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.

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.”

As Donald Trump campaigns to be a dictator for one day, he’s asking: “Are you better off now than you were when I was president?” Great question! To help answer it, our Trump Files series is delving into consequential events from the 45th president’s time in office that Americans might have forgotten—or wish they had.

Five years ago, Donald Trump told Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan to go ahead and invade Syria—an unexpected capitulation to personal pressure from the Turkish strongman that upended US policy, allowing Turkish attacks on Kurdish fighters seen as staunch US allies.

Trump’s green light to Erdogan during an October 6, 2019, phone call forced US troops in Syria to hastily flee from posts near the Turkish border and shocked Washington, drawing bipartisan condemnation of the president’s decision.

The Turkish troops who invaded went on to display “shameful disregard for civilian life, carrying out serious violations and war crimes, including summary killings and unlawful attacks that have killed and injured civilians,” Amnesty International charged. News reports said at least 70 civilians were killed while hundreds of thousands of people were displaced by the invasion.

The okay to invade was one of various ways that Trump helped Erdogan while in office. Trump intervened with the Justice Department to aid a Turkish national bank, Halkbank, which was accused of helping Iran evade US sanctions. Prosecutors have argued the bank helped to finance Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The case against the bank implicated allies of Erdogan, who had authorized the sanctions-evasion scheme, a witness in the case said. Under personal pressure from Erdogan, Trump also pressed his advisers, including DOJ officials, to drop a case against the bank built by prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, according to accounts of former Trump administration officials.

Geoffrey Berman, at the time the US attorney in Manhattan, later said in a book that he received pressure from acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker in 2018 and that Whitaker’s successor, Bill Barr, pressed him to settle the case on terms favorable to Halkbank. Berman charged that Barr urged him to grant immunity to Turkish officials with ties to Erdogan and suggested hiding those deals from a federal court—a step Berman said would be illegal. Berman and Barr did not respond to requests for comment.

Turkey’s invasion of Syria, oddly, caused problems Halkbank. The criticism Trump faced for allowing Erdogan to invade appeared to embarrass the US president. He responded by attempting to reverse course. In a bizarre public letter, he threatened to “destroy” Turkey’s economy. “Don’t be a tough guy,” Trump wrote. During this spat, Trump and his advisers, including Barr, dropped their opposition to indicting Halkbank. Berman later recounted that Trump’s “falling out” with Erdogan resulted in a “green light to indict Halkbank. And we did it within 24 hours.”

Trump’s approval of Turkey’s invasion of Syria, and his reaction to the criticism it drew, has received limited attention during the 2024 campaign. But it highlights several of Trump’s weaknesses in managing US foreign policy.

Though he casts himself as an effective negotiator, in office Trump consistently accommodated autocrats, offering concessions without winning concomitant benefits, former aides said. “He would interfere in the regular government process to do something for a foreign leader,” John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, told the Times in 2020. “In anticipation of what? In anticipation of another favor from that person down the road.”

Bolton wrote in a book that Trump in 2019 told Chinese President Xi Jinping that his decision to detain Uighur Muslims in concentration camps was “exactly the right thing to do” and urged Xi to “go ahead with building the camps.” In another meeting that year, Bolton wrote, Trump “pleaded” with Xi to help Trump’s electoral prospects by purchasing US soybeans and wheat. Trump apparently hoped the trade would win him votes in rural states hurt by his trade war with China.

This tendency to appease autocrats who flatter him is part of Trump’s personalization of foreign policy, a tendency to make diplomacy about his own interests, rather than those of Americans.

Then there are the conflicts of interest. Trump, in late 2015, acknowledged that “I have a little conflict of interest” in dealing with Turkey, due to his licensing deal that paid him for his name to appear on two glass towers in Istanbul. The 2020 leak of some of Trump’s tax returns revealed that he had in fact received at least $13 million, including at least $1 million while he was the president, through the deal. A man who helped broker Trump’s licensing deal later lobbied the Trump administration on behalf of Turkish interests.

If he is elected again, Trump’s business interests will result in similar conflicts with Vietnam, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, among others. Through his family, he would also have business-related conflicts with Albania, Qatar, Serbia, and Saudi Arabia, which has paid $87 million to a fund set up by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

It is not clear to what extent financial interests—as opposed to flattery or a wish for the approval of autocrats—influences Trump. The problem is that Americans don’t know what interests he follows.

But it is likely that Erdogan expects Trump will be accommodating if he wins, perhaps starting with Halkbank. A federal appeals court recently ruled that the bank’s prosecution can proceed, following the bank’s effort to claim sovereign immunity.

