WAS IT A COVER-UP IF EVERYONE KNEW WHAT WAS ALLEGEDLY CONCEALED?

Here's an excerpt from a post I found at Reddit, in the Bulwark subreddit:

Like many of you, I’m starting to get sick of Jack Tapper’s “Biden cover-up” book tour. Here’s a newsflash, Jake: There was no “cover-up,” you just don’t know how to do journalism.

It was obvious to anyone with two eyes, two ears, and three brain cells that Joe Biden was physically and cognitively impaired and shouldn’t seek a second term. Many of us, myself included, expressed our feelings on this board and others in 2022/2023....

None of us were geniuses or had any inside information, we just saw what we saw. Biden barely did public appearances, which is always a bad sign. When he did, he was stuttering and hesitant. He trailed off, both verbally and physically. He shuffled about. He looked terrible: The hair loss, the squinting to the point where you couldn’t see the whites of his eyes, the age spots. He looked like the Crypt Keeper from Tales Of The Crypt. And that’s just in comparison to the Biden of 2020!

This poster, who goes by the name of PorcelainDalmatian, points out that some people resisted this assessment:

We were told we weren’t “team players” and “you can’t ask a President not to run for a second term.” If I had a nickel for every snarky “I didn’t know you were his doctor!” comment on my posts, I’d be richer than Elon Musk.

This poster is describing an America in which millions of voters, possibly a majority, thought Biden was obviously, self-evidently impaired, while his defenders insisted that he remained capable of doing the job, and would certainly do it better than Donald Trump.

And that's exactly what the polls said. Here's an ABC News/FiveThirtyEight story that was published just after Biden's awful debate with Trump:

... the debate didn't suddenly thrust Biden's age into the spotlight for most Americans the way it seemingly did for Democratic Party elites.... [A]nswers to specific questions about Biden's age haven't changed much ... because most Americans already thought Biden was too old....

Here are some numbers:

When asked last September [2023] how much of an effect they thought Biden's health and age would have on his ability to fulfill his duties as president if reelected, 57 percent of Americans said his age would "severely limit" his ability. Right after the debate, that number was 61 percent. A significant share of Democrats, too, have long held concerns about the president's age and his ability to do the job. In September, 25 percent of Democrats said Biden's age would severely limit his abilities in his second term, while 30 percent said so immediately after the debate (and 27 percent in a more recent poll).

In a poll fielded between June 28 and July 1 [2024] (the weekend following the debate), 56 percent of Americans and 28 percent of Democrats said Biden's age was a big problem. But that's not so far off from a November [2023] poll in which 25 percent of Democrats and an identical 56 percent of overall respondents said the president's age was a big problem.

So if there was a cover-up prior to the debate, it wasn't working. Non-Democratic voters already thought Biden was too old to be effective, and it's quite possible that Democrats thought he was still capable but impaired. The FiveThirtyEight story adds:

... 69 percent of registered voters said they somewhat or strongly agreed that Biden was "too old to be an effective president" in a New York Times/Siena College poll after the debate, including 55 percent of those who chose Biden in a head-to-head with Trump. But when asked to expand, 40 percent of voters who chose Biden and said he was too old said that his age "makes him ineffective, but he is still able to handle the job of president well enough," compared to 14 percent who said his age was "such a problem that he is not capable of handling the job of president."

Even before the debate, it's quite likely that many Democrats would have said that Biden's age "makes him ineffective, but he is still able to handle the job of president well enough." (I would said it made him less effective but still able to handle the job well enough -- and certainly better than Trump. I still believe that.)

The fact that the media can't seem to move past this, and that a subset of Democrats can't get enough of this discourse, is a byproduct of the Republican Party's highly successful Stockholmization of both the mainstream press and the Democratic Party over the past few decades. Tapper and others seem to take great pride in saying, Wow, we really suck don't we? We did this horrible thing on behalf of the Democratic Party! We really deserve to be flagellated for that! Democratic insiders seem to take pride in saying the same thing, which complements the "I'm not awful like those woke Democrats" message so many of them are leaning on now. Both groups are wallowing in mea culpas because the GOP has brainwashed them into believing that if they beat themselves up while confessing anti-Republican bias, they'll win the favor of the Republican captors with whom they've fallen in love. (They won't.)

