DNC Convention 2024: Day 1

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

The Democratic National Committee Convention 2024 opened today at United Center in Chicago IL.

Expect both the traditional and the unconventional given the attendees and keynotes as well as the organizers behind this four-day event.

Here’s today’s convention schedule (times shown are Central Time):

7 a.m.-9:30 a.m.: Delegation breakfasts
9 a.m.-10a.m.: Morning press briefing
9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Black Caucus meeting
9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Hispanic Caucus meeting
9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: AAPI Caucus meeting
9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Native American Caucus meeting
9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: Ethnic Council meeting
12 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: LGBTQ+ Caucus meeting
12 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: Small Business Council meeting
12 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: Labor Council meeting
1:45 p.m.-3:15 p.m.: Environmental & Climate Crisis Council meeting
5:30 p.m.-10 p.m.: Main programming

Main programming has already begun.

Best channels on which to catch the majority of this evening’s programming:

• C-SPAN will carry the entire convention uninterrupted for all four days.

• CBS News’ primetime coverage of the convention will air Monday through Thursday from 8-11 p.m. ET and be anchored by “CBS Evening News” anchor and managing editor Norah O’Donnell.

• CNN will provide nearly 24/7 live on-air coverage of the DNC, including special live coverage each night from 8 p.m.-midnight ET with “CNN Democratic National Convention.”

• NewsNation will have special primetime coverage entitled “Decision Desk 2024: The Democratic National Convention,” which will air each day from 8 p.m.-midnight ET. It will be co-anchored by Chris Cuomo, Elizabeth Vargas and Leland Vittert.

• MSNBC will air special coverage from 8 p.m. to midnight each night and will also livestream all four days of the convention on its YouTube channel, the New York Times reports.

(source for schedule and channel lineup: USA Today)

The other networks including MSNBC’s parent have highly abbreviated coverage.

Tonight’s speaker line up already in progress (via ABC channel 6):

5:15 p.m.

• Call to Order: Minyon Moore, chair of the 2024 Democratic National Convention Committee, Jaime R. Harrison, chairman of the Democratic National Committee
• Invocation: Cardinal Blase Cupich, archdiocese of Chicago
• Land Acknowledgement: Zach Pahmahmie, Tribal Council Vice-Chairman of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation and Lorrie Melchior, Tribal Council Secretary of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation
• Presentation of Colors: Illinois State Police Honor Guard
• Pledge of Allegiance: William Harrison, 9, and Charles Harrison, 5
• National anthem: Soul Children of Chicago
• Remarks and video introduction: Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson
• Presentation of the Convention Agenda: Jaime Harrison joined by vice chairs Keisha Lance Bottoms, Ken Martin, and Henry R. Muñoz III, Treasurer Virginia McGregor, and Finance Chair Chris Korge
Confirmatory and Ceremonial Vote for the Vice Presidential Nominee: Minyon Moore

6 p.m.

• Welcome remarks: Peggy Flanagan
• Welcome Remarks: Jaime Harrison
• Remarks: U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters
• Joint Remarks: Derrick Johnson, President & CEO of the NAACP and Melanie L. Campbell, President & CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation
• Honoring the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr, accompanied by Jonathan Jackson and Yusef D. Jackson.
• Remarks: U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood
• Video: Rich Logis: former Donald Trump voter
• Remarks: U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia
• Remarks: Brian Wallach and Sandra Abrevaya, health care advocates and founders of I Am ALS
• Remarks: U.S. Senator Dick Durbin
• Remarks from Arizona: Dutch Martinez and Ryan Ahern, The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada (UA)
• Remarks: U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty
• Joint Remarks: Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), April Verrett, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Brent Booker, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA), Kenneth W. Cooper, international president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Claude Cummings Jr., president of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and Elizabeth H. Shuler, president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
• Remarks: Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass
• Performance: Mickey Guton
• Joint Remarks on “Investing in the Future”: California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Austin A. Davis, Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Sarah Rodriguez and Harris County, Texas Judge Lina Hidalgo

7 p.m.

• “Project 2025-Chapter One: Introduction”: Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow
• Remarks: U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schutz
• Remarks: U.S. Sen. Laphonza Butler
• Remarks: U.S. Rep. Linda Haskins
• Remarks: Lt. Jeremy Warmkessel, President of Local 302 IAFF Allentown Firefighters, Pennsylvania
• Remarks: Maria-Isabel Ballivian, Executive Director of the Annandale Christian Community for Action Childhood Development Center, Virginia
• Remarks: Deja Foxx, reproductive rights activists and content creator
• Performance: Jason Isbell
• Remarks: Gina M. Raimondo, United States secretary of commerce
• Remarks: New York Gov. Kathy Hochul

8 p.m.

• Remarks: Steve Kerr, Team USA men’s basketball coach
Shawn Fain, president of the United Automobile Workers
• U.S. Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez
• Remarks: Stacey Johnson-Batiste and Doris Johnson, childhood friends of Kamala Harris
• Hillary Rodham Clinton, former United States secretary of state
• U.S. Rep. James E. Clyburn
• U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin
• U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett
• U.S. Rep. Grace Meng

9 p.m.

• Joint Remarks: Amanda and Josh Zurawski, Texas; Kaitlyn Joshua, Louisiana; Hadley Duvall, Kentucky
• Remarks: Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear
• Remarks: The Rev. Raphael G. Warnock, Georgia senator
• Remarks: U.S. Sen. Chris Coons
• Remarks: First Lady Jill Biden
• Performance: James Taylor
• Ashley Biden
• President Joe Biden
• Benediction: Rabbi Michael S. Beals and Pastor Cindy Rudolph
• Gavel out: Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan

Some of the DNCC’s events noted above were conducted at McCormick Place earlier in the day, including these speakers:

• Black Caucus featuring Rep. Barbara Lee and Rep. Jahana Hayes
• Hispanic Caucus featuring Miguel Cardona, House Democratic  Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar and Rep. Maxwell Frost
• AAPI Caucus featuring Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi
• Native American Caucus featuring Tucson Mayor Regina Romero
• Ethnic Council featuring Lisa Ann Walter and former New York Mayor Bill de Blasio
• LGBTQ+ Caucus featuring Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, BenDeLaCreme, and Peppermint
• Labor Council featuring Miguel Cardona, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Rep. Tom Suozzi, Rep. Donald Norcross, and AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler
• Small Business Council featuring Rep. Morgan McGarvey
• Environmental and Climate Crisis Council featuring Rep. Ro Khanna and AFT President Randi Weingarten

As media coverage of the convention begins, take heed:

Laffy @[email protected]

Via Richard Stengel:

A word of caution to the press: a political convention is the place where more journalists are in one place in search of fewer stories than any other situation. The tendency is to blow up something small because it’s new, not because it’s important. Don’t do that. #DNC2024

Aug 19, 2024, 01:56 PM

Expect bullshit coverage. In addition to likely puny-matters-blown-up for the clicks, there’s a raft of crap being strewn by right-wing media outlets right now, all of which looks like so much spaghetti thrown at the wall to see what will stick. Don’t help them.

Share this entry

2024 Remains an Unpredictable Race: Six Predictable Things that Could Still Upend It

Donald Trump announced he was running in the 2024 Presidential race over 21 months ago. Tomorrow marks four weeks since Joe Biden dropped out of the race. It marks two weeks since Vice President Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee. Monday, the Democratic Convention starts.

Back before and when Joe Biden dropped, I was certain about two things: that Kamala Harris would bring a lot more stamina to the race and she would give much better voice to a pro-Choice position that could impact the outcome of the race. I was also pretty sure that because someone was out selling wildly successful policies, both Biden and Harris’ approval ratings would improve (remember my screen caps are 5 hours ahead of ET; this tweet was three hours after Biden dropped and two after he endorsed Harris).

