who writes for OptOut Media’s Important Context publication, first reported last year, “representatives working on behalf of Guo would recruit the writers to place their names on opinion pieces that spoke glowingly of him and his efforts.” These pundits “would to take prompts as well as pre-prepared drafts, which they could then edit,” Bragman reported. The articles, which were placed in various conservative outlets, echoed Guo’s routine allegations that all of his critics—including judges, journalists, lawyers, and former supporters accusing him of fraud—were working for China’s Communist Party.

Last year, I obtained a document prepared by Guo supporters containing a list of prompts and talking points for proposed articles. Four of Leavitt’s articles repeated arguments or wording that appeared in these prompts. (See chart below.)

One of the prompts suggested an article alleging that three men frequently criticized by Guo—who often uses the first name “Miles”—were Chinese agents. The article, the prompt instructed, should argue that “these three CCP billionaires, or white gloves, are the primary source of illegitimate funding for the CCP’s unrestricted warfare abroad, including the CCP’s #1 priority goal of removing Miles.”

In a March 2023 Townhall article, Leavitt asserted that those three men—who she, too, described as “white gloves”—“are the primary source of illegitimate funding for the CCP’s unrestricted warfare abroad, including the CCP’s number one priority goal of removing a key Chinese freedom fighter, Miles Guo.”

Leavitt’s pieces fawned over Guo. She called him “an incredibly influential Chinese dissident” and “a renowned critic of the Chinese Communist Party.” The articles also echoed highly specific complaints Guo often made. In a March 14 Headline USA piece, Leavitt wrote about a 2017 hack of computers at a law firm that had represented Guo in an asylum bid. The piece tracked claims in a lawsuit Guo filed against the firm, and called the little-know incident “a disturbing reminder of the lengths to which authoritarian regimes will go to silence dissent and suppress free speech.”

Claiming credit for writing that was partially produced by others is not that unusual in online commentary. Senators do it. But Leavitt used material provided by people who were working on behalf of the subject of her articles, and she concealed the arrangement.

Professor Debora Weber-Wulff, who studies media ethics at Berlin University, said in an email that “lack of disclosure is the most problematic part of this.”

“It does smell,” Weber-Wulff added.

Leavitt’s articles praising Guo appeared shortly before his March 15, 2023, arrest on fraud charges. Prosecutors said that Guo stole investments made by people who believed he would use the funds as part of an effort to oust the Chinese Communist Party. Instead he used them for items including a $25 million mansion, $1 million worth of chandeliers, $978,000 of rugs, a $3.5 million Ferrari, and two $36,000 mattresses.

A Manhattan jury convicted Guo in July 2024 on nine counts, including racketeering conspiracy and securities fraud. Guo’s claim to be “a key Chinese freedom fighter,” the verdict suggested, was part of a massive con.

Asked if she stood by her cheerleading for Guo, Leavitt did not respond.

KAROLINE LEAVITT’S GUO OP-EDS Leavitt’s articles echoed talking points and language suggested by Guo’s supporters. Some of the claims below are baseless. Mother Jones is highlighting them not to suggest they are accurate but rather to show the similarities between the prompts and the published op-eds. What Guo’s Supporters Proposed: Professional Communist Moneyman: How Chinese Billionaires Are Bankrolling the CCP’s Foreign Expansion This article should focus on three people: Bruno Wu, Shan Weijian, and Jho Low. These three CCP billionaires, or white gloves, are the primary source of illegitimate funding for the CCP’s unrestricted warfare abroad, including the CCP’s #1 priority goal of removing Miles. What Leavitt Wrote: The American Denominator in CCP’s Global Dominance: Communist Moneyman and American Traitors …There are many white gloves, but three individuals Bruno Wu, Shan Weijian, and Jho Low are the primary source of illegitimate funding for the CCP’s unrestricted warfare abroad, including the CCP’s number one priority goal of removing a key Chinese freedom fighter, Miles Guo… Townhall, 3/2/23 What Guo’s Supporters Proposed: What The Hack: How CCP Cyber Warfare Brought an American Law Firm to its Knee This Article should focus on Clark Hill, a law firm hired by Guo to file his political asylum case. Clark Hill got all of its computers hacked and held as hostage by the CCP, and caved into the CCP’s influence, sold information to the CCP and helped to persecute Miles. What Leavitt Wrote: How a CCP Cyber-Attack Brought an American Law Firm to its Knees …However, strong questions remain that Clark Hill may have caved to pressure from the CCP and betrayed their client’s trust… Headline USA, 3/14/23 What Guo’s Supporters Proposed: First Amendment: Our First Line of Defense Against the CCP Use this article to talk about how the first admentend, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, is the most critical right in our fight against the CCP. And our enemies, the CCP and its enablers, absolutely hate it. Talk about how U.S. media is afraid of criticizing the CCP, how Shan weijian’s lawyers sent a letter to The Washington Times after they published Walker’s article, and how Judge Manning – the Bankruptcy Judge over Miles’ case – issued a court injunction against peaceful NFSC protesters… What Leavitt Wrote: American Media Must Stand Firm Against CCP-Sponsored Lawfare …On Jan. 30 this year, an American law firm, representing the “Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund”, a group with extensive links to CCP-controlled China, sent a demand letter to the Washington Times… Townhall, 2/10/23 What Guo’s Supporters Proposed: Exposed: DOJ-Employed Attorney Secretly Met with Chinese Ambassador to sell out America This article should focus on George Higginbathom’s trip to the Chinese Embassy in DC to meet with Cui Tiankai, then sitting Chinese Ambassador. The article should be very figurative, giving readers the freedom of imagination. The emphasis should be to show, from this example, how deep and how easily the DOJ could be and has been infiltrated by the CCP. We really want to hit home with this Higginbotham story. Make it thrilling! More sources coming What Leavitt Wrote: The Risk of CCP Influence on the DOJ for National Security and Legal System …The DOJ was swept up in a shocking infiltration that showcases how truly weak and vulnerable America’s intelligence agencies are to CCP infiltration… Epoch Times, 2/17/23

Donald Trump has gotten away with causing a violent attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, as part of scheme to overturn the 2020 election, hiding top secret documents from the federal government, and other alleged crimes.

Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday made official what Trump’s election victory made clear, moving to dismiss the election interference case in which Trump was charged with promoting conspiracies to defraud the United States, obstruct an official government proceeding, and deprive Americans of their civil rights through his attempts to stop Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s victory. Smith said he was dropping the case due to a Justice Department policy that bars prosecuting a sitting president.

“The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed,” Smith said in the filing.

The motion leaves Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis’ prosecution of Trump and various former aides as the only standing criminal case related to Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election. Willis has vowed to continue that prosecution. But with her case mired in appeals proceedings related to Willis’ past romantic relationship with the prosecutor she picked to run it, her odds of securing a conviction of the president-elect appear dismal.

Smith also moved Monday to dismiss his case against Trump for obstructing justice by hiding from the Justice Department highly classified documents he had secretly removed from the White House. (Smith did not drop the charges against two Trump co-defendants.) Smith hopes to continue his appeal of a July ruling in which which Aileen Cannon, a notoriously pro-Trump district court judge in Florida, dismissed Smith’s case based on a legally unprecedented ruling that Smith’s appointment was invalid. But that appeal is aimed at preserving the legal standing of special counsel appointments and will not result in Trump’s continued prosecution even if Smith prevails.

Smith said that the January 6 and documents cases need not to be dismissed “with prejudice.” That leaves the theoretical prospect that they could be revived after Trump leaves office. But it’s unlikely the Justice Department would be willing or able to successfully renew either case eight years after the alleged crimes occurred.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office said last week that it would agree to postpone Trump’s sentencing in a case where he was convicted of falsifying business records as part of a criminal scheme to cover up payments made to buy the silence of porn actress Stormy Daniels, who has said she had sex with Trump in 2006. The district attorney Alvin Bragg has opposed efforts by Trump lawyers to have the case dismissed altogether.

These outcomes mean that Trump has avoided legal consequences for four separate cases in which he was indicted—including one in which he was convicted—despite receiving no acquittal or exoneration from a judge or jury.

That impunity, coupled with the Supreme Court’s highly controversial declaration that presidents enjoy “absolute immunity” from prosecution for official actions, appears set to enable Trump to pursue his goals—including using the Justice Department to prosecute critics—with few legal restraints.

After taking office, Trump reportedly plans to fire Smith’s entire legal team, including career attorneys typically protected from political retribution. Pam Bondi, a lobbyist and former Florida attorney general who Trump plans to nominate for US attorney general, has said prosecutors who brought cases against Trump “will be prosecuted.”

With a pass for alleged past crimes and a pliant Supreme Court, Trump in his second term may be the first US president to operate above the law. He will probably not be the last.

Donald Trump has gotten away with causing a violent attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, as part of scheme to overturn the 2020 election, hiding top secret documents from the federal government, and other alleged crimes.

Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday made official what Trump’s election victory made clear, moving to dismiss the election interference case in which Trump was charged with promoting conspiracies to defraud the United States, obstruct an official government proceeding, and deprive Americans of their civil rights through his attempts to stop Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s victory. Smith said he was dropping the case due to a Justice Department policy that bars prosecuting a sitting a president.

“The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed,” Smith said in the filing.

The motion leaves Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis’ prosecution of Trump and various former aides as the only standing criminal case related to Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election. Willis has vowed to continue that prosecution. But with her case mired in appeals proceedings related to Willis’ past romantic relationship with the prosecutor she picked to run the case, her odds of securing a conviction of the president-elect appear dismal.

Smith also moved Monday to dismiss his case against Trump for obstructing justice by hiding from the Department of Justice highly classified documents he had secretly removed from the White House. (Smith did not drop the charges against two Trump co-defendants.) Smith hopes to continue his appeal of a July ruling in which which Aileen Cannon, a notoriously pro-Trump district court judge in Florida, dismissed Smith’s case based on a legally unprecedented ruling that Smith’s appointment was invalid. But that appeal is aimed at preserving the legal standing of special counsel appointments and will not result in Trump’s continued prosecution even if Smith prevails.

Smith said that the January 6 and documents cases need not to be dismissed “with prejudice.” That leaves the theoretical prospect that they could be revived after Trump leaves office. But it’s unlikely the Justice Department would be willing or able to successfully renew either case eight years after the alleged crimes occurred.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office said last week that it would agree to postpone Trump’s sentencing in a case where he was convicted of falsifying business records as part of a criminal scheme to cover up payments made to buy the silence of porn actress Stormy Daniels, who has said she had sex with Trump in 2006. The district attorney Alvin Bragg has opposed efforts by Trump lawyers to have the case dismissed altogether.

These outcomes mean that Trump has avoided legal consequences for four separate cases in which he was indicted—including one in which he was convicted—despite receiving no acquittal or exoneration from a judge or jury.

