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.]

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.

Trump’s Imaginary Helicopter Friends and Bacon Emergency

Three quarters of the way through yesterday’s Trump presser, Meghan McCain RTed a clip Aaron Rupar posted and predicted “Vice President Harris is going to win.”

In Rupar’s clip, Trump was, for the second time in an hour, lying about how big his crowds were. Parts of answers taking up six minutes of the 1:04 press conference (marked in blue below) were dedicated to lying about his crowd sizes, and claiming the Vice President’s were smaller — by an order of magnitude — than they actually are.

Over six more minutes (marked in red) — as well as one claim in his opening statement — were lies about how well he’s doing in the polls.

Another six minutes (marked in green) were dedicated to lies about how unfair his own prosecutions are, except the one before the “brilliant” Aileen Cannon, through whose intervention, he “won” his stolen documents case.

For much of the rest, Trump couldn’t decide whether Kamala Harris and Joe Biden were stupid, or they were super smart for managing to steal the 2020 election.

And that’s before Trump confused Black former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown with white former Governor Jerry Brown and then invented a dangerous helicopter trip he shared with one, on which whoever it was badmouthed Kamala, something both Willie and Jerry, along with Gavin Newsom, who was probably on the trip Trump lied about, disavowed. Newsom told the NYT that they had discussed “everyone else.”

The subject of Ms. Harris, with whom Mr. Newsom had enjoyed a friendly rivalry, did not come up on the helicopter, he added. “We talked about everyone else, but not Kamala,” he said with a laugh.

Given the close relationship Newsom’s former spouse, Kimberly Guilfoyle, currently has with Don Jr, that “everyone” may well suggest that Trump confused Kamala with his son’s long-term partner.

It was a shitshow.

And yet, aside from that story busting Trump for confusing Willie and Jerry Brown, outlets like the NYT have largely memory holed what a shit show it was. The press conference itself appeared on neither the dead tree front page nor the digital front page (the very good story on the Willie and Jerry confusion didn’t make it into the paper, nor does it currently appear on my digital front page).

In response to Joe Biden’s similarly awful performance at the debate, the NYT dedicated weeks to demanding he drop out.

Not Trump.

The horse race journalists have rabidly been demanding that Kamala — who has been rather busy of late — give an interview or press conference. They’ve no doubt been goaded into doing so by Trump, because both he and JD have been demanding it too.

But if yesterday is any indication, there is no imaginable value to reporting from most of these horserace journalists. They’re just props in Trump’s reality show in which he attracts the biggest crowds in history.


0:00 to 11:03: Lies about his preference to run against Kamala, lies about polls, lies about Kamala’s role as Border Czar, lies about migration. Lies that people can’t buy bacon. Misreads which debate is on September 10 (NBC rather than ABC). Attacks Kamala as “barely competent.” Lies about prisons being emptied out into the US. Accuses Kamala of being nasty to Biden. Claims “the presidency” was taken away from Biden. Lies that he’s leading. Lies about cherishing the Constitution. Falsely claims that Biden is a very angry man. Attacks Pelosi as crazy. Lies that Kamala was “appointed to head the border.” Cites Project 2025 source Tom Holman.

11:03 to 13:18: Explains that he hasn’t recalibrated strategy at all. Claims Kamala destroyed San Francisco and California. Claims Bob Tisch, who is dead, would hate what San Francisco has become. Claims Kamala is weak on crime but then claims “they” weaponized law enforcement against him. Lies that he “won” the documents case and complains that nobody wrote about it. Calls Aileen Cannon brilliant. Claims that Biden lost his documents case because he didn’t have Presidential immunity and Presidential Records Act, neither of which relate to why Cannon dismissed the case. States that Kamala could not pass her bar exam.

13:18 to 14:53: Claims he’s getting other voters (this appears to be a question about how Kamala’s entry in the race affects his support).

14:53 to 15:45: Claims Josh Shapiro is a terrible guy. Lies that Kamala was worse than any of her VP candidates.

15:45 to 16:13: Follows up on debates and states that CBS will do a VP debate. Claims JD Vance is doing a fantastic job.

