Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The crook and the fumbler

The crook and the fumbler

US President Donald Trump (R) Democratic Presidential candidate, former US Vice President Joe Biden and moderator, NBC News anchor, Kristen Welker (C) participate in the final presidential debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, on October 22, 2020.

Photo by JIM BOURG/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Goldstone is the author of the forthcoming "Not White Enough: The Long Shameful Road to Japanese American Internment."

Democrats who had been gleefully lapping up the unfolding story of what they hoped would be Donald Trump’s impending indictment for absconding with of hundreds of classified documents after he left the White House have been brought up short by the revelation that Joe Biden, albeit on a much smaller scale, might have done precisely the same thing. In the wake of that disclosure, Democrats have, predictably, been scrambling to draw a distinction between the episodes, while Republicans, predictably, are chortling “gotcha.” Each is correct, depending on how the facts are viewed.


Legally, the two incidents are certainly different. In Trump’s case, he intentionally packed up a trove of the nation’s most secret material, had it shipped off to Mar a Lago, and then stored it in a manner akin to a family hanging on to old photo albums. Then, rather than simply return the material when asked to do so, he first had his minions lie about the extent of his pilferage and, after ignoring numerous official requests for the documents’ return, forced the Justice Department to obtain a warrant and then conduct an early morning raid to search Trump’s office and residence.

That Trump was aware that he had taken the documents illegally and refused to hand them back is not in question. Despite speculation that he intended to profit in some way, perhaps by selling them to an unfriendly power, Trump did not seem to have any nefarious motive—he just wanted them in the same way a small child will insist on keeping a toy he or she no longer plays with. Still, given the ease with which a wandering visitor to Palm Beach could access state secrets, he could be charged under the Espionage Act, a vague, catch-all prohibition that was enacted after the United States entered World War I to stifle dissent, as well as with obstruction of justice, which would be much easier to prove in court.

The circumstances under which the Biden documents were deposited at both the Penn Center and the Biden Garage are less clear. Biden has claimed to have been unaware of their existence and there is no proof or even an indication that he is being less than honest. And, rather than refuse to return the documents once they were uncovered, Biden’s lawyers informed the Justice Department almost immediately after they were stumbled across during a routine search of the Penn Center, followed by a more frantic search of the garage.

As such, Biden, who seemed never to make use of the documents or even look at them, would be immune to an obstruction of justice charge. Given the small number, he might even be absolved entirely if a chain of custody can be established in which he was neither a party nor had knowledge.

Politically, however, the conclusions are far different. While in the duel of legality, Biden comes out ahead, in the duel of calumny, Republicans win handily. To counter the notion that Biden was innocent and unaware, they point to the delay with which the discovery of the initial store of documents was made public, and then that there were more documents in the garage than first reported. That Biden initially refused to answer reporters’ questions, they insist, is proof of his culpability. If Biden is not charged criminally and Trump is, Republicans will scream foul and a good portion of the country will believe them.

Of perhaps the greatest significance, however, is that the documents scandal reinforces long-held perceptions of both men. That Trump will skirt the boundaries of the law and often stray over them is disputed by almost no one outside his most willfully blind supporters. Be it avoiding taxes, filing convenient bankruptcies, making payoffs to strippers, stiffing contractors, or running businesses that are thinly disguised con games, Donald Trump, when the niceties are stripped away, is precisely what Richard Nixon denied being—a crook.

Biden, on the other hand, is widely seen as a sympathetic figure who has endured enormous personal tragedy, but whose mental acuity might well be fading, something of a brain-addled grandfather. Even in earlier days, Biden always seemed to get in his own way, either with an unfortunate remark or doing something, well, dumb, which called his judgment into question. He often seemed tone deaf to social changes and had to be dissuaded from touching everyone he came in contact with, especially women. (Trump also needed to be dissuaded from touching women, but for a different reason.)

Where Trump is a crook, then, Biden is a fumbler.

But these perceptions do not fall equally, but rather are a disadvantage for Democrats. Many who voted for Biden in 2020 did so despite the fear that he was in cognitive decline. Had he been up against a less polarizing figure, that caricature might well have done him in.

On the other hand, many of those who voted for Trump did so because he was a crook. They saw his dishonesty as a political statement, sticking a thumb in the eye of government bureaucrats, similar to carrying a loaded weapon in public, or refusing to wear a face mask during the pandemic. To his supporters, Trump’s unwillingness to abide by the law or conform to long accepted social and presidential norms meant…freedom. That a narcissistic serial adulterer and tax cheat with virtually no loyalty to anyone but himself personifies liberty to a large segment of the American public is one of the two inescapable ironies in this affair.

The other is that by-and-large Biden has governed quite well. After great initial skepticism that his administration would get nothing accomplished, he made good on his promise to seek bipartisanship and succeeded in getting an impressive amount of highly significant legislation passed. The Biden administration has not been a series of unbroken successes to be sure—it grossly mishandled the Afghanistan withdrawal—but that could be balanced against a nothing short of brilliant handling of the Ukraine war.

The country noticed. After more than a year under water, Biden’s approval ratings crept up and talk of him running for re-election was no longer accompanied by a resigned sigh. The polls agreed. In 2020, the Fumbler defeated the Crook, and until the Penn Center discovery, he seemed certain to be able to do it again. But now, a 2024 rematch might have a different ending, as would a race against a different opponent.

If so, Biden will have fumbled away a hard-fought for opportunity.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less