The public knew the pros and cons of voting for Biden in 2024. The media and Democratic insiders are telling us otherwise because they want to be chastised by the GOP.

ONE MORE TRUMP VICTORY IN THE BATTLE TO MAKE OFFENDING REPUBLICANS ILLEGAL

I know this looks like one of those Trumpian "distractions" that establishment Democrats believe they should ignore, but the regime and its allies are hitting this one hard, and they've already successfully bullied an ex-FBI director into submission, with no pushback from Democrats:

U.S. law enforcement officials said on May 15 that they were looking into a social media post by former FBI Director James Comey depicting an image of "8647," which some Trump supporters interpreted as a threat against President Donald Trump.

Comey, who was fired by Trump in 2017, later took down the post, according to Reuters, saying he was unaware the apparent political message could have been associated with violence....

A federal law enforcement official told USA TODAY that the Secret Service was sending agents to question Comey about his post....

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose agency oversees the Secret Service, said on X that DHS and the Secret Service were "investigating this threat and will respond appropriately."

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard went further, saying she believes Comey should be put behind bars for the post. Asked by Fox News anchor Jesse Watters if she believed the former FBI director "should be in jail," Gabbard said, "I do.” ...

Current FBI Director Kash Patel said on X that his agency was in communication with the Secret Service about the post and "will provide all necessary support."

Others were more explicit in assigning a malign meaning to Comey's post, with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino saying it was a call to assassinate Trump.

More:

“This is deeply concerning to all of us and is being taken seriously,” Taylor Budowich, White House deputy chief of staff, said in a post on X.

“American leadership has been restored and peace is on the horizon,” Budowich added in another post. “This has left the Deep State desperate and dangerous—Comey is only the latest and most disturbing example of them lashing out through threats of violence.”

That's a lot of firepower directed at an innocent social media post.

This is now the lead story on the USA Today site. It was the lead story at 9:00 A.M. on Fox. And now a Fox interviewer in Abu Dhabi has asked the president about this.

Trump says, "A child knows what that meant" -- yes, because if there's one thing the average child knows well, it's twentieth-century restaurant slang.

That's what "86" is. Merriam-Webster tells us:

Eighty-six is slang meaning "to throw out," "to get rid of," or "to refuse service to." It comes from 1930s soda-counter slang meaning that an item was sold out. There is varying anecdotal evidence about why the term eighty-six was used, but the most common theory is that it is rhyming slang for nix.

Merriam-Webster offers many examples of these two meanings:

When a soda popper says the tuna fish salad is eighty-six, he means there isn’t any more.
— Will Cuppy, The New York Herald Tribune, 21 Dec. 1941...

I have all I can handle eighty-sixing the drunks.
— Independent (Long Beach, CA), 12 Sept 1960

There's one quote from a soldier using "eighty-sixed" to mean "killed in action," but that's not the common understanding of the term.

The only pushback I see is from anti-Trumpers on social media, who point out that there's a great deal of "86 46" merchandise on sale, even with President Biden out of office:

How about all the people who bought and sold 8646 merch? They should all be in prison, right? pic.twitter.com/1aQNZhtSzA

— Jeff Ralston 🥧🥧🍻💉 (@JeffR914) May 16, 2025

A Google Shopping page is here. No one ever threatened these T-shirt and decal sellers with potential prosecution because no one ever saw them as death threats.

And, of course, a prominent Trump supporter who's denounced Comey posted "86 46" a couple of years ago:

Oops….MAGAs will say that when they went around posting "8646" and wearing the shirts that it was completely different from what Comey posted pic.twitter.com/Gg4EtmxLl7

— Wu Tang is for the Children (@WUTangKids) May 16, 2025

This isn't just a shiny object. It's serious for a lot of reasons.

I've seen "86 47" signs at a number of anti-Trump rallies. If the notion that this is a death threat becomes credible, maybe the administration won't dare to indict Comey, but it might indict ordinary protesters. Or Republican law enforcement personnel at the state and local level might decide the signs are a crime. And once that's a crime, what's next? I see many posts on social media with messages like this:

If "86 47" can be redefined as a threat, is some variation on I can't wait for Trump to die also a threat? Is there a limit?

