In Which I Try to Understand Trump's Left Wing Supporters and Why I Think They Are Wrong

To be clear, I am not a follower of Glenn Greenwald.*  I stopped following him some time during the Obama Administration, not so much because I disagreed with him, but because I found him too depressing to bear.  Nonetheless, I agreed with his basic view that Obama had sold out to the national security state (the Deep State, as its enemies now call it), and that to do so was, perhaps, inherent in the office. I found Obama disappointing on civil liberties.  I was broadly open to the view that the national security state had captured the presidency and there was no escape.

So why have I sold out and become a supporter of the Deep State (the national security state) now?

But her e-mails!

Certainly a lot of one-time Greenwald fans, myself included, would respond by flipping the question.  Why have Greenwald and others like him seemingly become such Trump fans? Do they seriously think that Trump is a civil libertarian?  After all, if we have a deep state, then ICE and Customs and Border Patrol are presumably part of it, and Trump has been eager to take the gloves off both agencies.  He pardoned the vile Joe Arpaio, as un-civil libertarian a figure as one can imagine.  Recently released depositions by the January 6 Committee detail Trump's desire to use the military to suppress the 2020 riots and even to recall and court martial retired military officers who criticized him.  These are hardly the acts of a civil libertarian!  Even Trump's credentials as a military non-interventionist are in question.  He tried to economically strangle the governments of Iran and Venezuela (something Greenwald would presumably criticize in any normal president), dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on Afghanistan, and came perilously close to starting war with Iran on several occasions.

So why the affinity?  Presumably Greenwald would answer that, although Trump has been bad, he is less bad than any other President, especially GW Bush.  He would presumably also say that the real danger to civil liberties is not in any particular leader, but in the national security state, that Trump sees as an avowed enemy and wants to dismantle.  

And I suppose I should give credit where it is due.  Trump may call for jailing his opponents, but that is just empty talk.  And he really does want to dismantle any national security agencies that have targeted him. Greenwald has reacted with indignation that the national security state has sought to undermine a duly elected President. The indignation is justified when Trump wants to do something that is within is discretion as commander-in-chief, such as withdraw troops from a particular area.  

But Greenwald et al miss two important points here. Point number one is that if you are going to uphold the power of a duly elected official, it is incumbent on the official to respect the results of elections.  If you are going to talk about the duty of national security officials to be subordinate to duly elected officials, then duly elected officials had better recognize that they are subordinate to the voting public and accept election results.  Greenwald appears to dismiss Trump's refusal to accept his loss as a minor matter.  Maybe he ultimately thinks that respecting the authority of duly elected officials is, after all, less important than undermining the power of the deep state.

 But this ignores another important point as well.  Greenwald is quick to point out that Trump is not so bad, from a civil libertarian standard, as GW Bush.  But what made Bush so bad?  It wasn't that he let the Deep State run amuck and ignore the authority of a duly elected President.  Bush's fault -- as expressed through Dick Cheney, David Addington, and John Yoo -- was the exact opposite.  He claimed for a duly elected President unlimited power over the Deep State -- power unbounded by any treaty or statute. 

In other words, what we need to curb the power of the Deep State is not to subordinate it to duly elected officials, even if those duly elected officials recognize themselves as subordinate to We, the People and respect election results.** No, what we need is to acknowledge that the Deep State, duly elected officials, and even We, the People are still all subordinate to a common superior -- the rule of law.  (Hence the quote above). And we need to recognize that elected officials and the deep state can both be threats to the rule of law. And we need to think when the President and the Deep State clash (as they invariably will), that we should stop reflexively siding with one or the other, but side instead with the rule of law.*** 

This is a difficult balance to make. Subordinate the national security state too far to the President and it becomes his private police force. Give the national security state too much independence and it goes rogue.  But in the case of Trump, the answer is not difficult. The reason Trump has not trampled on liberties the way that GW Bush did is that the deep state stopped him.  Read the depositions if you doubt it.  Trump's objection to the Deep State was always first, that his power over it was never as absolute as he wanted and, second, that it investigated him.  In other words, that it upheld the rule of law.