That impunity, coupled with the Supreme Court’s highly controversial declaration that presidents enjoy “absolute immunity” from prosecution for official actions, appears set to enable Trump to pursue his goals—including using the Justice Department to prosecute critics—with few legal restraints.

After taking office, Trump reportedly plans to fire Smith’s entire legal team, including career attorneys typically protected from political retribution. Pam Bondi, a lobbyist and former Florida attorney general who Trump plans to nominate for US attorney general, has said prosecutors who brought cases against Trump “will be prosecuted.”

With a pass for alleged past crimes and a pliant Supreme Court, Trump in his second term may be the first US president to operate above the law. He will probably not be the last.

Donald Trump’s appointment announcements are getting weird.

The president-elect’s selection of Susie Wiles as his chief of staff, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as his secretary of state nominee, suggested a step toward GOP convention. But Trump’s pick of former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as his director of national intelligence—along with his announced plans to nominate Fox News host Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense, and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) for attorney general, represent a pivot toward the kooky.

Trump plans to put Gabbard, a dabbler in conspiracy theories, in a job overseeing 18 spy agencies, with responsiblity for preparing the president’s daily intelligence briefing. Gabbard did not respond to inquiries on Wednesday.

Gabbard’s nomination was announced Wednesday by longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone, who read Trump’s press release on the pick aloud on Alex Jones’ conspiracy-mongering InfoWars minutes before the release went public.

Gabbard, a former lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, is a one-time middle-of-the-road Democratic member of Congress who has evolved into a Trump supporter. She moved leftward in 2016—endorsing Sen. Bernie Sanders that year—and ran for the party’s presidential nomination in 2020 on a campaign that blasted the Democratic foreign policy establishment, before endorsing Trump this year.

Along the way, Gabbard has demonstrated excessive credulity about claims of autocrats hostile to the United States. In 2017, she drew fire for meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during a secret trip to Syria. Later that year, she said she was skeptical of US intelligence findings that led then–Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to say US officials had “a very high level of confidence” that chemical weapons attacks that killed dozens of people in Syria were carried out under Assad’s direction.

Gabbard’s position aligned with arguments from Russian officials, who provided key backing to Assad and argued that the 2017 attack was staged by agents of the United Kingdom.

Gabbard again bolstered Russian propaganda in 2022, when she tweeted a video repeating Kremlin claims that US-funded labs in Ukraine were developing biological weapons. The Russian claims appeared to be largely made-up justifications for Russia invading its neighbor.  

Gabbard’s comments drew widespread criticism. “Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) tweeted at the time. “Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.”

Gabbard has defended her various statements as examples of her willingness to buck a hawkish Washington foreign policy establishment too eager to drop bombs. “I am here to help prevent World War III,” she told Fox News on Monday.

But in defying what she dubs conventional views, Gabbard has demonstrated a high tolerance for conspiracy theories and disinformation: that is, she seems wide-open to bullshit.

That’s a particularly problematic penchant for someone tasked with advising the president on US intelligence findings—but it appears to be a quality this particular president desires.

Donald Trump’s appointment announcements are getting weird.

The president-elect’s selection of Susie Wiles as his chief of staff, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as his secretary of state nominee, suggested a step toward GOP convention. But Trump’s pick of former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as his director of national intelligence—along with his announced plans to nominate Fox News host Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense, and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) for attorney general, represent a pivot toward the kooky.

Trump plans to put Gabbard, a dabbler in conspiracy theories, in a job overseeing 18 spy agencies, with responsiblity for preparing the president’s daily intelligence briefing. Gabbard did not respond to inquiries on Wednesday.

Gabbard’s nomination was announced Wednesday by longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone, who read Trump’s press release on the pick aloud on Alex Jones’ conspiracy-mongering InfoWars minutes before the release went public.

Gabbard, a former lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, is a one-time middle-of-the-road Democratic member of Congress who has evolved into a Trump supporter. She moved leftward in 2016—endorsing Sen. Bernie Sanders that year—and ran for the party’s presidential nomination in 2020 on a campaign that blasted the Democratic foreign policy establishment, before endorsing Trump this year.

Along the way, Gabbard has demonstrated excessive credulity about claims of autocrats hostile to the United States. In 2017, she drew fire for meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during a secret trip to Syria. Later that year, she said she was skeptical of US intelligence findings that led then–Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to say US officials had “a very high level of confidence” that chemical weapons attacks that killed dozens of people in Syria were carried out under Assad’s direction.

Gabbard’s position aligned with arguments from Russian officials, who provided key backing to Assad and argued that the 2017 attack was staged by agents of the United Kingdom.

Gabbard again bolstered Russian propaganda in 2022, when she tweeted a video repeating Kremlin claims that US-funded labs in Ukraine were developing biological weapons. The Russian claims appeared to be largely made-up justifications for Russia invading its neighbor.  

Gabbard’s comments drew widespread criticism. “Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) tweeted at the time. “Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.”

Gabbard has defended her various statements as examples of her willingness to buck a hawkish Washington foreign policy establishment too eager to drop bombs. “I am here to help prevent World War III,” she told Fox News on Monday.

But in defying what she dubs conventional views, Gabbard has demonstrated a high tolerance for conspiracy theories and disinformation: that is, she seems wide-open to bullshit.

That’s a particularly problematic penchant for someone tasked with advising the president on US intelligence findings—but it appears to be a quality this particular president desires.

A few weeks ago, Vice President-elect JD Vance dubbed Donald Trump “the candidate of peace” during a blitz of Sunday morning show appearances.

