The Disappearing Cheshire Cat I Found in the Rabbit Hole Where Lee Chatfield Was Hiding

/97 Comments/in , , /by

I first fell into the rabbit hole of the largely invisible appendix looking for Lee Chatfield.

At the time Trump called him and then-Michigan Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey to the White House in November 2020, Chatfield was Michigan’s House Speaker. And one of the first things that I realized about the appendix is that Jack Smith relied on Shirkey’s January 6 interview — exclusively, it seems. But he relied — again, exclusively — on DOJ’s own interview with Chatfield (which appears, in sealed form, at roughly pages GA 70 through GA 82). To confirm that that was Chatfield and try to puzzle through why Smith might rely on J6C interviews for some people but do his own interview for others, I took the trouble to index the identifiable interviews. Among other things, I discovered a third interview pertaining to Michigan, a witness whose name falls between Barr and Bowers (Michigan State Senator Tom Barrett also attended the meeting, but it could also be MI Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson), as well as about 36 pages of interview transcripts, from GA 323 to 359, from Ronna McDaniel.

My original hypothesis about why Smith did his own interview of Chatfield was probably wrong. Chatfield was indicted in Michigan for embezzlement in April, and I figured you’d want to lock in the testimony of someone who is in legal trouble himself. A more likely explanation is that Chatfield’s interview with J6C was considered informal, so Smith had to get more formal testimony.

But one thing it the additional interviews allowed Smith to do was sort through a seeming discrepancy about the meeting. As the January 6 Committee Report noted, Shirkey and Chatfield had slightly different memories of the event, with Shirkey denying that Trump made any precise ask, whereas Chatfield described that he understood Trump’s “directive” about having “backbone” to be a request to overturn the election by naming fake electors.

Although Shirkey says he did not recall the President making any precise “ask,” Chatfield recalled President Trump’s more generic directive for the group to “have some backbone and do the right thing.”157 Chatfield understood that to mean they should investigate claims of fraud and overturn the election by naming electors for President Trump.158 Shirkey told the President that he was not going to do anything that would violate Michigan law.159

157. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Informal Interview of Lee Chatfield (Oct. 15, 2021). Leader Shirkey did not remember any specific “ask” from the President during the Oval Office meeting. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Transcribed Interview of Michael Shirkey, (June 8, 2022), p. 16 (“One thing I do remember is that he never, ever, to the best of my recollection, ever made a specific ask. It was always just general topics[.]”).

158. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Informal Interview of Lee Chatfield (Oct. 15, 2021).

159. Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Transcribed Interview of Michael Shirkey, (June 8, 2022), p. 57.

As it is, there’s something missing in this telling. The report describes that Rudy Giuliani was on the call. But it makes no mention that, even though she had specifically told Trump she couldn’t be involved in a meeting with legislators because it might amount to lobbying, he had patched Ronna McDaniel into the call.

That detail does appear in Mike Shirkey’s testimony (he claimed that she said nothing of substance). But Shirkey offered the detail of McDaniel’s participation long after Chatfield’s “informal interview” on October 15, 2021 and a week after McDaniel’s own interview on June 1, 2022, in which her participation in the call never came up.

Smith’s brief doesn’t say much about what McDaniel said, though this section does cite to what must be her interview. He did reveal that McDaniel made the initial contact with Shirkey and Chatfield, then got looped into the call after being warned against participating.

On November 20, three days before Michigan’s Governor signed a certificate of ascertainment appointing Biden’s electors based on the popular vote, the defendant met with [Mike Shirkey] and [Lee Chatfield], Michigan’s Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House, at the Oval Office.148 The defendant initiated the meeting by asking RNC Chairwoman [McDaniel] to reach out to [Chatfield] and gauge his receptivity to a meeting.149 The defendant also asked [McDaniel] to participate in the meeting, but [McDaniel] told him that she had consulted with her attorney and that she could not be involved in a meeting with legislators because it could be perceived as lobbying.150 After [McDaniel] made the first contact, on November 18, the defendant reached out to [Shirkey] and [Chatfield] to extend an invitation.151

Shirkey testified that Trump made no specific ask. But, as noted, Chatfield was more equivocal.

The January 6 Committee described Chatfield’s description of Trump’s calls in the following weeks.

That was not the end, however. Chatfield and Shirkey received numerous calls from the President in the weeks following the election. Chatfield told the Select Committee that he received approximately five to ten phone calls from President Trump after the election, during which the President would usually ask him about various allegations of voter fraud.161 Chatfield said that he repeatedly looked into the President’s claims but never found anything persuasive that could have changed the outcome of the election.162

But it doesn’t provide a detail about follow-up calls included in the immunity brief: That Rudy contacted Chatfield and asked him to throw out the valid votes.

Despite failing to establish any valid fraud claims, [Rudy] followed up with [Shirkey] and [Chatfield] and attempted to pressure them to use the Michigan legislature to overturn the valid election results. On December 4, [Rudy] sent a message to [Chatfield] claiming that Georgia was poised to do so (based on [Rudy’s] and [John Eastman’s] false advocacy there in the December 3 hearing) and asked [Chatfield] for help: “Looks like Georgia may well hold some factual hearings and change the certification under ArtII sec 1 cl 2 of the Constitution. As [Eastman] explained they don’t just have the right to do it but the obligation. . . . Help me get this done in Michigan.”168 On December 7, [Rudy] attempted to send [Shirkey] a message (though failed because he typed the wrong number into his phone): “So I need you to pass a joint resolution from the Michigan legislature that states that, * the election is in dispute, * there’s an ongoing investigation by the Legislature, and * the Electors sent by Governor Whitmer are not the official Electors of the State of Michigan and do not fall within the Safe Harbor deadline of Dec 8 under Michigan law.”169 Campaign operative [Mike Roman] was involved in the drafting of this message with the assistance of [P41] who was associated with the defendant’s Campaign efforts in Michigan.170 The following day, [Rudy] shared the draft with the defendant, sending it to his executive assistant, [Molly Michael], by email.

That’s a far more specific ask than Chatfield admitted to with J6C.

This passage is all sourced to an entirely sealed section of Appendix III, but the type of evidence included there is somewhat obvious. The section relies on:

  • 168: A text to Chatfield
  • 169: Something recording Rudy’s attempt to send a text (to the wrong phone number!) and 10 more pages documenting what message Rudy wanted to send.
  • 170: One page showing some proof that Mike Roman and [P41] were involved in this messaging attempt.
  • 171: Rudy sharing the draft with Trump, via Molly Michael.

It’s possible this evidence doesn’t include evidence obtained from Rudy’s phone in April 2021; for example, Smith could prove that Rudy missent the text via Rudy’s call data and the text to Chatfield, showing a very specific ask, could have come from Chatfield. The text to Shirkey could not have come from Shirkey, though, because he never received the message (which may be why Shirkey was much sketchier about any asks from Trump than Chatfield, because he didn’t receive this shamelessly direct ask).  But, particularly given that the email to Michael is just one page long (when asked, she provided no specifics about communications pertaining to Chatfield and Shirkey in her J6C interview), it may well have partly relied on that phone seizure and may well have been necessary.

If it came from the phone, though, it came from legal steps Lisa Monaco first put into motion on her first day on the job, months before J6C was even formalized.

Wherever it came from, the added detail could be utterly critical to proving the case against Trump. Before you get this additional evidence (from both Rudy’s and, possibly, Roman’s phone, as well as an email sent to Molly Michael), you’ve got Chatfield and Shirkey claiming Trump made no specific ask. After you get the additional evidence (and so long as you reach the bar of proving that Rudy was Trump’s co-conspirator in this nefarious effort), you have a very specific ask to just throw out the legal votes that Rayne and I and millions of other Michiganders cast for Joe Biden in 2020.

