Taking Trump and Alito at their word
May 22, 2024
In the last week, we learned that Justice Samuel Alito flew the flag of insurrection, and Trump called for a “unified Reich” in his next administration. Both men offered risible excuses for using symbols and language that are entirely consistent with everything we know about their worldview and autocratic aspirations. “My wife did it,” says Alito. “A staffer did it,” says Trump. Both excuses are lies. But even if true, they do not excuse an insurrectionist display by a Supreme Court justice or the nostalgic call for a “once-and-future” Nazi regime by a presidential contender.
Trump's call for a unified Nazi Reich was no mistake. Trump has repeatedly mimicked Nazi language and ideas in his campaign rallies. He called his opponents “vermin,” condemned immigrants for “poisoning the blood” of our nation (which is a nation of immigrants), and threatened to round up and deport “10 to 15 million” immigrants using the US military.
President Biden and Vice President Harris issued a statement in response to Trump's call for a unified Reich if he is re-elected. The President and VP wrote,
“Donald Trump thinks Adolf Hitler did ‘some good things,’ that neo-Nazis who chant ‘Jews will not replace us’ are ‘very fine people,’ and now dreams of a ‘unified Reich’ if he wins.
“He has called the heroes who died in the war against tyranny ‘suckers’ and ‘losers,’ he echoes the words of fascists, and promises a ‘bloodbath’ and possible violence when he loses in November.
“Donald Trump posting a ‘unified Reich’ video is part of a pattern of his praise for dictators and echoing antisemitic tropes. He’s a threat to our democracy and Americans must reject him and stand up for our democracy this November.”
As noted by commentator Lindy Li on Twitter, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman has written 265 stories about “Hillary’s emails” and 141 articles about Joe Biden’s age. Certainly, Trump's Nazi leanings deserve as least as much coverage as the non-story about Hillary’s emails. To date, the Times has published one story on Trump's use of Hitler’s language. See NYTimes, Trump Posts, Then Takes Down, Video Online With Headlines About a ‘Unified Reich’.
In the above article, the Times goes to great lengths to explain that the Nazi language was part of a “template” that is not controlled by the person who created the post. Apparently, the Times believes using a template with a Nazi motif excuses Trump posting Nazi language on his vanity social media platform. To date, the Editorial Board of the Times has failed to rouse itself to condemn Trump's Nazi language. We will wait with bated breath.
We cannot be distracted by Trump's excuses and deflection. We must take Trump at his word. And so should every self-respecting media outlet in the US. Imagine if Joe Biden had issued an ad quoting or alluding to Hitler in an admiring way. Would any media outlet accept his claim that it was a “mistake”? Would they write of anything else until they hounded Biden out of office? Why, then, are they so accepting of Trump's Nazi allusions?
The same is true of Justice Alito’s display of the insurrectionist flag. His silly excuse provided to the Times blaming his wife does not deserve a moment of consideration. Alito is responsible for complying with the Supreme Court Code of Ethics—which extends to the display of political symbols at his home. But it was not just any political symbol; it was a symbol of insurrection that called for the overthrow of the Constitution that he had sworn to protect and defend.
Alito does not belong on the Court. Sadly, Congress seems unmoved by the spectacle of a sitting Supreme Court justice calling for insurrection. See Talking Points Memo, The Alitos Let Their Freak Flag Fly And No One’s Gonna Do A Thing About It and Low Energy.
Congress may not be concerned about Justice Alito, but we should be. Alito was a corrupt and compromised justice before the Stop the Steal flag incident. See Ian Millhiser in Vox, Justice Samuel Alito: The Republican Party's man inside the Supreme Court.
Per Millhiser,
But this flag is hardly an isolated incident. On the bench, Alito is the Supreme Court’s most unrelenting Republican partisan — a reliable vote for whatever outcome is preferred by the GOP’s right wing, regardless of whether there is any legal support for that position. Alito isn’t simply a bad judge; he is the negation of law, frequently embracing claims that even intellectual leaders within the conservative movement find risible.
Millhiser reviews Alito’s record (and hypocrisy) at length. If anyone is interested in how Alito has done violence to the Constitution, judicial norms, and the legitimacy of the Court, read the entirety of Millhiser’s article. But Millhiser’s closing paragraphs are particularly powerful and damning:
Samuel Alito is one of the worst judges of his generation. He rejects the very basic idea that courts must decide cases based on the law, and not based on their partisan views. He routinely embarrasses himself in oral arguments, and in his published opinions, with legal reasoning that no sensible lawyer can take seriously. And he even tries to distort public debate and silence critics.
But most of all, Alito is one of the most uninteresting thinkers in the country. Here he is, in one of the most powerful and intellectually rigorous jobs on the planet — a philosopher king, presiding over the mightiest nation that has ever existed — and his only big idea is “Republicans should win.”
Trump and Alito have told us who they are. We should believe them. And so should major media outlets in the US. If “Hillary’s emails” warranted 265 articles from Maggie Haberman, surely Trump's Nazi sympathies and Alito’s support for insurrection deserves constant vigilance from the media. Indeed, unless I am missing something, none of the major media outlets have called for an investigation, recusal, or resignation from Alito. The silence is stunning.
Trump indicates that Republicans are considering banning contraception
Republicans are coming for contraception next. Trump said so. Believe him. Don’t believe his subsequent denial following a public backlash.
During an interview this week, an interviewer asked Trump “if he supports any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception.” Trump replied
We’re looking at that and I'm going to have a policy on that very shortly and I think it’s something you’ll find interesting. I think it’s a smart decision. We’ll be releasing it very soon.
