The Daly Weekly (11/28)

Trump's meeting with Mamdani, the "Seditious Six," Ghislaine Maxwell's cushy prison treatment, and more.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to it…

---

Ok, here’s a really brief question this time: Which [last] Friday political news story surprised you less, the announced resignation of MTG, or the Trump - Mamdani lovefest of a meeting? — Aylene W.

Surprised me less? This one’s easy: the “love-fest,” as you call it, between Trump and Mamdani.

Bernie Goldberg upset some readers back in July when he wrote this piece on Mamdani reminding him of Trump. But if anything, I think Bernie’s comparisons barely scratched the surface. As I’ve since written: While Mamdani proudly refers to himself as a socialist (I take him at his word), and President Trump typically uses the word “socialist” as a pejorative, the stuff Trump has actually been doing in his second term is closer to textbook socialism than anything an elected U.S. political leader has done in my lifetime.

As the Washington Post Editorial Board wrote, “Both men are looking to seize more executive power, deepen the reach of the state into people’s everyday lives and bring government to bear on businesses and entrepreneurs who won’t fall in line.”

Trump himself said of Mamdani during their meeting: “Some of his ideas really are the same ideas that I have.”

So yeah, I wasn’t surprised at all that the two hit it off. Who may have been surprised (and irritated) are Republican political strategists, who were clearly planning on using Mamdani as a socialist foil as part of their midterm campaign strategy. That strategy will be much less effective now, after that public display of affection between Trump and Mamdani.

[From last week’s Daly Weekly]:

He [President Trump] publicly offered her well-wishes a number of times, before taking the big step (through the DOJ) of getting her moved to a lower-security prison (that she otherwise wasn’t eligible for, as a sex offender).”

How do you know this? Is it entirely logic or are there pertinent documents or sources? — Bob H.

That’s a fair question, Bob. While Trump’s rhetorical displays of sympathy and support for Ghislaine Maxwell are public record (he’s on video offering them), he has not, to my knowledge, directly admitted to being the person who directed his DOJ to move Maxwell to the lower-security prison she wasn’t eligible for, or to give her special treatment at that new prison. That was my conclusion based on everything we do know about the relationships involved, including the one between Trump and AG Bondi. Bondi has loyally done Trump’s political bidding, which has already included far more egregious acts than getting Maxwell moved to a better place — acts such as criminally indicting (without sufficient evidence) people that Trump wanted indicted (which has since blown up in her face). The only other possibility, in regard to the Maxwell situation, is that some mystery-person at DOJ decided, for an unknown reason, that there was some benefit in treating Maxwell much better than she deserved (and was legally eligible for), and sold Bondi on the idea (it assuredly would have required her signing off on it).

Is that possible? I guess. Is it probable, in my view? Heck no. I think the chances of Trump not being involved in the decision are extremely slim.

Have you been following the story of The Blaze implicating a former Capitol police officer for the January 6 pipe-bombs, and then having it (metaphorically) blow up in their face? If so, thoughts? — Alex D.

I haven’t paid much attention to this, Alex, but when The Blaze first ran their “report” earlier this month, that specifically identified the individual as a “forensic match” for the pipe bomber, an online acquaintance of mine responded:

Two possibilities here:

1) The Blaze just broke a major story with widespread repercussions and law enforcement will need to corroborate

OR

2) They just set themselves up for a major and likely successful lawsuit.

Since then (after her name went out on all kinds of right-wing news sites), the individual has provided concrete proof of her innocence (she’s on video elsewhere, at the time the bombs were planted), and the FBI has ruled her out as a suspect.

So… I would not be surprised if a lawsuit against The Blaze (which no one should be trusting as a legitimate news source) is indeed in the works.

Happy Black Friday, Sir John! I am wondering what your opinion is on the “seditious six” people who felt the need to put out a video, reminding service men and women in the military that they are not supposed to follow “illegal orders.” I believe every military member knows this already. I also noticed that none of them gave any specific examples of any illegal orders that these men and women were supposedly meant to avoid carrying out. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, one of them actually admitted that they were being ambiguous in the video about what the illegal orders were. Funny how that works isn’t it? I’m not gonna ask you about Trump‘s reaction to it because right now I specifically wanna focus on the catalysts themselves and why they thought they needed to put the video out in the first place. Yes it’s a free country and they are certainly allowed to express their opinions. But I can’t help feeling they were trying to nudge military personnel into disobeying any orders that came from Trump. Then, of course, they can say that they never specified what the illegal orders were and thus clear themselves. I know what gaslighting looks like. I want your thoughts, but I would really be interested in hearing you and Sir Bernie discussing this in the no BS Zone. —“Seditious Regards” from the Emperor

I think the video was needless, Emperor. But as you say, what the senators said about U.S. military service was factually correct. One can view the video as a tacky political stunt, or muse over whether there was darker intent behind it, but those calling it “seditious” sound ridiculous. If you want an example of actual seditionists, take a look at some of the people whose prison-sentences Donald Trump commuted earlier this year — the ones literally found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their actions on (and leading up to) January 6. Some of them were supposed to serve around 20 years for their crimes, but Trump set them free on day one.

Were the senators being ambiguous? Absolutely! I haven’t been paying attention to their defenses of the video (I assume they’ve offered some), but I suppose there are instances they could point to, to at least rationalize a good-faith concern. As I’ve written about here on this website, Trump has said a number of times over the years, going back to the beginning of his first presidential campaign, that he would have no qualms with ordering U.S. soldiers to commit war crimes. He later pardoned or issued acts of clemency for U.S. service members who were indeed convicted of, or charged with, serious war crimes. If one takes such instances into account, along with the president’s history of pardoning hundreds of people who committed illegal violence in his name, it seems to me that even if the senators aren’t legitimately concerned (the way they presented themselves to be in the video), they can at least construct an effective argument that they are.

What’s your favorite Thanksgiving song? — Ben G.

I unfortunately can’t think of a single Thanksgiving song, though I’m guessing there are at least a few. Lol. Sorry, Ben.

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

---

Looking for a Christmas gift that keeps giving all year long?

From now until the end of November, you can gift an annual subscription to a friend or family member for just $37.50 (25% off the regular price). That’s a full year of Bernie’s weekly columns, audio and video commentaries, time-machine trips, access to the comment section, and more! And you can schedule the subscription to be delivered on the date of your choosing!

Don’t miss out on this sale!