Listen To This Story

In an overheated news environment this past week, once we got through the Jimmy Kimmel affair, the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey dominated — edging out something that seemed far more sinister.

Secretary of War (sic) Pete Hegseth’s unprecedented summoning — with no explanation — of the US military’s top brass from around the world to an all-in-person session in Virginia.

To begin the very day Congress decides whether or not the government will shut down. 

A shutdown that Trump Budget Director Russell Vought, an author of the radical Project 2025, says will be accompanied not just by temporary furloughs, but mass, permanent firings. The result would be a government that is close to 100 percent about “homeland protection” — borders, law enforcement, military. 

Now, that timing may very well be a coincidence — and may be cleared up by the time you read this. But the baffling move deeply worries me. I think it would worry anyone who read or watched the 1964 classic Seven Days in May. It’s about a military coup in the United States.

None less than John F. Kennedy speculated that he himself might face a military coup. Could this country be headed that way? And why have a coup when you’re already in charge? Well, you have one when you’re impatient with obstacles and a mixed won-lost record. 

We know that many of the people at the administration’s highest levels have explicit contempt for democracy, and pine for a full-blown authoritarian regime. The indictment of James Comey, even after Donald Trump’s own top prosecutorial figures said there was no case to be made, tells us a lot. 

This may be just the beginning. The plan is to punish anyone who stood in Trump’s way, with his most ardent cheerleaders calling for ever harsher measures of retribution — including previously unthinkable proposals like jailing the entire Democratic side of a congressional committee. That was pushed into my X feed this week by Elon Musk and his acolytes. 

So we know Trump et al. have the inclination and the temperament for a coup. The real question is — could they do it? 

More likely, at least at this juncture, they may be thinking about getting rid of those generals most likely to resist unreasonable orders, which include any patently illegal demands that would involve violating the US Constitution. And the safest way to conduct such a purge is to use, as justification, the government shutdown, and the mass layoffs they have promised will result. (In any case, according to an anonymous source, the military bigwigs will be warned that they all “need to row in the same direction” — or face career consequences.)

We can guess what direction that will be. The same source also said Hegseth will “outline a new vision for national security under the Trump administration that includes more emphasis on homeland security and the Western Hemisphere over far-flung conflicts.” For the geographically challenged, Venezuela is in the Western Hemisphere.

Plus, the DOD — oops, DOW — under Trump has already been talking about dramatically thinning the upper ranks. OK, but you could deliver the bad news from a distance. Why bring them together? Well, having the potentially aggrieved all close at hand and far from their commands seems prudent. It’s like firing someone and not letting them go back to clean out their office — times 1,000. 

Or maybe it is some bizarre publicity stunt, perhaps one designed to shore up Hegseth’s shaky status with the administration, to say nothing of the American people. 

Trump, who claimed he didn’t know anything about the unprecedented military gathering, would no doubt appreciate yet another major distraction. (President-in-waiting JD Vance, always trying to firm up his authority, said he did know about Secretary Pete’s plan, whatever it is. 

Another interesting possibility: One of my colleagues, a military veteran and journalist of long standing, noted that Trump is increasingly out of the loop, and pondered whether this could be some kind of a test of a “soft coup.” 

On Saturday, a variation on these themes emerged, as Trump announced (via social media, natch) he’s sending troops into… Portland, OR — which is, according to him, “war ravaged” — saying the action was necessary to protect immigration-related facilities supposedly “under siege” by Antifa and “other domestic terrorists.” 

In fact, it’s a very small protest that has been generally peaceful and has been going on for months — hardly a “war ravaged” situation or emergency. Pure pretext for domestic militarization. They’re not even trying to plausibly disguise it anymore.

One important thing we do know: Hegseth intends to discuss with his generals his deep passion for, and commitment to, preventing beards. He wrote, “The Department must remain vigilant in maintaining the grooming standards which underpin the warrior ethos.” (As I recall, Hitler’s men, civilians and soldiers alike, were beardless, and their stubbly heads were shaven all around the edges, leaving well disciplined patches of hair on top.) 

By the time you read this, we’ll either know the deal or at least have the benefit of many more theories. 

NEWSFLASH: As I was wrapping this up, came news that Trump himself now plans to attend the meeting with top generals. 

***

Meanwhile, back to the thing they most want to divert our attention from: The Epstein files, and in what ways Donald Trump is mentioned in them.

The Epstein matter continues to be so worrying for the pro-authoritarian forces that they not only seek to distract from without — they distract from within, by introducing red herrings. Like this from Gotcha Video pioneer James O’Keefe: a “World Exclusive Bombshell” where a Trump DOJ investigator is offering “secretly taped” idle speculation to a stranger he met by chance in an airport, and tossing in the right-wing kitchen sink: Bill Clinton, Mossad, CIA — but “nothing on Trump there.” 