16:13 to 20:18: Starts by scoffing, “give me a break.” Lies about crowd sizes. Claims Kamala had only 2,000 people on Wednesday. Lies about crowd size some more. Claims his crowds are 30 times bigger. Claims he’s happy the reporter asked the question. Claims Republicans, and he as the candidate, have the enthusiasm. Claims that if all cars were electric, you would have to rebuild every bridge in the US. Claims he has had the biggest crowds in history. Lies that he has hundreds of thousands at his rallies.

20:18 to 21:49: Claims he got Brian Kemp elected, but doesn’t know whether they can repair their differences. Lies that he’s leading in GA by a lot and PA by a lot. Complains that Kemp doesn’t like him even though he got him elected. Claims that given his margins in AL and SC, it’s impossible he lost GA. Lies that all he wants is honest elections.

21:49 to 22:38: Claims that Biden didn’t say Trump wouldn’t allow the peaceful transfer of power if he loses. Claims Biden doesn’t know what he said. Claims Biden should have brought this up at the debate.

22:38 to 24:26: Complains, “what a stupid question.” Makes excuses for why he’s not campaigning. Lies that he’s leading by a lot. Claims Kamala is not smart enough to do a press conference. Claims Russia, China, and North Korea don’t respect us anymore. Describes going to Montana (he first says it’s Wyoming) to help Tim Sheehy win the Senate race.

24:26 to 25:18: Trump applauds Elon Musk for endorsing him. Claims a lot of people are talking about the show.

25:18 to 26:06: [Possibly a follow-up on Xitter] Trump assures he’ll great along great with Xi Jinpeng. Describes there used to be a sofa where he has made journalists stand up. Claims China was taking advantage of the US.

26:06 to 28:17: [a question from Maggie Haberman] Claims people aren’t talking about January 6 and January 6 defendants were treated unfairly. Claims they weren’t there through him. Claims January 6 was the biggest crowd he’s ever spoken to. Claims it’s hard to find a picture of the crowd, and lies there were pictures of the “very small number of people” who went to the Capitol. Lies that he spoke in the same place that MLK Jr spoke and his crowd was bigger. 

28:17 to 30:11: Implies that Kamala’s pick as the nominee violates the Constitution. Repeats his claims about Biden being forced out of the race. Calls her “the first loser” again (referring to her dropping out of the 2020 race first). Asserts that Biden regrets picking Kamala and claims she turned on Biden.

30:11 to 30:46: Asserts that Hillary was far superior, in terms of intelligence, than anyone else he has run against. States that Hillary was her own worst enemy.

30:46 to 34:59: After instructing yet another journalist to speak up, points out how big the room is, then asserts Mar-a-Lago is worth $18 million (a misrepresentation of what Judge Engoron has ruled). Lies that the abortion issue is “tampered down.” Lies that “they” wanted to bring abortion back to the states, “and I did that.” Claims 82% of Republicans do believe in exceptions. Claims that abortion will be a very small issue in the election. Lies that Democrats do abortions after birth, claiming that Walz supports that. Then raises Glenn Youngkin (seemingly confusing VA and MN). Calls Walz and Kamala “progressive,” then claims no one knows what it means. Repeats that abortion is not a big factor anymore. Repeats again that “that issue” is very much subdued.

34:59 to 37:17: Claims you can’t take away guns, they need weapons for protection, entertainment, and hunting. Suggests that Chicago’s shooting rates are due to its tough gun laws. Claims Afghanistan doesn’t have shooting problems. Calls Afghanistan the worst embarrassment to the history of the country. Calls Milley incompetent. Claims DOD “took out the soldiers first.” Claims the Afghans who fell off a transport plane fell from a height three times higher than the World Trade Center.

37:17 to 38:56: Lies that Ka-Mala [which he pronounced correctly earlier in the press conference] is not in favor of giving Israel weapons. Lies that Kamala has been very very bad to both Israel and Jewish people. Mispronounces Ka-Mala again, and claims that Jews who vote for her should have their head examined. Claims he gave “them” Golan Heights and the Capitol of Israel, Jerusalem, built the embassy, gave them no Iran deal. Claims he would have had a deal one week after the 2020 election. Claims he hit Iran a couple times. Returns to what he gave Israel, the Abraham Accords. Repeats that any Jewish person who votes for Ka-Mala and her new friend ought to have your head examined.

38:51 to 39:09: States that the FBI has done a very good job with the investigation into Thomas Crooks and “this other lunatic they have in custody” (probably a reference to Asif Merchant).