Vance was talking about a guy who during his last term reportedly expressed interest in firing missiles into Mexico, and mused about nuking both North Korea and hurricanes.

And, less than a week after Trump’s election victory, the notion of the president-elect as anti-war, a common theme for Vance, has been badly undermined by Trump’s selection of a series of national security hawks—people who advocate using military force to solve international problems—for key administration jobs.

On the campaign trail, Trump found some success in positioning himself in an anti-war lane. He pledged to immediately impose a peace deal for Ukraine and pushed (extremely vaguely) for an end to the war in Gaza. He also bragged, incorrectly, that there were no wars during his administration. (Trump was helped by Vice President Kamala Harris’ reluctance to distance herself from President Joe Biden’s establishment-oriented foreign policy.)

“If these appointments are as advertised, it looks like an appeal to the unreconstructed Liz Cheney caucus.”

Since Trump’s election, there has been a scramble among supporters close to him to nudge the president-elect toward policies and appointments that reject the neoconservative bent of many Republicans. Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump Jr. reportedly were among insiders pushing the president-elect not to select for a job former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who has aggressive views on Ukraine, China, and Iran. Trump gave those backers some hope with his announcement last week that he would “not be inviting” Pompeo or former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley “to join the Trump Administration.”

But those small wins are being overshadowed as Trump names a series of hawkish figures to key posts.

Earlier this week, Trump decided to nominate Sen. Marco Rubio, (R-Fla.) as Secretary of State, according to the New York Times, and to name Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) as his national security adviser. (Sources said that Trump-world figures still hope to stop Rubio, whose selection Trump has not announced, from actually receiving the Secretary of State nomination.)

This news was followed by Trump’s announcement that he would make Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) United Nations Ambassador and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee US ambassador to Israel. On Wednesday, Trump said he would appoint Steven Witkoff, a real estate investor and campaign donor who is also a reliable Netanyahu booster, to be Special Envoy to the Middle East. And he picked John Ratcliffe—a loyalist who in 2020 used his job as Trump’s director of national intelligence to selectively declassify information aimed at bolstering Trump’s false claims about the origins of the Russia scandal—as director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Trump is “trying to appeal to at least two sides of the party that are diametrically opposed,” said Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, which has advocated for reducing defense spending and US commitments overseas. “If these appointments are as advertised, it looks like an appeal to the unreconstructed Liz Cheney caucus. It’s an open question whether that is offset by any more than JD Vance.”

Though Cheney supported Harris this year, she and her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, are identified with the GOP’s long-dominant neoconservative approach to national security policy.

Trump may not have figures like Pompeo and Haley and former national security adviser John Bolton in the White House this time, but “many of the people he has named represent the same views,” said Triti Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute.

While both Rubio and Waltz have followed Trump’s lead by expressing skepticism about NATO and the level of US support for Ukraine, they are known as foreign policy hawks. Stefanik, who has espoused similar views, is who is likely to follow Haley’s example of using the UN job as a stage to performatively support the policies Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s far-right government.

Former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Trump-backer who is herself hoping to win a national security job in the incoming administration, in July urged Trump to avoid Rubio, who she said “represents the neo-con, war mongering establishment.”

Huckabee has been an aggressive advocate of Netanyahu’s expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, even adopting the talking points of Israel’s openly racist far-right, which rejects the idea that Palestinians have any right to live in the West Bank. “There is no such thing as a West Bank,” Huckbee said during a 2017 visit to Israel. “It’s Judea and Samaria. There’s no such thing as an occupation.”

Trump has faulted Biden for the president’s limited efforts to dissuade Netanyahu from continuing his war in Gaza and in Lebanon. Along with that suggestion of carte blanche, Trump’s appointments look likely to further enable Israeli war-making, critics said.

Trump “is naming people based on their loyalty rather than their ideology,” Parsi told Mother Jones. “This doesn’t look particularly encouraging from a foreign policy standpoint, at least when it comes Middle East.”

Despite Trump’s appointments so far, people hoping the president-elect fills the role that Vance imagined are still working to push him away from war advocates.

“The hour is still young,” Logan said. “I am cautiously not pessimistic.”

Donald Trump announced Thursday that Susie Wiles, who as his de facto campaign manager is credited with imposing a measure of discipline that helped him win on Tuesday, will serve as his chief of staff.

Wiles has earned a reputation as a smart, pragmatic, and effective campaign operative. For critics of Trump’s agenda—which includes deporting millions of immigrants, imposing tariffs likely to increase inflation, firing vast swaths of civil servants and using the Justice Department to prosecute critics—her appointment is bad news.

“Susie is tough, smart, innovative, and is universally admired and respected,” Trump said in a statement Thursday. “Susie will continue to work tirelessly to Make America great again,”

Wiles will not be John Kelly, who, along with labeling Trump a fascist, has let it be known that as Trump’s chief of staff from 2017 to 2019, he worked to prevent Trump from indulging his worst instincts.

Wiles is not going to the White House to stop Trump implementing his plans—she will be there to help him more effectively impose them. Wiles may be a reason that Trump, a bumbling, wanna-be authoritarian in his first term, will be a more effective one in his second.

Nor is Wiles likely to go too far in stopping Trump from pursuing some of his worst impulses.

As Tim Alberta reported recently in the Atlantic, Wiles was occasionally willing to push back on Trump’s bad ideas, but not too often. Here is Alberta describing how Wiles handled Trump’s insistence on allowing far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer to travel with Trump in September, a decision that drew embarrassing headlines when Loomer, who has claimed the 9/11 attack was an “inside job,” joined Trump at a 9/11 memorial event.

