15 January—Special Counsel Jack Smith’s just released voluminous report on Donald Trump’s election-related crimes (Final Report of the Special Counsel Under 28 C.F.R. § 600.8, in the form of a long letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland) doesn’t tell us anything we hadn’t known. But it’s worth reading anyway, so here’s the link: https://www.justice.gov/storage/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025.pdf

In a nutshell, Smith asserts, “substantial evidence demonstrates that Mr. Trump . . . engaged in an unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election to retain power.” [Oh no, Trump would never do anything like that.]

And Smith laments in his conclusion—with complete and utter justification: “The Department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind. Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial. [Editorial emphasis and amplified emphasis, given the federal district judge, appointed by Trump and clearly loyal to him, who did everything she could to nobble the case against him.]

So yesterday was the kick-off of the Senate hearings on confirming Donald Trump’s Second Cabinet of Unqualified Misfits. But that’s unkind. Because they’re not unqualified at all, since the only qualification—and the sine qua non—for sitting on Trump’s SCUM is complete, absolute, unconditional, unquestioned loyalty and obeisance to their corrupt, totally self-serving lord and master. And one or two might even be otherwise qualified.

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, who performed his kabuki yesterday, may or may not be one of the qualified nominees. But the most disturbing aspect of his public trial, so to speak, is the emphasis antagonists are putting on Pete’s private life—alleged excessive womanizing and drinking and whatever else suits the case against him and headlines. It’s not his alleged debauchery that’s disturbing, mind you, but the fact that it’s being considered at all.

The fact is, while a person’s private life may well reflect his character, in practical terms—and in practice—what has it to do with his professional—in this case, political and governmental—life? It’s private, after all. And has anyone accused Hegseth of being a crook or a murderer?

Oklahoma Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin said it succinctly when he accused Hegseth’s congressional critics of hypocrisy: “How many senators have showed up drunk to vote at night? Have any of you guys asked them to step down and resign from their job?”

And don’t forget that Jesus admonished the Pharisees who condemned an adulterous woman, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”