39:09 to 40:02: Claims to know Willie Brown very well (he’s confusing Willie Brown with Jerry Brown, and even still inventing a close call). Invents a false story about almost dying in a helicopter with him. Lied that Willie Brown told him terrible things about Kamala. Claims Willie Brown had a big part in what happened with Ka-Mala. Lies that Willie Brown was not a fan of Kamala at that point.

40:02 to 40:40: [I missed one single answer question here.] Defers telling what his vote on the abortion referendum will be. Claims he’ll hold a press conference to announce how he’ll vote. Predicts it’ll go in a more “liberal” way than people expect.

40:40 to 42:38: Asserts his tax cuts were the biggest in history and included generous support for childcare. States the tax cuts “are coming due.” Lies that not renewing them creates a four times tax increase. Lies that Democrats would offer no security. Repeats “transgender” several times. Repeats his plan to eliminate taxes on Social Security and tips.

42:38 to 44:10: Agrees that Steve Bannon’s prosecution was politically motivated. Claims again “they” have weaponized government against him. Lies that Biden’s DOJ was behind the NY cases. Attacks mail-in ballots.

44:10 to 45:01: Makes excuses for Elon Musk.

45:01 to 47:20: Lies that there are polls that show he’ll win in a landslide. Exaggerates inflation. Claims people are paying $5 to $7 to pay for gas. Claims the Strategic Reserve has never been this low. Claims oil will soon be at $100 a barrel. Mispronounces Ka-Mala again and repeats his claim that she’s not as smart as Biden.

47:20 to 47:50: Dodges a question about mifepristone. Repeats that you have to give a vote on abortion.

47:50 to 48:09: Claims Kamala is not as smart as Biden again.

48:09 to 49:01: Observes that Kamala is a woman and “represents certain groups of people.” Lies that Kamala is going way down in the polls. Calls Gavin Newsom, “Gavin New-Scum.” Repeats her claim that Kamala destroyed California. Compares her to prosecutors who’ve prosecuted him.

49:01 to 49:50: After asking four different journalists to help him hear what a journalist asked, mocks the idea of doing a daily press briefing. Promises total access. Promises more access than you want.

49:50 to 52:33: Lies about his encouragement of “Lock her up” chants and his efforts to prosecute her. Attacks her for a claimed non-response to a subpoena. Claims he thought it was bad to consider putting Hillary in jail. Attacks Hillary for being “pretty evil.” Lies that the MAGA base is 75% of the country. Describes that China and Russia are natural allies but they have combined, along with Iran.

52:33 to 54:50: Claims he wants the election to be about policy. Accuses Kamala of being incompetent. Claims Kamala can’t do better than Biden. Jokes that Biden was never the brightest bulb in the ceiling. Claims Kamala wants to defund the police. Repeats his claim that guns are about self-protection.

54:50 to 56:21: Claims that if he loses there will be a Depression. Lies about his the debt incurred in his administration. Claims he had the perfect number on inflation. Notes they sell hats and claims that proves he’s been right about everything.

56:21 to 58:12: [A second Maggie question.] Claims there was a process behind his pardons. Describes that some of the people he pardoned were harshly treated. Repeats again that “for the most part” his pardons went through his pardon commission. Claims that he let out a lot of low income people who weren’t backed by insiders. Claims that, “for the most part,” he didn’t pardon people involved in killings.

58:12 to 59:15: States that the Federal Reserve gets things wrong a lot. Claims Jerome Powell works on gut feeling. Claims they get along fine. Asserts that the President should have a say in rates cuts. Asserts he has better instincts than Powell.

59:15 to 59:51: Addresses cannabis legalization.

59:21 to 60:42: Directs a reporter to ask Kamala something about her race. Notes that he once supported her. Claims Kamala is being disrespectful regarding her identity.

60:42 to 61:18:  States that he’s pretty much recovered from the wound to his ear. Asserts he’s a fast healer. Shows where the injury was, misdescribes it as the “lobe” of his ear. Points to his scar on the top of his ear.

61:18 to 62:31: Promises the largest mass deportation in the history of the country. Claims local police “know everything about the people.” After claiming that both Biden and Kamala are stupid repeatedly, Trump asserts they’re not stupid because anyone who (he claims) can cheat in elections like they do is not stupid. Lies that Democrats are trying to get immigrants to vote.