All this comes at a time when the weaponization of the law by the Trump administration and the Republican Party might just be getting into gear. Punchbowl reports:

House conservatives are urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to be more aggressive against President Donald Trump’s political enemies.

These Republicans want Dr. Anthony Fauci and New York Attorney General Letitia James arrested for what they view as politically targeted efforts to go after Trump.

They also want federal criminal charges filed against Democratic mayors who offered sanctuary to undocumented immigrants.

Another target — Biden administration bureaucrats that Republicans argue wasted federal taxpayer money by pushing DEI, climate change and other progressive goals. It’s unclear what laws were allegedly broken here, or if any were.

Pursuing diversity, equity, and inclusion in ways that were not only lawfully but encouraged by the previous administration might be a crime now? That's chilling.

And this is happening when rignht-wingers are urging President Trump to pardon George Floyd's murderer, Derek Chauvin, and one right-wing troll, Jack Cashill -- yes, the guy who thinks Bill Ayers ghostwrote Barack Obama's first book -- is urging Tim Walz to pardon Chauvin on state charges.

They're trying to build an America in which anything a Fox viewer would like is legal and anything a Fox viewer would find distasteful is against the law. At the very least, they're trying to build an America in which anything that offends the famous Fox viewer in The White House is illegal. If we don't call them on this now, they'll keep trying to remake the country in this way. And they might get us at least partway there.

IS THE SUPREME COURT GUNNING FOR BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP? NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS? DUE PROCESS? ALL THREE?

I said back in January that I believe the Supreme Court will throw out birthright citizenship. The Supremes might not rule that way in the case of births to green card holders or other non-citizens who are here legally, but I strongly suspect that they'll say the U.S.-born children of immigrants who are here without legal certification aren't citizens. I don't think it matters that the arguments against birthright citizenship used to be seen as part of the right-wing fringe, as The New York Times noted yesterday -- the desire to restrict citizenship is utterly mainstream among the Republican rank-and-file, and it's not an important issue to swing voters, so I think the Court will, as usual, choose ideology over the Constitution.

But we don't know whether the birthright citizenship case currently before the Court will lead to a ruling on birthright citizenship itself. Politico reports:

It’s perhaps the most high-profile case of the year, but it’s not clear what exactly the court will be deciding.

Will the justices wade into the constitutionality of Trump’s effort to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. whose parents are undocumented immigrants or here on temporary visas? Or will the justices sidestep that legal lightning rod for now and focus solely on a more procedural, yet still momentous, issue: whether lower-court judges will retain the authority to block federal policies nationwide.

“It’s the question that’s on everyone’s minds,” said Columbia Law professor Elora Mukherjee, an expert on immigration law. “I anticipate we’ll see some discussion of the underlying merits, but I am not clear on how much.”

... the administration, notably, is not asking the court at this stage to overturn the district judges’ legal reasoning and declare Trump’s policy constitutional. Rather, the administration says the judges simply lacked the power to issue any nationwide injunctions in the first place.

... If the justices invalidate the injunctions, Trump may be able to enact his citizenship policy in vast areas of the country — even though every court to squarely weigh the policy’s legality has ruled against it.

So for now we might just get a ruling on whether district judges can issue nationwide injunctions. If so, I assume that the Court will hand even more power to Trump by saying that nationwide injunctions are bad -- or are bad only in certain policy areas. The ruling will be crafted so it hands power to Trump while leaving open the possibility that executive power can be taken away if there's ever a Democratic president again.

In the current case, we may be left with a situation in which the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants are citizens in some parts of America and not citizens in other parts. That seems like a recipe for chaos -- are these kids still citizens if their parents take them from a pro-citizenship federal district to an anti-citizenship federal district? -- but it could be sort of an out-of-town tryout for the idea of overturning birthright citizenship altogether: the country will live with a two-tiered system for a while, and get used to that, which sets the table for a full abandonment of the principle that no longer seems radical to most Americans.

And I think it's possible that the Supremes will rule on birthright citizenship itself, in a way that has an impact far beyond what happens to immigrants' babies.