Turkish interests allegedly spent heavily to corruptly influence New York Mayor Eric Adams, who is accused of ordering that Turkey’s 36-story consulate be allowed to open despite safety concerns. If Adams would help fix a fire code issue, what might Trump do for Erdogan?

Steve Bannon emerged Tuesday from four months in federal prison. He was tanned, supposedly “empowered,” and obviously eager to again help Donald Trump lie about election results if he loses.

Bannon was convicted of contempt of Congress after he ignored a subpoena from the House January 6 Committee. The former Trump strategist—who claimed “executive privilege” allowed him to blow off the committee in 2021, even though he had last worked in White House in 2017—likely could have avoided prison if he’d negotiated with the panel or shown up and asserted his Fifth Amendment rights.

But he presented himself on his War Room show and in a press conference Tuesday as a freedom fighter.

“If you’re not prepared to be thrown in prison by this weaponized justice system, then you’re not prepared to stand up and fight for your country,” Bannon said after serving his sentence at a low-security prison in Connecticut.

Bannon insisted in his press conference that the 2020 election “was stolen” from Trump and said he would again urge Trump to declare victory on election night even if the results, yet again, are unclear and ballots are still being counted.

The War Room host said Trump, who had falsely claimed victory after 2 am on election night four years ago, erred only by failing to lie about the results at “11 o’clock,” instead. This year, Bannon said, “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 insisted that he urged Trump to declare victory in 2020 because “the Democrat Party was going to steal the election with illegitimate mail in ballots.”

But that’s not what Bannon said in 2020. In an audio recording from an October 31, 2020, meeting, which I reported in 2022, Bannon said that Trump planned declare victory on election night even if he was losing.

“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.”

Bannon explained pretty clearly back then that Trump intended to take advantage of a perception that he was ahead, even if the reality differed. Because Democrats were more likely to vote by mail, their ballots would take longer to be counted. That would give them “a natural disadvantage,” Bannon said at the time. “And Trump’s going to take advantage of it. That’s our strategy. He’s gonna declare himself a winner.”

Special counsel Jack Smith cited Bannon’s statement in an October 2 motion as one of various pieces of evidence indicating that Trump before Election Day 2020 had formulated plans, if he faced defeat, to use a “false declaration” of victory to attempt to steal the election.

In 2024, Democrats are again more likely to vote by mail. In Pennsylvania, Democrats are reportedly voting by mail at twice the rate of Republicans. Trump may again have a chance to try to use the “red mirage” to convince his followers that he’s being cheated.

Bannon may be in an interlude between prison sentences. He is set face trial in December 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.

But until then, Bannon will have the chance to once again “go the mattresses,” as he put it, to help Trump return to the White House.

As Donald Trump campaigns to be a dictator for one day, he’s asking: “Are you better off now than you were when I was president?” Great question! To help answer it, our Trump Files series is delving into consequential events from the 45th president’s time in office that Americans might have forgotten—or wish they had.

Donald Trump has said that if he is elected president again, he will use the Justice Department to prosecute political enemies. We should believe him, because he attempted to do just that in his first term, with some success. And he will be better prepared to execute his plans if he returns to the White House.

NPR recently tallied more than 100 times Trump called for the prosecution or jailing of his perceived foes. His stated targets include Kamala Harris, Joe Biden and his family, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, James Comey, Bill Barr, John Kelly, Mark Zuckerberg, federal prosecutors, election officials, journalists, and pro-Palestinian protestors. He reportedly wanted retired military officers who criticized him, Admiral William McRaven and General Stanley McChrystal, called back to active duty so they could be court-martialed. He suggested that Mark Milley, who previously served as Trump’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, deserved to be executed.

The frequency of those threats makes them seem silly. Trump probably isn’t going to sic prosecutors on all those prominent people. But his record suggests he is serious about using the power of his office against many critics. Contrary to the claims of defenders like J.D. Vance—who said recently that Trump “didn’t go after his political opponents” while in office—Trump made sustained public and private efforts while in the White House to order up probes into critics and political opponents. Trump succeeded in numerous cases in having foes investigated, media reports and accounts of former aides show.

Lock Her Up

After calling for Hillary Clinton’s prosecution on the campaign trail, Trump, despite briefly disavowing the idea, pushed throughout his presidency for Clinton’s prosecution. This campaign came in public tweets and private pressure on aides, and was mounted alongside his anger over investigations into his campaign’s contacts with Russian agents in 2016. Trump pressured all three of his attorneys general to open or advance investigations targeting Clinton. They partly resisted but substantially complied.