I hoped that Kamala would break the Double Hater logjam that has characterized the past two Presidential races (and this one, until that point).

Kamala’s approval ratings have gone up (Biden’s are less dramatic, but have ticked up maybe a point so far).

And newfound enthusiasm, especially among Independent voters, suggests the Vice President may, indeed, break that Double Hater logjam.

That said, I think far too many people are complacent in their belief that Harris will continue to slowly grow a lead that will be sustainable in the face of whatever rat-fuckery Trump tries in November.

If we’ve learned one thing about the 2024 election, it’s that normal predictions won’t hold.

I still think a true Black Swan event is possible — something like a global war.

I also think the unpredicted and widespread notoriety of Project 2025 will upend any normal political outcomes. It’s not just a post-Dobbs election (with abortion on the ballot in swing states like Arizona), but continued coverage of Project 2025 in both the political and the popular press has put democracy on the ballot in a surprising way.

But even the following six things are quite possible, which could significantly affect the race in a number of ways.

Big protests at DNC: Many of the people pressuring Biden to drop, including Nancy Pelosi, favored some kind of speed primary. Instead, Biden and Harris managed to make that impossible within 24 hours of his departure. So instead of a wildly divisive Convention, Harris can instead mostly look forward to a lovefest, where the biggest questions are whether Jimmy Carter can manage a video cameo and which surprise performers — potentially including Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, or even Taylor Swift will show up.

The very important caveat to that, though, is that around 30 Uncommitted delegates can will cause some dissension inside the Convention and tens of thousands of protestors will cause even more outside of it. It’s the latter I’m most worried about. The protests themselves will restore attention to the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza. But they’re also an easy target that provocateurs and right wing cops can exploit.

Meaningful ceasefire in Israel — or, further escalation: In the face of potential escalation, negotiators have redoubled efforts to forge some kind of ceasefire deal. But there’s some reason to believe that Trump and Bibi will thwart this at all costs.

The potential for Gaza to dampen Democratic enthusiasm (or to juice third party candidates) has long been a focus. But few have fully unpacked how it has been exploited by the right. So one way or another, this continues to be the most obvious pivot for more dissension among likely Democratic voters.

And all that’s before Iran’s very real efforts to target Donald Trump.

Superseding indictment and/or September sentencing for Trump: As of right now, Trump is due to be sentenced in his New York document fraud case on September 18 and the parties in Trump’s January 6 case should begin discussing what to do about SCOTUS’ immunity indictment in early September.

Yesterday, Trump asked to delay the sentencing until after the election. Roger Parloff gave a nuanced assessment of the mostly but not entirely frivolous request. Even if he’s sentenced, it’s not at all clear that Juan Merchan would sentence Trump to prison time.

Meanwhile, I’m not the only one who thinks that Jack Smith asked for an extension until the last possible day to supersede Trump before the election because he may be contemplating such a course (since I wrote that post, DOJ has chose to recharge even more crime scene January 6ers charged with obstruction). A superseding indictment might add his co-conspirators (what others predict) or change the crimes charged against Trump (my own suspicion). One way or another, though, there will be legal proceedings on the January 6 case in September, proceedings that have the possibility to expose more details about how closely Trump’s team worked with the Proud Boys or about how central a role Trump played in sending bodies to the Capitol.

The thing about both these eventualities is that it’s not at all clear whether the rule to date — that Trump’s legal troubles only make him more popular with right wingers — will hold, not least because independent voters will finally be tuning in. And even if they do, they’ll happen against a backdrop where Kamala is running as a prosecutor who has taken on thugs like Trump in the past.

Another tumultuous debate: Trump actually had a really poor debate in June, but a combination of asymmetric press coverage and normalization of Trump covered for that. If he has another such debate, it could serve as a real weight on his campaign.

But it’s really not guaranteed that Kamala will ace a debate either. Trump’s ability to reframe entire conversations is unmatched, and thus far no moderator has been able to rein that in. Plus, for at least half of Trump’s presidential debate appearances, he has arranged some kind of gimmick for them (such as hosting Tony Bobulinski or making a framed false claim about Biden’s role in the Mike Flynn investigation). Usually, they fizzle, but you can’t guarantee they will.

Further decline in Trump’s mental state: Honestly, I think the degree to which Trump’s rambling and grievance are new is wildly overblown. He has always been like this. But I think the way in which it has been perceived of late has changed. That’s partly true because his schtick has gotten tired enough that even Trumpsters have begun to tune out (and occasionally, leave his events) in noticeable numbers. Because Trump has attempted to replace his big rallies in recent weeks, appearing at events with smaller or no crowds, he hasn’t gotten the juice he normally gets from crowd adulation that he needs to pull off his performances.

That may change now that the Secret Service has developed a plexiglass booth to protect him outdoors.

Even still, Kamala Harris has found ways to trigger Trump’s ugliest side, making it harder for him to control his grievances.

As a result, the press and some Republicans have begun to comment on his mental performance in a way they’ve haven’t done since 2016.

Far right political violence: As I laid out here, Trump’s allies and Elon Musk have both been part of a transnational effort to stoke violence based on fearmongering about migrants. In the past, right wing efforts to sow fear based on fabricated claims about caravans and the like have failed. And there’s always the likelihood that Trump’s mob will rise up in response to one of the events above, such as a superseding indictment.

As noted at the start of this post, it is possible that Kamala Harris will continue to engage new voters, competing in states (started with North Carolina) that haven’t been competitive in years.

But that’s if trends continue. And this year, there’s lots of reason to question whether they will.

Update: WaPo’s latest (very positive for Kamala) poll shows that the number of people happy with their choices for POTUS have gone up 16 points, a measure of the decline in Double Haters.

In July, when the contest was still Biden vs. Trump, 28 percent of voters overall said they were satisfied with the choice. Today, 44 percent say they are satisfied with the choice of Harris or Trump.

Share this entry

Fruit Loops and Taco Talk

For weeks, journalists — some of them stoked by Donald Trump — have been complaining that Kamala Harris has yet to do an interview or a presser.

Instead of doing that yesterday, Kamala’s campaign released this video she and Tim Walz filmed in Detroit — really just one of the first days they had spent much time together.

 

In addition to Kamala scolding Walz for not answering the first call she made to offer him the Veep slot, there’s a great conversation about music (both agree on Prince, whereas Walz’ tastes may match Doug Emhoff’s more than Kamala’s herself), and a conversation about tacos that has driven far right trolls nuts.

They think Walz is lying when he says he doesn’t eat anything much spicier than pepper. As a long-time Midwesterner, those trolls are going to faceplant if they think they’re going to convince Midwesterners that a bland palate is anything but authentic.

This conversation would have been around August 7. The next day, when Madame Vice President and her running mate got Mexican food in Phoenix, she warned the staff to tone down the spice on Walz’ dish, because he couldn’t handle more than  black pepper.

But that’s the point. This video is, effectively, a kind of campaign selfie (something the campaign had already been doing, most notably when Barack and Michelle Obama called to endorse the Vice President). It’s the kind of thing that can go viral on TikTok among younger voters who really just want politicians to come off as real people.

By comparison, Trump did another event he billed as a press conference, though he didn’t take his first question until 46 minutes in.

With just a few exceptions, the questions are abysmal, mostly pro-Trump horse race questions asking for reassurances that he’ll be able to surge past Harris and Walz.