The argument in favor of universal birthright citizenship is that the Fourteenth Amendment is unambiguous:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that U.S. law applies to them (as it doesn't fully apply to, say, foreign diplomats who live here).

If, as I suspect, the Supreme Court says (now or in the future) that undocumented immigrants' babies aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, that will not only mean that these babies aren't citizens, it will also mean that no one living here illegally is entitled to due process rights. The Fifth Amendment says, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" -- note that it's "No person" rather than "No citizen." I think the Supremes are likely to rule that the Fifth Amendment wasn't really intended to extend due process to people here unlawfully (or, in Trump's America, people who were here lawfully until the administration declared that they weren't), and that the Fourteenth Amendment didn't really mean that people here unlawfully are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

At that point, birthright citizenship will be a thing of the past and Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, and Tom Homan will have the unchallengeable right to do anything they please to anyone deemed "illegal" by the Executive Branch.

It's disturbing that the Supremes pushed this case to the front of the line. The New York Times reports that today's arguments in the case

will take place after the justices have heard all of their scheduled cases this term, and in the weeks before they begin issuing their most consequential decisions of the year — an unusual move that signals that the justices regard the dispute as significant enough to consider immediately.

They want to legislate from the bench right now. That tells me they want tro do something nasty and ideological right away.

WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER A BIDEN WITHDRAWAL WOULD HAVE SAVED THE DEMOCRATS IN 2024

Next Tuesday is the publication date for the new book by CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios's Alex Thompson. The book tells us that the Democratic loss in 2024 was all President Biden's fault.

Joe Biden “totally fucked us” by leaving it too late to drop out of the 2024 US presidential election, a former top campaign aide to Kamala Harris has told the authors of a new book.

David Plouffe, who was manager of Barack Obama’s winning 2008 campaign and a senior adviser in his White House, was drafted in to help Harris’s bid for president after the declining Biden withdrew from the race last summer.

Harris’s 107-day sprint against Donald Trump was “a fucking nightmare”, Plouffe is quoted as saying by authors Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson in Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. A copy was obtained by the Guardian.

“And it’s all Biden,” Plouffe adds, reflecting on the former US president’s decisions to run for re-election and then to cling on for more than three weeks after a catastrophic debate performance against Trump raised questions about his mental acuity and age. “He totally fucked us.”

... In the wake of Harris’s loss [Plouffe] posted a message on X – formerly known as Twitter – that the Harris campaign had begun in a “deep hole”.

Plouffe's argument is that the lateness of Biden's departure from the race left him and other campaign professionals with inadequate time to work their magic. But the substitution of Kamala Harris for Biden in July 2024 led to a surge in the polls for the Democratic ticket and a massive wave of donations. Although the wave of enthusiasm was widely dismissed as a "sugar high," Harris seemed to have a decent chance of winning before the consultant bros came on board. Maybe they were the problem.

In an excerpt from the book published in The New Yorker, Tapper and Thompson quote George Clooney:

Democrats deceived the country about Biden’s abilities and, Clooney said, “that’s how Trump won.”

But was the country really deceived? Clips of Biden "senior moments," both real and manufactured, were all over the internet throughout Biden's term. This wasn't like the cover-up of Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's in his second term. Voters knew that Biden was past his prime.

Would an earlier Biden withdrawal have saved America from a second Trump term? We have no way of knowing. I'll remind you that every contested Democratic primary since 2004 has been a battle between the Establishment and insurgents that left a significant number of voters bitter. In 2008, everything worked out, despite the lingering anger of Hillary Clinton supporters; in 2020, when Establishment candidates banded together to prevent a Bernie Sanders nomination, everything worked out again, but barely. (Biden received a record number of votes and won the popular vote decisively, but the swing states were extremely close.) On the other hand, in 2004, the Howard Dean insurgency was seen as a problem to be solved, and the Establishment's consensus candidate -- an uncharismatic John Kerry -- couldn't bring home a win. And in 2016, many voters were furious when Clinton beat Bernie Sanders, and some of those voters have continued to blow off the Democratic Party.