Share this entry

When an Older White Catholic Man Admits, “This Toxicity that Exists Is Really Embarrassing”

/120 Comments/in /by

When I vowed to stop calling Liz Cheney “BabyDick” when she announced she would vote to impeach Donald Trump, the second time, I wrote:

Liz “BabyDick” Cheney and I will never be friends. But she will have served a key leadership role in this troubled time in providing another path for the Republican party by voting to impeach an authoritarian.

May she help others feel safe in rejecting this scourge.

I thought back on it as I watched this clip, from the third of three joint appearances Kamala Harris and Cheney made in the Blue Wall states yesterday, this time in Waukesha, WI, one of the most important swing suburbs in WI.

Charlie Sykes introduced the questioner as Dan [Voberil], a retired Catholic teacher (I’ll call him “Dan” since I couldn’t make out his last name) and claimed he was a genuinely undecided voter.

He didn’t appear to be undecided — at least not by the time he asked his question, 31 minutes into the event — though Cheney taunted him, “Cmon Dan,” as he started to ask his question.

It may matter that Cheney had already answered a question about choice, noting that she’s pro-life, but that post-Dobbs restrictions go too far in a number of states, because Dan described himself as a Catholic who is pro-life, pro-choice, depending, but as someone who has five daughters.

He was there, at least in significant part, because he has daughters in the post-Dobbs era.

But Dan — who spoke of how much courage speaking up like this took (and as a teacher in a Catholic school, he may have reason to fear) — spoke most about, as a teacher and a father, how embarrassing “the toxicity that exists” is.

I was told I was going to be an alternate. I was a little worried about getting my question, but.

[Harris: Take your time, take your time.]

This is a question — actually, I retired from MPS but I currently teach and I teach at a private Catholic school and I’m Catholic but I’ve also been pro-life, pro-choice depending, but I have five daughters and I think it’s my duty to continue, with the children I teach as well, I see that we need to respect women and I’ve really come to the conclusion that this toxicity that exists is just rather embarrassing and as a life-long Republican [gestures towards Cheney] I thought your father would be a great President —

[Cheney: Thank you!]

Not to say George wasn’t but I’ve come to this realization and it’s been very difficult so I’m just — my big question was for the future of my children and also students that I encounter and try to show that we have to have some kind of civility like we did back in the 80s, when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, of course, could talk about things and solve problems and now it’s trying to get one better than the other and so I’m just wondering, in your position now, how to convince people like me who, some of my siblings may be questioning what I’m doing here but, like you said, we have to be courageous, and that’s what I’m trying to be, and so what do you think we can do in the last 15 days, or you can, Madam Vice President, to try to get some of these people to cross over. I know you already said that some probably won’t say who they’re voting for but … or something I could take with me to say, this sounds very good. We ought to at least listen to this.

Harris didn’t respond at first; Cheney did.

As she did, I recalled reports of how furious she was that Trump sent a mob after not just Mike Pence — whom, I have no doubt, Cheney includes among the “good and honorable people” that Trump betrayed — but also his daughter, Charlotte, who was with Pence that day. I remember reports that a big part of what especially infuriated Cheney was her horror that Charlotte was subjected to the mob, too.

I think that you’ve really put your finger on something that’s so important, and you see it as a teacher. Any of us who are around young children — I see it as a mom, my kids aren’t so young anymore, but you know, when they look at how elected officials — and in particular how Donald Trump is conducting himself now, that’s not a lesson that anybody would look up to. And I think about it, often, from the perspective of the men and women who’ve worn the uniform of our country and who have sacrificed so much for our freedom. All of us have an obligation to be worthy of that sacrifice.

[applause]

In this moment, there are millions of good and honorable people who Donald Trump has just fundamentally betrayed. And I think it’s so important for people to think about this from the perspective of, you know, the decision to give somebody the power of the Presidency, means that you’re handing someone the most awesome and significant power of any office, anywhere in the world. And you have to choose people who have character, choose people of good faith.

You know the Framers knew this. The Framers knew that it was so important that we take an Oath, that also, fundamentally, you had to have people of character. And Donald Trump has proven he’s not one of those people by his actions.

So what I say to people is, look, for us to get back to a time where we are actually having policy debates and discussions and disagreements, we have to protect what undergirds all of this. And what undergirds all of it is the Constitution.

And we have to be willing to say, as a Nation, we’re better than partisanship. And I say this as someone who spent a lot of years engaged in partisan battles. And there are important debates we have to have.

But if we allow someone, again, if we give him the power again, to do all the things he tells us he’s gonna do, he says he’ll terminate the Constitution, he says he deploy the military against the enemy within, that is a risk that we simply can’t take as a nation. And I think that this vote, this election cycle, this time around has to be about so much more than partisanship.

And I will just end this by saying, and I also know because I have spent time with Vice President Harris, because I have come to understand what she believes about how she will govern, that she will be a President for all Americans, that she’s committed to listening, and committed to having viewpoints some of which come from different ends of the political spectrum.

And if you think about how you conduct you life outside of politics, how we call conduct our everyday lives, those are the kinds of people that you trust, those are the kinds of people you can work with.

Like, if you wouldn’t hire somebody to babysit your kids, you shouldn’t make that guy the President of the United States.

I’ll repeat again caveats I’ve made before. I don’t know if this appeal to Republicans will work. I don’t know if Harris would have been better served doing something to listen to Muslim and Arab voters, what may be the single biggest own goal of her campaign.

But Dan — who as an older white Catholic man, is in every way a Trump demographic — modeled something pretty similar to what we watched Ramiro González model across two Univision town halls.

Dan is someone for whom being a Republican has been a core part of his identity. Dan is someone you’ll never convince that Reagan and Liz’s own father Dick engaged in a great deal of toxicity themselves (I was thinking of Cheney telling Pat Leahy to go fuck himself as I watched this).

But for our purposes, you don’t need to do that work.

For the purposes of breaking through the concrete polarization of MAGAt politics, you don’t need to do that work, not in the next two weeks.

You need to give people who’ve come to hate that their own party runs on dick stories and demeaning others, especially women and people of color, the courage to choose not to rejoin in that hatred out of partisan inertia or Republican self-identity. Both Cheney and Harris have talked about power and powerlessness, and I can’t help but wondering if they’ve discussed Václav Havel’s essay on the power of the powerless while flying around together on a plane Liz’s father used to command, of the import of everyday people taking small acts of courage, the import of people like Dan refusing to join in Trump’s attacks on people that might include his five daughters (though, to be clear, Harris’ models of courage would come out of the Civil Rights movement, a culture in which she was raised).

Sykes described that Dan is a genuinely undecided voter. He sounded like a voter who had made his decision, but was asking for courage, was asking for Cheney and Harris to make it easier to sustain that courage. By 31 minutes into this town hall, he was even asking for, “something I could take with me to say, this sounds very good. We ought to at least listen to this.”

I don’t know whether it will work.

What I do know is that neither Harris nor Cheney are mistaking the enormity of the task, of trying to break the authoritarianism of a party that has overwhelmed voters with a blanket of disinformation and dehumanization.

They’re just trying to give people the courage to break out of a lifetime habit of voting for Republicans and instead to vote for the Constitution.

Share this entry

So Help Me God: Lawyers, Encryption, and Insurrection

/6 Comments/in , , /by

I still owe you a longer post on what I gleaned from my deep dive into the mostly sealed immunity appendix over the weekend. Here’s my evolving understanding of the appendix so far.

Volume I:

  • GA 1 through around GA 660: Interview transcripts
  • Around GA 661 to GA 722: Material justifying treating Eric Herschmann as unofficial role

Volume II:

  • GA 723 through GA 771: Presidential Daily Diaries
  • GA 772 through GA 965: Social media

Volume III GA 968 through GA 1503: State-related documentary evidence

Volume IV:

  • GA 1503 through around GA 1684: Pence and January 6-related documentary evidence
  • GA 1685 though GA 1885: Material justifying treatment of Trump’s statements as unofficial conduct

But for now, I want to share a hypothesis: that Mike Roman and Boris Epshteyn used technical (in the case of Roman) or legal (in the case of Epshteyn) delays to stall the exploitation of their phones.