Journalists think they’re offering value with such interactions. They’re just fooling themselves. At this stage, voters really are more interested that Kamala and Coach Walz have genuinely held musical taste.

Trump presser questions

When have you last spoken with Bibi Netanyahu and what did you counsel him about cease fire? Trump at first answered when was the last time he saw Bibi. He went on to say he had not spoken to him since, which given the context may not rule out a conversation.

Why did god save your life?

Credit card debt softball.

Many of your allies say your personal strategy is not working, and is adding new people a sign of shifting strategy. I’m entitled to make personal attacks [on her because] I don’t have a lot of respect for her. She called me weird. They tell me I should be nice. They want to put me in prison. [Lies about his extensive efforts to put Hillary in prison.]

Nikki Haley said Republicans need to stop whining about Kamala Harris. Would you consider having Nikki Haley on the trail with you. All we have to do is lie about our opponent being a communist or a socialist.

Should the Federal government be responsible for determining food prices. She wants no fracking.

I know you say you’re leading but a Fox News poll out just yesterday has you up by just one point. How do you break away.

What’s your plan for holding China accountable [maybe for COVID?] if you get reelected?

You praise how Elon Musk treats workers, saying if they go on strike every one of you is gone. Are you really comfortable with companies who threaten to fire workers who go on strike? Sean O’Brien said firing workers who want to organize is economic terrorism. The Black population is absolutely threatened. The Hispanic population is absolutely threatened.

Tim Walz has been saying that you want to get things so that you can campaign on it. I wish I didn’t have to do this. Tampons in the bathrooms.

[Trump tries to end.]

Do you regret debating Biden so early in this race? Jake Tapper and Dana Bash were absolutely straight. ABC is the most unfair of all the networks. You know they’re hiding her, just like they’re hiding him.

[Trump tries to end.]

Wheaties or Cheerios? What happens to all these groceries? She’s 100 years old, she wants my autograph.

[crowd shots, occasionally with shouted questions, inaudible question]

What do you think about Ukraine’s incursion into Russia?

Can you say anything about the hacking of your campaign? I don’t like it. Really bad. I’m not happy with it. Our government shouldn’t let that happen. Does there need to be a government response? Yeah there should be. Our government should not let — they have no respect for our government.

Kamala Harris is cutting in on blue collar voters. Do you have a plan on how to push back on that? Do I have a plan? I have a plan.

[Trump tries to end.]

[More gladhanding.]

[Walt Nauta comes and whispers to Trump. After several more attempts, Trump leaves.]

Share this entry

With Tim Walz, There Is TOO Such a Thing as a Free Lunch

Among the numerous critiques I’ve seen from campaign pros and even Republicans about the Trump team is its advance work. First they put JD Vance in front of a half-hidden banner that made him look like he was pitching the Vice President, and since then they keep putting JD Vance in empty parking lots with anemic crowd set-ups.

Then they tried to force Trump to adhere to a policy topic at a 2,500-person venue in Asheville, NC by putting economic slogans — no tax on tips! no tax on social security! — on the backdrop.

It didn’t work. He still made substance free attacks on Kamala Harris.

Yesterday’s so-called press conference was something else. Trump’s staffers had gone shopping in advance, with a bunch of consumer goods laid out on tables behind him. He mostly ignored the props, while reading from a notebook about rising prices in a bored rant. “Grocery prices have skyrocketed,” he said. “Surreals are up 26%,” he seemed to say.

Indeed they are. It was a real Fruit Loops performance.

After finishing a 45-minute monotone speech, Trump finally turned to the products behind him, “wow!” and read off the list of purported price increases. “Up 65% — wow — school lunches up 65%. How can a family afford that?”

At some point, this has to be sabotage. Because if the problem is that nobody can afford school lunches, then Tim Walz looks like the solution.

Under Governor Walz, Minnesota made free no-questions asked school breakfasts and lunches available to any kids. It’s akin to another of the measures Walz signed designed to eliminate barriers to getting kids in schools learning, just like the free tampon program that right wingers have turned into a transphobic attack.

Even as Trump laid out a problem that, in Minnesota, Walz already fixed, Vice President Harris was announcing anti-gouging initiative to bring other food prices down.

Share this entry

The Saudi Payments to Trump Are More Important than the Suspected Egyptian One

As you know, I was calling on the press to focus on the suspected $10 million payment Egypt made to Trump before it was cool — since even before the WaPo significantly advanced the story over a month later.

In the aftermath of Trump’s shitshow presser last week, a slew of people have started calling on the handpicked set of journalists who’ll attend today’s presser to focus on the Egyptian payment.

It is important that Trump face questions about it.

But, in my opinion, that’s not the most important financial windfall to question. The ongoing Saudi funding of Trump is.

There are four payments of interest:

  • The $2 billion investment in Jared Kushner’s investment fund after Mohammed bin Salman overrode the recommendations of advisors who pointed out he’s unqualified and was charging too much.
  • The LIV golf tournaments hosted at Trump properties; while Forbes has estimated the tournaments were a minimal part of Trump Organization revenue, they put Trump at the center of a Saudi influence-peddling racket that was too toxic for even Vivek Ramaswamy.
  • The freebie branding deal for a development in Oman, for which Trump has already pocketed $5 million.
  • The more recent deal — with the same government-connected construction firm as the Oman deal — for a Trump Tower in Jeddah.

There are a bunch of reasons why the Saudi payments are more important.

First, while the Egyptian payment does seem to have coincided with increased coziness on Trump’s part for Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, the Saudi/Gulf influence-peddling was orchestrated even earlier by Tom Barrack (and assisted by Paul Manafort). There’s good reason to suspect the autocrats of the world are at least chatting openly about efforts to reinstall Trump, because he will undermine democracy and human rights.

The Jared investment, especially, looks like a quid pro quo for America’s help downplaying the Jamal Khashoggi assassination. That is, that payment, at least, looks like a specific payoff, a payoff for letting Mohammed bin Salman chop up a US resident journalist with a bone saw.

As noted, Trump’s involvement in LIV really legitimized a clear Saudi influence-peddling racket.

The branding deals in Oman and Jeddah parallel the free money Moscow Trump Tower deal that was fairly clearly an attempt to purchase Trump (and put Trump back in the business of selling money laundering vehicles to corrupt people again).

The branding deals are especially troubling given the closer involvement of Eric and Don Jr in Trump’s campaign this time. Will Trump do what he did the last time, and install his children in the White House and give them access to classified records they would otherwise never be cleared to access?

And finally, there are the missing stolen documents. According to the indictment, Trump took boxes of documents with him to Bedminster after he hid them from Evan Corcoran (and he had the classified Iran document with him the previous summer in Bedminster). As ABC reported last month, Trump snuck back to Mar-a-Lago, a trip witnesses described was an effort to check on his stolen documents. Then, weeks later, the Saudis arrived for their golf tournament. By all accounts, there must be documents outstanding, and one possible explanation for their disappearance is they left the country.

Finally, and most simply, Trump has not (as far as I’ve seen) even remotely addressed what he will do with his existing Saudi deals if he is elected in November. Even if he agreed to shelter himself from the business (assuming, of course, that he doesn’t give either Don Jr or Eric a job in the White House), we would have to assume he was lying, just like he lied the last time.

We literally do not know whether Trump would enter the White House as a business partner, an employee, or an unregistered foreign agent of the Saudis.

The Saudi financial tie is ongoing and prospective. That makes it a far more urgent issue than a payment that may have been made over seven years ago.

Update: Amicus12 adds another reason to worry about the Saudi deals: Trump’s past efforts to strike a nuclear deal with the Saudis, which could be used to get nukes.