When Tapper and Thompson tell us that “The original sin of Election 2024 was Biden’s decision to run for re-election — followed by aggressive efforts to hide his cognitive diminishment,” and when the subtitle of their book calls Biden's decision to run in 2024 "disastrous," what they're saying is that an earlier withdrawal would have guaranteed a Democratic victory. I'm not sure what else they could be saying, because the actual election couldn't have been much closer without tipping to Harris: Trump won the three states that gave him a victory, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, by less than 1.75% each. Tapper and Thompson don't challenge this anonymous quote that appears in the New Yorker excerpt:

“It was an abomination,” one prominent Democratic strategist—who publicly defended Biden—told us. “He stole an election from the Democratic Party. He stole it from the American people.”

But we don't know that.

If there's an "original sin" here, it's not Biden's choices with regard to the 2024 election and it's not the way Biden's team managed his diminished state, which wasn't a particularly effective cover-up. The "original sin" is how Biden managed his presidency. He did many good things, but he was a godawful public communicator, and he didn't delegate public communication to Harris or any other subordinates. He wasn't able to offer his side of the story every day in an effective way, which meant that the Republican smear machine operated without genuine opposition for four years.

In addition, I think age left Biden -- as it's left other old people I've known -- wanting to focus on what he wanted to focus on, which meant he was less capable of pivoting to other subjects. He wanted to manage the global coalition against Russia, and he did that effectively. He took pride in the Inflation Reduction Act, which included many provisions that would have improved Americans' lives and would have helped the planet deal with climate change. But he wasn't nimble enough to pivot to inflation, which damaged a lot of voters and continued to have a significant impact even after it cooled, probably because of record-high interest rates on credit cards. He also never found an effective strategy or message as Trump and the rest of the GOP noise machine ginned up a panic about immigration.

Excepts and reviews of the Tapper/Thompson book have persuaded me that Biden at his worst was somewhat more impaired than I realized. The New Yorker excerpt focuses on a fund-raiser at which -- after a grueling amount of travel -- Biden doesn't recognize George Clooney, and other observers see Biden struggling.

Clooney was certainly not the only one concerned. Other high-dollar attendees who posed for photographs with [Barack] Obama and Biden described Biden as slow and almost catatonic. Though they saw pockets of clarity while watching him on television, and onstage later that night, there were obvious brain freezes and clear signs of a mental slide. It was, to some of them, terrifying.

Obama didn’t know what to make of how his former running mate was acting. At one point, in a small group of a few dozen top donors, Biden began speaking—barely audibly—and trailed off incoherently. Obama had to jump in and preside. At other moments, during photos, Obama would hop in and finish sentences for him.

It's obviously a problem that, as the New York Times review notes, Biden staffers had to develop a habit of "restricting urgent business to the hours between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m." The Times review tells us that "By late 2023, [Biden's] staff was pushing as much of his schedule as they could to midday."

But midday Biden appears to have been a knowledgeable, thoughtful president with good judgment -- and his replacement is none of these things at any hour of the day. Biden and his smart, capable, decent aides ran the country better -- and, I believe, would have continued to run the country better -- than the current motley crew of know-nothings, flatterers, bigots, scoundrels, and psychopaths.

For the good of the country, we deserved to have a third option. Eventually we got one, and it's probably the one we would have had if there'd been a full slate of contested primaries. (The source material is gone, but in 2023 and the first half of 2024, as I noted last summer, Kamala Harris won every national Democratic primary poll listed at FiveThirtyEight that didn't include Biden.) Regrettably, America rejected the capable alternative the Democrats offered -- and that might very well have happened even if Biden had announced he wasn't running a couple of years earlier.

DONALD TRUMP, AN ELITIST TAKING HANDOUTS

Most of the time, Donald Trump seems good at messaging, and at creating bamboozlements that distract us from news stories that are bad for him. I generally resist the argument that he's doing X specifically to distract us from Y -- I think his strategy is to throw everything at the wall all the time, on the assumption that whatever lands poorly for him will be forgotten as soon as he generates the next cycle of people-pleasing (or at least base-pleasing) headlines.

But the plane from Qatar seems to be a messaging disaster for him. He can't seem to drive it from the headlines, and it buried the story of his China tariff deal, which wasn't much of a win but could have been spun as one. Stock markets rallied yesterday, today he has a decent inflation number -- yet he still can't get past the damn plane story.