______________________________________

*Note: I am using Greenwald as a shorthand for the pro-Trump far left that so resembles the pro-Trump far right.
**And that is why people on my side of the aisle find ourselves in a most uncomfortable alliance with Dick and Liz Cheney.  Because Cheney's theory of unbounded executive power always contained the qualification that this power was inherent in a duly elected executive who respected election results.

***And I should also add that I think a lot of Trump's leftwing supporters really want to dismantle the national security state altogether and see Trump as the man for the job.  But I think that, the world being what it is today, the national security state is a necessary evil.  I also think that they are quite wrong in thinking that Trump wants to dismantle the Deep State, as opposed to turning it into his private praetorian guard.

How Much of It Is a Crime: The Separation of Powers

Clearly there is more information on the January 6 insurrection than any normal person could possibly read, much less understand.  I hope to read the final report at some later time.  In the meantime, the obvious question is, assuming (as I think we must) that there is not enough evidence to charge Donald Trump in connection wit the actual violent insurrection, how much of his effort to overturn the election is a crime.

So far as I can tell, the answer lies in the matter we all learned in high school civics -- the separation of powers.  Specifically, the distinction between legislative, judicial, and executive power.  Because these are different.

First of all, acts of the legislature are not, and cannot be, a crime.  This is set forth in the Free Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, "[F[or any Speech or Debate in either House, they [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place."  In other words, no speech or vote in Congress can be a crime, including a vote to certify the losing candidate as President.  Certainly, such a vote can be invalidated by the federal courts as unconstitutional.  The courts can also stay unconstitutional legislation pending review.  And any member of Congress voting to overturn the people's choice would have to answer to the voters at home.*  But it cannot be a crime, nor can it be civilly actionable.  

I can only further assume that urging members of Congress to certify the losing candidate as President is merely lobbying and, as such, also not a crime, absent some evidence of bribery of threat.**  And presumably an offer of a campaign contribution or endorsement is not considered a bribe, nor is the threat to back a primary challenger a threat.  Presumably most state constitutions contain similar protections.  I can only assume, therefore, that absent a bribe or threat pressuring state legislatures to overturn the election results might be reversible in the courts, but cannot be a crime.

Most participants seem to have made a similar assumption about court challenges -- that no matter how how outrageous or void of merit, court challenges cannot be a crime.  But other penalties are available.  Lawyers bringing a claim wholly without merit are subject to disciplinary penalties, ranging from being required to pay the other party's attorney's fees*** to disbarment. A suit wholly without merit cannot be a crime, but it may be civilly actionable for malicious prosecution or abuse of process.  And, finally, while lying on the floor of Congress is protected by the Free Speech and Debate Clause, lying under oath in a lawsuit can be prosecuted as perjury.  So suing to overturn an election, though seen by all parties as the first resort, actually carries more legal peril than trying to overturn the results in a federal or state legislature.

The executive branch is a different matter.  Its role is not to make or decide the law, but to carry out (execute) the law.  The executive branch's role in a election is to conduct and count the vote and announce the results. The executive must conduct the vote as the law sets forth and announce the result as the law provides.  Thus, any use of the executive branch to alter or falsify an election result is clearly a crime, at both the federal and state levels.  At a minimum, this is forbidden under 18 USC 595:

Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality . . . , in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

That makes it a federal crime for Georgia Secretary of State  Brad Raffensperger to falsify election results and criminal solicitation for Trump to ask him to do so. All states, including Georgia, have similar laws. Trump is currently under criminal investigation in Georgia for this call.

The offense is aggravated by Trump's apparent threat of criminal charges if Raffensperger did not deliver the results Trump wanted. That may rate as extortion under 18 USC 875(d):

Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(Emphasis added).  A telephone call is considered a transmission in interstate commerce. Admittedly this statute would only apply if changing an election result is considered a "thing of value," which I do not know.  Assuming that changing an election outcome is considered a "thing of value," the call would also violate 18 USC 872:

Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The use of the Department of Justice to overturn the election would also be a crime. Of course, that didn't happen because the Department of Justice resisted.  And, admittedly, the President has wide discretion to explore possible courses of action, including ones that turn out to be legal.  At what point mere discussion becomes criminal solicitation or criminal conspiracy is not always clear.  I will defer to a criminal lawyer on that.