Share this entry

In Attempting To Claim WaPo Doesn’t Chase Rat-Fucks, WaPo Lies about Chasing Rat-Fucks

I’m the rarity among lefties who supports the decision of Politico, WaPo, and NYT (thus far) to not publish the actual files that a persona suspected to have ties to Iranian hackers sent them. That’s true, partly because I think this hack could be even more dangerous than the one of Hillary. But it’s also true because of the opportunity cost that publishing stolen documents incurs.

I prefer Kamala Harris’ message to remain the affirmative message she’s running on, and to the extent that those outlets are doing reporting like the story further developing the suspected $10 million payment via Egypt to Trump, I’d like them to continue to pursue real reporting, as well.

One of the real impacts of the files Russia hacked in 2016 is that they distracted journalists from harder work, work about what a corrupt man Trump is. Campaign reporters are already distracted too easily by nonsense stuff; they don’t need any further distractions from their day job.

That said, reporters don’t have to publish the actual documents to address something that is clearly newsworthy about the files. As Politico explained, the main thing the persona has sent so far was a draft of the vetting document for JD Vance and Marco Rubio.

A research dossier the campaign had apparently done on Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, which was dated Feb. 23, was included in the documents. The documents are authentic, according to two people familiar with them and granted anonymity to describe internal communications. One of the people described the dossier as a preliminary version of Vance’s vetting file.

The research dossier was a 271-page document based on publicly available information about Vance’s past record and statements, with some — such as his past criticisms of Trump — identified in the document as “POTENTIAL VULNERABILITIES.” The person also sent part of a research document about Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who was also a finalist for the vice presidential nomination.

Note, this mirrors one of the first things Guccifer 2.0 released in 2016: Hillary’s oppo dossier on Trump. So in addition to its use of an AOL account, this persona is adopting another of the Russian persona’s tactics.

Again, I’m cool with outlets sitting on the dossier itself. But the content of it is newsworthy. That’s because after JD Vance’s rocky rollout, both donors and Trump himself are asking whether vetters were surprised by Vance’s misogynist public statements.

Over the past two weeks, Mr. Trump has fielded complaints from donors about his running mate, JD Vance, as news coverage exploring Mr. Vance’s past statements unearthed — and then exhaustively critiqued — remarks including a lament that America was run by “childless cat ladies.”

Mr. Trump dismissed out of hand donors’ suggestions that he replace Mr. Vance on the ticket. But Mr. Trump privately asked his advisers whether they had known about Mr. Vance’s comments about childless women before Mr. Trump chose him.

I’d also like to know if Trump’s vetting team knew of the pictures of JD wearing drag while at Yale, which have become the subject of memes on social media.

Whether the dossier was comprehensive matters (particularly given that a law firm also involved in Trump’s criminal defense completed it). It matters, most of all, because Trump has swapped the mediocre Ivanka as his primary familial advisor for the incompetent Don Jr, and the failson had a key role in picking JD.

So it would be newsworthy to reveal the scope and the thoroughness (or not) of the vetting document.

That said, I think every outlet that is sitting on these documents, particularly if they’re withholding details about any oversights in JD’s vetting document, owes the public an explanation of why they’re adopting a double standard as compared to their poor choices from 2016.

WaPo, which is trying to hunker through controversy about Will Lewis’ possible role in covering up Murdoch’s phone hacking,  tried to do that yesterday. Matt Murray boasted that outlets were taking a breath, and then went on to claim that the vetting document isn’t newsworthy because the six-month old vetting document isn’t, “fresh or new enough.”

“This episode probably reflects that news organizations aren’t going to snap at any hack that comes in and is marked as ‘exclusive’ or ‘inside dope’ and publish it for the sake of publishing,” said Matt Murray, executive editor of The Post. Instead, “all of the news organizations in this case took a deep breath and paused, and thought about who was likely to be leaking the documents, what the motives of the hacker might have been, and whether this was truly newsworthy or not.”

[snip]

“In the end, it didn’t seem fresh or new enough,” Murray said.

WaPo even attempted to address something virtually all discussions about using rat-fucked documents in the context of the suspected Iranian hack do not: the treatment of the Hunter Biden laptop, the most innocent provenance explanation for which is that, after pursuing a laptop from foreigners with ties to Russian intelligence for a year, Rudy Giuliani received just such a laptop out of the blue from a blind computer repairman.

Here’s what WaPo claims about how reserved news organizations were with the hard drives described as the Hunter Biden laptop.

News organizations have been tested since 2016. Wary of (1) hacked materials since then, many proved reluctant to report on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop out of concerns that they were the result of a hack. As the conservative press latched on to (2) allegedly incriminating emails found on the computer in the final weeks of the 2020 campaign, more mainstream outlets did not join in a 2016-style frenzy over the material, and Facebook and Twitter limited distribution of a New York Post story about the laptop.

An analysis by The Post nearly two years later confirmed the authenticity of many of the emails on the laptop and found no evidence of a hack. [my annotation]

Note the two reasons alluded to in this passage, both of which show up in Murray’s claimed explanation for sitting on the JD Vance dossier. There were two concerns, according to the WaPo:

  1. Was the laptop “hacked”?
  2. Did the “allegedly incriminating emails” prove what the NYPost claimed they did?

Then, in the next paragraph, WaPo addresses just one of those two issues, whether the hard drive copied from a copy of a laptop, was hacked. WaPo claims, falsely, that the linked story describing the results of Jake Williams and Matt Green’s analysis “found no evidence of a hack.”

For starters, that’s a category error. This is a copy of a copy of a laptop, not the laptop itself. What their analysis attempted to assess was the authenticity of the emails on the laptop — but two different security researchers were only able to do so for a fraction of the emails. This analysis made no attempt to assess whether the stuff on the laptop was packaged up from authentic files (or from a combination of authentic and doctored files). Far more importantly, given details of Hunter’s cloud accounts, it did not assess whether people besides Hunter Biden had access his cloud data (evidence at his gun case described that not just his mistress, Zoe Kestan, accessed his cloud data, but his drug dealers accessed at least his bank account).

But it did find that the copy of a copy of a laptop lacked marks of reliability and did include files placed there by someone other than Hunter Biden.

Most of the data obtained by The Post lacks cryptographic features that would help experts make a reliable determination of authenticity, especially in a case where the original computer and its hard drive are not available for forensic examination. Other factors, such as emails that were only partially downloaded, also stymied the security experts’ efforts to verify content.

[snip]

In their examinations, Green and Williams found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI.

[snip]

“From a forensics standpoint, it’s a disaster,” Williams said. (The Post is paying Williams for the professional services he provided. Green declined payment.)

[snip]

Neither expert reported finding evidence that individual emails or other files had been manipulated by hackers, but neither was able to rule out that possibility.

[snip]

Analysis was made significantly more difficult, both experts said, because the data had been handled repeatedly in a manner that deleted logs and other files that forensic experts use to establish a file’s authenticity.

“No evidence of tampering was discovered, but as noted throughout, several key pieces of evidence useful in discovering tampering were not available,” Williams’ reports concluded.

There are several details, disclosed subsequent to the story, that it lacks: It doesn’t talk about the ways the story John Paul Mac Isaac’s attorney told WaPo conflict with the story JPMI would tell in his book (one very significant conflict pertains to the date when JPMI reached out to the FBI). It doesn’t describe that JPMI himself disavowed some of the content on the Jack Maxey hard drive, the one shared with the WaPo. It doesn’t describe that Hunter has sued Garrett Ziegler and Rudy Giuliani for hacking him (the former survived Ziegler’s motion to dismiss; the latter was dismissed pending the end of Rudy’s bankruptcy; as far as I know, Hunter has not yet renewed the suit against Rudy given the imminent dismissal of Rudy’s bankruptcy). It doesn’t describe that in court filings, Abbe Lowell affirmatively claimed that the data on the laptop itself — not the copy! — had been compromised before being shared with the FBI.