I think Trump misread the way poor and middle-class voters respond to his wealth. Many Americans enjoy rich people's wealth vicariously. Many actually believe they'll get wealthy themselves someday. Trump has successfully sold millions of Americans on an idea connected to this: I'm rich because I'm a business genius. Now I'm applying my business genius on your behalf.

That's more or less the message he tried to convey on Truth Social when the first reports appeared:

But the Trump of his voters' fantasies shouldn't need a gift from the Middle East. Trump's voters think he's so brilliant that he should be able to get a new Air Force One built ahead of schedule and under budget. Why get one from foreigners? Why should America -- Trump's America! -- need a handout like this from overseas?

And the foreigners who gave us this handout are Muslims who don't wear Western clothes! Islamophobia isn't as visible in America as it was two decades ago -- we've swept the unpopular Iraq and Afghanistan wars under the rug (Trump has helped make them almost as unpopular among Republicans as they've been among Democrats), and we don't talk about the "war on terror" very much anymore -- but people on the right still regard Muslims with deep hostility, and everyone thinks the Middle East's petro-states are sleazy and suspect.

Much of Trump's corruption -- the crypto cash grab, for instance -- seems too complicated for most Americans to follow. But the plane is different. It's a big, expensive gift. Why would these rich Muslims in funny clothes give Trump something for nothing? They must be expecting something in return.

Trump misread this because he now thinks the entire country is on board with everything about his presidency, including the corruption. This is Trump as an out-of-touch elitist -- which is ironic, because our entire political culture believes that Democrats are the out-of-touch elitists and Trump is a true Man of the People leading a party rooted in common American soil. At the same time, he also looks as if he's accepting charity in our name -- which is in character for Trump, who's spent much of his life scrounging for financing. All in all, it's a bad look. I hope the story stays in the news for weeks.

THE PRESS NEEDS TO ACKNOWLEDGE SECOND-TERM TRUMP'S CORRUPTION THE WAY IT (MORE OR LESS) LEARNED TO ACKNOWLEDGE FIRST-TERM TRUMP'S DISHONESTY (updated)

In Donald Trump's first campaign and first term, the mainstream media resisted describing his falsehoods as lies. The press did point out dishonest statements -- The Washington Post, for instance, began tracking Trump's "false and misleading claims" at the beginning of his term and then catalogued 30,573 such claims by January 2021. But the Post didn't use the word lie in reference to a Trump assertion until the summer of 2018, when he'd been in office for a year and a half.

Nevertheless, the press got somewhat better at categorizing Trump's claims, and doing so in the opening paragraphs of stories. After he began insisting that he won the 2020 election, it became common for the press to describe this as a "false" claim. And the press also used forms of the word lie: Here's a campaign fact-check from CNN's Daniel Dale in October 2024 that appeared under the headline "Trump, on a Lying Spree, Made at Least 40 Separate False Claims in Two Pennsylvania Speeches."

In Trump's second term, the press needs to improve its coverage of Trump's corruption the way some news outlets improved their coverage of his honesty. The corruption needs to be made clear in headlines and in the opening paragraphs of stories.

Here's the headline of a New York Times story datelined today:

Trump Heads to the Middle East With a Single Goal: Deals, Deals, Deals

President Trump has always viewed the presidency as a worldwide hunt for deals. And there is no better place for that than the Gulf, where a few men wield absolute authority over vast wealth.

Apart from the fact that any use of the word "deal" in a headline about Trump is using his own branding, this tells us nothing about how shady Trump's plans are. Nor does the lede:

When American presidents visit the Middle East, they usually arrive with a strategic vision for the region, even if it seems a far reach.

Jimmy Carter pushed Egypt and Israel to a historic peace accord. Bill Clinton tried and failed with Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader. George W. Bush imagined his war on terrorism would ultimately lead to democratization in the region. Barack Obama went to Cairo “to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world.”

President Trump will tour the Gulf this week in search of one thing above all else: business deals. Planes. Nuclear power. Artificial intelligence investments. Arms. Anything that puts a signature on the bottom of a page.

