A friendly reminder that Rant! is a reader-supported publication. Thank you for making this newsletter possible!
ALEX’S WEEKLY RANT!
Well, folks. I wasn’t Raptured. Neither were you. Even Mike Johnson didn’t go up to Heaven (maybe he should have disabled cookies in the Covenant Eyes app?). Both Melania and Donald Trump had technical difficulties going up anywhere. And I suspect Melania would say Donald also has technical difficulties going down.
In any case, I guess we’re all stuck here, which means we have to witness even more democratic backsliding from this regime administration.
Trump is making a habit of openly going after his political opponents or anyone he doesn’t consider loyal enough. Don’t think that just because ABC agreed to bring Jimmy Kimmel back (only to some stations!) the law won. In this case, ABC/Disney calculated the financial loss of a boycott was bigger than demands from Trump. We haven’t seen the last of government pressure on others’ first amendment rights.
Or other rights. Like being innocent until proven guilty.
Indeed, this week we learned that federal prosecutors across the country are facing pressure to bring charges, any charges, against Trump’s perceived enemies, even if there is zero evidence of a crime. As
and Anna Bower put it in this excellent explainer for Lawfare: “Prosecutors normally start with a crime, then figure out whodunnit, rather than starting with a person and only then deciding whathedun.”The story here is not that these individuals and organizations are being investigated and/or indicted, but rather that federal prosecutors, pressured by the president, keep trying to find reasons to prosecute individuals even when there is no evidence of a crime. The media keep framing these stories in very weird ways, which isn’t helping. In fact, just the announcement of an investigation can be enough to set the narrative that the person is guilty of something. Remember how Trump wanted Zelenskyy to announce an investigation into Biden or he’d withhold weapons from Ukraine? Yep, everyone who reads Rant! knows: the narrative is important, as it will be exploited for political gain at some point.
“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility”
That was the message Trump sent to his attorney general, encouraging her to get moving on prosecuting his tailored list of enemies. Almost immediately, the stories—and then the indictments—started dropping. Here is a quick rundown:
James Comey
The James Comey indictment story actually starts with the Letitia James non-indictment story.
Erik Siebert, the prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia, resigned amid pressure from Trump to charge New York Attorney General Letitia James, which he refused to do because there was no evidence of a crime, despite Trump telling reporters, “It looks to me like she is very guilty of something.”
Trump then appointed Lindsey Halligan, who had served as a personal lawyer to Trump, as the acting U.S. attorney. Despite concerns from prosecutors within her department, she brought the case against Comey, just days before the statute of limitations was to run out. Of course, her options were: bring some kind of case, any case, or lose her job, as her predecessor had. She did not seem to have much support from her fellow prosecutors. As NBC News reported:
It’s rare to see only the name of the U.S. attorney, in this case Halligan, on the docket and only her signature on the indictment. Usually there are several assistant U.S. attorneys listed, not just the U.S. attorney.
Halligan, a former insurance lawyer with no experience as a criminal prosecutor, was sworn in this week. Her former position with the White House was a special assistant tasked with removing “improper ideology” from the Smithsonian museums. She also was part of the legal circle representing Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified records case.
NBC’s Ken Dilanian reported what he was hearing from his sources inside: “The Comey indictment is among the worst abuses in DOJ history. Shocking. It’s hard to overstate how a big a moment this is.”
John Brennan
Then came news that federal prosecutors want to charge former CIA Director John Brennan with a crime, even though there is, once again, zero evidence a crime was committed. But why let a little thing like that get in the way? Maybe it will make a great not-crime podcast one day.
The New York Times chose very odd framing for this story, going with this headline:
Inquiry Into Ex-C.I.A. Chief John Brennan Stalls After Purge by Gabbard
The lack of an indictment so far against Mr. Brennan, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is the most recent setback for such prosecutions.
and this lede:
Federal prosecutors are struggling to put together a criminal case against John O. Brennan, the former C.I.A. director, over his agency’s response to Russian election interference in 2016, according to senior administration officials.
Recall, if you will, a few weeks ago when DNI Tulsi Gabbard revoked the security clearances of a bunch of intelligence officials (I spoke to The Meidas Touch Network about it here). The NYT story says that purge is making it hard to make a case that Brennan broke the law (presumably because those fired people will refuse to help prosecutors because they are angry about their own firing). That seems like really weird framing because, again, there is no evidence of a crime being committed, and I would assume that is the true reason why prosecutors are struggling to put together a case. It’s a really weirdly written story that accepts the framing that an indictment would be warranted if only certain people would give evidence, rather than an indictment is unlikely because there was no crime.
John Bolton
I am no fan of Bolton and his fucking mustache, but this is another case of DOJ putting the cart before the horse. As CNN put it: “Senior DOJ officials want to charge John Bolton.” Senior DOJ officials don’t want to investigate crimes and let evidence lead them to who committed those crimes. No. Senior DOJ officials want to charge Bolton. Period.
This is what one source told CNN:
Some political leadership at the Justice Department see the Bolton case as a way to charge a criminal case Trump would like to see to placate the president.
So, it’s a case not because Bolton did anything wrong, but because it would placate Trump. Got it.