Defense counsel has numerous reasons to believe the data had been altered and compromised before investigators obtained the electronic material from Apple Inc. and The Mac Shop, such that the Special Counsel’s claim that the underlying data is “authentic” (id. at 4) and accurately reflects “defendant’s Apple Macbook Pro and [] hard drive” (id. at 2) is mistaken.

Mr. Biden’s counsel told the Special Counsel on May 10, 2024 it agrees not to challenge the authenticity of the electronic data the Special Counsel intends to use with respect to it being what law enforcement received on December 9, 2019 from John Paul Mac Isaac (owner of The Mac Shop), and from Apple on August 29, 2019 and in a follow-up search on July 10, 2020. (Mot. at n.3.) However, Mr. Biden cannot agree this electronic data is “authentic” as to being his data as he used and stored it prior to Mac Issac obtaining it.

WaPo relies on a two year old story that has been significantly preempted to claim that the copy of the copy of the laptop was not hacked. The story never made such a claim, and the claims it has made have been undermined since.

But there’s an even more telling aspect of WaPo’s self-satisfied claim that reporters gave up their rabid addiction for rat-fuckery after 2016. It doesn’t address whether the laptop subsequently became newsworthy.

There’s good reason for that: Because after the election, WaPo did embrace the laptop, even the doctored one they got from Maxey, as part of a years-long campaign of dick pic sniffing. Their lead dick pic sniffers, Matt Viser and Devlin Barrett, even made shit up when disgruntled IRS agents released details that raised questions about the integrity of the original copy. Since then, prosecutors themselves have described that the extraction of the copy of the laptop they received — the one whence all the data that sloppy reporters call “the laptop” came — is 62% bigger, measured in terms of pages, than the laptop itself. There are potentially innocent explanations for why the hard drive purporting to be a copy of the laptop would not match it, but those explanations would conflict with JPMI’s explanations for how he made the copy. And, scandalously, the FBI never made an index of the laptop, and Judge Maryellen Noreika allowed it to be used in the trial against Hunter without ever even assuring that the forensic reports on the extraction of the two devices matched what got certified to her in a court filing.

And WaPo is not alone in its continuing addiction to relying on a copy of a copy of a laptop with such provenance problems. Just yesterday, NYT’s Ken Vogel did a story that relied on the laptop which basically said, Hunter Biden asked the Commerce Department for help on Burisma but it blew him off (unsurprisingly, Vogel also struggles with the court filings on which he bases his news hook). Four years after Vogel’s chum Rudy Giuliani released the laptop, three weeks after Joe Biden dropped out, NYT is still reporting the absence of news in an 8-year old email as news, precisely the kind of attention suck that rat-fuckers seek when they provide stolen documents to people like Vogel.

Again, in my opinion, WaPo is right not to publish the JD Vance dossier, though that’s different than using it to assess whether there were big gaps in the vetting of Trump’s unpopular running mate.

But WaPo is telling fairy tales about whether mainstream outlets gave up their fondness for rat-fuckery.

They did not. For four years, they have been utterly addicted to the rat-fuckery of the laptop, to the exclusion of reporting on all the details that should raise cautions disclosed since then.

And as such, the decision not to embrace this rat-fuckery, however correct it might be, is a double standard.

Share this entry

After Serving as a Pawn for Russia, Roger Stone Became a Pwn of Iran

Yeah, I know. I know.

I should have immediately written up the news — first reported by WaPo and then matched by CNN — that Roger Stone was hacked by suspected Iranian hackers and then his compromised account was used in an attempt to compromise a top Trump advisor.

Trump’s rat-fucker provided an interview in a story that WaPo appears to have subsequently buried, one in which the habitual liar claimed he was cooperating.

People familiar with the matter said the phishing attempt appears to have succeeded in compromising the communications of at least one person not formally connected to either campaign: Roger Stone, a longtime friend and adviser to Trump.

“I was informed by the authorities that a couple of my personal email accounts have been compromised,” Stone said in a brief interview. “I really don’t know more about it. And I’m cooperating. It’s all very strange.”

Stone’s account was used to send emails to the Trump campaign containing a link that, if clicked, could have allowed Iran to intercept the target’s other emails, the people familiar with the matter said.

His long-time lawyer, Grant Smith, confirmed Roger’s purported cooperation to CNN.

The FBI and other investigators probing the apparent hack-and-leak of Trump campaign documents, which Donald Trump has blamed on Iran, suspect that the hackers were able to compromise the personal email account of longtime Republican and Trump operative Roger Stone, multiple sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

The hackers used access to Stone’s email account to try to break into the account of a senior Trump campaign official as part of a persistent effort to access campaign networks, one of the sources said. The hacking incident, which occurred in June, set off a scramble in the Trump campaign, the FBI and Microsoft, which spotted the intrusion attempts, to contain the incident and to determine if there was a broader cyber threat from Iran.

Stone was informed by Microsoft and the FBI that his personal email was compromised by a “Foreign State Actor,” with the intention of utilizing the account to phish officials in the Trump campaign into opening a link that would give perpetrators access to that person’s computer, one of the sources familiar said.

“Mr. Stone was contacted about this matter by Microsoft and the FBI and continues to cooperate with both,” said Grant Smith, an attorney for the Republican operative. “Mr. Stone will have no further comment at this time.”

Maybe we’ll get around to uncertainty over whether Stone was the account whence, Microsoft describes, someone on the Trump team was targeted or the more interesting question of whether Iran, or someone else, is the source of the files shared with Politico, WaPo, and NYT. Thus far, it seems clear that three Biden-Harris people avoided being hacked and the Trump advisor may have avoided being hacked too.

It’s just Roger, so far.

Until we learn more (such as the source of the materials shared with the press, which Roger Stone wouldn’t have an obvious purpose to have), the involvement of Roger in this — the fact that Iran successfully pwned him, of all people — is interesting for a different reason.

If you ignore the whole Andrii Derkach information operation from 2020 (which, questions about Hunter Biden’s laptop aside, didn’t involve digital compromise), the most successful known operation from 2020 actually involved the Iranians.

As former Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Chris Krebs (who has already weighed in that this Iranian attempt is serious) described it in his January 6 Committee, some Iranian actors pretending to be Proud Boys targeted Democrats and pushed them to vote for Trump.

So I give you an example. 2020, October 22nd and 23rd, a series of emails start popping up in people’s email in-boxes throughout Florida and elsewhere. The emails claim to be from the Proud Boys, and they are saying, hey — and they tend to be targeting Democrats and – registered Democrats at least. And so the claims say, hey, we know you’re a registered Democrat. You have to change your registration and vote for Trump.

If you don’t, we’re going to come after you and we’ll know who you voted for.

And so we saw these coming in. And we —you know, the way we would address — deal with this, with any of these themes or claims is we would just systematically reverse engineer the claim. So the claim here is that we will know who you voted for. So it’s the law of the land in all 50 States of a secret ballot. That’s kind of the magic of American elections.

And so that was the hook for us, to say, these sorts of emails are coming out. The –it’s actually untrue that anyone would ever know who you voted for unless you tell them.

There is a secret ballot. So disregard, this is disinfo.

And that was the crux of rumor control, which we launched that Monday or Tuesday of the week of 21, 22, whatever it was, October.

[snip]

Q Now, I don’t want you to get into certainly any classified information, but I do think you’ve spoken publicly or it was disclosed that it turns out it was a foreign actor involved with the Proud Boys emails.