“Wiles knew that nothing good could come of this. Still, after one more round of gentle pushback, she acquiesced. (Even people like Wiles, who have a track record of talking Trump out of certain reckless ideas, learn that you cannot retain a seat at the table if you tell the man ‘no’ one time too many.) Wiles decided that allowing Loomer on the trip was not a hill to die on. Perhaps, she would later remark to friends, it should have been.”

The daughter of late NFL broadcaster Pat Summerall, Wiles is a longtime GOP operative in Florida with a history of working for rich candidates. She ran Sen. Rick Scott’s 2010 campaign for Florida’s governorship, worked as former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman’s presidential campaign manager in 2012, and ran Trump’s campaign in Florida in 2016 and 2020. She also worked for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis before a falling out with him.

Wiles has also worked as a lobbyist, and held onto a senior lobbying position with the Republican-leaning advocacy firm Mercury Public Affairs during the campaign, according to the New York Times. She was registered as a lobbyist for a tobacco company as recently as this year.

Wiles also worked from 2017 through 2019 as a lobbyist for Ballard Partners, formerly a Florida-based firm that built a thriving DC practice after Trump’s 2016 election—based in part on perceived access to him.

While Wiles worked there, the firm signed up a colorful roster of clients that included a Russian billionaire, a firm run by a man linked to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, and a solar company controlled by a state-owned Chinese firm. Wiles wasn’t a registered lobbyist for all of those clients. But she registered to represent a host of outfits, including General Motors and the Motion Picture Association of America.

Wiles also lobbied on behalf of Globovisión, a Venezuelan firm that was looking to expand into US markets. That plan hit a hitch in 2018, when the Justice Department indicted its founder, Raul Gorrin, on corruption charges. Ballard said it cut ties with the firm after learning of the federal probe. Last month, the Justice Department indicted Gorrin again, alleging that he helped “to launder funds corruptly obtained from Venezuela’s state-owned and state-controlled energy company… in exchange for hundreds of millions in bribe payments to Venezuelan officials.”

A Trump spokesperson didn’t respond immediately to a request for comment on Wiles’ lobbying work.

Donald Trump announced Thursday that Susie Wiles, who as his de facto campaign manager is credited with imposing a measure of discipline that helped him win on Tuesday, will serve as his chief of staff.

Wiles has earned a reputation as a smart, pragmatic, and effective campaign operative. For critics of Trump’s agenda—which includes deporting millions of immigrants, imposing tariffs likely to increase inflation, firing vast swaths of civil servants and using the Justice Department to prosecute critics—her appointment is bad news.

“Susie is tough, smart, innovative, and is universally admired and respected,” Trump said in a statement Thursday. “Susie will continue to work tirelessly to Make America great again,”

Wiles will not be John Kelly, who, along with labeling Trump a fascist, has let it be known that as Trump’s chief of staff from 2017 to 2019, he worked to prevent Trump from indulging his worst instincts.

Wiles is not going to the White House to stop Trump implementing his plans—she will be there to help him more effectively impose them. Wiles may be a reason that Trump, a bumbling, wanna-be authoritarian in his first term, will be a more effective one in his second.

Nor is Wiles likely to go too far in stopping Trump from pursuing some of his worst impulses.

As Tim Alberta reported recently in the Atlantic, Wiles was occasionally willing to push back on Trump’s bad ideas, but not too often. Here is Alberta describing how Wiles handled Trump’s insistence on allowing far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer to travel with Trump in September, a decision that drew embarrassing headlines when Loomer, who has claimed the 9/11 attack was an “inside job,” joined Trump at a 9/11 memorial event.

“Wiles knew that nothing good could come of this. Still, after one more round of gentle pushback, she acquiesced. (Even people like Wiles, who have a track record of talking Trump out of certain reckless ideas, learn that you cannot retain a seat at the table if you tell the man ‘no’ one time too many.) Wiles decided that allowing Loomer on the trip was not a hill to die on. Perhaps, she would later remark to friends, it should have been.”

The daughter of late NFL broadcaster Pat Summerall, Wiles is a longtime GOP operative in Florida with a history of working for rich candidates. She ran Sen. Rick Scott’s 2010 campaign for Florida’s governorship, worked as former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman’s presidential campaign manager in 2012, and ran Trump’s campaign in Florida in 2016 and 2020. She also worked for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis before a falling out with him.

Wiles has also worked as a lobbyist, and held onto a senior lobbying position with the Republican-leaning advocacy firm Mercury Public Affairs during the campaign, according to the New York Times. She was registered as a lobbyist for a tobacco company as recently as this year.

Wiles also worked from 2017 through 2019 as a lobbyist for Ballard Partners, formerly a Florida-based firm that built a thriving DC practice after Trump’s 2016 election—based in part on perceived access to him.

While Wiles worked there, the firm signed up a colorful roster of clients that included a Russian billionaire, a firm run by a man linked to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, and a solar company controlled by a state-owned Chinese firm. Wiles wasn’t a registered lobbyist for all of those clients. But she registered to represent a host of outfits, including General Motors and the Motion Picture Association of America.

Wiles also lobbied on behalf of Globovisión, a Venezuelan firm that was looking to expand into US markets. That plan hit a hitch in 2018, when the Justice Department indicted its founder, Raul Gorrin, on corruption charges. Ballard said it cut ties with the firm after learning of the federal probe. Last month, the Justice Department indicted Gorrin again, alleging that he helped “to launder funds corruptly obtained from Venezuela’s state-owned and state-controlled energy company… in exchange for hundreds of millions in bribe payments to Venezuelan officials.”