Again, this is all speculative.

As I laid out here, the superseding indictment does not name either Roman or Steve Bannon as co-conspirators using the designator “CC.” But the immunity filing treats both as co-conspirators, as least for the purpose of admitting their speech via a hearsay exception. In that post, I posited that Jack Smith considered a more substantive superseding indictment, adding charges based (in part) on their actions, but did not do so, possibly because of the timing in advance of the election. I further developed that hypothesis in this post, in which I suggested additional charges might pertain to inciting violence.

It is possible that SCOTUS’ decisions — not just Fischer and the Immunity ones, but also the 14th Amendment one — made Smith reconsider his charging decisions; see this post for how those rulings changed the legal landscape around Trump’s actions, and those of his co-conspirators.

But it may also be that a delay in accessing evidence meant that Smith could not yet consider such charges when he first charged Trump.

The mostly-sealed immunity appendix suggests there are fairly key texts obtained from the phones of Roman and Boris Epshteyn.

Much of the first 50 pages of Volume III, from GA 968 through GA 1014 (right up to the unsealed beginning of Pence’s book), are likely texts from Roman or Epshteyn’s phones. GA 968 to 996 are the texts in which Roman encourages a colleague at the TCF counting center in Detroit to “Make them riot.” The next three pages describe similar efforts in Philadelphia. It’s not clear where those came from, but Roman is from Philly, so it’s likely he’d be involved in any fuckery there.

Then, starting at GA 1004 (after three pages of unsealed transcripts showing Trump conceding in an AZ suit), there are what appear to be 11 pages of texts from Epshteyn’s phone. The texts start with the ones describing Steve Bannon telling Boris that Trump had just fired Justin Clark, he (Boris) would report to Rudy, and that Bannon, “had made a recommendation directly that if [Rudy] was not in charge this thing is over Trump is in to the end.” The apparent Epshteyn texts include his efforts to set up meetings to pressure Pence, ending with texts from January 5 where Epshteyn reported back to Bannon that Mike Pence’s counsel, Greg Jacob, had refused their last entreaty to just throw out all the Biden votes, in response to which Bannon said, “Fuck his lawyer.”

“So help me god,” Mike Pence says via the title page of his book on the very next page of the appendix.

It would probably make a dramatic narrative arc if we could read it in sequence.

These texts are (along with the transcript showing Trump’s campaign team conceding a legal case) the first pieces of documentary evidence presented to Judge Chutkan, to support the section of the immunity brief describing, “Formation of the Conspiracies.” But neither the specifics of the communications nor the treatment of Roman and Bannon as co-conspirators show up in the original and therefore the supseseding indictment.

I’ve been suspecting that Smith first obtained the Roman texts, from a phone seized in September 2022, sometime between August 1, 2023 (the date of the original indictment) and December 5, 2023, when Smith asked to submit the “Make them riot” texts in a 404(b) filing, the same filing that asked to present evidence of Trump ratifying the Proud Boys’s sedition that is entirely absent from this brief. That is, I suspect that in the four months after obtaining the original indictment, Jack Smith grew confident he had evidence to prove more than he had originally charged, but by that point, Trump had already secured his eight months of delay, putting the first chance to charge anything more in the pre-election window.

Mike Roman is technically sophisticated. It would be unsurprising if his phone were protected with the kinds of security that could cause a year long delay breaking into it. The reason I suspect there was a delay in getting these texts is that incredibly damning language that should otherwise merit treating Roman, from the start, as a co-conspirator, language that Smith now uses to open the start of his brief, only appeared in the public record in December 2023.

The reasons and means via which I think Epshteyn may have delayed access to texts that, like the Roman ones, don’t appear in the original indictment are different. These are the texts that got Bannon treated as a co-conspirator in the brief, that provided basis for Smith to use Bannon’s public commentary on his podcast — “all hell will break loose” on January 6– as a reflection of Trump’s own views.

Epshteyn’s phone, like Roman’s, was seized in September 2022. Starting in the months before the phone was seized, Epshteyn expanded his consigliere role for Trump, orchestrating Trump’s legal team that would help to hide stolen documents. It’s not entirely certain whether Jack Smith treats Epshteyn’s role as that of a lawyer in his stolen documents court filings. It was not until some months later that Epshteyn started billing his time as a lawyer. But Epshteyn got the press to describe him as serving in a legal role earlier than that.

According to someone who appears to be Eric Herschmann, Ephsteyn took on this lawyer role in order to obtain cover for his own earlier actions. In a November 2, 2022 interview, someone with Herschmann’s potty mouth and access  [Person 16] described how a “total moron” who looked like Epshteyn [Person 5] was, at that time, trying to give himself legal cover for previous activities.

According to Person 16, he “believed [Person 5] was now trying to create [redacted] to cover [him] for previous activities. [Person 16] believed [Person 49’s] records may reflect recent [redacted] that did not reflect what actually transpired.”

And it’s not just January 6 related crimes that Epshteyn might have been obscuring; prosecutors were also investigating a cryptocurrency scheme that Epshteyn and Bannon used to bilk Trump supporters.

To the extent that Epshteyn could claim there was attorney-client privileged material on the phone seized over three months after Epshteyn was involved in recruiting Christina Bobb to sign a declaration on June 3, it would create real obstacles in accessing material from the phone. And since 2023, Epshteyn’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, has also represented Trump, creating all sorts of complexities regarding the protective order.

It took nine months (April 2021 to January 2022), with the involvement of a Special Master, to exploit Rudy’s phones. It took far longer than that to exploit Scott Perry’s. Prosecutors only recently obtained content from James O’Keefe’s phone seized almost three years ago. It would be unsurprising if Epshteyn’s effort to retroactively create a privilege covering his phone extended how much time it took to access his content. And that might explain why details, like Bannon informing Epshteyn he was reporting to Rudy and Bannon’s treatment as a co-conspirator, would not be substantiated in time for the original indictment.

Again, this is all speculation based on what we see in the immunity brief that we didn’t see in August 2023 in the first indictment. But a delay in accessing the texts that have now become the opening act in Jack Smith’s documentation of Trump’s conspiracy might explain the shifted focus.

Share this entry

Donald J. Trump, Cosplayer

/148 Comments/in , /by

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

I think Marcy and I both have takes on Trump’s fast food stunt. Mine comes from an awareness of fan studies, which is a subset of communications and cultural studies.

This old dude is cosplaying.

Donald J. Trump wearing an apron while dispensing french fries at a McDonald's fast food restaurant in Pennsylvania as part of a campaign stunt on Sunday, October 20, 2024. Photo by Doug Mills/AP.

Donald J. Trump wearing an apron while dispensing french fries at a McDonald’s fast food restaurant in Pennsylvania as part of a campaign stunt on Sunday, October 20, 2024. Photo by Doug Mills/AP.

What’s cosplay, you may ask if you’re not familiar with popular culture. From Wiktionary:

cosplay

Noun
cosplay (countable and uncountable, plural cosplays)

(uncountable) The art or practice of costuming oneself as a (usually fictional) character.
(countable) A skit or instance of this art or practice.

Coordinate terms
dress-up

Verb
cosplay (third-person singular simple present cosplays, present participle cosplaying, simple past and past participle cosplayed)

(intransitive) To costume oneself as a character.
She cosplayed at the manga convention.
(transitive) To costume oneself as (a character).
She cosplayed Sailor Moon at the manga convention.
(figurative, often derogatory, transitive) To adopt the behavior and mannerisms of another.

