"Democrats seem to have no ability to stop him... So that leaves the courts, but for the courts to hold Trump accountable, to stop Trump...

"... they need for people to bring lawsuits and matters before them. And the people best equipped to do that are the big law firms in Washington. But if those firms are afraid that if they enter that fight, they could lose all of their business, Trump is then essentially taking one of his biggest adversaries off the playing field.... There are other lawyers who can bring these matters and that are skilled, but the ones with the most horsepower are potentially being sidelined. I've been reporting on this for the past week and a half, and I've learned that the leaders of these law firms have gone back and forth with each other about what to do.... Privately, they will all tell me how horrific they think this is. But publicly, they're saying very little."

Said Mike Schmidt, on "How Trump Is Scaring Big Law Firms Into Submission," today's episode of the NYT podcast, "The Daily" (link goes to Podscribe, with full transcript and audio).

And here's Schmidt's article from a few days ago: "Trump’s Revenge on Law Firms Seen as Undermining Justice System/The president’s use of government power to punish firms is seen by some legal experts as undercutting a basic tenet: the right to a strong legal defense" ("With the stroke of a pen last week, Mr. Trump sought to cripple Perkins Coie, a firm that worked with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, by stripping its lawyers of security clearances needed to represent some clients and limiting the firm’s access to government buildings and officials. That action came after he revoked security clearances held by any lawyers at the firm Covington & Burling who were helping provide legal advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two federal indictments against Mr. Trump.)

Everyone's talking about whether Trump meets "the definition of a fascist," after John Kelly "read aloud a definition of fascism that he had found online."

I saw that Kamala Harris, doing a town hall on CNN last night, "agreed" that Trump meets "the definition of a fascist," but she did not, herself, define "fascist," so I wondered what she was doing, embracing a conclusion, calling names. I live in a city where you can get called a "fascist" for venturing that Justice Scalia wrote a well-reasoned opinion. Among left-wingers, the definition of "fascist" is: right-wing. It's a shibboleth. To call someone a "fascist" is to identify yourself as on the left.

So it's a good thing to interpose the idea that a definition is needed, and it's interesting to see that Anderson Cooper did not ask Harris is Trump a fascist. But he did not task her with providing a definition. He just asked her whether Trump met the definition of a fascist. What's a home viewer to do? 

I didn't watch the town hall live. Frankly, I didn't know it was on. Which is odd considering that I read the news all day yesterday and it was a 90-minute CNN extravaganza. Hard to hide, one would think. And yet it was hidden from me.

The first headline I saw this morning was "Harris says in CNN town hall she agrees Trump is a fascist" (WaPo). Agrees? Who is she agreeing with? It was confusing, because the article only says that the moderator, Anderson Cooper, asked her if she believed Trump is a fascist. Who is she supposedly agreeing with? I don't think Cooper expressed an opinion. (That would be wrong. He was the moderator. Whatever he may think, he can't properly say it.)

I quickly figure out that this traces back to an October 22 article in the NYT, by Michael S. Schmidt: "As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator/John Kelly, the Trump White House’s longest-serving chief of staff, said that he believed that Donald Trump met the definition of a fascist." Boldface added.

In response to a question about whether he thought Mr. Trump was a fascist, Mr. Kelly first read aloud a definition of fascism that he had found online.

Good for Kelly for sensing that a definition is required. Bad for Kelly for just finding something on line and reading it out loud... 

“Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy,” he said.

... and quickly concluding that the definition is met:

Mr. Kelly said that definition accurately described Mr. Trump.

“So certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America,” Mr. Kelly said.

He thinks... but didn't do in 4 years in office? When did Trump ever say that the better way to run America is through "centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition [and] belief in a natural social hierarchy"? 

Are you wondering where on line Kelly found his definition? Make the most obvious guess and you will be right:

"Without taking many leaps or liberties, it's pretty clear that the Hunter Biden story is going to be something that Republicans — and Trump — are not going to be able to resist seizing on."

"Because, remember, Donald Trump has been indicted by the Biden Justice Department on a slew of felony charges that have exposed him to many years in prison. So, is it that far-fetched to think that Donald Trump will be back on that debate stage, with Joe Biden, saying: Your Justice Department laid on the brakes for your son at the same time that it charged me. And so, the Hunter Biden story will keep going and going."

Says NYT Washington correspondent Michael S. Schmidt, at the end of today's NYT "Daily" podcast, "Hunter Biden’s Day in Court/A yearslong federal investigation has ended with the president’s son agreeing to plead guilty to tax misdemeanors."

"... Garland is probably screwed... because no matter what is decided, whether Trump is charged or not, a large segment of the population will think it's wrong and politically motivated."

I'm listening to today's episode of the NYT podcast, "The Daily": "Trump Faces a New Special Counsel/In a moment of political déjà vu, the Justice Department’s criminal investigations into Donald J. Trump have taken a familiar turn."

The host, Michael Barbaro, is talking to NYT Washington correspondent Michael S. Schmidt. I've transcribed their discussion that begins at 22:51:

Barbaro: So one way to look at the special counsel that Garland just appointed is that it's designed to insulate him — and, by extension, the Biden administration — from blowback if and when they do decide to prosecute Trump — Biden's former and now current rival — but another way it could insulate Garland, you're saying, is if they decide not to prosecute Trump and there's inevitably blowback from Democrats and from the left.

Schmidt: "Yes, but the more we go through this, the more that I realize that Garland is probably screwed...

Barbaro: Hmmph.

Schmidt: ... because no matter what is decided, whether Trump is charged or not, a large segment of the population will think it's wrong and politically motivated.

Barbaro: Mm-hmm.

Schmidt: And if special counsel can't solve the problem at the heart of the moment — which is that you have the Justice Department, under a sitting President, investigating his rival for the presidency — by nature, that looks and feels political.

"The federal prosecutors working on the case watched [Cassidy Hutchinson's] appearance before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and were just as astonished..."

".. by her account of former President Donald J. Trump’s increasingly desperate bid to hold on to power as other viewers. The panel did not provide them with videos or transcripts of her taped interviews with committee members beforehand, according to several officials, leaving them feeling blindsided. The testimony from the aide... came at a critical moment in parallel investigations that will soon converge, and possibly collide, as the committee wraps up a public inquiry geared for maximum political effect and the department intensifies a high-stakes investigation aimed at securing airtight convictions. Committee members have repeatedly suggested that Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has not moved fast enough to follow up their investigative leads. But for reasons that are not entirely clear... members have resisted turning over hundreds of transcripts until they are done with their work...."

From "Hutchinson Testimony Exposes Tensions Between Parallel Jan. 6 Inquiries/That the House panel did not provide the Justice Department with transcripts of Cassidy Hutchinson’s interviews speaks to the panel’s reluctance to turn over evidence." (NYT).

Something doesn't fit together! The NYT says the reasons "are not entirely clear." That's putting it mildly! 

I did put an ellipsis after that phrase, and I don't want to seem as though I'm withholding something insightful the reporters —  Glenn Thrush, Luke Broadwater and Michael S. Schmidt — might have said. 

Here's their sketching out of the possibly reasons that may be lurking inside the unclarity: 1. "classic Washington bureaucratic territorialism," 2. "the department’s unwillingness to share information," and 3. "the desire to stage-manage a successful public forum."

Something's amiss. Let's brainstorm some less mushy reasons. I invite you to speculate about the motives and to put it as clearly as you can or as brutally as you wish.