Many people recall Trump’s fury at Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from matters to the 2016 election—which led the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller. But despite that pledge, Sessions partly appeased Trump by instructing the US attorney for Utah, John Huber, to reexamine Clinton’s use of a private email server and allegations about the Clinton Foundation. Sessions’ order came amid Trump’s repeated public calls for him to look into Clinton’s “crimes.” After firing Sessions in 2020, Trump privately urged acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to push Huber to be more aggressive, the Washington Post reported. When Huber’s investigation ended in 2020 without finding wrongdoing by Clinton, Trump publicly attacked the prosecutor as a “garbage disposal.”

But by then, Trump’s third AG, Bill Barr, had appointed John Durham, the Connecticut US attorney, to launch an investigation into the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. Barr named Durham on heels of misrepresenting Mueller’s report, which found that the Trump campaign “expected to benefit” from secret Russian help in 2016. The Durham appointment also came after reports that Trump and his advisers were seeking revenge against his investigators.

Durham’s effort floundered legally, with the acquittal of two of the three men charged with crimes related to the investigation. But the probe, which lasted four years, fared better as an exercise in arming Trump with talking points. Durham appeared to consider that part of his job, though he has publicly disputed that. When the Justice Department’s inspector general in 2019 issued a report that found no evidence the FBI’s Trump investigation was politically motivated, Durham, in consultation with Barr, issued a strange statement disagreeing, without offering any evidence for why.

Durham decided to charge Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who worked for Democrats in 2016, with lying to the FBI, despite evidence so thin two prosecutors quit in connection with the charge. Sussmann was acquitted in 2022, but through filings in the case, Durham publicly aired allegations about Clinton campaign efforts to advance the Russia story, details that did not appear necessary to his case. Right-wing news outlets in February 2022 jumped one such-Durham motion to falsely report the Clinton’s campaign had spied on Trump White House servers. In his final report in 2023, Durham extensively cited material he acknowledged was dubious possible Russian disinformation in an effort to suggest Clinton had helped drive the FBI probe into Trump.

FBI

After firing James Comey as FBI director in 2017, which resulted in Mueller’s appointment, Trump pressed for the Justice Department to prosecute Comey for mishandling sensitive government information by allegedly orchestrating leaks that were damaging to Trump. According to the New York Times, this pressure led to “two investigations of leaks potentially involving” Comey. The DOJ declined to charge Comey.

Other former FBI officials who drew Trump’s ire—former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, and Peter Strzok, originally the lead FBI agent on the Russia investigation—faced DOJ probes after Trump railed against them. Sessions fired McCabe the day before his 2018 retirement, in what appeared to be a deliberate act to deny him a pension and benefits. Prosecutors in 2019 tried to charge McCabe for allegedly lying to FBI officials about media contacts, but in an unusual move that suggests a weak case, a grand jury declined to return an indictment.

John Kerry

In a March 2019 press conference, Trump said former Secretary of State John Kerry, who negotiated the 2015 deal freezing Iran’s nuclear weapons development, could be prosecuted for violating the Logan Act, a 1799 law barring private US citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes with the United States. Trump was irked at Kerry’s ongoing contacts with Iranian officials and by past threats by Mueller’s team to charge former national security adviser Michael Flynn with violating the act. Trump told reporters that Kerry should be charged, but “my people don’t want to do anything,” adding, “Only the Democrats do that kind of stuff.

False. Trump’s public and private efforts had by then already secured DOJ scrutiny of Kerry. Former Trump national security adviser John Bolton told the Times he’d witnessed Trump demand Kerry’s prosecution “on at least a half dozen occasions” in 2018 and 2019. Trump also made the case in tweets and public statements. Days after one of Trump’s tweets, in May 2018, a top DOJ official had told prosecutors in Manhattan to investigate Kerry’s contacts with Iranians, according to the Times. Geoffrey Berman, at the time the US attorney in Manhattan, wrote in a 2022 book that the Kerry probe appeared to result from Trump’s edict. “No one needed to talk with Trump to know what he wanted,” Berman wrote. “You could read his tweets.”

Trump succeeded in sparking investigations into his critics and political foes by continually pressing subordinates to deliver actual prosecutions, as former aides like Kelly, Bolton and White House counsel Don McGahn have revealed. In some cases, the resulting probes appear to have been solutions settled on by officials attempting to manage Trump’s pressure with partial measures.

But in a new term, Trump will surely be more aggressive and even less restrained, as his public threats make clear. The Supreme Court’s July declaration that the president has absolute immunity from prosecution for many types of official conduct will leave him with few worries about facing legal consequences for his own actions. And the aides who partly restrained him before will be gone, replaced by more sycophantic enablers.

As Trump pledges to pervert presidential power to prosecute critics, Americans have to take him at this word. If he wins, who is going to stop him?