The interviewer pressed Trump, asking if he would support restrictions on contraception. Trump replied,
You know also, things really do have a lot to do with the states and some states are going to have different policy than others.
See NBC News, Trump says he is 'looking at' policies that would restrict birth control access.
Several hours later, Trump claimed the whole thing was a misunderstanding and that he opposed restrictions on contraception—in contradiction to his statement that “some states are going to have different policies.” See Talking Points Memo, Really Dumb Even For Trump.
As with Trump's Nazi sympathies, we have no reason to believe Trump's transparent attempt to walk back his statements on restricting contraception. Project 2025 has an explicit restriction on contraception. See Reproductive health under a second Trump term | On Point (wbur.org)
It is beyond comprehension that Republicans intend to restrict access to contraception if Trump wins in 2025. And they will attempt to do so at the state level when Trump loses. All Americans should be outraged, alarmed, and energized in their resistance to Trump.
And if I hear one more male political consultant explain that Americans don’t really care about reproductive liberty, I am going to lose my mind. They have apparently not spoken to the women in their lives. If they did, they would have a dramatically different view of Democratic prospects in November.
Defense rests in Trump trial for election interference
The defense rested in Trump's trial in Manhattan for election interference. The final morning of testimony was spent on devastating cross-examination of defense witness Robert Costello by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger. Using Costello’s own emails, Hoffinger demonstrated that Costello was secretly working for Trump to control Michael Cohen—even as Costello professed to be Cohen’s attorney.
Costello was a spectacular failure as Trump's only defense witness. He offended the judge and jury. He presented as a Mafia-like figure whose job was to protect the elusive mob-boss in the background, Donald Trump. Costello served to validate Michael Cohen’s version of events. See MSNBC, How Robert Costello’s testimony could hurt Trump’s case in hush money trial.
Founding Member meeting schedule change
Due to a scheduling conflict, I need to move our monthly Founding Members’ Zoom to Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 5:00 pm Pacific / 8:00 pm Eastern. I sent an email to Founding Members earlier today with the Zoom link. Thanks for your understanding!
Opportunities for Reader Engagement
Join me at Walk the Walk on Wednesday
Please join Walk the Walk USA at its next zoom with grassroots partner: Make the Road NY, Wednesday May 22 at 5:30 pm PT and 8:30 pm EST. I will make introductory remarks at this meeting.
Make the Road NY builds power within immigrant and working-class communities to get out the vote (GOTV). The three (3) competitive House seats in their region could determine which party wins a majority in the House this November. We will hear directly from organizers Perla Silva and Daniel Coates about their on-the-ground relational strategies.
Join Force Multiplier on Wednesday
Our friends at Force Multiplier (http://www.forcemultiplierus.org) are honored to be hosting Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Zoom, Wednesday, May 22, at 8 pm ET, with an introduction by Democratic Whip Katherine Clark. This event is in support of Force Multiplier's slate of 19 House candidates -- a mix of incumbents and challengers, all of whom are in competitive races. Register and donate Here.
Concluding Thoughts
Defendant Donald Trump declined to testify in his own defense. For good reason. He is a liar. He is incapable of telling the truth. He is a coward who feared subjecting himself to cross-examination by a skilled prosecutor. He fears the firm but fair hand of Judge Merchan. But most of all, he fears the judgment of the jurors—ordinary citizens who responded to a mailed notice commanding them to appear for jury duty.
A former president whose exalted station is leveled in the eyes of law. Not brought low. Leveled. When he stands to hear the jury’s verdict, he will be no greater and no lesser than any other American citizen. In that moment, the rule of law will prevail, whatever the outcome. All Americans should take pride and confidence in that fact.
Talk to you tomorrow!
Some things never change:
“At the outbreak of the Second World War, The New York Times bureau chief in Berlin, Guido Enderis, was known to sit in the bar of the city’s famous Adlon Hotel spouting “a loudmouthed defense of Nazism,” eventually provoking another reporter to complain to the Times’ publisher: “Isn’t it about time that The New York Times did something about its Nazi correspondent?”
But the Times had no intention of doing anything about Enderis. In fact, it valued his close connections to the Nazi government, as it had throughout the 1930s. All American newspapers found reporting in Nazi Germany difficult. The government tightly controlled information and harangued and threatened reporters who managed to publish what it didn’t like. The Nazi regime also didn’t hesitate to use its strongest weapons—banning a newspaper from distribution in Germany, kicking a reporter out of the country, or denying a reporter’s reentry. As a putatively “Jewish-owned” newspaper, The New York Times considered itself a special target. Bureau chief Enderis’ job therefore was “administering reasonably soothing syrup” to Nazi officials, as another Times reporter put it.
Yet, Enderis’ actions weren’t purely strategic and their consequences were grave. Throughout the 1930s, Enderis helped steer Times coverage to play down Jewish persecution and play up Germany’s peaceful intentions. He kowtowed to Nazi officials, wrote stories presenting solely the Nazi point of view, and reined in Times reporters whose criticism he thought went too far, shaping the news in favor of a genocidal regime bent on establishing a “Thousand Year Reich.”
Time to quit The New York Times - actually, past time!
Excellent exposé on the issues staring staring democracy in the face. I am shocked at Maggie Habberman and the whole of the New York Times. They are seriously in the pocket of the GOP or they are seriously ignorant and guilty of malpractice. Pick one or all!
Thanks Robert