A It was Iran. Yes. And we went from first discovery of that email 11 a.m., 2 noonish maybe, when reports came out on Tuesday to standing in FBI headquarters that evening, Wednesday evening about 7 p.m., attributing that attack to Iranian — that influence operation to Iranian actors.

In other words, in 2020, Iran used the threat of Roger Stone’s mob, the Proud Boys, to intimidate Democratic voters (precisely the danger that made Stone’s threats to both Randy Credico and Amy Berman Jackson so bad during the Mueller investigation and aftermath).

And then, of all the people to exploit as a way to get to Trump, Iran chooses Trump’s rat-fucker, the same guy with close ties to the Proud Boys?

Iran seems to have a thing for Roger and his mob.

Share this entry

Journalists Struggle to Distinguish Elon Musk’s Chat from Press Conference They Validated

There’s a funny structure to WaPo’s story, bylined by five journalists, on Elon Musk’s chat with Donald Trump.

After discussing the technical problems that delayed the chat for 40 minutes — which Musk attributed to a DDOS attack, a claim anonymous Xitter employees disputed — it described how Musk “allowed the former president to deliver his preferred talking points and a stream of false statements” and mostly kept it comfortable. Then it contrasted that chatty style with the “challenging questions” Rachel Scott and Kadia Goba asked at the NABJ.

Musk billed the conversation with Trump as “unscripted with no limits on subject matter.” But during much of the discussion, he focused on comfortable topics for Trump, such as undocumented immigration. He also allowed the former president to deliver his preferred talking points and a stream of false statements, giving the chat some of the hallmarks of Trump’s signature campaign rallies.

The friendly conversation came after Trump reacted combatively to challenging questions at the National Association of Black Journalists convention — and as the GOP nominee is also attacking Harris for not doing interviews since she announced her campaign for president. Trump reiterated that criticism of Harris on the X Space and repeated his frequent claim that Harris’s rise to the top of the Democratic ticket amounted to a “coup.”

Those were paragraphs three and four.

Twelve paragraphs later, WaPo mentioned — with no comment on any challenge presented by journalists involved — the presser last week, where journalists allowed Trump to make the very same attacks that Musk did.

He has drawn headlines for falsely questioning her heritage, reigniting a feud with Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) and holding a meandering news conference last week.

It’s as if there were no journalists with agency at that presser.

In his first three paragraphs, NYT’s Michael Gold was more succinct. He focused on technical issues, softball questions, and false claims.

What was supposed to be Donald J. Trump’s triumphant return to a social-media platform central to his presidency was marred by glitches on Monday night, when a livestreamed conversation on X between Mr. Trump and its owner, Elon Musk, was significantly delayed by technical issues.

But once their chat began, 40 minutes after it was scheduled, Mr. Musk’s and Mr. Trump’s newly developed camaraderie was on clear display, with the billionaire tech entrepreneur lobbing softball questions that allowed Mr. Trump to rattle off the talking points that have animated his presidential campaign.

The conversation offered little new information about Mr. Trump’s views. Over the course of more than two hours, Mr. Trump attacked Vice President Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent, as a “phony” who, along with President Biden, failed to address crossings at the U.S. border with Mexico. He repeated a number of false claims, including that the 2020 election was rigged, the criminal cases against him were a conspiracy by the Biden administration to undermine his candidacy and the leaders of other nations were deliberately sending criminals and “their nonproductive people” to America.

Sure, like WaPo, eight paragraphs later, he contrasted that to the NABJ appearance. But he also suggested that poor Mr. Trump grew frustrated at his own press conference.

Last month, Mr. Trump was combative while being interviewed by a panel of Black female journalists at a National Association of Black Journalists convention, where he questioned Ms. Harris’s racial identity. Last week, he grew frustrated by questioning at a hastily scheduled news conference in Palm Beach, Fla., where his answers often meandered and a story he told about a helicopter ride drew significant scrutiny.

Apparently, Gold is so entranced with the three days NYT squandered by chasing down Trump’s false helicopter story he hasn’t figured out that it was no more than a vehicle for more lies about Kamala Harris.

Ultimately, though, the presser was the same: beset by technical problems created because journalists didn’t have mics, largely characterized by softball questions, and riddled with false claims.

Heck, even the combative (if you ignore Harris Faulkner) NABJ interview was also delayed, in part, by technical issues (though also Trump’s refusal to allow live fact-checking) and riddled with the same lies he keeps telling, including the attack on the authenticity of Kamala’s Blackness.

Gold complains that Musk’s conversation “offered little new information about Mr. Trump’s views.” But actual journalists could do no better. Importantly, Trump’s frustrations at the presser came in response to questions about crowd size and his flaccid campaign; Trump’s insecurities are nothing new.

The only thing that distinguished yesterday’s event from the one many mainstream campaign journalists validated with their participation is that Trump slurred his speech more yesterday.

My point is not that there’s some secret formula to elicit actual, truthful answers from Donald Trump. Trump doesn’t believe in truth; he believes in leveraging lies to exercise power. So no standard interview format will pin the man down.

Rather, it’s that journalists are indulging their own vanity by imagining they’re doing any better than Elon Musk.

Given that that’s the case — given that Trump’s attacks on the press have rendered them little more than props in his reality show — journalists ought to reflect on their own failures before they continue to screech that Kamala Harris, who in 23 days has vetted and picked a running mate, added key staffers, and done fairly epic campaign appearances in six swing states, has yet to offer a press conference to many of the same journalists who could do nothing more than make Trump squirm about crowd size.

I’m not saying a press conference with diligent journalists would not have value. I’m saying that if you struggle to distinguish the outcome of questioning from people being paid as professional journalists from what Elon Musk can elicit, your complaint is with the journalists, not Kamala Harris.

And until you fix that problem — until you fix all the inanity driven by a focus on the horse race rather than the outcomes — these journalists would offer little more than conflict narrative and drama if given the chance to question the Vice President about her campaign.

Update: In a piece calling on VP Harris to give a presser not because it’ll help but because it’s the right thing to do, Margaret Sullivan lays out all the inadequacies of journalists clamoring for one.

[W]hen the vice-president has interacted with reporters in recent weeks, as in a brief “gaggle” during a campaign stop, the questions were silly. Seeking campaign drama rather than substance, they centered on Donald Trump’s attacks or when she was planning to do a press conference. The former president, meanwhile, does talk to reporters, but he lies constantly; NPR tracked 162 lies and distortions in his hour-long press conference last week at Mar-a-Lago.

But Harris needs to overcome these objections and do what’s right.

She is running for the highest office in the nation, perhaps the most powerful perch in the world, and she owes it to every US citizen to be frank and forthcoming about what kind of president she intends to be.

To tell us – in an unscripted, open way – what she stands for.

[snip]

I don’t have a lot of confidence that the broken White House press corps would skillfully elicit the answers to those and other germane questions if given the chance. But Harris should show that she understands that, in a democracy, the press – at least in theory – represents the public, and that the sometimes adversarial relationship between the press and government is foundational.

Share this entry

Elon Musk’s Machine for Political Violence

Last October, I wrote a post called “Elon Musk’s Machine for Fascism,” describing how Twitter had twice served Donald Trump’s electoral ambitions.

In 2016, trolls — including Don Jr — workshopped memes on a DM list and then used their reach to pressure MSM to adopt their narratives. In 2020, trolls — including Trump himself, his two sons, and other key advisors — used the platform to sow intentional disinformation about the election. Only by shutting down Trump’s account after January 6 was he prevented from further sowing violence in advance of Joe Biden’s inauguration.

