Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Since we’re talking about conspiracies…

Since we’re talking about conspiracies…
Getty Images

Goldstone’s latest book is “Not White Enough: The Long, Shameful Road to Japanese American Internment.” Learn more at www.lawrencegoldstone.com.

Many on the left were more than a little disturbed when Judge Aileen Cannon was chosen to preside over United States of America v. Donald J. Trump. They considered it yet another example of, with apologies to John Gotti, the new Teflon Don being granted an enhanced opportunity to escape well-earned punishment for blatantly committed crimes.


In this construct, Judge Cannon’s selection will become fodder for a right-wing conspiracy to allow Trump sufficient time to successfully seek the presidency in 2024, after which he would end the prosecution by executive order and then likely appoint Judge Cannon to the court of appeals, a nomination that would be approved by a newly won Republican Senate.

It all seems to fit. Judge Cannon is, after all, a Trump appointee who was deemed by many to lack both the experience and the qualifications for the job. In addition, she has been castigated by a three-judge court of appeals panel for her egregious decision to appoint a special master earlier in the classified documents investigation. That ruling was seen as the initial attempt to protract the process sufficiently to allow Trump to be re-elected before the case could come before a jury.

And so, just about every host on MSNBC seemed to be waiting for Judge Cannon to, if not overtly sabotage the government’s case, issue a series of rulings on motions to drag it out long enough to make it impossible for a trial to begin until after the 2024 election.

What then to make of Judge Cannon’s ruling that every lawyer who will participate in the case must apply for security clearance immediately, a decision that even liberal CNN called “jump starting” the trial, and then setting a tentative August date for the proceedings to get underway? Since the notion that Judge Cannon was actually trying to demonstrate that she intended to be fair to both parties was not seriously considered, what could be going on here?

For a possible explanation it might be useful to consider The Maltese Falcon, a classic film so rife with conspiracies that there seems to be a new one every ten minutes. Near the end, Humphrey Bogart, playing hard-boiled private eye Sam Spade, is in the midst of an all-night wait for the Black Bird to be delivered to his apartment. There with him are the four would-be thieves, among them, ringleader Kasper Gutman, the “Fat Man,” played by Sydney Greenstreet, and the barely post-teenage killer, “gunsel” Wilmer Cook, played by Elisha Cook, Jr.

Spade agrees to turn over the falcon only if Gutman provides him with a fall guy to take the rap for the three murders that preceded the meeting, to say nothing of setting a cargo ship on fire. Spade suggests Wilmer, which Gutman laughs off. “He’s like my own son,” he sniffs. (In the book, he was more likely to have been his lover.)

But Spade insists and soon Gutman is huddling with the other two, Mary Astor and Peter Lorre. While they whisper, Bogart turns to Wilmer, grins and says, “Six two and even, they’re selling you out, sonny.”

Which indeed they were. Gutman expresses his regrets by telling Wilmer, “If you lose a son, it is possible to get another, but there is only one Maltese Falcon.”

So, if one is determined to find a conspiracy in Judge Cannon’s behavior, what about the right-wing selling out the man who might well have outworn his usefulness and now threatens their continued hegemony in national and even state government?

This notion is not far-fetched. True, Republicans cannot afford to lose Trump’s voters, but what if, as Ron DeSantis is trying to demonstrate, you can have Trump’s voters without Trump? What if you scream about the injustice of Trump’s persecution while dumping all the blame on special prosecutor Jack Smith, Joe Biden, and even the “deep state” and the FBI?

“We did all we could,” Republicans could sigh, “but the justice system is rigged.”

Few among the party’s leaders would be sad to see Trump pass from the scene. His popularity has a definite ceiling and he is the only Republican candidate, present polls notwithstanding, who is considered by the professionals likely to lose to Joe Biden. And Republicans are all too aware that since 2016, the party has underperformed in three straight national elections, largely due to Trump and his handpicked sycophants. By endorsing dreadful candidates such as Dr. Oz, Herschel Walker, and Blake Masters, Trump is directly responsible for handing Democrats control of the Senate, an outcome not at all lost on Mitch McConnell.

McConnell is not the only Senate Republican who would be delighted with a post-Trump party. While some of the most conservative Republican senators have maintained what is likely genuine loyalty to their titular leader, others, including John Thune and John Cornyn, have demonstrated at best lukewarm support. With an extremely favorable Senate map in 2024, the only real risk for Republicans in their quest to retake the chamber is a new roster of Trump-supported primary candidates who are unelectable in the general election.

In the House, Kevin McCarthy would also not be displeased to see Trump gone. To become speaker, he was forced to make a deal with a small cadre of ultra-right nihilists who derive their power from the Trump wing of the party. If the Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar crew can be neutered, even to a small degree, McCarthy’s life will be a good deal easier. What is more, McCarthy cannot afford to lose too many of the eighteen Republican held House seats in districts that Biden carried in 2020 and still keep his job, a much more ominous scenario with Trump’s minions on the ballot.

That leaves the ideologues, such as the Federalist Society, of which Judge Cannon is a proud and loyal member. For them, Trump was a gift from the heavens. But he already gave them full control of the Supreme Court and stacked the deck in other jurisdictions, such as the Eleventh Circuit, in which Judge Cannon serves. While the Federalists surely want to keep the judicial ball rolling, it will be impossible to do so without a Republican in the White House and control of the Senate, both of which are questionable propositions with Trump grabbing every headline.

In the end, selling Trump out might be the best move Republicans have.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if, after all the conspiracy theories Trump and his allies have put forth, this was the one that turned out to be true?


Read More

Typing on a computer
person using laptop

America Needs a Digital Equity Policy, Not Just Tech Innovation

The United States invests billions in artificial intelligence research and development‚ semiconductor fabrication‚ and next-generation connectivity. Yet millions of Americans cannot consistently access the internet or afford the devices needed to submit an online application for social services or a job application․ This is not an oversight․ It is a policy choice that is costing the country dearly․

Connectivity is a floor, not a ceiling:

Keep ReadingShow less
The election voting process, bidding, hands raised up with papers

Confidence in U.S. elections has fallen to 55% ahead of the 2026 midterms. The real risk isn't who wins — it's whether the loser accepts it.

Svetlana Shamshurina/Getty Images

The Real Test of the 2026 Midterms Comes After the Vote

Less than three months before Americans vote in the 2026 midterms, a federal judge on August 11 blocked the U.S. Postal Service from implementing part of President Donald Trump’s executive order tightening mail-in voting rules. The ruling came amid an intensifying fight over how November’s elections will be administered. That fight underscores a deeper problem: the real question in American politics is no longer simply who wins the next election, but whether large numbers of people will still accept the result when their side loses.

Elections in the United States were supposed to settle arguments. One side wins, the other accepts defeat, and the country moves on. That quiet agreement is under growing pressure as the midterms approach. Control of Congress still matters, but beneath that contest lies a more consequential question: if the outcome goes against one of the two major political camps, will that camp still trust the process that declared it the loser?

Keep ReadingShow less
 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less