What about the plan for private citizens to submit a slate of fake electors?  There is no specific law against impersonating an elector because no one ever thought of it before. Nonetheless there has been ample speculation about what other laws might be stretched to cover the fake electors.  One of the more plausible candidates I have seen are 18 USC 494, forging a public record:

Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any bond, bid, proposal, contract, guarantee, security, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States; or

Whoever utters or publishes as true or possesses with intent to utter or publish as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited; or

Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or to any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

The most obvious defense here would be that the fake electoral certificates look nothing at all like real ones and therefore cannot be considered forgeries.  

Also plausible is 52 USC 20511:

A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office—
(1) knowingly and willfully intimidates, threatens, or coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person for—

(A) registering to vote, or voting, or attempting to register or vote;

(B)urging or aiding any person to register to vote, to vote, or to attempt to register or vote; or

(C) exercising any right under this chapter; or

(2)  knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by—

(A) the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or

(B)the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,

shall be fined in accordance with title 18 (which fines shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury, miscellaneous receipts (pursuant to section 3302 of title 31), notwithstanding any other law), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(Emphasis added). Of course, this law was not written with fake electoral ballots in mind, but casting them certainly deprives or defrauds the residents of a state of a fair and impartial election.

So, in short:

1. An act of a legislature (federal or state) to override the will of the voters is not and cannot be a crime, although it may be struck down as unconstitutional;
2. A lawsuit to overturn an election is not a crime, but is subject to disciplinary penalties if frivolous, and may be civilly actionable;
3. Any attempt by the federal or state executive to alter election results is a crime;
4. Private citizens submitting fake electoral certificates may be a crime.

All of this suggests that the weakest link in the chain of presidential elections is the legislative process.  Federal or state legislators are immune from criminal penalties for overriding the will of the voters and are are also the most subject to political pressure. This makes the legislature the most urgent area for reforms to make clear that such actions are invalid, even if they cannot be criminalized.  And, indeed, Congress has recently passed such legislation.**** 

We will see how it turns out.

__________________________________________________

*Although that would probably not be a problem for most of them.
**Taking bribes has been held not to be protected by the Free Speech and Debate Clause.
***Presumably most of the participants are too rich to care.
****It also sets stricter standards about electoral certificates

January 6 Clearinghouse

 

For anyone who wants a comprehensive link to information on the January 6 insurrection, here it is:

January 6 Clearinghouse

How Many Ways Are There to Plead the Fifth?

 The January 6 Committee has released its first 34 transcripts, consisting mostly of various witnesses taking the Fifth.  By way of reminder, four witnesses -- Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows, Pete Navarro and Dan Scavino refused to testify altogether and were referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution for contempt.  The DOJ decided to prosecute only Bannon and Navarro.  Meadows apparently cooperated enough to avoid contempt proceedings, and Scavino (presumably) was not important enough to go after.

During the hearing, committee members mentioned that over 30 witnesses appeared and took the Fifth, as is their right. The hearings played excerpts from some of the most prominent witnesses to take the Fifth -- John Eastman (the lawyer who suggested having the Vice President choose which electors to qualify), Jeffrey Clark (the DOJ official who wanted to endorse claims that the election was corrupt), Michael Flynn and Roger Stone. It seemed a safe assumption that many of the others who took the fifth were less well known.  The release of transcripts reveals this to be true.

Many people have expressed outrage at the obscure and innocuous questions that some witnesses refused to answer.  (Roger Stone would not give his age or place of residence).  Others offered in the witnesses' defense that the Fifth Amendment is all or nothing -- one must either answer all questions or none.  The transcripts do not bear that out.  Some witnesses were actually quite cooperative and others only invoked the Fifth for specific subjects. Much to my surprise, these included Stewart Rhodes, founder and leader of the Oath Keeper, testifying from jail and later convicted seditious conspiracy.  Enrique (Henry) Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys, was also surprisingly cooperative despite excellent reasons not to be.*  Both men gave extensive details on their organizations that other members might see as betrayal.

Other witnesses, by contrast, gave general background information but shut down when the conversation moved to particulars.  Some (including Roger Stone) refused to answer beyond just acknowledging the subpoena they received.  Witnesses Phillip Luelsdorff and Robert Patrick Lewis, rather to the consternation of the committee, refused to even acknowledge the subpoena they received.  (Both men, it should be noted, belonged to the same organization and had the same lawyer, Leslie McAdoo Gordon).  