The point of the story is that this trip is oddly disengaged from American foreign policy. And sure, that's worth noting.

... as a strategic exercise, the trip’s purpose remains foggy. During his 2017 journey to the region, Mr. Trump made waves by rallying dozens of leaders from majority-Muslim countries to confront and denounce extremism. It is unclear what foreign policy goals, if any, will be advanced on this visit.

It's only in paragraph 12 that readers begin to get a glimmer of how corrupt this all is:

In place of grand strategy will be a series of financial transactions that Mr. Trump will promote as producing jobs for American workers.

The agenda conveniently aligns with Mr. Trump’s expanding business plans. His family has six pending deals with a majority Saudi-owned real estate firm, a cryptocurrency deal with an affiliate of the government of the United Arab Emirates and a new golf and luxury villa project backed by the government of Qatar.

The Qataris are going to great lengths to court Mr. Trump. The Trump administration is poised to accept a luxury Boeing 747-8 plane as a donation from the Qatari royal family that will be upgraded to serve as Air Force One, in possibly the biggest foreign gift ever received by the U.S. government, several American officials with knowledge of the matter said.

The plan under discussion raises substantial ethical issues....

So "ethical issues" get mentioned, but only in paragraph 15. It's only in paragraph 26 that we're told, "No part of the world has been more important to the rising financial well-being of the Trump family than the Middle East." Jared Kushner's ties to the Saudis are mentioned in paragraph 27. Some of Trump's business dealings are cited in subsequent paragraphs. So if you read this all the way to the end, you understand that Trump is using the office of the president for self-dealing, and that this isn't normal. But it's all reported subtly. This needs to be stated much more overtly.

There's a similar problem with the headline of a Times story about Trump's memecoin:

Auction to Dine With Trump Creates Foreign Influence Opportunity

(Imagine a similar headline: "Piles of White Powder and Rolled Hundred-Dollar Bills Create Drug Abuse Opportunity.")

The subhead is similarly bland:

When the bidding stops Monday, the top buyers of a Trump family crypto coin will win a tour of the White House.

But the lede at least conveys some sense of Trump's ethical bankruptcy, although it absurdly implies that the corruption might just happen:

The sale of face-to-face access to President Trump using the Trump family’s own cryptocurrency has done more than benefit him financially, though it has certainly done that.

Mr. Trump announced last month that leading buyers of a digital coin his family is marketing would be rewarded with a private dinner with him at one of his golf courses and that the very top bidders would win a tour of the White House.

The auction, which ends Monday, has set off a spectacle that has drawn bipartisan criticism, triggered a suspicious trading pattern, and left a sitting United States president wide open to attempts to corruptly influence him.

Trump isn't "wide open to attempts to corruptly influence him." He's actively encouraging coin buyers to corruptly influence him.

The Times story about the Qatari plane is better:

Trump Is Poised to Accept a Luxury 747 From Qatar for Use as Air Force One

The plan raises substantial ethical issues, given the immense value of the lavishly appointed plane and that Mr. Trump intends to take ownership of it after he leaves office.

All of these stories describe presidential acts that raise "substantial ethical issues," but at least we're told that right away in this story.

The third paragraph of the story refers to "a day of controversy in which even some Republicans privately questioned the wisdom of the plan." Then we get this in paragraphs 5 and 6:

While a Qatari official described the proposal as still under discussion and the White House said that gifts it accepted would be done in full compliance with the law, Democratic lawmakers and good government groups expressed outrage over the substantial ethical issues the plan presented. They cited the intersection of Mr. Trump’s official duties with his business interests in the Middle East, the immense value of the lavishly appointed plane and the assumption that Mr. Trump would have use of it after leaving office. Sold new, a commercial Boeing 747-8 costs in the range of $400 million.

“Even in a presidency defined by grift, this move is shocking,” said Robert Weissman, a co-president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization. “It makes clear that U.S. foreign policy under Donald Trump is up for sale.”

That's much better. Trump is off-the-charts corrupt, and every story about his self-dealing should make that clear.

