Trump is charismatic, autocratic, and an idiot. It is the last that may save America. Exhibit one: his malicious prosecution of James Comey. Had he just menaced the ex-FBI Director, the MAGAs would keep slavering. If he had continued making wild claims about Comey, the Democrats, Russiagate, 'Deep State' judicial overreach, et al, his tumescent base would be stroking themselves.
But in Trump, the feral overrules the effectual. His compulsion to avenge the pettiest of slights — real or imagined — has the power of an opiate over an addict.
On Sunday, the Washington Post's Editorial Board dissected Trump's folly. The title of the piece — "The Keystone Kops come for James Comey" — leaves no doubt about the Board's position. Just in case the reader didn't already get it, the subhead clarifies any doubt. "Trump's first revenge indictment is looking increasingly incompetent."
Score one for the WaPo's independence from its oligarch owner, Jeff Bezos. That WaPo is running this kind of editorial gives me hope that the plutocrats are not all enthusiastic about Trump's potential effect on their net wealth.
The editorial observes that there is both peril and folly in Trump's actions.
The indictment of former FBI director James B. Comey on orders from President Donald Trump is equal parts intimidating and laughable. It's intimidating because it sends the message that Trump can order his Justice Department to find a way to charge political enemies — and, as Trump says, Comey won't be the last.
But it also followed a Keystone Kops performance from Trump's inexperienced prosecutor, and the charges look even weaker than expected. We doubt Trump's critics will be particularly cowed by this performance. Nor should they be.
Trump's "inexperienced prosecutor" is Lindsey Halligan. She is an insurance lawyer unqualified for the job. Lindsey is only a US Attorney because she is a former beauty queen who wore a suit. She is another of Trump's hires who is trying to fake being smart. So far, she has had no more success than Alina Habba.
The orthographically challenged Lindsey Halligan
Trump had to scrape the barrel (again) because the previous US Attorney for Eastern Maryland, Erik S. Siebert, refused to indict Comey. He points out that there was no objective evidence that Comey had committed a crime.
Halligan wasted no time confirming she is not big-brained by flunking a spelling test. In a statement after Comey's indictment, she wrote, "The balance of power is a bedrock principal of our democracy." My spell check is upset I didn't spell it "principle," why wasn't hers? Or is she another MAGA who thinks they know better?
However, it wasn't spelling that confused US Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala. The Grand Jury had indicted Comey on two counts (by a bare majority) and rejected a third. Two versions of the indictment were published on the case docket: one with the dropped third count, and one without.
The court transcript documents a conversation about the discrepancy between a confused Vaala and a stumbling Halligan.
Judge Vaala: "So this has never happened before. I've been handed two documents that are in the Mr. Comey case that are inconsistent with one another. There seems to be a discrepancy. They're both signed by the (grand jury) foreperson."
Vaala: "The one that says it's a failure to concur in an indictment, it doesn't say with respect to one count. It looks like they failed to concur across all three counts, so I'm a little confused as to why I was handed two things with the same case number that are inconsistent."
US Attorney Halligan: "So I only reviewed the one with the two counts that our office redrafted when we found out about the two — two counts that were true billed, and I signed that one. I did not see the other one. I don't know where that came from."
Vaala: "You didn't see it?"
Halligan: "I did not see that one."
Vaala (surprised): "So your office didn't prepare the indictment that they —"
Halligan (confused): "No, no, no — I — no, I prepared three counts. I only signed the one — the two-count (indictment). I don't know which one with three counts you have in your hands."
Vaala: "Okay. It has your signature on it."
Halligan: "Okay. Well."
WaPo was unimpressed with the indictment that made the cut.
The approved indictment is short on detail, so it's possible that prosecutors have damning evidence that is not publicly available. But on the surface, it appears remarkably weak.
The paper's editors finish:
This is just the beginning of Trump's revenge tour, of course. Perhaps he'll have better luck pinning crimes on other targets. As it stands now, Trump's opening indictment looks like an embarrassing dud. His opponents should be laughing more than cowering.
Trump's lawfare is coming to a head. It is clear that, between lack of evidence and prosecutorial ineptitude, he will not win many of the criminal cases he is bringing. However, SCOTUS appears likely to continue providing him with constitutional cover for his overreach. And should his legal assault on Democracy fail, he still has his ICE brown shirts, a hijacked National Guard, and America's military to promote his neo-Nazi ambitions.
These are parlous times. Trump is hoping for a violent reaction to his urban invasions. We should look to Martin Luther King Jr and the flower power kids for an alternate route to restore democracy.