It’s playing in costume, dress-up like we might have done as children, or at costume parties.

Cosplay originated roughly a hundred years ago but it didn’t enter mainstream popular culture until the 1980s. At first it was tied more closely to specific events; by the 1980s it became more widely practiced as an expression of fandom participation. Its popularity has risen in sync with that of comic book conventions, which have in turn expanded to encompass much of popular culture from comics to movies to premium cable series.

Cosplaying offers an escape from one’s real life as well as a sense of belonging to a fandom community.

For some folks cosplay is a kink as well. I’m not going to kink shame – your kink is not my kink and that’s okay – but let’s acknowledge for some participants there’s a sexual element to this expression of fandom.

(Side note: Based on Stormy Daniels’ statements about her intimate episode with Trump during which she spanked him with a magazine, it’s possible Trump has a humiliation kink. Cosplaying at McDonald’s might serve his need to be shamed by what he perceives as beneath him.)

Trump is dressing up as a character. He is not actually working in fast food. A shut-down McDonald’s and a Fox News TV crew isn’t real but a stage and a production team for campaign propaganda.

This is not the first time we’ve seen Trump cosplaying, either.

Donald J. Trump in the driver's seat of a Mack truck on the lawn of the White House; Trump is amusing himself yelling behind the steering wheel. C. 2019 Photo: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA.

The question before voters is this: when is Trump NOT cosplaying?

~ ~ ~

Let’s look at other roles Trump may have cosplayed in the past.

Exhibit A: Trump cosplayed as a successful investor of real estate and casinos.

Donald J. Trump in Trump business office c. 1970s. Photo: Getty Images

Trump in Trump business office c. 1970s. Photo: Getty Images

Perhaps this is why his real estate ventures have been of questionable success. He was only playing at this, not actually being a rational, competent real estate investor but a man costumed as one.

Cosplaying a business tycoon could explain why Trump racked up multiple bankruptcies and failed businesses from Trump-branded steaks to Trump University.

(It’d also explain why the office in this photo looks unfit for business — like a simulacra of an office.)

Exhibit B: Trump cosplayed as a rich and successful CEO.

Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue bearing a promotional banner for NBC’s The Apprentice reality TV series with a photo of Donald Trump and the tagline words, “You’re Fired.” Photo: Bernd Auers via Fortune.

The Apprentice was a scripted program in which Trump was characterized as the leader of a successful organization. This script was based on the previous cosplay effort; in other words, a canon of Donald J. Trump had already been established in a way that The Apprentice could simply extend this commercial franchise.

Buying into this scripted costume play could explain why Trump hasn’t released tax returns – who’d expect a man who only appears to be a businessman on TV to do anything more than follow the script?

Apparently Mark Burnett should have written a couple episodes dealing with business taxes.

Exhibit C: Trump cosplays as a golfer.

Via Newsweek: Donald Trump at Trump National Golf Club on August 10, 2023, in Bedminster, New Jersey. The former president bragged recently about winning two golf tournaments. Photo: Mike Stobe/Getty Images

Via Newsweek: Donald Trump at Trump National Golf Club on August 10, 2023, in Bedminster, New Jersey. The former president bragged recently about winning two golf tournaments. Photo: Mike Stobe/Getty Images

Real golfers don’t need to cheat every round, to the point one is a legendary cheater. Trump just pretends to be a golfer. His cheating assures his golf score card looks like a real golfer’s score.

Exhibit D: Trump cosplays as a family man with family values.

Screen capture: tweet containing two photos of Trump with a young Ivanka sitting on his lap. Source: Snopes

Screen capture: tweet containing two photos of Trump with a young Ivanka sitting on his lap. Source: Snopes

This is so very obvious, from his chronic infidelities to his abusive behavior toward his first wife and sons, to his revolting attitude and behavior toward his daughter.

Exhibit E: Trump cosplayed as president.

Trump in White House Oval Office behind Resolution Desk while giving an address. Photo: Carlos Berria/AP

Trump in White House Oval Office behind Resolution Desk while giving an address. Photo: Carlos Berria/AP

When did the extended commercial franchise end? Do we really know?

The person who sat in the Oval Office for four years wasn’t competent as president. He performed the role of president but a substantial number of his actions were not deeply thought out and instead reflexive. Perhaps many of his actions were scripted by others; some recent White House staff memoirs suggest others were definitely pulling the strings on this man who has no moral compass and a pathological need for approval.

Did he cosplay a presidential candidate as well in 2015-2016, failing to respond as one might expect a legitimate candidate because he only appeared to be a candidate?

Is he cosplaying a presidential candidate now because he has more incentive to play the role of his life, for his life?

Does that include cosplaying a fast food worker doing the kind of labor he’d never have been caught dead doing in reality?

~ ~ ~

Marcy and I have both mentioned kayfabe before with regard to Trump – me with regard to his handling of COVID, and Marcy with regard to the performative drama in which members of the media have participated wittingly or unwittingly with regard to Trump’s current campaign.

Kayfabe is performance; when effective and sustained, audiences and sometimes performers themselves can be sucked into believing performance is real and not a synthetic creation miming an alternative reality.

Cosplay is not kayfabe but dress-up. One doesn’t become a dog by wearing a fur suit.

It’s possible for kayfabe and cosplay to overlap, though.

Trump donning an apron in a closed-to-the-public McDonald’s and handing out fries is cosplay. In no way does he gain any further true understanding of what real fast food workers’ lives are like.

Taking off the apron ends Trump’s cosplay; in reality, taking off the apron doesn’t end challenges for minimum-wage workers. They don’t shed rent, health care, and transportation costs they can’t afford on part-time minimum wages. They don’t lose the challenges of scheduling child and elder care, education, household needs when they walk out the restaurant’s door.

Trump donning a suit and tie, then touting economic policy he doesn’t fully understand is both cosplay and kayfabe. Like a wrestler we never see without their trademark hair cut and attire, we don’t see Trump outside his blue suit and red tie or his white polo shirt and khaki golf pants. These are the element of both his cosplay as business person and president and golfer. They are signs of his engagement in kayfabe – when he’s wearing them, he’s on.

But you never see him outside these costumes, you might note.

That’s because there’s nothing there behind the suit and tie, behind the de rigueur golf apparel, and now behind the fast food apron.

Trump is an empty husk of a man. His narcissism underlies his fear others will discover this, that he is nothing but a propped-up costume used like a puppet by his sponsors whether Putin or billionaire oligarchic fascists.

He’s compelled to cosplay because he dare not do otherwise. Whatever costume he was wearing would crumple to the floor as he decompensated.

~ ~ ~

It is not in this nation’s best interests to elect a cosplayer-in-chief.

We have real problems requiring real solutions from people who aren’t playing or performing to the darkest interests. We need leaders who think and care deeply about the needs of this nation and are willing to do the real work necessary to serve.

It is and has been a national security problem to allow a narcissist who placates his screamingly hollow ego with praise from hostile foreign leaders and fascist oligarchs for his performative behavior in costume.

Imagine what will happen if he is elected again and is told by his sponsors on Day One, “Okay, Mr. Trump, give us your best impression of Hitler. We know you can do a great job.” He’s already warned us he’s interested in becoming an autocrat out of the gate.

This same approach may already have been used to encourage him to cosplay at McDonald’s: “Sir, we know you can be a better fast food worker than Harris. We know you can do a great job and it’ll help your campaign.” Voila, the hollow man has donned the apron to mimic a minimum wage worker for a photo op.

Imagine what a weak man with a humiliation kink, a desperate hunger for approval, and a love of cosplay could do if an authority figure demands specific kayfabe while in costume.