Also significant -- you could get some idea how important the committee thought a witness was by how many members attended the deposition.  For an an unimportant witness, only one committee member would attend, or sometimes no committee members would attend and staffers would conduct the deposition. More important witnesses rated more committee members.  Jeffrey Clark tipped the scales with all nine members present for his first deposition.  (This is the only deposition of the 34 released that Chairman Bennie Thompson attended).  Six members attended the second deposition.  Clark appears to have been the only DOJ employee willing to use the Department to overturn the election result, which does, indeed, make him important. Five committee members attended the deposition of Roger Stone.  Here again, if there was a link between the corridors of power and the insurrectionists in the street, Roger Stone is the most likely suspect, so he was, indeed, important.  John Eastman scored four committee members, as did Julie Fancelli, a donor and rally organizer who I must admit to not having heard of. Alex Jones scored three committee members, as did Jenna Ellis, Trump's election lawyer.  Michael Flynn rated a mere two.  (Sounds like an insult).

But above all, I must admit to a certain childish fascination with how many different wordings the witnesses found to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights.  I began to be interested in that trivial subject during the hearings after noticing that Eastman said, "Fifth," while Flynn said, "The Fifth," and Roger Stone said, "On the advice of counsel, I will assert my Fifth Amendment right to respectfully decline to answer your question."  The depositions released gave a wealth of other wordings. Usually the witness invoked the Fifth, but sometimes the lawyer objected on behalf of the witness.  Often the witness or the witness's lawyer gave an extended invocation of the Fifth Amendment and either offered an abbreviation or was given an abbreviation by the committee. Media members usually invoked the First Amendment as well as the Fifth.  Leslie Gordon, on behalf of her clients, also claimed a rules violation.

Consider, then, the extraordinary array of wordings witnesses and their lawyers chose to say the same thing.

Kathy Berden, Michigan fake elector, "The Fifth, please."

Alexander Bruzewitz, CEO of X Strategies, LLC, "On the advice of counsel, I invoke the Fifth Amendment."

Patrick Casey Live stream and paid content. His lawyer said on his behalf, "Same objections, First and Fifth Amendments."

Dion Cini, Proud Boy, "I plead the Fifth."

Jeffrey Clark, "Fifth." 

James DeGraffenreid, Nevada Republican Party official.  Extended speech on the Fifth Amendment, followed by, "On the advice of counsel, I assert the prior privilege."

Enrique de La Torre, associate of Roger Stone, "I assert my Fifth Amendment right."

John Eastman, "Fifth." 

Jenna Ellis, "Pursuant to the advice of counsel, I will invoke my constitutionally protected right to assert the Fifth Amendment." 

Kimberly Fletcher, founder and president of Moms for America, "I decline to answer pursuant to the rights afforded me under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments."

Michael Flynn, "The Fifth." 

Nick Fuentes, racist and rally speaker, "Upon the advice of counsel and in reliance upon the Constitution of the United States, I most respectfully refuse to to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me."  (Later just, "Fifth Amendment.:")

Julie Fancelli, donor, protest organizer, "I invoke."  .

Bianca Gracia, founder of Latinos for Trump, "I rely on my Fifth Amendment privilege."

Alex Jones, "On advice of counsel, I'm asserting my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent." 

Charlie Kirk, leader of Turning Point USA, "On the advice of counsel I'm invoking my Fifth Amendment right not to testify and decline to answer that question." (Later, "I'm invoking my Fifth Amendment right.")

Antonio LaMotta, member, Veterans for Trump, "I invoke the Fifth Amendment."

Phillip Luelsdorff and Robert Patrick Lewis, member, First Amendment Praetorians, both represented by Leslie Gordon, "Rules, First, and Fifth."  

Joshua Macias, member, Veteran for Trump, "I invoke the Fifth, sir."

John Matze, founder and CEO of Parler, "Same objection; Fifth Amendment."  (Spoken by his lawyer, Brian Kelly).

Michael McDonald, Chairman of the Nevada Republican Party, "Based on the advice of my attorney, I'll be invoking my Fifth Amendment privilege."