A Trump spokesperson didn’t respond immediately to a request for comment on Wiles’ lobbying work.

More than 1,500 people charged with or convicted of crimes related to the January 6, 2021, attack on Congress are now presumably hoping to win pardons and commutations that the now president-elect has repeatedly, if vaguely, promised to give many of them.

And they aren’t alone. Numerous people convicted since 2020 of federal crimes in prosecutions they claim were politically motivated seem to be positioning themselves to seek clemency when Donald Trump takes office in January.

On the campaign trail, Trump—who doled out various pardons to political allies ruing his first term—made frequent, though somewhat qualified, pledges to offer clemency to January 6 attackers. In a July exchange with ABC news anchor Rachel Scott, for instance, Trump said that he would “absolutely” pardon even rioters who were convicted of assaulting police officers. He then said he would do so “if they’re innocent,” but also said they had faced a “tough system.”

These statements have people charged with crimes on January 6 positioning themselves for pardons in the wake of Trump’s victory.

On Wednesday, Christopher Carnell, a man charged with entering the Capitol on January 6, asked a DC judge to postpone his case, citing Trump’s statements about pardoning January 6 attackers.

“Throughout his campaign, President-elect Trump has made multiple clemency promises to the January 6 defendants, particularly to those who were nonviolent participants,” Carnell’s lawyer wrote. “Mr. Carnell, who was an 18 year old nonviolent entrant into the Capitol on January 6, is expecting to be relieved of the criminal prosecution that he is currently facing when the new administration takes office.”

This is one of what will likely be a deluge of similar filings. Judges are under no obligation to postpone proceedings based on such requests.

Trump might pardon not only rank-and-file January 6 rioters but high-profile far-right leaders convicted of helping to organize the attack.

Enrique Tarrio, the former leader of the far-right Proud Boys, who is serving a 22-year sentence for seditious conspiracy and other charges related to the January 6 attack, is exploring a pardon, even as he continues to appeal his sentence, Tarrio’s lawyer, Nayib Hassan indicated to HuffPost. “We look forward to what the future holds, both in terms of the judicial process for our client and the broader political landscape under the new administration,” Hassan said.

Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers founder sentenced last year to 18 years in prison for seditious conspiracy due to his role in the attack, could also receive a Trump pardon, a prospect Rhodes’ ex-wife and son have said causes them fear for their safety due to what they allege is his past physical abuse. (Rhodes has denied abusing family members.)

Trump used the pardon process liberally while president to free war criminals, personal allies, campaign donors, people who could have acted as witnesses against him, and others—a use of clemency power that was unprecedented in American history and deeply corrupt.

In a second term, he may continue to pardon allies facing federal charges or seeking help with past convictions.

Former advisers Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, both of whom already served four-month prison terms for contempt of Congress after ignoring subpoenas from the House January 6 committee, may receive pardons aimed at clearing their names. (Trump pardoned Bannon in 2020 on charges that he defrauded donors to a charity that claimed to be raising private funds to help build Trump’s promised wall along the Mexican border, but he can’t help Bannon with pending New York state charges related to the same alleged scam.)

Bannon could also lobby Trump to pardon his former patron Guo Wengui, a Chinese real estate mogul convicted of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from Chinese diaspora followers of a movement Guo and Bannon launched in 2019. Guo used that movement and a network of Chinese-language media companies to spread disinformation aimed at helping Trump in 2020.

New York Mayor Eric Adams, facing charges for accepting bribes from Turkish interests, has ludicrously suggested that he was prosecuted by the Justice Department due to criticizing the Biden White House over immigration issues. That sounds like a bid for a pardon. Trump might prove amenable.

Then there is former Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), convicted last year of taking bribes from Egyptian agents in exchange for helping advance Cairo’s interests in the United States. Menendez previously persuaded Trump to pardon Salomon Melgen, a Florida eye doctor accused of bribing Menendez in a case that ended in a mistrial, but who was also convicted of defrauding Medicare. Could Menendez join other corrupt Democrats Trump pardoned, like former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and ex-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich? Don’t rule it out.

One person Trump probably won’t have to pardon is himself. The Justice Department “is evaluating how to wind down the two federal criminal cases against Donald Trump before he takes office to comply with longstanding department policy that a sitting president can’t be prosecuted,” NBC News’ Ken Dilanian reported Wednesday. That would relieve Trump of having to take the unprecedented and controversial step of telling DOJ to drop charges into himself.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misidentified one of the politicians Trump pardoned.

Steve Bannon claims he is setting up a new version of the Willard Hotel “war room”—the infamous locale from which he and other Trump allies attempted to oversee last-ditch efforts in January 2021 to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Bannon told CBS News’ Robert Costa that the “war room” is being “revived and reorganized” in the hours ahead of today’s election results, with he and other Trump backers gathering at the posh downtown DC hotel.

As with much of what Bannon does, his Election Day announcement mixes self-promotion that may include exaggeration of his importance with genuine menace.

Bannon has been courting media attention since he was released from federal prison last week, where he served four months for contempt of Congress. His new “war room,” on election night, differs from the 2021 gathering on January 5 and 6, where various Trump backers schemed to stop Joe Biden from taking office in part by lobbying GOP lawmakers. It’s not just earlier in the process: Bannon will be thousands of miles away from Trump and his top advisers, who are gathering at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate. It is not clear that the assembly Bannon plans will be more than a watch party.