62:31 to 63:46: Disclaims any plans to dismantle Social Security. Promises to eliminate taxes on Social Security and tips again.

63:46 to 64:32: Attacks sanctuary cities. Boasts about property in California. Lies that the country has become a crime-ridden mess.

 

 

Walz’ Leadership and JD’s Spin: The Ethics of Service

JD Vance yesterday made the substance of his and Tim Walz’ military service an issue yesterday. This was a guy who specialized in spinning the Iraq War, attacking the service of a guy who was promoted into leadership ranks as a Non-Commissioned Officer over the course of 24 years.

At a campaign stop in Michigan, JD accused that, “when Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, you know what he did? He dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him.”

Thus began the Swiftboating of Tim Walz, led by Chris LaCivita, the mastermind of the original smear campaign against John Kerry.

The substance of the smear campaign that ensued actually pivots on disputed details far less significant than the kinds of lies that JD and his boss tell as easily as they breathe.

The first issue pertains to how to describe Walz’ final rank when he was promoted to Command Sergeant Major, but never finished the relevant training before he retired in 2005, and so was reverted to his prior rank. The second has to do with a single reference to carrying a gun at war, a rhetorical move to support an argument about the proper role for guns. Both of these are arguments about one or two references years ago — the kinds of misstatements that JD and Trump peddle routinely, including JD’s implication that Walz retired solely to get out of deploying to Iraq.

The third issue — the main one — pertains to whether Walz abandoned his men by retiring the year before his unit deployed to Iraq.

By all accounts, however, Walz had retired already before the formal deployment order came in; he retired because he had already committed to run for Congress when the possibility of a deployment came up.

Walz filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission as a candidate for Congress on February 10, 2005. The next month, after the guard announced a possible deployment to Iraq within two years, Walz’s campaign issued a statement saying he intended to stay in the race.

“I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization and I am unable to comment further on specifics of the deployment,” Walz said in the March 2005 campaign release.

“As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or in Iraq,” he continued, adding: “I don’t want to speculate on what shape my campaign will take if I am deployed, but I have no plans to drop out of the race. I am fortunate to have a strong group of enthusiastic supporters and a very dedicated and intelligent wife. Both will be a major part of my campaign, whether I am in Minnesota or Iraq.”

Walz retired from the Army National Guard in May 2005, according to the Minnesota National Guard. In a 2009 interview for the Library of Congress, Walz said he left the guard to focus full time on running for Congress, citing concerns about trying to serve at the same time and the Hatch Act, which limits political activities for federal employees.

Once you understand that you’d need a time machine for the literal words of JD’s attack to be true, then it changes the discussion, to one about Walz’ ethical decision about the best way to serve his country.

A story on his retirement from the first time he ran describes that he struggled with the ethics of the decision.

Bonnifield said they also bonded during a deployment to Italy connected to post-Sept. 11 Operation Enduring Freedom. After seven months abroad, the unit returned to Minnesota.

But Walz had already begun thinking about an exit and bounced it off others, including Bonnifield.

“Would the soldier look down on him because he didn’t go with us? Would the common soldier say, ‘Hey, he didn’t go with us, he’s trying to skip out on a deployment?’ And he wasn’t,” Bonnifield said. “He talked with us for quite a while on that subject. He weighed that decision to run for Congress very heavy. He loved the military, he loved the guard, he loved the soldiers he worked with.”

Walz said it was merely time to leave and he saw a chance to make a difference in the public policy arena.

“Once you’re in, it’s hard to retire. Of my 40 years or 41 years, I had been in the military 24 of them. It was just what you did,” he said. “So that transition period was just a challenge.”

Bonnifield and his brother did deploy to Iraq, in different units. And they both dealt with severe mental health issues upon their return. Bonnifield said Walz the congressman worked to connect struggling Guard members with help and sought to cut red tape.

“If you listen to him, he’s got a very loud, strong voice,” Bonnifield said. “But there’s a very caring person inside. And one very good leader, too.”

Walz saw a chance to make a difference in the public policy arena. And when elected to Congress as an anti-war Democrat, he spent the twelve years he was there trying to end the Iraq War, and when that failed, trying to make the lives of service members better, both before and after service.

As a member of Congress, Walz opposed President George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq, though he still voted to continue military funding to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was an early advocate for repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring servicemembers from serving if they came out as members of the LGBTQ+ community.