Mayra Rodriguez, fake elector from Michigan, "I take my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent."

Mike Roman, official with the Trump campaign, "The Fifth."

Roger Stone, no stock phrase, but something similar to, "Once again, on the advice of counsel, I will assert my Fifth Amendment right to respectfully decline to answer your question."  Always used full sentences and not just one or two words. 

James Philip Waldron, preparer and presenter of Power Point slide on election fraud, gave one explanation of his invocation of the Fifth and then "Same reply."

Kelli Ward, chair of the Arizona Republican Party, "I rely on my Fifth Amendment privilege." (Like Roger Stone, she would not even give background information).

Garrett Ziegler, aide to Peter Navarro, "I invoke my right to silence," or "I invoke my right to silence under the Fifth Amendment."

______________________________________
*Tarrio was arrested on unrelated charged slightly before January 6, 2021 and took no part in the insurrection, but he as later charged with conspiracy.

General Comments on the January 6 Committee: The Importance of Bennie Thompson

I don't know what role Bennie Thompson plays behind the scene in January 6 Committee, although I don't recall any of the clips playing testimony in which he asked questions.  Certainly he has not dominated the public hearings the way that Adam Schiff dominated to first impeachment, or the way (to a lesser extent) that Jamie Raskin dominated the second impeachment.  Thompson's public role has been mostly ceremonial.  He calls the committee to order and adjourns.  He makes brief introductory and conclusory remarks, swears in the witnesses, and often asks a few superficial questions, leaving the in-depth questioning and the presentations to the questioner(s) of the day. 

To the extent that anyone has publicly dominated the hearings, it has been Liz Cheney.  As vice chair, Cheney gives the detailed opening and closing statements explaining in depth what the Committee will present, and what to expect next time.  She also questioned Cassidy Hutchinson, perhaps the most shocking witness to date.  She also asks questions during some of the pre-recorded testimony.  

And it isn't just Liz Cheney who overshadows Thompson.  He is also overshadowed, to a lesser extent, by Adam Kinzinger as the only other Republican on the Committee, Adam Schiff as first impeachment manager, and Jamie Raskin as second impeachment manager.  Any really, every member of the Committee has had as least one day in the spotlight -- one opportunity to ask witnesses and present evidence -- except for Thompson.

Bennie Thompson

And yet I have come to the conclusion that Thompson brings something to the Committee that none of the others could offer, and that there is a reason why Nancy Pelosi chose him.  Or perhaps it might be more accurate to say, there is a reason Pelosi chose a 74-year-old Black man from Mississippi.  And yes, I understand at this point that right wingers will be outraged that I suggest that race should be a factor.  To which I say, Thompson's race is a factor -- as is his age and state of origin.

You see, Thompson was not old enough to had any major role in the civil rights movement, although apparently he did take part in voter registration drives.  But he was part of the first wave of Black candidates to run for office.  And, as such, he met with every dirty trick the white establishment could find to thwart election results, regardless of the vote total.  And so what to the other Committee members was a shocking, unheard-of, almost unthinkable event was, to Thompson, an all-too-familiar story.

And that, I believe, is what has made his contribution to the Committee, however quiet and low key, of indispensable importance.

Trump and Pence are Goofus and Gallant

 

 Donald Trump and Mike Pence spawns a lot of jokes about the libertine President and his uptight, rather prudish Vice President.  For those of us old enough to remember Bill Clinton, it struck a chord.  A lot of them sounded very much like jokes about Bill Clinton and Al Gore.*

But Trump and Pence go well beyond Clinton and Gore.  But with the latest story about how Pence meticulously catalogued the government documents in his possession and turned them over the proper authorities, suddenly I realized who Trump and Pence are. They are Goofus and Gallant.  For anyone (including me) who is not old enough to remember Goofus and Gallant, they were apparently a cartoon giving lessons to children.  Goofus showed children what not to do; Gallant showed children what to do.  And suddenly Trump and Pence made a lot more sense.

Goofus runs off with random government documents, including some marked "Top Secret."  Gallant meticulously catalogues his documents and hands them over the the proper authorities.

Goofus gets two scoops of vanilla ice cream with his chocolate pie when everyone else just gets one.  Gallant has a plate of fruit for dessert.