Share this entry

Kamala Harris against Despair

/35 Comments/in , /by

As you know, I’ve been tracking Kamala Harris’ outreach to Republicans, Liz Cheney above all, with a good deal of interest. I’ve spoken about why it makes sense from a demographic perspective; if Harris can attract some of Nikki Haley’s voters, it could put her over the top in these 50/50 states. I’ve described how seeing endorsements from people like Liz Cheney and her father create a permission structure for other Republicans to take the risk of voting for Harris.

More recently, I described that events with Liz Cheney and other Republicans provide a news hook for Trump’s fascism that cannot be dismissed as partisanship.

I’ve even observed (though perhaps only on social media) that events with Liz Cheney provide Harris a way to get out of an ethical dilemma. As Vice President, she should not discuss pending Federal cases against a criminal defendant, including the January 6 case charged against Trump. But Liz Cheney can. And Cheney happens to be an expert. In the events she did and is doing and still will do with Harris today, Cheney prosecuted the January 6 case against Donald Trump. And as she described how Trump sat, doing nothing, as his supporters attacked Congress, one of the people behind the women nodded vigorously.

But I also realized, as I watched the Michigan version of these events today, that Harris and Cheney are also modeling democracy. They are giving people — women who are my age and Cheney’s age and moderator Maria Shriver’s age are the primary but by no means the only target — what they want: a democracy where people talk to one another.

That is, these events, at their most ambitious, are about giving people a reason to defend democracy.

That’s something Harris said as she answered the last question in the Royal Oak event.

Shriver described several people in the audience talking about how scared they are, and she asked Harris how she copes with the stress.

Not eating gummies, Harris responded.

But then, after admitting she wakes up most nights these days, she gave an impromptu speech against despair.

Let me just speak to what people are feeling. We cannot despair. We cannot despair. You know, the nature of a democracy is such that I think there’s a duality. On the one hand, there’s an incredible strength when our democracy is intact. An incredible strength in what it does to protect the freedoms and rights of its people.

Oh there’s great strength in that.

And, it is very fragile. It is only as strong as our willingness to fight for it. And so that’s the moment we’re in. And I say do not despair because in a democracy, as long as we can keep it, in our democracy, the people — every individual — has the power to make a decision about what this will be.

And so let’s not feel powerless.

Let’s not let the — and I get it, overwhelming nature of this all make us feel powerless. Because then we have been defeated. And that’s not our character as the American people. We are not one to be defeated. We rise to a moment. And we stand on broad shoulders of people who have fought this fight before for our country. And in many ways then, let us look at the challenge that we have been presented and not be overwhelmed by it.

The baton is now in our hands, to fight for, not against, but for this country that we love. That’s what we have the power to do.

So let’s own that? Dare I say be joyful in what we will do in the process of owning that which is knowing that we can and will build community and coalitions and remind people that we’re all in this together.

Let’s not let the overwhelming nature of this strip us of our strength.

That’s how I feel about this.

The entire event is worth watching.

But what the Vice President said about despair may well be the nugget of inspiration that moves us forward.

Share this entry

How to Read the Immunity Appendix

/36 Comments/in , , /by

I’m still working through a deeper dive of the appendix to his immunity brief that Jack Smith released on Friday.

But I thought I’d share how I’m reading it, as I’ll need to refer back to that when I write up some of the interesting things I’ve found.

The appendix was released in four volumes:

Volume I: GA 1 through GA 722

Volume II: GA 723 through GA 965

Volume III GA 968 through GA 1503

Volume IV: GA 1503 through GA 1885

There are also a bunch of GA 1900 references in the immunity brief; those are to video and other multimedia, but we don’t get them.

But what we’ve got may be better understood in sections:

GA 1 through at least GA 653: Most of Volume I consists of interview transcripts arranged in alphabetical order, Barr to Wren, in what is visible. Once you understand that that section is in alpha order, it helps to substantiate whether citations in the immunity brief are to one or another person. For example, it seems highly likely that the GA 97 to 102 range is Kenneth Chesebro, because citations to those pages describe stuff he was involved with, and those pages appear between the visible Rusty Bowers and Justin Clark sections, and after material that must be from Georgia Attorney General Christopher Carr and former MI House Speaker Lee Chatfield. I’ll return to both Chesebro and Chatfield tomorrow.

These transcripts are generally truncated, including just the pages necessary to substantiate the material in the brief — though there are transcripts in there, such as that of Ronna Not-Romney McDaniel in the GA 323 to GA 342 range, that cover the full range of activities in which she played a part.

There are people, like former MI Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, whose only citations are to January 6 transcripts (and so are visible). There are far more people (like Chatfield, Chesebro, and McDaniel) whose only citations are to DOJ interviews, so are sealed. But some people, starting from Bill Barr, have citations to both J6C and DOJ transcripts. In general, the DOJ transcripts appear to come after the J6C ones (though I’m not sure that’s the case with Jason Miller).

GA 654 through GA 722: The balance of the first volume may also be transcripts, but it’s not in obvious order. Although one or several Eric Herschmann interviews appear from around GA 190 through GA 238 in the alpha order section, a great deal of GA 654 through GA 722 is also Herschmann-related material (including the blacked out pages starting at GA 709). There’s a lot of Herschmann in this brief, and I thought prosecutors did a less compelling job of explaining why those were unofficial than the Mike Pence material.

I had considered whether this section consists of more sensitive files, and it may. But it’s not the sensitivity I first considered: that of Executive Privilege (or grand jury versus interview transcripts). Mike Pence’s interviews appear starting at least by GA 413, between the visible Jason Miller and Katrina Pierson transcripts.

GA 723 through GA 771: The first 50 pages of Volume II are from the President’s Daily Diary, which documents all of the President’s calls and meetings. That the section tracked calls involving Trump was already evident from this footnote, which substantiates Steve Bannon’s near-daily phone calls with Trump resuming in mid-December:

And footnote 546 identifies GA 742 as PDD explicitly.

GA 772 to GA 965: The rest of that volume is Tweets and other social media, by Trump and by others. One interesting aspect of this volume is the type of Tweet. For example, it appears prosecutors attempted to include both the legal process version and the screen cap of all of Trump’s Tweets, but they don’t always do that. Trump’s RTs, in particular, appear to have been difficult to reproduce; remember that, because Trump’s account was suspended, there were some difficulties in reconstituting parts of it. There’s a bunch obtained from the Trump Twitter archive, suggesting they may not have been preserved at Twitter. There’s also just the text of the Mike Pence courage Tweet and his “sacred landslide” Tweet, which may come from a dump of the phone (and serve to substantiate that it was written with that phone). And there are a bunch of what appear to be text versions of Trump’s Tweets or Team Trump disseminations of them, the latter of which prosecutors point to to substantiate their argument that these are campaign, as opposed to Presidential, Tweets. If this ever goes to trial, how these got used will often say as much as the actual content included.

The other two volumes provide all the other kinds of backup to the immunity brief, largely documentary evidence.

This documentation generally follows the structure of the immunity brief itself, though obviously there’s a lot of overlap, particularly between Trump’s pressure on state parties and his fake elector plot. That may explain why prosecutors broke the Volumes where they did.

In addition to some random stuff (not included in my table), Volume III has the state-focused evidence.

GA 966 to GA 999: Forming the conspiracy

GA 1000 to GA 1236: Pressuring states to help deceive

GA 1245 to GA 1502: Fake Electors plot

Volume IV picks up from the effort to pressure Pence to throw out the votes and includes January 6. But it also includes a bunch of things — like campaign advertising and funding records — in there to substantiate an argument that Trump was acting in his role as a candidate, not as President.

GA 1503 to GA1663: Pressure Pence

GA 1664 to GA 1684: January 6

GA 1685 to GA 1869: Prove this is Unofficial

So Volume III and IV both have the same type of evidence: documentary backup. But rather than showing what happened, there’s a part of Volume IV that aspires to show that what happened amounted to campaign activity.