Walz joined with Republicans in 2016 to oppose cuts to the Army’s troop levels meant to save money — a trend that continues today. He argued doing so would leave the service without the manpower to meet growing worldwide threats. As a Guard veteran and co-chair of the House National Guard and Reserve caucus, Walz advocated for the part-time force, arguing Pentagon strategies and plans should better integrate the Guard and Reserves to make use of scarce Army resources.

Walz’s likely biggest legislative achievement in Congress, however, was clearing bipartisan veterans’ suicide prevention legislation that became law in 2015.

This included opposition to some of Trump’s efforts to bring grift to Veterans Affairs.

As the top Democrat on the committee, Walz was a chief adversary for the Trump administration’s Department of Veterans Affairs. He battled with then-acting VA Secretary Peter O’Rourke in 2018 during a standoff over O’Rourke’s handling of the inspector general’s office, and pushed for an investigation into the influence of a trio of informal VA advisers who were members of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club. An investigation by House Democrats completed after Walz left Congress concluded that the so-called Mar-a-Lago trio “violated the law and sought to exert improper influence over government officials to further their own personal interests.”

Walz also opposed the Mission Act, the bill that expanded veterans’ access to VA-funded care by non-VA doctors that Trump considers one of his signature achievements. Walz said in statements at the time that, while he agreed the program for veterans to seek outside care needed to be fixed, he believed the Mission Act did not have sustainable funding. VA officials in recent years have said community care costs have ballooned following the Mission Act.

That’s where a sound comparison should focus, in my opinion.

JD only got to Congress, of course, after being recruited by Peter Thiel, after selling out his childhood for fame, after becoming a hedgie — which background got him a seat on the Banking Committee, not the Veterans Affairs Committee. But once JD got to the Senate, he has garnered attention as a member of a later generation of veterans, this time deemed not anti-war, but America First, an anti-interventionist stance conducive to far-right politics.

On April 23, just hours after the United States Senate approved $61 billion in new military aid to Ukraine, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance took to the floor of the Senate to offer a sweeping rebuke of his colleagues’ decision. Standing behind his desk, Vance — who has emerged as a leading critic of U.S. policy toward Ukraine — unspooled a laundry list of objections: that American military capability is spread too thin; that Ukraine is outmanned and outgunned regardless of an increased level of U.S. support; that the Biden administration lacks a clear plan for bringing the war to a close.

Partway through his remarks, Vance suddenly got personal and pivoted to a less frequently discussed source of his skepticism: his time serving as a Marine during the Iraq War.

“In 2003, I made the mistake of supporting the Iraq War, [but] a couple months later, I also enlisted in the United States Marine Corps,” said Vance, who deployed to Iraq in 2005 as a corporal with the public affairs section of the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing. Vance’s tenure in the military features prominently in his 2016 memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” in which he recounted how his time in the Marines helped him overcome his troubled upbringing in post-industrial Ohio to become a disciplined and functional adult. But on the Senate floor, his account of his military service was notably less sanguine.

“I served my country honorably, and I saw when I went to Iraq that I had been lied to,” Vance recounted, the emotion rising in his voice. “[I saw] that promises of the foreign policy establishment of this country were a complete joke.”

[snip]

In Ukraine, Vance argued, the U.S. is doing the opposite: By funding Ukraine and “subsidizing the Europeans to do nothing,” the U.S. is setting itself on a path toward greater involvement in the region, not trying to further extricate itself.

Regardless of the accuracy or intellectual consistency of Vance’s argument, the tendency that it reflects — to ground U.S. foreign policy in a narrower definition of U.S. interests — bears the mark of the failures of the previous wars.

“This idea that it’s in our distinct interest to spread democracy all over the world,” Vance said. “I don’t think that holds even a little bit of water.”

Vance’s opposition to support for Ukraine, in support of which the trained propagandist adopts Russian propaganda, is one of the things that made Trump a fan. And it led him to vote against funding for the military — something that the anti-war Walz did not do.

Vance the propagandist has made the military service of both his and Walz, the NCO, a campaign issue.

But the logical place to bring that scrutiny is not to LaCivita’s parsing of words Walz uttered years ago, but to the ethical decisions both made when they came to an anti-war stance, to the notion of service each took away, to their success at fulfilling that ethic of service.