Since then, Elon Musk has bought the platform and right wingers have successfully pushed to defund any effective civil society checks on the social media platform.

As I reflected last year, Musk’s purchase of Xitter seemed to be an effort to perfect on the 2016 and 2020 models.

By welcoming outright Nazis to the platform, though, he has undermined its ability to reach traditional journalists and normies, which made me hope that some of Xitter’s past utility to fascists might be weakened.

But in the last year, Musk and his far right allies have tested another model. First in Ireland and more recently and systematically in the UK, far right thugs like Tommy Robinson have used Xitter to enflame far right violence masquerading as organic anti-immigrant unrest.

Even before Musk got involved, high profile accounts on Xitter magnified disinformation from other platforms.

Much of the false information about the attack seemed to come from a website called Channel 3 Now, which generates video reports that look like mainstream news channels. But its video and its false claims about the name of the attacker might have stayed relatively obscure if they were not highlighted by larger accounts.

On X, users with considerable followings quickly shared that video and spread it across the site. And on other platforms such as TikTok – where videos can go viral quickly even if the accounts posting them do not have large followings, because of the app’s algorithm – they racked up hundreds of thousands of views. At some point, the false name of the attacker was a trending search on both TikTok and X, meaning that it showed to users who might otherwise have shown no interest in it at all.

But Musk did get involved personally, repeatedly stoking more violence.

Elon Musk just can’t help himself.

The billionaire X owner sparked fury in the British government this weekend after he responded to incendiary footage of the far-right disorder that’s sweeping the country by saying “civil war is inevitable.”

The post on X was roundly condemned by U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s office, which said there was “no justification” for Musk’s comments.

But Musk doubled, tripled, then quadrupled down after that dig. Responding to a statement from Starmer vowing his government would “not tolerate attacks on mosques or on Muslim communities,” the X boss effectively accused the British prime minister of wearing blinkers. “Shouldn’t you be concerned about attacks on all communities?” Policing of the unrest “does seem one-sided,” he offered in a third post.

He then branded Starmer “#twotierkeir” — riffing on a popular far-right talking point that British police treat disorder by white people differently to that by perpetrated by minorities. Justice Minister Heidi Alexander called Musk “deplorable.”

Musk has complained about British efforts to police content that, in the UK, is illegal.

And things would be worse in the US, because the laws against incitement are far more limited.

Plus, Xitter has twice fought back against legal process, one time on behalf of Donald Trump.

Xitter has also throttled pro-Kamala Harris accounts, even as Musk repeatedly boosts Trump.

Today, in advance of an “interview” with Musk and the roll-out by Trump’s sons of a new crypto currency scam and on the 7th anniversary of the Charlottesville riot, Donald Trump returned to Xitter.

Share this entry

In Which Ian Miles Cheong Understands Trump’s Campaign Better than NYT

The second I saw video of Vice President Harris rolling up to a hangar at Detroit’s airport on Air Force Two, then alighting with Tim Walz in front of cheering crowds, I knew it would break Donald Trump’s brain.

This is the kind of spectacle Donald Trump excels at creating.

This is the kind of spectacle on which Trump has built slavering loyalty from millions of MAGAts who see power in such spectacle.

And a Black woman created it.

Or rather, a Black woman and her campaign team, a campaign team which has already demonstrated they know exactly how to trigger Donald Trump, created it.

And sure enough, it did melt his brain.

Yesterday, he adopted the hysterical claims of some of his followers, posting that Vice President Harris was cheating because (he falsely claimed) she had used AI to sub in a crowd of people who weren’t there.

In fact, some of Trump’s followers were the ones who had used AI, sometimes marked as fake, sometimes not. to give the appearance this crowd didn’t exist.

Trump’s claims are so obviously false that even right wing trolls like Ian Miles Cheong are criticizing him for it.

And Cheong is not the only right wing troll complaining that Trump is hurting the movement, their movement, with his unhinged response to Vice President Harris’ rally. At a time when some prominent right wing trolls are showing RFK-curiosity, they’re also questioning the campaign, in significant part because of Trump’s public meltdown over this arrival.

And that’s where things start to get weird.

Both WaPo and NYT reported overnight on Trump’s unhinged claim.

But they’re both missing a bit of what’s going on, and they’re missing it, in my opinion, because they’re still seeing this race from Trump’s perspective.

In a piece on Saturday, WaPo claimed that Democrats were obsessing over crowd size in their own right, citing Tim Walz’ boast about crowd size in a Friday rally in Phoenix, even while (in the penultimate paragraph) quoting a Harris spox mocking Trump for the meltdowns he has in response.

Then the vice-presidential pick beamed out at the audience in suburban Phoenix — more than 15,000 people, Democrats said — and delivered the punchline with a big grin.

“It’s not as if anybody cares about crowd sizes or anything,” Walz said.

For years Trump, the GOP nominee for president, has been the one boasting about how many people he could pack into a venue. Now Democrats are eager to play the crowd game, too. With enthusiasm surging for their new presidential ticket, they have spent the week needling Trump on a topic he famously obsesses over.

[snip]

Harris campaign spokesperson Sarafina Chitika said Trump has been “rage-Truthing about our grassroots enthusiasm and melting down publicly, both online and in front of cameras” while Harris and Walz hit battleground states.

After Trump’s unhinged post yesterday, WaPo and NYT observed that Harris’ campaign has begun to mock Trump for complaining about coverage of her crowds. WaPo’s version links back to the earlier piece treating this primarily as mere boasting.

Trump’s focus on crowd size also has become something that the Harris campaign has used to poke fun at Trump about — while at the same time bragging about their own crowds.

But they’re suggesting it only started in Phoenix on Friday, after the Trump presser.

That is, they’re misunderstanding the timeline, and therefore the full effect of it.

Both cite Trump’s conflated boast, given in his unhinged presser on Thursday, that his January 6 crowds were bigger than Martin Luther King Jr’s (this is the NYT; note, logically Trump must also be conflating January 6 and his inauguration, which is the only event where he occupied the same real estate MLK did).

Mr. Trump did not hold any events in a swing state last week. Instead, he held a rally in Montana, where there is a crucial Senate race, and a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida.

Mr. Trump showed frustration with Ms. Harris’s crowds at that event, too, and even boasted about the crowd at his rally in Washington D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, that preceded the riot at the Capitol, saying it was larger than the one drawn by Martin Luther King Jr. for his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

“Nobody’s spoken to crowds bigger than me,” Mr. Trump claimed.

But they’re missing that the presser and the wildly inflated claims about crowd size took place the day after Kamala’s iconic arrival in Detroit. They’re missing that Trump’s first attempt to dismiss the Vice President’s crowd size came in that presser.

Trump announced the presser first thing in the morning on Thursday, to take place in conjunction with a briefing, purporting to inform reporters about the state of Trump’s campaign, already scheduled that day. So the presser would have come together in the period when Trump was seeing — and responding to — that imagery.

Trump called the presser when his brain was breaking after seeing this image.

And many people, including NYT’s weird write-up of the presser as if it were sound campaign strategy, did not report that in addition to inflating his own crowd sizes, Trump was falsely claiming that Kamala’s crowds were an order of magnitude smaller than they were.

Former President Donald J. Trump tried on Thursday to shoehorn himself back into a national conversation that Vice President Kamala Harris has dominated for more than two weeks, holding an hourlong news conference in which he assailed Ms. Harris’s intelligence and taunted her for failing to field questions similarly from journalists.