George Soros and the Open Society Foundations
Then came news that Trump plans to go after George Soros and his Open Society Foundations, which was created to help support democratic initiatives in communist and formerly communist countries, something Ronald Reagan supported. But MAGA isn’t your father’s Republican party.
At least on this one, the NYT did a better job representing the real story. Here’s is the headline, subhed, and lede:
Justice Dept. Official Pushes Prosecutors to Investigate George Soros’s Foundation
The directive suggests department leaders are following orders from the president, a major break from decades of past practice meant to insulate the agency from political interference.
A senior Justice Department official has instructed more than a half dozen U.S. attorney’s offices to draft plans to investigate a group funded by George Soros, the billionaire Democratic donor whom President Trump has demanded be thrown in jail.
The official’s directive, a copy of which was viewed by The New York Times, goes as far as to list possible charges prosecutors could file, ranging from arson to material support of terrorism. The memo suggests department leaders are following orders from the president that specific people or groups be subject to criminal investigation — a major break from decades of past practice meant to insulate the Justice Department from political interference.
This story is particularly relevant given the new Presidential Memorandum published by the White House last night and titled, “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence”. I recommend reading the whole thing, but it says, in part:
Heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased in recent years….This political violence is not a series of isolated incidents and does not emerge organically. Instead, it is a culmination of sophisticated, organized campaigns of targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats, and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society. A new law enforcement strategy that investigates all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies — including the organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, funding sources, and predicate actions behind them — is required.
Given Trump’s desire to (like so many authoritarians) invert the truth, this memorandum clearly is meant to provide cover to go after any organization or individual Trump and his minions want. In fact, one of the charges floating around among prosecutors to use against Open Society is racketeering, which by sheer coincidence, is also listed in the memorandum.
Prosecutors just have to paint Trump’s perceived enemies as terrorists, and the law will fall into place. And if you’ve followed all my ranting about how bad people easily manipulate the information space, well, you can see why this is worrisome.
Indeed, we’ve seen this before and we know where it leads, because this is exactly what Viktor Orbán did in Hungary.
In 2018, Orbán and his Fidesz party passed a law that tightened rules for NGOs based on national security concerns (as defined by them). Pro-government media accused groups like Open Society of representing an unelected, meddling, liberal elite. (Sound familiar?) But rights groups saw the law as a crackdown on critics of the government. (Sound familiar?)
The “arbitrary government interference”, as Open Society’s president put it, got so bad the NGO finally left Hungary later in 2018.
Rule of Law versus Rule by Law
You know who isn’t getting indicted? Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar, who was caught accepting $50,000 in cash to push government contracts to certain companies. That investigation began under President Biden. Investigators were looking at someone completely different whom they thought was committing crimes, and Homan and his kickback scheme crossed their path. And because the Biden DOJ was so bent on weaponizing investigations for political purposes, no one leaked a peep about this investigation before the election. Very clever 5-D chess! When Trump took over, his DOJ dropped the case against Homan.
What we are seeing is something common in undemocratic societies: Rule by Law, rather than Rule of Law. Instead of the law applying equally to everyone (Rule of Law), those in power use the law to go after whomever they please (Rule by Law).
And since none of us was Raptured, I guess that means we remain mortal beings. Our best hope is to remember that we have agency, and we need to insist—publicly and loudly—that the law must be followed. That we are, every one of us, endowed by our Creators (even if our Creators don’t Rapture us!) with certain unalienable rights.
THE WEEK’S LINKS
A roundup of things you should be reading
RUSSIA AND ITS LIES
How Western scholars overlooked Russian imperialism (Al Jazeera)
Putin is playing a dangerous game with Nato (FT)
EXCELLENT RESOURCES!
Just Security has launched WHAT JUST HAPPENED? as well as a litigation tracker to help readers keep up with the chaos
Alex Finley is a former officer of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, where she served in West Africa and Europe. She writes and teaches about terrorism, disinformation / covert influence, and oligarch yachts. Her writing has appeared in Slate, Reductress, Funny or Die, POLITICO, The Center for Public Integrity, and other publications. She has spoken to the BBC, MSNBC, CNN, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, France24, and numerous other media outlets. She was also invited once to speak at Harvard, which she now tells everyone within the first ten seconds of meeting them. She is the author of the Victor Caro series, satirical novels about the CIA. Before joining the CIA, Alex was a journalist, covering Capitol Hill, the Pentagon, and the Department of Energy. She reported on issues related to national security, intelligence, and homeland security. Did she mention she was invited to speak at Harvard?
"It looks like she is very guilty of something".
That should be framed and hung on the wall of every law school in America, and indeed, the World.
Some girl on TikTok assured all her viewers that her neighbors were indeed raptured. They were very kind people, always giving food to the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, and being kind to refugees. So all those people who thought they were going to be raptured and weren’t, it’s not that it didn’t happen, it’s that they didn’t make the cut… and maybe they should use this as an opportunity to work on improving themselves? It’s a bit like getting a C on midterms is a hint to a student that maybe they should study more if they want to pass the Final Exam.
I quite appreciated the video!