How to Fact Check Trump’s Lies about His Document Case

I just won the case in Florida. Everyone said that was the biggest case, that was the most difficult case. And I just won it.

Biden has a similar case, except much worse. I was protected under the Presidential Records Act. Biden wasn’t, because he wasn’t President at the time. And he had 50 years worth of documents, and they ruled that he was incompetent, and therefore he shouldn’t stand trial.

And I said, isn’t that something? He’s incompetent and he can’t stand trial — and yet, he can be President. Isn’t that nice? But they released him on the basis that–

[Goba attempts to interrupt]

— that he was incompetent. They said he had no memory, nice old guy, but he had no memory. Therefore we’re not gonna prosecute him.

I won the case. It got very little publicity. I didn’t notice ABC doing any publicity on it, George Slopodopoulos. I didn’t notice you do any publicity on it at all.

[Scott tries to interrupt]

I won the case, the biggest case. This is an attack on a political opponent. I have another one where I have a hostile judge

Scott: Sir, if you don’t mine, we have you for a limited time. I’d love to move onto a different topic.

Trump: No excuse me, you’re the one that held me up for 35 minutes.

The three women who attempted to interview Trump yesterday had an uneven performance. At times, their questioning flummoxed Trump. But in several cases, when he took over the interview, they just sat there silently as he lied at length.

A particularly egregious moment came in his false claims about the parallel investigations into his and President Biden’s retention of classified information. Trump told several lies without (successful) interruption. It was an unfortunate missed opportunity for correction, because Trump repeats these lies in his stump speech all the time, and it may be some time before someone competent has the ability to correct them in real time again.

Since Trump is going to keep telling the lie, I’d like to talk about how to fact check it.

Elements of the Offense

It starts with the elements of the offense — the things that prosecutors would have to prove if presenting this case to a jury. While Aileen Cannon has entertained doing fairly novel things with jury instructions, a model jury instruction for 18 USC 793(e), the statute considered with both men, includes the following five elements:

Did the defendant have possession of documents without authorization? The investigations into both Trump and Biden started when the Archives became aware that they had classified documents at their home. Contrary to what Trump said, the Presidential Records Act applies to both him and Biden, insofar as both were required to turn over any document that was a Presidential record when the Administration in which they served ended. That’s the basis of the proof that they had unauthorized possession of the documents that happened to be classified. That said, the PRA has an exception, however, for, “diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary,” which is relevant to why Biden wasn’t charged in two of four items Robert Hur considered charging seriously.

Trump has claimed that he had the ability to convert Presidential Records — even highly classified ones — into personal records, and thereby to take them home. But if this ever goes to trial, prosecutors would show that Trump first espoused that theory, which he got from non-lawyer Tom Fitton, in February 2022, long after the time he would have had to convert the documents to personal records.

Did the document in question relate to the national defense? The question of whether a document is National Defense Information or not is left to the jury to decide. That’s likely one reason why Jack Smith’s team included a bunch of highly classified documents among those charged. Generally, juries are asked to decide whether the government continues to take measures to keep a charged document secret, and whether it has to do with protecting the United States. A number of the documents charged against Trump pertain to either the US or other countries (like Iran’s) nuclear weapons programs.

Did the defendant have reason to believe the information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation? Generally, prosecutors prove this by pointing to training materials cleared personnel get on classified information, and that’s one reason Jack Smith obtained the letters Trump’s White House sent out about classified information. With both Trump and Biden, however, prosecutors would also rely on their public comments talking about how important it is to protect classified information. In Trump’s case, prosecutors would or will use both the things he said to Mark Meadows’ ghost writer and Susie Wiles when he shared classified information, but also the things he said during the 2016 campaign — targeted at Hillary — about the import of protecting classified information.

Did he keep this document willfully? For both men, prosecutors would need to show that they realized they had classified documents, and then retained them. Given the extended effort to recover documents from Trump, it would be far easier to do for Trump than for Biden.

Did the defendant retain the above material and fail to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it? This is an element of the offense that Robert Hur misstated in his report (as I wrote here). It’s not enough to prove that someone willfully retained classified documents he wasn’t authorized to have, you also have to prove he failed to give them back. Normally, this is done (in part) by pointing to someone’s exit interview, when they are read out of their compartments and asked to give everything back. Because Presidents and Vice Presidents don’t have clearance and so aren’t read out of them, it is normally harder to prove that someone affirmatively refused to give documents back. But not in Trump’s case, which is what really distinguishes him from Biden, because the Archives and DOJ kept asking for the documents, including via subpoena, and Trump kept playing games to withhold them.

