This particular Indictment appears, on a review, to be as some have already noted very damning. The photographs accompanying it are themselves baffling. Consider the one shown above, in which archive boxes filed with documents and other things carried away from the White House are shown to have been deposited in a bathroom. What they portray is reminiscent of what one would see in the home of a hoarder; those unfortunates who cannot part with items regardless of any need for them, and so decide to live in squalor. This impulse carried to extremes may be a sign of a disease or disorder of some kind.
Perhaps what has brought us to this sorry day is evidence of a personal problem. Perhaps the hoarder derives a sad kind of satisfaction having such documents in his possession. It's difficult to say what would motivate someone to act as he has in these circumstances. It's clear from a reading of the indictment that that any wounds resulting from it can fairly be described as self-inflicted. Had all the documents in questioned been returned to the Archivist, the Department of Defense or whatever or whoever the proper custodian may be, there would have been no indictment--certainly no indictment as "damning" as this one.
Instead, it seems a sometimes rather laughable effort was made to withhold them. Boxes were moved from place to place to avoid discovery; even his own attorneys were, apparently, misled and misinformed. Most remarkably, statements were made by the named defendant and others in his circle which are incriminating, were witnessed, and even recorded with his knowledge and approval. Certain documents regarding a possible military operation were actually displayed by him to others, and he acknowledged he was acting improperly when he did so. He seems to have been bragging when he made this impressive misstep.
We'll see how this plays out in the courts. Judging only from the indictment and the scatter-brained and vituperative nature of its subject, there is certainly a possibility a prosecution will be successful. What I find particularly surprising, though, and what I think would be a worthy object of study, is the fact that he has ardent supporters and their reaction to the indictment.
I find it difficult to understand why this flawed, sometimes incoherent, often stupid, ignorant, self-involved, malicious, arguably sociopathic individual is thought to be a kind of hero by some, and is being defended by people who I must assume think themselves to be reasonable. I think those Republican politicians who leap to his defense may be dismissed as craven, venal and habitually (even necessarily) dishonest, being politicians. There's no reason, normally, to think they believe what they say for public consumption.
What of others, though? What is it about him that excites their support? H.L. Mencken believed that American style democracy would someday achieve the election of a moron to the presidency. I think it's clear he thought most politicians were crooks already; it only remained for the people to find and place in office a particularly stupid crook.
Is it possible that people see in him something they think is familiar and satisfying, that they think him to be "just like us"? Do they want to be like him? Do they find his bluster and posturing admirable? Do they delight in the fact that he is, according to certain accounts, considered a boorish dullard by people and leaders in other countries? One hopes not.
My guess is that he, and others like the regrettable governor of Florida, are expressive of the resentment some feel about people who aren't like them having a respected part in our society and government. We can be a very provincial people. We don't take kindly to outsiders. We see in others the sources of our problems, and will defend those who are like us, right or wrong.
