From TPM Reader AK …

Just read your posts about this. I realize that law is quaint right now, and I haven’t researched the details. Maybe I’m missing something basic, or alternatively maybe it’s just so obvious that nobody is bothering to say it. But if Trump is extorting millions of dollars of value in his *personal* capacity in consideration for taking or desisting from taking official government action, that seems like a textbook definition of bribery or some other form of criminal misconduct, presumably with no official immunity. 

You probably saw the reports that there was an arson attempt of some sort at the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion last night on the first night of Passover. The original reports, at least the ones I saw, did not capture the gravity of what happened. “Firebombing” would be the only accurate way to describe the photos released this afternoon by the governor’s office. It’s possible that the original accounts provided to local media themselves didn’t capture the scale of the incident. A late afternoon press conference described it in more detail and released video and photographs. You can see the full collection of photos here. I’m republishing four of them below.

Here’s one thing that’s hardly been discussed as far as I can tell. We know about the Trump “deals” with various law firms. We know about the “deal” with Columbia University, which the administration has now violated to the extent it was ever actually a deal. But where are these deals? What are they exactly? I mean, have these agreements been committed to paper? In every one of these that I have seen each side has a general description of what’s been agreed to but there’s no document that you would have in the real world — or the real non-corrupt world — when two parties agree to something.

Another important question: Who are the parties to the agreements? Are they with the government of the United States or Donald Trump? I think it must be the latter since I’m not sure how you would legally structure such agreements. But that’s another matter. Where are the agreements? Why can’t we see them?

In the mid-80s, when I was a teenager, I had a brief conversation with a successful, well-off doctor. I wasn’t a patient. This person was sort of a family friend. In that conversation he said matter-of-factly but with the air of a let’s-be-real statement that he wouldn’t want to treat AIDS patients because he didn’t want to run the risk of getting AIDS himself.

Some context is important. This was still very early in the AIDS epidemic. The first blood test for HIV only became available in 1985. This was not a callous or uncaring man. And, at least at the margins, it wasn’t yet as clear as it would eventually be just how much risk physicians faced. But the comment stuck with me and I kept thinking about it. I still haven’t forgotten it 40 years later.

I reported early this week that DOGE/DHS was poised to close down the Department’s domestic WMD preparedness office. I’m hearing that there may now be some hesitation on pulling that trigger. It’s impossible to know in the DOGE era. They could be reconsidering the decision or one of the DOGE boys could just be on a streak on Fortnight and momentarily distracted. There’s an opinion piece on it today in The Hill too. Of the many things DHS does, preparedness against terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction seems like one of the more meritorious. And as I explained in my initial post, it’s a classic DOGE move. The decision appears to be driven not by the substance or effectiveness of what the office does but rather a quirk of its legislative history that make the legal or constitutional impediments to shutting it down a little simpler. Even if you accept the general need to streamline, consolidate, downsize or cost-cut, it should be obvious on its face that that’s not the way to do it.