With that as a framework, one can figure out almost all of what is in the appendix in sealed form, based off the footnotes. And while none of the good stuff — the dickish comments Mike Roman made while on a conference call trying to tamp down a revolt from Pennsylvania’s fake electors, for example — are unsealed in the appendix, those two pages of text messages that appear at GA 1407 and 1408 do appear in the text itself.

We can’t see most of what’s in the appendix. But understanding how it works does provide some insight about the investigation.

Update: Corrected post to reflect beginning of Volume II as entries from the Presidential Daily Diary.

Witnesses

Update: Here’s a list of my best guesses for the interviews included in Volume I. I’m fairly certain about the identity of the people listed here; I’m fair less certain about where they begin and end. I’ve bolded the people I’m pretty certain have both sealed and unsealed content. I’ve italicized the people who, I think, have only unsealed content. The rest have just sealed content.

This is very rough!!!

GA 2-6: A cop who will testify about the riot.

GA 7-13: Bill Barr, sealed and unsealed.

GA 15: A Chapman/Shirkey related witness.

GA 20: Rusty Bowers.

GA 55-56: A lawyer who worked with Chesebro to deliver fake certificates.

GA 58-59: Probably Alex Cannon, testifying to the quasi campaign role Herschmann had.

GA 62-67: GA Attorney General Christopher Carr.

GA 70-82: Former MI Speaker of the House Lee Chatfield.

GA 97-103: Kenneth Chesebro.

GA 105-122: Pat Cipollone, testifying about things he wasn’t involved in, as well as efforts to get Trump to do something on January 6.

GA 126-?: Justin Clark has both sealed and sealed content. His testimony may extend to where Kellyanne Conway’s begins.

GA 160: Kellyanne Conway. [May be an unsealed only.]

GA 164-5: A fake elector.

GA 166: White House valet.

GA 170: Ruby Freeman.

GA 173: Details of the targeting of PA electors.

GA 175: Details of the riot; possibly Pence’s Secret Service.

GA 180: Stephanie Grisham.

GA 184-189: WI Supreme Court Judge Hagedorn.

GA 190: Vincent Haley, testifying about adding attacks on Pence back into speech.

GA 194 – ??: Where Eric Herschmann begins and ends is tough to tell, but it’s roughly from GA 194 through GA 238.

GA 246-259: Hope Hicks.

GA 261: Chris Hodgson.

GA 266: Greg Jacob. It’s unclearhow much of this is Jacob, but at least through 283.

GA 295-296: Chris Krebs.

GA 297: Amy Kremer.

GA 310-319: Nick Luna.

GA 320: Tom Marino (he dropped off as a fake elector in PA).

GA 323 through 359: It’s unclear how much of this is Ronna McDaniel, but her testimony covers a range of topics.

GA 361 to 368: Mark Meadows. This may go further.

GA 374 until around 397: Jason Miller.

GA 399-406: The then SAC of the Washington Field Office Secret Service office.

GA 405-406: This may be Stephen Miller (in which case the SAC’s last name is Miller too).

GA 411-467: It’s unclear where Mike Pence begins and ends (and where Pat Philbin begins, but something like this.

GA 476: Pat Philbin.

GA 481: Katrina Pierson.

GA 488-495: Fake elector.

GA 497-501: I think this is Reince Priebus.

GA 513: Brad Raffensperger.

GA 517-523: Fake electors.

GA 525-541: Dan Scavino.

GA 550-551: Al Schmidt.

GA 553-578: Mike Shirkey.

GA 578-588: Marc Short.

GA 600: There may be a senior campaign advisor besides Bill Stepien in here.

GA 609: Bill Stepien. [If there is sealed testimony, it may only be a page.]

GA 616-633: Larry Tabas.

GA 634-642: Ross Worthington.

GA 643: Caroline Wren.

After Wren, there may be someone who was involved in calls to Doug Ducey.

 

 

Share this entry

Trump’s GOP Is Running on a Platform of Freeing Seditionists and Cop Assailants

/68 Comments/in , , /by

I’m halfway done my first review of the materials Jack Smith released today.

All of us who have followed this have concluded there’s not any new news (though the presentation of it reveals certain things about Smith’s investigation).

So why did Trump’s lawyers wail and wail about releasing these materials before the election?

Just days ago, after all, Trump’s lawyers argued that releasing these materials would alter the election.

It may be this:

As the appendix documents, on March 11, 2024, Trump posted to Truth Social that, along with closing the border and DRILL, BABY, DRILL, his first priority, Day One, was to free the seditionists and cop assailants who had fought for him on January 6.

Prosecutors cited that post to support their argument that Trump ratified the violence that day.

As the Government identified in its Rule 404(b) notice, ECF No. 174-1 at 8-9, the Government will introduce some of the defendant’s numerous statements that post-date his time as President in which he has blamed Pence and approved of the actions of his supporters who breached the Capitol and obstructed the certification proceeding,722 thus providing evidence of his intent on January 6.

The defendant’s endorsement of the violent actions of his supporters on January 6, and his sentiment that they were justified in threatening Pence—all made while the defendant was a private citizen after the end of his term in office—are probative of his intent during the charged conspiracies.

722 See, e.g., GA 1970 at 17:37 (Video of Trump Interview 07/10/2021); GA 1926 at 1:15:30 (Video of Conroe Rally 01/29/2022); GA 1971 at 15:51, 16:42 (Video of Trump Interview 02/01/2022): GA 1962 at 48:29 (Video of Trump at Faith and Freedom Coalition 06/17/2022); GA 1966 at 09:30 (Video of Trump Interview 09/01/2022); GA 1973 at 43:07 (Video of Waco Rally 03/25/2023); GA 1694 (Transcript of CNN Town Hall 05/10/2023); GA 1964 (Video of Trump Campaign Statement 2024); GA 1967 at 45:18 (Video of Trump Interview 08/23/2023); GA 1965 at 56:10, 57:11 (Video of Trump Interview on Meet the Press 09/17/2023); GA 1935 at 35:50, 01:16:16 (Video of Greensboro Rally 03/02/2024); GA 967 (Donald J. Trump Truth Social Post 03/11/2024); Isaac Arnsdorf and Maeve Reston, 7rump claims violence he inspired on Jan. 6 was Pence’s fault, WASH. PostT, (Mar. 13, 2023, 8:09 p-m.), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/13/trump-pence-iowa/. [my emphasis]

The GOP candidate for President has a criminal docket. And in that criminal docket, today, the government included a post promising to free seditionists and cop-assailants with the same urgency with which Donald Trump promises to close the border. “My first acts,” the GOP standard-bearer stated, would include freeing the people who assaulted the Capitol on January 6.

This was the proposal back in March, one of the first things Trump did after Nikki Haley conceded. And since that time, the entire GOP has fallen into line behind that plan.

The Republican Party’s candidate for President is running on a platform of freeing cop assailants and seditionists.

There’s nothing new in this appendix. But that post does clarify things considerably.

Share this entry

Could This Week’s Developments Change the Race?

/148 Comments/in /by

As you know, Nicole Sandler and I do a wrap up of the week every Friday. We tape at 12PM ET, 5PM my time, and 9AM Nicole’s time (through daylight savings). It may show, but I usually walk into those recordings with no sense of what happened in the previous week. These weeks have all been so momentous for so long they’ve each felt like a year running into the next one.

This week, though, I think it important to assess the week as a whole, because I think it’s possible that events of the week will have a substantive change on the results of the election. No promises. But it is possible.

Start with the baseline: The race is statistically tied in all seven swing states. The race is close to tied nationally. If nothing happens, the race will be determined by two things: first, which side can get more of its voters to the polls, and second, how much Trump’s expected fuckery can thwart the actual vote from being counted.

