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

The Future of DEI in Higher Education: Unpacking Recent Federal Restrictions
A group of people standing in a circle with their hands together

The Future of DEI in Higher Education: Unpacking Recent Federal Restrictions

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs serve diverse student populations at colleges and universities across the nation. DEI programs in higher education have traditionally supported first-generation college students, students with disabilities, veterans, low-income students, and racial and ethnic minorities through offices, scholarships, cultural centers, and accessibility services.
  • Federal initiatives, such as TRIO or the Full-Service Community Schools program, are facing cuts to funding due to DEI-related federal policy, affecting students across the nation.

Defining DEI

From debates surrounding race-conscious admission policies to questions about the role and funding of identity-based student centers, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has become a widely debated topic in higher education policy. DEI refers to institutional policies and programs–such as mentorship opportunities, cultural centers, and support programs–which improve campus climate and student access for underrepresented groups. Though many colleges and universities across the United States have developed DEI initiatives aimed at shaping student access and institutional priorities, recent legal and policy developments have raised questions about how these efforts align with federal law.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rear view of teenage boy walking with arm around friends

Why many young men feel politically and socially adrift, how changing gender roles affect masculinity, self-esteem, relationships, and the future of society.

Maskot / Getty Images

Lost Boys - What Is the Role of a Man in Today's Society?

A recent New York Times article stated that young males who provided an important swing vote for Trump in 2024 are discouraged by what Trump has done and not done while in office. But they are nevertheless not particularly inclined to vote Democratic because they don't see the Party as welcoming their view of masculinity and they don't know where they fit in this society.

These young men assume that because the Party supports equality for women in the workplace and because many young women no longer have marriage and having children at the top of their agenda, the Party would not be a welcoming home for them. They see themselves as striving for the masculinity of their fathers' or grandfathers' day, where the man was the breadwinner in the family and had respect and authority. Not the weaker half in relationships with women.

Keep ReadingShow less
Showing Up and Staying: Disaster Relief in an Age of Distrust

NECHAMA volunteers in Western North Carolina after Hurricane Helene.

Showing Up and Staying: Disaster Relief in an Age of Distrust

As the Atlantic hurricane season officially began on June 1, disaster response organizations across the country are preparing for the next storm. That preparation includes coordinating logistics, purchasing supplies, training volunteers, and strengthening partnerships. It now also requires planning for an environment shaped by misinformation, distrust, and competing narratives.

A recent 60 Minutes segment examining extremist groups in disaster zones highlighted how quickly public perceptions can form after a disaster. Recovery efforts are now followed by outside groups and online networks attempting to influence how events are understood while communities are still in crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less