But it’s safe to assume he sees it as potentially significant. Since 2021, Bannon has used his “War Room” podcast to push the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen and to encourage election deniers to run for local positions that will allow them play a role in the counting of votes in key swing states. That effort appears to have enjoyed substantial success in placing far-right election deniers in key jobs, and could prove vital to Trump’s expected efforts to challenge results in key battleground states.

In a news conference last week, Bannon urged Trump to falsely declare victory on election day, in a effort to convince Trump fans that a win by Vice President Kamala Harris could result only from cheating. “If the votes come in like it looks like they’re gonna come in, he should step up and inform American citizens of exactly what’s going on and not keep people in the dark like was done in 2020,” Bannon told reporters.

Such a declaration would aim to improve on Trump’s false claim of victory at 2am four years ago. In an audio recording I first uncovered in 2022, Bannon told a group of allies assembled on October 31, 2020, that Trump would assert success on election day, even if he lost.

“What Trump’s gonna do is just declare victory,” Bannon said. “Right? He’s gonna declare victory. But that doesn’t mean he’s the winner. He’s just gonna say he’s the winner.”

Special Counsel Jack Smith cited those statements in a motion last month that showed Bannon played a big role in what Smith alleges was a criminal conspiracy led by Trump to interfere with the certification of electoral votes in 2024. Bannon is not charged with a crime in that case.

Smith also revealed that Bannon appeared to have influenced Trump’s decision to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to assert power to block certification of Biden’s victory on January 6. The filing noted that Trump had a conversation with Bannon less than 15 minutes before he called Pence on Jan. 1—a call during which Trump berated Pence for his reluctance to follow a plan Pence later called unconstitutional.

It was on January 5 and 6, 2021, that Bannon, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, attorney John Eastman, longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone, and other Trump advisers gathered in a suite of rooms in the Willard to try to coordinate Trump’s efforts to retain power. (Women for America First, a nonprofit set by far right activists Amy and Kylie Kremer paid $70,000 to book the Willard Rooms used by Trump backers, using funds put up by Publix heir Julie Jenkins Fancelli, as I reported earlier this year.)

Smith alleged in his motion last month that the efforts at the Willard Room included calls by Giuliani—made at Trump’s behest—to exploit the mob attack on Congress on Jan. 6 while it was underway, using that mayhem to urge senators to delay the certification of electoral votes.

It remains to be seen if Bannon and other Trump allies get the chance to reconstitute such “war room” efforts on January 6, 2025. Bannon may be tied up then. Starting in December, he is set to face trial in New York for allegedly defrauding donors to a charity that claimed to be raising private funds to help build Trump’s promised wall along the Mexican border.

At a rally Saturday in Gastonia, North Carolina, Donald Trump thanked God for an October jobs report that showed a slow-down in job growth due in part to the recent hurricane that decimated the western part of the state.

“How good was that?” Trump asked the crowd. “To get those numbers four days before the vote was…” Trump said, trailing off. Then he paused and looked upward, presumably to God, who he told: “Thank you very much sir. Thank you.”

“He’d prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday that the US economy added just 12,000 jobs in October. Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su attributed the slow growth to “significant impacts from hurricanes and strike activity.” That’s a reference to Hurricanes Helene and Milton and an ongoing strike by Boeing machinists. Noting the unemployment rate remains at 4.1 percent and inflation is falling, Su said the jobs report “reflects an atypical month rather than a shift in the broader economic outlook.”

Trump’s jobs remarks were hardly the worst thing he said this weekend. He labeled journalists covering his rally “monsters,” mocked trans people, and called his opponent a product of political correctness and “stupid,” with a racist and sexist subtext hard to miss. He defended his racist Madison Square Garden rally. On Friday night in Milwaukee he inexplicably expressed frustration with audio issues by pretending to perform fellatio on a microphone stand.

But the reaction to the jobs report was revealing in the gusto with which Trump embraced bad news for Americans as good for him. To be fair, he did describe the numbers as “bad news” during his Friday address. But in North Carolina on Saturday, he celebrated the political benefit he claimed to be getting from the new report—without mentioning the hurricane economists say helped slow hiring by causing catastrophic flooding and hundreds of deaths, including more than 100 in the state he spoke in.

“I mean, how good is that if you happen to be running against the people that did that?” Trump, referring to the jobs report.

This wasn’t the only time he seemed to be rejoicing in doom. Elsewhere in the speech, Trump celebrated, as he generally does at his rallies, an increase in border crossings that followed his exit from office. He has consistently made few bones about his belief that problems at the border are good for him. Early this year, Trump successfully lobbied to jettison a bipartisan bill aimed at toughening security on the Mexican border. Trump’s push was widely understood as an effort to stop Congress from trying to solve a problem that he wanted to use to attack Democrats. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who was a key author of the bill, has said that critics of the measures argued: “We don’t want President Trump to lose that issue.”

Vice President Kamala Harris has faulted Trump’s opposition to the measure, calling it evidence that “he’d prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.”

Nothing in Trump’s remarks Saturday refuted that criticism.

Donald Trump is amplifying attacks on the media in the final days of the campaign, broadly threatening retaliation against the industry for coverage critical of him.

“To make America great you really have to get the news shaped up,” Trump told Fox News Saturday morning.

During a rally in North Carolina later that day, Trump called journalists covering the event “monsters,” and “horrible, horrible, dishonest people.”