Goofus discards his wives as soon as their beauty starts to fade.  Gallant has been married to the same woman for 37 years. Goofus grabs women by the pussy.  Gallant avoids any potentially compromising situation with any woman.

Goofus responds to a fire in an iconic cathedral with unsolicited advice that fire fighters have already rejected as impractical. Gallant responds with reverence and compassion.

And, of course, Goofus responds to losing an election by egging on a mob baying for Gallant's blood.  Gallant won't let even a howling mob keep him from his constitutional duty.

But here is the thing.  The comparison may be apt in more ways than one because, let's face it.  Everyone hates Gallant.**  He's just too much of a goody-goody.  Any one good thing that he does will no doubt meet with approval.  But being constantly so good is hard to read as other than a rebuke to the rest of us for not living up to Gallant's standards.

And that, of course, is the secret to Trump's appeal.  He gives us permission to be Goofus.  In fact, he celebrates our inner Goofus as "authenticity" and dismisses Gallant as mere snobbery.  And let's face it.  Everyone would rather be Goofus than Gallant. We just don't want everyone else to be Goofus.

__________________________________________________________

*Example: When the impeachment report came out detailing everything Bill Clinton did that met the legal description of sex used at his deposition, the joke was that Tripper Gore would have to explain half of that stuff to Al.  When rumors of the peepee tape came out, someone joked that a very uncomfortable staffer is now explaining to Mike Pence what a "golden shower" is.

**When I searched for imagines of Goofus and Gallant, at least half were spoofs of some kind.

Applying Trump's Razor to the Mar-a-Lago Raid: He's a Patrimonialist

But her emails!

The lessons of the Mar-a-Lago raid for Trump supporters should be obvious.  Don't go out on a limb to defend Donald Trump.  He will saw it off every time.

The lessons for our side are to remember, reality is almost never as juicy as your imagination.  I learned that the hard way with Trump/Russia.  My imagination filled in all sorts of sordid details.  The truth was bad, but nowhere near as bad as what I had imagined. And furthermore as someone (don't remember who) pointed out, our most lurid speculations play into the hands of Trump supporters.  They eagerly publish our side's most lurid fantasies, and then claim vindication when the truth turns out not to be quite that bad.  

So stop speculating that he wants to sell top secret documents to the highest bidder (they are too hot to handle) or that he is using them for blackmail, or that he is hiding something deeply incriminating.*  Instead, it is best to apply Trump's Razor -- that in trying to understand The Donald, but stupidest explanation that can be reconciled with the available facts is usually right.  The stupidest explanation here is that Trump took the documents home as a keepsake, a sort of hunting trophy.  He refused to turn them over because he had no real concept of what top secret documents are and thought that government documents were his own personal property.  He resisted turning them over because why should he turn over his personal property?  In other words, Trump was being a patrimonialist, treating the government as his private property and making no distinction between public and private patrimony. Nothing deeper or more sinister was at work.  Of course, what is the point in having a trophy unless you can show it off?  Especially if you have an ego like Donald Trump's.  No sinister plot is needed to make letting Donald Trump get his hands on top secret documents a very bad idea.**

And, incidentally, all this is further proof of why Ron DeSantis, though clearly dangerous, is a better choice than Trump. At least he understands that top secret documents are not his private property.

_________________________________________

*That last motive sounds particularly implausible.  It is not clear that Trump recognizes that anything can incriminate him.  Remember, this is the man who releases the readout of the Ukrainian extortion call because he thought it made him look good, who said that his call to pressure the Georgia Secretary of State to change the vote count was "almost as perfect," and who couldn't fathom what was wrong with a rampaging mob baying for his Vice President's blood.

**It also reminds me of Conor Friedersdorf's prophetic warning:

Absurdly, many seem to have convinced themselves that Trump, who won’t release his tax returns, as every presidential candidate has for decades, will be better on transparency; that a man whose finances we don’t even know, who used his charitable foundation to illegally funnel money to an attorney general investigating him for fraud, will be better on conflicts of interest; that an erratic man who blurts all manner of things out on Twitter and has shady ties to Vladimir Putin will somehow be a more trustworthy guardian of classified information. Trump is likely to be worse across all those metrics!