At this stage, all we know is that people are voting — Jimmy Carter, a record number of early votes in Georgia, and even people from the hardest hit areas of North Carolina stood in line and voted in strong numbers yesterday. There are promising signs of greater than historic early vote from women (though Trump’s men could come in late). Nevada’s Clark County has still not posted the bulk of votes there, so it’s too early to tell if the Republican narrowing of registration in Las Vegas can swing the election. Early turnout in Arizona has been 44% Republican as compared to 33% Democratic, but the abortion referendum may affect how even Republicans vote.

It’s just too early to tell, yet.

As for fuckery? In Georgia, at least, there’s been some pushback against efforts to disrupt certification, including (again) from Republicans. NBC has done an update of how Trump deliberately stoked tensions at the TCF counting center in Detroit, and how Trump is training vote observers to do so again. Most counties in Michigan, however, will count early votes ahead of time. Meanwhile, Republicans — and one gambler who might be a certain South African billionaire — are using voting markets to create the illusion that Trump is winning, which will stoke distrust if that turns out to be fake, the same way shoddy GOP polls did in 2020.

It’s a tied game, and Trump has tried to systematize the ways he attempted to cheat in 2020.

Before we turn to whether events of the weeks might change that deadlock, consider why it’s tied.

It’s tied because 35 to 40% of likely voters are cult-like followers of Donald Trump. Those people live in a hermetically sealed world of his propaganda. Short of cognitive collapse, none of those people will abandon their Donald (though a surprising number of them are not voters).

It’s tied because 8 to 13% of voters believe a number of things that credit Trump with more success than he had and taint Kamala Harris with things she didn’t do. They blame Biden for global post-COVID inflation. For some justifiable and some unjustifiable reasons, they believe the economy is in worse shape than it is. They often forget how poorly Trump handled COVID. They may not know of Trump’s epic corruption. Because of a number of changes in the media, they don’t regularly access credible descriptions of the truth. Many of these people recognize that Trump is a horrible person, but because they credit him with successes he didn’t earn, they’re willing to vote for him anyway.

A significant chunk of these people can be motivated by the grievance politics that dominates the Trump cult — that’s why this year’s election will significantly pivot on education levels. Trump’s grievance politics are significantly based on his false claims to have been unfairly persecuted and his false claims never to have persecuted others. (This dynamic is a big part of what I’ve been trying to explain in the Ball of Thread podcast I’ve been doing with LOLGOP.)

In short, the reason the US is a knife’s edge away from electing a fascist is significantly a media problem, both the existence of the hermetically sealed world of Trump propaganda and the collapse and/or abdication of credible media for other reasons. The people who would make this election a blowout loss for Trump are often not accessing truthful information.

I read an anecdote on Bluesky that exemplifies this: Someone chatting about voting with two guys who planned to vote for Trump who believed that all of his criminal cases had been dismissed and who had no idea that Trump has been exhibiting signs of mental instability. It’s a media thing. Given that virtually no media outlets correct Trump’s false claims about his criminal exposure, you can’t expect voters to know better. And thus far, the press has sane-washed Trump’s recent decline.

Three things happened this week that may chip away at this dynamic for key voting blocks. Those are:

  • Trump’s meltdown in Oaks, PA, followed by a series of canceled events and poor showings
    • October 7: Trump cancels 60 Minutes interview, leaving Kamala Harris a solo opportunity
    • October 14: Trump sways to music for 39 minutes in Oaks, PA after giving word salad answers to the questions he did take
    • October 15: Bloomberg editor John Micklethwait savages Trump’s economic plans; Trump cancels Squawkbox appearance
    • October 16: Trump misses a few answers in a fluffed up Fox News town hall for women then really blows the Univision town hall
    • October 17: Trump pulls out of an October 22 NRA event in Savannah; Trump “postpones” October 21 NBC. interview
  • Cracks in the curtain of disinformation pulled across Trump’s failures
    • October 10: Harris appears at Univision town hall.
    • October 15: Coverage of Harris’ Charlamagne the God appearance focuses on the label, “fascism”
    • October 16: In Fox interview, Kamala Harris calls out doctored clip of Trump attacking “enemies within” and makes reference to Mark Milley’s attacks on Trump (though without using the word “fascist;” she also references all the Republicans, including former Trump aides, who’ve just appeared with her in Washington Crossing
    • October 17: CNN exposes the editing Fox News did of the women’s town hall and Bret Baier confesses they didn’t show the “enemy within” clip (but takes the blame himself)
  • The likely release, today, of the appendices behind Jack Smith’s immunity brief

To show why I think these developments might matter, I want to go back to Ramiro González, the man at the Univision town hall who asked Trump about January 6. As this person on Xitter noted, González actually asked a question at both Univision town halls. He asked Harris (mostly in Spanish, curiously enough) about rumors that the Biden administration wasn’t serving Republicans in FEMA relief.

In Harris’s response, she first asked if his family was okay. Then she addressed the disinformation about FEMA recovery. She told her story about never asking, as a prosecutor, whether witnesses and victims were a Republican or a Democrat, but instead whether they were okay. “We have seen where … people are playing political games,” she described Trump’s deliberate attempt to suggest that the Biden administration was playing politics. “You have a right to you know that your government and its leaders are putting you first, and not themselves.”

In the same appearance, Harris answered a question about whether she had been installed undemocratically, by describing Trump’s attack on rule of law. She listed the Republicans who were supporting her (including Alberto Gonzales, who is, whatever else you think of him and trust me I do, one of the biggest success stories for a child of migrants in US history), and described the mob on January 6. She stated that January 6 was one reason why Republicans were supporting her.

Those answers were on October 10. Less than a week later, González was back, noting explicitly that he had been a registered Republican, but was no longer registered as such. González pitched his question as a chance for Trump to earn back his vote. I think González sincerely wanted Trump to do so. González asked about January 6, about COVID response, about Pence not supporting him anymore.

Yes, this response was riddled with lies. But even basic ones, like his claim that “we” didn’t have guns, are going unchallenged even when journalists claim to fact check these claims. Still, Trump also didn’t answer the question, and that matters. He was asked about his inaction on January 6, not why people came to DC. He spoke instead about how many people wanted to hear him speak.

Importantly, it’s not just González who seemed to find this answer ridiculous. As the camera panned, several women sat with their arms folded; one looked shocked when Trump claimed no one was killed.

What I think we can see in these two appearances was what happens when Harris has a chance to break through the disinformation that Trump has been spreading. González and Mario Sigbaum, the guy who asked whether she had been installed undemocratically, came in to the Harris town hall believing bullshit that Trump had fed them. The Biden administration was withholding relief from Republicans. Harris had pushed Biden aside and gotten herself installed undemocratically. I have no idea whether her response worked for Sigbaum, but in answering Sigbaum, Harris said things that González would raise a week later with Trump, including that his former people were no longer supporting him.

This is the task before Kamala Harris, as more low-information voters head to the polls. She has to find a way to crack through the wave of disinformation that Trump has spread. These two clips show, I think, that when she has a chance to do that, either what she says or the references she makes or the empathy and leadership she models can be successful in persuading people not just that she’ll put their interests first, but that they’ve been lied to.

To be fair, they’re still getting lied to on social media. This week, for example, Christopher Rufo has been trying to seed claims that Kamala Harris plagiarized her book by cutting and pasting from a press release that the book cited. Many in the traditional press are still not telling the truth about Donald Trump — not about the guns his supporters brought to the Capitol, not about his obvious meltdowns, not about his criminal exposure.

But Trump’s public meltdown and his string of cancellations has finally titillated the chattering class whose claim that Harris couldn’t handle a tough interview was soundly debunked in the Bret Baier interview. Trump’s own fitness has become an issue again, eight years after the press got bored with that story so instead turned to Hillary’s emails.