Throughout the event, held in the main room at Mar-a-Lago, his private club and home in Palm Beach, Fla., Mr. Trump assailed the state of the U.S. economy, described the country as in mortal danger if he did not win the presidential election and falsely described his departure from the White House — which was preceded by his refusal to concede his election loss in November 2020 and the violent attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, by a mob of his supporters — as a “peaceful” transfer of power.

Mr. Trump also flashed frustration when asked about the size of Ms. Harris’s crowds while boasting about the attendance at his own rally on Jan. 6, 2021, and insisted that the group of hundreds that stormed the Capitol was relatively small. But he fixated on the size of the crowd that he initially gathered on the national mall, making comparisons to — and declaring it was larger than — the one drawn by Martin Luther King Jr. for his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

“Nobody’s spoken to crowds bigger than me,” Mr. Trump said. “If you look at Martin Luther King, when he did his speech, his great speech, and you look at ours — same real estate, same everything, same number of people, if not — we had more.”

The Trump team has been looking for ways to interrupt Ms. Harris’s momentum as she has quickly consolidated the Democratic Party behind her and risen in the polls. The goal of Mr. Trump’s news conference, which he announced on Thursday morning on his social media site, was to highlight that Ms. Harris has yet to hold a news conference of her own or to give an unscripted interview to the news media.

On top of describing many of Trump’s false claims — that Kamala is stupid, that the economy is in poor shape, that Kamala was border czar and has let other countries unload prisons into the US, that the legal system was unfair to him, that crime is up — without correcting them, NYT only mentioned Trump’s false comparisons of his own rallies (again, without correction), not his claim that Harris had been getting 1,500 rally-goers, as opposed to 15,000.

Oh give me a break.

Listen. I had 107,000 people in New Jersey. You didn’t report it.

I’m so glad you asked. What did she have yesterday? 2,000 people?

If I ever had 2,000 people you’d say my campaign is finished. It’s so dishonest, the press. And here’s a great example.

I had, in Michigan recently, 25,000 people, and 25,000 people we just couldn’t get them in. We had, in Harrisburg, 20, 25,000 people? And 20,000 people couldn’t get in. We had so many — nobody ever mentions that!

When she gets 1,500 people — and I saw it yesterday on ABC, which they said, “oh, the crowd was so big,” — I have 10 times, 20 times, 30 times the crowd size, and they never say the crowd was big.

That’s why I’m always saying, “turn around the cameras.”

I’m so glad you asked that.

I think it’s so terrible, when you say, “she has 1,500 people, 1,000 people,” and they talk about, “oh, the enthusiasm.” Let me tell you. We have the enthusiasm. The Republican Party — and me, as a candidate — but the Republican Party has the enthusiasm, because people want to see crime stopped, they want to see a country that’s respected.

Trump’s false claims about this Detroit rally started when the wound was still fresh. Trump’s false claims started last Thursday, but few mentioned them as false claims until he went wildly unhinged on his social media site.

And understand: Harris’ campaign is intentionally goading him, intentionally causing these psychic wounds, and they were even before the Detroit rally.

I have no reason to believe that Harris’ campaign had the event in the airport hangar to prepare that spectacle (I think they had to move there once they overfilled their first venue), but holy hell it was great advance work. That said, their rapid response has been deliberately needling the former President with crowd size comparisons, going back a week now, days before Walz was even selected.

After both Georgia,

And Philly,

Kamala HQ posted side-by-side comparisons and, in the latter case, posted it to Truth Social. And Trump invited these comparisons when he booked a rally in the same Georgia auditorium as Kamala chose to do her rally. Trump made excuses for his paltry turnout in real time.

Trump invited this comparison, then failed to match up.

And the Kamala HQ account’s first take on Trump’s unhinged presser captioned it, “A feeble Trump holds a press conference to lie and yell about his noticeably smaller rally crowd sizes.”

Harris’ own campaign is not the only outlet that understood what was going on. Rolling Stone focused on Trump’s obsession about Harris’ crowd size on August 8, not long after the presser, which the KamalaHQ account noted and @ed Trump on.

According to one Republican source who’s spoken to the former president in recent days, Trump is “unhappy with the narrative” forming that Vice President Kamala Harris has been attracting high, enthusiastic attendance at the 2024 rallies she’s held since President Joe Biden dropped out of the race.

In private, Trump has recently taken to griping about the media attention the Harris 2024 (now Harris-Walz 2024) rally sizes have been receiving, and at times insisting a number the Harris campaign has put out must be “fake,” the source and another person familiar with the matter say.

And NYT hasn’t been entirely missing this. On August 9, they updated a story posted on August 4 about Trump’s excuses for his thin Georgia turnout.

Still, Mr. Trump couldn’t help but focus on those who weren’t piling in. He claimed that Georgia State University officials in charge of the arena prevented him from letting in more people. “We have beautiful cameras set up for the overflow crowds,” he said. A massive screen flashed to a live video feed of his red-capped supporters milling around outside in the 90-degree heat.

In Mr. Trump’s telling, this wasn’t a safety protocol but a conspiracy to humiliate him, perpetrated by the university and other nefarious forces. It all connects, in his estimation, to the biggest numbers game he has ever lost. “If they’re going to stand in the way of admitting people to our rally, just imagine what they’re going to do on Election Day,” he said.

This goes to the core of Mr. Trump’s crowd-size fixation. He seems to believe that a full arena is a predictor of his ultimate victory — as if the voters in that arena were representative of the country at large.

[snip]

[A]n hour into his speech, the Atlanta crowd had emptied out more than usual.

This is a known trigger for Trump. It has been, going back to his own meager inauguration turnout. It has been racialized since that point too, Trump’s insecurities knowing that a Black president could be more popular than he was.

Further, brags about crowd size are a known building block of Trump’s own false claims about elections. In 2020, for example, he argued it was impossible that Biden beat him because he never left his basement. There are still millions of people who believe Trump’s 2020 Big Lie because they believe his claim that crowd size directly translates to votes.

This time around, Trump is giving pressers in the equivalent of his own basement, arguing that so many people voted for him in Alabama and South Carolina in 2020, he must have won Georgia, even while he inflates his own crowd sizes by an order of magnitude and deflates the Vice President’s by the same margin.

The stakes, for Trump, have to do with his Big Lie, his ability to sustain the belief of his mob that he really is that much more popular than his opponent. He can’t have them see that Kamala can do crowds better even than he can.

Beyond triggering Trump, beyond goading him into melting down in front of campaign journalists, that’s actually not how the Harris campaign views it (nor should it be, in a competent campaign): The WaPo’s description of Trump’s false claims describe Harris boasting of new volunteers being recruited.

And at a fundraising event in San Francisco on Sunday, Harris appeared to address Trump’s social media accusations indirectly.

The energy around the country is “undeniable,” Harris said, adding, “The press and our opponents like to focus on our crowd size, and yes the crowds are large.” But even better, she said, attendees are signing up for volunteer shifts by the thousands.

This is actually the purpose rallies are supposed to serve at this point of a campaign, even one launched a mere three weeks ago. These crowds are important not (just) because they lead Trump to melt down, but because they’re a necessary way to catch up on volunteer recruitment Biden hadn’t been doing. This is why Walz, especially, makes an ask at every one of these rallies. This is why Kamala always talks about the hard work ahead.

This is about recruiting bodies to do voter identification, persuasion, and ultimately GOTV. This is about basic campaign work.

Trump, meanwhile, has sent JD out to speak to empty parking lots.

Pro-Trump trolls like Cheong see this. But full time campaign journalists are slow to catch on. They’re slow to understand that Trump’s own insecurities can be — and were, deliberately — triggered, with predictable results.

Especially when someone can mobilize the kind of spectacle that Trump himself relies on.

Share this entry