It's part of a larger media failing in Trump's second term: although nearly everything he's doing is in violation of the law, much of it is not described as illegal and potentially impeachable -- he's just doing stuff this way, and the law says it's supposed to be done that way, and the conclusion is often left unstated: What he's doing is illegal. But I don't expect the press to change.

*****

UPDATE: OMG.

Lipton is the lead author of the crypto story cited above. If this view of corruption is common among our elite journalists, no wonder Trump thinks he can get away with pretty much anything he wants to do.

TRUMPWORLD AUGMENTS REAL FASCISM WITH FAKE FASCISM

You might be aware of this story:

President Donald Trump's acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia was spat on by an irate woman while on air giving an interview to Newsmax....

In the altercation, the woman, walking a small dog, can be seen coming up to him, proclaiming, "You are Ed Martin!" She then spat on him and strode away, gesturing furiously back at him.

Right-wingers are now reporting that the woman has been arrested -- or is there an arrest warrant out for her? Either way, she could face a massive fine and eight years in prison. Or is it twenty?

JUST IN: The Leftist who spit on Ed Martin during a interview has been ARRESTED!

U.S. Marshals, arrested and she will be charged under 18 U.S. Code § 111. She is facing 20 years in federal prison for knowingly assaulting a federal official and potentially millions in legal… pic.twitter.com/nRM7DdEcJy

— Steve Gruber (@stevegrubershow) May 9, 2025

WITH “Ai” INSTANTLY SEARCHING DATABASES OF PHOTOS ALREADY ON FILE…

IT’S SO MUCH EASIER TO CATCH CRIMINALS!

THINK BEFORE YOU SPIT! HA!

THE SCUM THAT SPIT ON ED MARTIN HAS BEEN CAUGHT & FACES 20 YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON & MILLIONS IN LEGAL FINES!

(see LINKS & COMMENTS below) https://t.co/PkQwTIaPys pic.twitter.com/15pqrJ9NIT

— Cordell Baker (@CordellBaker12) May 9, 2025

18 U.S. Code § 111 exists and does concern assaults on government workers. But I can't find an actual news story reporting the arrest of this woman, or even a story mentioning the arrest warrant. There's nothing in the mainstream press, and nothing at Newsmax (where you'd expect the story to appear), Breitbart, or any other right-wing site.

So was there an arrest? Or do the Trump administration and its allies merely want the base to believe that this woman has been hunted down (or is being hunted down) and will face a draconian sentence?

A bigger story right now is, of course, the arrest of Newark mayor Ras Baraka at a Homeland Security detention facility in his city. (Baraka has since been released.)

Three members of Congress were also at the facility. They weren't arrested, and the reason they weren't seems clear. CNN reports:

Under the annual appropriations act, which allocates funds for federal agencies, lawmakers are permitted to enter “any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.”

The law is also clear that members of Congress are not required “to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility” in their oversight capacity....

Baraka, to whom the appropriations law doesn’t apply, was held for a few hours before being released.

The Trumpers are deeply authoritarian, but for some reason they're still observing some limits. They knew that it was unquestionably legal for these members of Congress to be at the facility, so the agents didn't arrest them.

But the Trumpers think that's a bad look. They appear weak. There's no worse sin in Trumpland than weakness.

So here's a Fox News headline:

DHS Says ‘Arrests Are Still on the Table’ After New Jersey House Dems Caught on Camera ‘Storming’ ICE Facility."

RedState:

Arrests Very Much 'On the Table' for Dems Who Stormed ICE Facility to Stump for Criminal Illegal Aliens

Gateway Pundit:

“Definitely on the Table” – DHS Spox Says Members of Congress May Soon Be Arrested For BODYSLAMMING Female ICE Agent

Here's the "bodyslam":

🚨WATCH: US Congresswoman, LaMonica McIver (wearing a red blazer), storms the gate of Delaney Hall Detention Center ASSAULTING an ICE agent. pic.twitter.com/4Q1deds1tl

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) May 10, 2025

It's obviously upsetting the Trumpers that no member of Congress was arrested at the scene, so they need to talk tough right now. I don't know if the regime will actually go through with the arrests -- my guess is no -- or will simply wait for this story to drop out of the news cycle. But right now it's clear that the Trumpers are worried that they dont appear authoritarian enough.