And it has become clear, in the last week, that Harris’ events with Republicans have started to serve an additional purpose, in addition to giving Republicans permission to support her (though to be clear: González is the kind of self-identified Republican for whom that permission may be important). Those events, and Harris’ discussion of them, are a way to describe how many Trump Administration veterans, how many Republicans, have found him to be unfit.

Have found him to be a fascist.

They offer a credible way to make Trump’s unfitness a story. It’s the kind of story that may have helped to persuade González.

Again, I make no promises this will work. If it doesn’t, we’re looking at turnout and knowledge that Trump’s planning fuckery, even if we only know the half of what he plans.

But events of the last week may finally have stripped some of the curtain of lies that Trump hides behind.

Share this entry

Hen in the Fox House: Jorge Velázquez and Ramiro González Better Served Democracy than Bret Baier

/137 Comments/in /by

Fox News has been a toxin in the United States for most of thirty years. Yesterday, Kamala Harris went into the Fox House in an attempt to chisel away at that toxin.

It’ll be days, weeks, years before we learn how it worked, in part, because it was (in my opinion) only the third most important TV yesterday.

The most important TV was probably Trump’s town hall on Univision. Six minutes in, a man named Jorge Velázquez took the mic (after Trump offered a smarmy compliment him on his hair, which is the kind of beautiful thick mane that Trump covets). Velázquez described that he used to pick strawberries and broccoli and asked, if Trump deports everyone he wants, who will do that work and how much will food prices go up. (Given the way he distilled the problem with Trump’s mass deportation plans with one poignant question, I would be unsurprised if he has some tie to the United Farm Workers,)

Trump immediately said he was the best thing to happen to farmers. He seemed to suggest he would bring back the bracero program (since Elon Musk has begun paying Trump’s bills, Trump has been pushing to greatly expand legal immigration). But he ultimately didn’t answer the question. It was an unresponsive answer to a question that every person who imagines themselves a journalist should be asking.

That wasn’t the only challenging question Trump dodged. After 25 minutes, José Saralegui asked Trump why he lied about the Haitians in Springfield. After 33 minutes, Ramiro González, a Republican who has dropped his registration in the party, invited Trump to win back his support by explaining his inaction on January 6. Trump not only offered the platitudes he always does, lied about his supporters bringing guns, and used the first person plural to align himself with the mob (which may end up being useful to Jack Smith), but he did not answer the question. By that point, a number of the viewers in the audience had a hostile body language to Trump. After 40 minutes, Jesús González asked Trump to explain his gun control policy to victims of school shootings. After 43 minutes, Carlos Aguilera asked Trump if he still considered climate change a hoax.

In this forum, average voters asked Trump the kind of questions that journalists no longer do. And they did so on an outlet that sill commands a great deal of trust from its viewers.

The second most important TV yesterday may be the Fox Town Hall for women.

It was everything that Trump voters distrust about the media (though will overlook here): A hand-selected group of Trump sycophants that was edited to take out parts damaging to Fox (including that one participant had already voted for Trump).

The Georgia Federation of Republican Women wrote on its Facebook page Wednesday that the group helped host the event, posting photos from the venue and writing they were “Super excited for the opportunity of hosting this event right here in Georgia!”

Shortly after CNN reached out to the group and Fox News about their role, the post was edited to state they were “excited for the opportunity of attending this event right here in Georgia!”

[snip]

The first question posed to Trump at the town hall came from a woman identified as Lisa, who asked the former president a question about the economy. The network did not disclose that Lisa is also the president of the Fulton County Republican Women group.

Some of the town hall attendees made it clear they were supporters of the former president, either in their questioning or in their attire.

“I want to thank you for coming to a room full of women the current administration would consider domestic terrorists,” a woman named Alicia said to laughter from the audience before a question about foreign policy.

But a portion of Alicia’s question was edited by Fox News to remove her admission that she was voting for Trump.

“I proudly cast my vote for you today. I hope they count it,” she added, according to an audio recording from a CNN reporter in attendance.

While it’s common for a pre-taped event or interview to be edited for time, Alicia’s short remark came in the middle of her question, which remained intact on the broadcast.

During another moment missing from Fox’s broadcast, Trump asked the crowd who they were voting for, leading to a chant of “Trump, Trump” breaking out by the attendees.

And Trump still bolloxed three questions. In response to a visibly distraught woman asking about child care costs, he offered the same babbling pablum about assigning Ivanka to address the issue that he offered at the NY Economic Club. In response to a softball about IVF, Trump first claimed to he the father of IVF before confessing he needed Katie Britt to explain why it was important. And then when a woman asked Trump about making choices for her own body, Trump offered the same canned answer about moving abortion back to the states but him, personally, believing in exceptions that don’t exist in a number of states.

Within the safe space of Harris Faulkner’s set, Trump seemed not to care about offering credible answers. The women in the room will vote for him anyway. But clips of his answers will circulate outside that safe space.

Importantly, Fox also edited a clip from the woman’s town hall, to cut Trump’s most fascistic speech, identifying the Pelosis as the “enemy within.” When Bret Baier questioned Kamala Harris about it during their interview, she called him on the edit, and used it to talk about what “you and I both know” about Trump’s threats to turn the military on Americans. What was meant to be one in a series of gotchas instead became a moment for Harris to point to things that Fox deliberately keeps from its viewers: the threat Trump poses to democracy.

When Baier played a Trump transgender ad, offering little excuse for doing so, Harris noted that Trump had paid $20 million to instill fear about an issue that has little to do with issues that affect people’s lives. Again, she pointed to the spectacle that Fox viewers consume unthinkingly.

The Fox News interview will not win over voters, by itself. But Harris turned Fox into an issue. She called out Baier, repeatedly, for interrupting her. He kept doing it.

She also revealed things that don’t get covered at Fox. Harris mentioned having just been on the stage with Trump’s former staffers twice. She mentioned his former aides saying that he was not fit to be President. She mentioned Trump’s accusations there’s an enemy within. She mentioned that Mark Milley said that Donald Trump was a threat, without raising the word fascism (after which Baier attempted to dismiss it by specifying it was a quote in Bob Woodward’s book, telling viewers where to find more). She described Mike Pence’s criticisms of Trump and joked that Pence’s opposition to Trump is why the job was open to pick JD Vance.

All of these are things that are not permitted on Fox News.

During several of those exchanges, Baier’s face looked pained, as if he was acutely aware of the danger of letting such things be aired on Fox News.

After 25 minutes, as Baier was trying to drown out Harris’ criticism of Trump’s handling of Iran, he said, “We’re talking over each other, I apologize.”

Harris responded,

I would like that we would have a conversation that is grounded in full assessment of the facts which includes — I think this interview is supposed to be about the choices that your viewers should be presented about this election. And the contrast is important.

Baier interrupted again. As Harris told viewers to go check out her site to see her solutions, Baier interrupted again.

It’s the term, “we both know” which Harris used at least four times, that resonates.

Someone commenting after the interview voiced the same impression I have of it: It’s a Google interview. [Update: It was Brian Stelter.] No one will be convinced by it. But a number of people might Google to find out what the hell Harris was talking about — to find out what Milley said, to find out what Republicans supporting her have said to explain why, even to find out her plans to help people buy homes.

And when they discover that it’s actually Fox — and not CBS, as the Fox-fueled conspiracy holds — that is hiding stuff from its viewers, they may grow to question what they’ve been told.

But the Baier interview was, in my opinion, only the third most important TV yesterday. That’s significantly true because there are far more undecided voters among Univision’s viewers than among Fox’s. And Trump showed contempt in that situation. He showed contempt to undecided Latino voters, to their face. And he refused to answer the questions that no one else will ask.

Normally, the whitewashing that Fox does for Trump hides how contemptuous he is of American voters. Yesterday, there were several places where voters might see the cracks in that whitewashing.

Share this entry