During the Fox News interview, Trump attacked several outlets. He called ABC News “corrupt,” renewing his gripe that the network’s David Muir during a September debate had correctly noted that that FBI data shows violent crime declining, contradicting Trump’s erroneous claims that it was “through the roof.”

Trump called journalists covering the event “monsters,” and “horrible, horrible, dishonest people.”

Trump isn’t just going after the media with words. On Thursday, the former president sued CBS News for $10 billion, alleging that the editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris “amounts to a brazen attempt to interfere in the 2024 US Presidential Election.” The lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Texas where the sole judge is Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee known for partisan pro-GOP rulings. Even so, the suit has little chance of success. TV networks routinely edit interviews (including those featuring Trump, who backed out of appearing on “60 Minutes” last month.) My colleague Pema Levy wrote more about this lawsuit and its chances for success here.

Trump’s suit is “without merit” a CBS spokesperson said last week. “The interview was not doctored; and 60 Minutes did not hide any part of the vice president’s answer to the question at issue…60 Minutes fairly presented the interview to inform the viewing audience, and not to mislead it.”

Trump has also said that CBS should lose its license to broadcast news due to the Harris interview. That’s one of many such threats. CNN recently noted that Trump in the last two years has called for every major American TV news network, including Fox News, to be punished for coverage he deemed unfair. Trump has also vowed that if he wins back the White House, he plans to seize greater control of independent regulatory agencies, including the FCC.

As president, Trump tried to punish media outlets that criticized him. His administration tried to block AT&T acquisition of CNN’s parent company and to deny a cloud computing contract for Amazon, which was founded by Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos.

Trump has also threatened to jail journalists who report information he contends has national security implications. (Trump himself, of course, has been indicted for illegally retaining highly sensitive national security documents he removed from the White House.) In 2022, NPR recently noted, Trump repeatedly said the prospect of prison rape would cause reporters to disclose sources. “When this person realizes that he is going to be the bride of another prisoner shortly, he will say, ‘I’d very much like to tell you exactly who that was,'” Trump said at a Texas event.

All these statements amount to an ongoing threat that, if elected, Trump will use his power to curb speech critical of him. That’s a direct challenge to the First Amendment, and hence not likely to fully succeed, even among increasingly partisan judges.

But Trump could still made life difficult for media outlets, and his threats already appear to have had a chilling effect. Amid attacks from Trump and his allies over his philanthropic efforts to help register voters in 2020, Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg has tried to extract himself from politics, including by limiting what the company deems political content on its platforms. The Washington Post editorial page’s scuttling of an endorsement of Harris has been widely read as an attempt by Bezos to avoid angering Trump, though Bezos disputes that. The Los Angeles Times also drew fire for declining to endorse a candidate this year.

The Post‘s move didn’t appease Trump. The former president ripped the paper during his Fox call-in Saturday, even suggesting the 250,000 lost subscriptions and high-profile resignations the paper suffered due to the non-endorsement was connected to his gripes with the paper. Why is the Post facing these problems? According to Trump, it’s “because they don’t have credibility.”

At a rally Saturday in Gastonia, North Carolina, Donald Trump thanked God for an October jobs report that showed a slow-down in job growth due in part to the recent hurricane that decimated the western part of the state.

“How good was that?” Trump asked the crowd. “To get those numbers four days before the vote was…” Trump said, trailing off. Then he paused and looked upward, presumably to God, who he told: “Thank you very much sir. Thank you.”

“He’d prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday that the US economy added just 12,000 jobs in October. Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su attributed the slow growth to “significant impacts from hurricanes and strike activity.” That’s a reference to Hurricanes Helene and Milton and an ongoing strike by Boeing machinists. Noting the unemployment rate remains at 4.1 percent and inflation is falling, Su said the jobs report “reflects an atypical month rather than a shift in the broader economic outlook.”

Trump’s jobs remarks were hardly the worst thing he said this weekend. He labeled journalists covering his rally “monsters,” mocked trans people, and called his opponent a product of political correctness and “stupid,” with a racist and sexist subtext hard to miss. He defended his racist Madison Square Garden rally. On Friday night in Milwaukee he inexplicably expressed frustration with audio issues by pretending to perform fellatio on a microphone stand.

But the reaction to the jobs report was revealing in the gusto with which Trump embraced bad news for Americans as good for him. To be fair, he did describe the numbers as “bad news” during his Friday address. But in North Carolina on Saturday, he celebrated the political benefit he claimed to be getting from the new report—without mentioning the hurricane economists say helped slow hiring by causing catastrophic flooding and hundreds of deaths, including more than 100 in the state he spoke in.

“I mean, how good is that if you happen to be running against the people that did that?” Trump, referring to the jobs report.

This wasn’t the only time he seemed to be rejoicing in doom. Elsewhere in the speech, Trump celebrated, as he generally does at his rallies, an increase in border crossings that followed his exit from office. He has consistently made few bones about his belief that problems at the border are good for him. Early this year, Trump successfully lobbied to jettison a bipartisan bill aimed at toughening security on the Mexican border. Trump’s push was widely understood as an effort to stop Congress from trying to solve a problem that he wanted to use to attack Democrats. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who was a key author of the bill, has said that critics of the measures argued: “We don’t want President Trump to lose that issue.”

Vice President Kamala Harris has faulted Trump’s opposition to the measure, calling it evidence that “he’d prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.”

Nothing in Trump’s remarks Saturday refuted that criticism.