The DOJ investigator later expressed mortification that his casual, and likely uninformed, remarks were treated as important revelations from an insider. 

That’s just an example. Misleading chum is being fed to TrumpWorld because TrumpWorld has sunk its teeth into the Epstein story and won’t let go — and if they lose faith in Trump, he’s cooked.

Alexander Acosta

Meanwhile, a House committee’s closed-door grilling of one Alexander Acosta has come and gone. Which, however, does nothing to quiet suspicions about why Epstein was handled so gingerly in his earlier encounter with the US justice system. 

Acosta was the US attorney (appointed by George W. Bush) for the Southern District of Florida, who, after a years-long investigation, negotiated a sweetheart plea deal in 2008 with Jeffrey Epstein (one count of soliciting prostitution, one count of procuring a minor for prostitution). 

The deal that Acosta cut with Epstein is enormously controversial because of how leniently Epstein was treated: He was sentenced to only 18 months in a county jail (he served only 13), and was allowed to participate in a work release program — which allowed him to go home for 12 hours a day, six days a week, and, among other things, continue his activities with very young girls.

In 2017, Donald Trump seemed to reward Acosta for something by appointing him as labor secretary. He resigned in 2019 when Epstein was indicted on new, more serious charges (sex trafficking and abusing minors for years ) — charges that were followed by Epstein’s death in custody and the explosion of the story to its current evergreen status.  

The House Oversight Committee — chaired by Kentucky Rep. James Comer (not to be confused with James Comey) — subpoenaed Acosta for a deposition as part of its ongoing investigation into the federal government’s handling of the Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases. Comer said:

We want to know what went on during the prosecution, when many believe that Epstein was awarded a sweetheart plea deal. So, we’re going to ask a lot of questions about this. This is going to be a pretty hard-hitting deposition.

How “hard-hitting“ was it? After the September 19 closed-door session, Comer released a selective “readout” of the transcribed session. We know what that readout said; you can read it yourself in two minutes. It basically minimized the irregular treatment of Epstein — and clearly had been carefully planned to do exactly that. 

Since we don’t have access to video or transcript of the entire session, we don’t know all the questions that were asked — nor the answers. But it seems, at least from what we do know, via the readout and committee leaks, that many aspects need further clarification. 

Remaining Mysteries

Acosta has explained that one reason he did not pursue Epstein more aggressively was that he was told to back off.

An anonymous source (allegedly a Trump White House senior official) told journalist Vicky Ward of The Daily Beast that, during Acosta’s vetting, he allegedly offered this explanation for why he gave Epstein such a deal: He was told that “Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” and that Epstein was a figure “above his pay grade.” (In 2020, Acosta denied ever saying that; Vicky Ward said that her source never retracted that statement.)

Did the Oversight Committee ask Acosta about the alleged “intelligence” angle — or anything at all about whether and why he had backed off prosecuting Acosta more vigorously? 

If those questions were not asked, why not? And if they were asked but not answered, why not?

On the other hand, is it possible that the magic words — “belonged to intelligence” (like “national security”) — were just a bit of fabrication to get Acosta to back off? A lie employed by someone with a very different reason to protect Epstein? 

In any case, if a US intelligence agency is complicit in covering up ongoing criminal behavior that is ruining young girls’ lives, shouldn’t we investigate this odious use of taxpayer’s money?

***

Acosta’s attorney, Jeffrey Neiman, said, “Mr. Acosta stated that, with today’s knowledge, the 2006 prosecution would have been handled differently, as far more is known about Epstein now than nearly two decades ago.”

What’s new? How does “today’s knowledge” differ from what was well known 20 years ago? 

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) said, “At least 40 minors gave sworn statements to the FBI as part of the investigation that they had been raped, abused and trafficked.”

She also said: 

What Mr. Acosta just told us is, that, based on his assessment of the case with his team, that he did not see sufficient evidence to move forward with prosecuting the case — that there were weaknesses in the case. But when asked if he had directly reviewed the evidence itself in this case, he said that he had not actually read the statements of the victims.

If Acosta did not review the evidence, how would he know “there were weaknesses in the case?”

Rep. Dave Min (D-CA), a former SEC prosecutor and member of the Oversight Committee, summed up his impressions of Acosta’s testimony:

And I’ll tell you, after the first hour of sitting with Alex Acosta, I found him to be completely non-credible as a witness. His answers were evasive, he obfuscated and they were just not believable. 

What is Alexander Acosta hiding and why? 

WhoWhatWhy is currently examining the most tantalizing aspect of all: the claim that Epstein had ties to some intelligence service. More on that in the near future.