Theories of Biden Crime

There were four main documents or sets of documents for which Robert Hur considered charging Biden. They don’t include the 50 years of documents Trump described. Those were included in boxes of documents sent to universities; most were barely classified still if at all, and since Biden had given them away, it would be hard to prove he intentionally kept them.

Iran documents: The most sensitive documents found in the Biden investigation were some documents pertaining to Iran found in a box in a closet in Penn Center. Hur determined they had been sent to the Naval Observatory for a meeting Biden had with a bunch of Senators to suss out where they were on Obama’s Iran deal. They may never have gotten moved back to the White House, and were likely stuck in a box and moved to Penn Center by staffers when Biden moved out of the Naval Observatory. These documents were unquestionably Presidential records and National Defense information, but Hur had no evidence Biden knew they were there.

Afghan documents: Hur spent a lot of time trying to prove that, when Biden told his ghost writer during a meeting in his Virginia house on February 16, 2017 that, “I just found all this classified stuff downstairs,” he was referring to several dated folders pertaining to Afghanistan that were found in a ratty box in Biden’s garage in a consensual search. There were many problems with this theory: Hur couldn’t prove that the documents had ever been in the Virginia house (and so could have been downstairs when Biden made the comment); he couldn’t prove that Biden had personally put them in the box where they were found; he couldn’t come up with a compelling argument for why he would have retained them. When Hur included his language about what a forgetful old fogey Biden was, he did so to cover the possibility that Biden forgot he had the documents he hypothetically discovered in 2017 and so didn’t return them at that point, in 2017. But Hur would never have gotten close to where Biden would be relying on faulty memory, because Hur didn’t have very compelling evidence to prove his hypothesis about how the documents got into the garage in the first place, much less that Biden was involved in that process.

Afghan memo: Hur’s extended effort to make a case out of the Afghan documents was particularly difficult given that the best explanation for what Biden was referring to when mentioning classified documents was a 40-page handwritten memo Biden sent Obama in Thanksgiving 2009 to try to dissuade him from surging troops in Afghanistan. (The second best explanation for what Biden was referring to was a set of documents he had recently returned in 2017 when he made the comment.) That memo was found in a drawer in Biden’s office. Biden ultimately admitted to keeping it for posterity, meaning it might fall under the PRA exception for diaries. Because it was handwritten, it had no classification marks and couldn’t be proven to have obviously classified information, much less information still classified in 2023, when it was found.

Diaries: The FBI also found a bunch of notebooks that Biden called diaries and Hur called notebooks. When reading them to his ghost writer, Biden exhibited awareness they included sensitive information, which Hur argued was proof he knew they had classified information. Biden had a very good case to make that these fell under the PRA exception for diaries, as well as decades of precedent, including Ronald Reagan, that DOJ would not charge someone for classified information in his diaries. It would have been impossible to prove that Biden willfully retained something he knew he couldn’t retain, because Biden knew other Presidents and Vice Presidents hadn’t been prosecuted for doing the same exact thing.

There simply was no document or set of documents for which Hur could prove all the elements of offense.

Why You Can Charge Trump

As noted above, the thing that distinguishes Trump from Biden is that Biden found classified documents and invited the FBI to come look for more, making it virtually impossible to prove the final element of offense (the one Hur botched), that Biden refused to give them back.

Trump, by contrast, spent a full year refusing to give documents back, including after DOJ specifically subpoenaed him for documents with classification marks.

There were 32 documents charged against Trump. They include:

  • The document that Trump showed to Meadows’ ghost writers in 2021 and acknowledged was classified; that was returned to NARA in January 2022. You can charge this because prosecutors have a recording of Trump acknowledging it was classified months before he ultimately returned it.
  • Ten documents among those returned in response to a subpoena in June 2022. It’s unclear how Smith intends to prove that Trump knew he had these after he returned the first set of documents in 2021. But most if not all of them date to fall 2019, so he may know why Trump would have retained them. Matt Tait has argued at least some of them pertain to the US withdrawal from Turkey.
  • Ten documents found, in the August 2022 search, in the same box also containing bubble wrap and a Christmas pillow. Among the ten documents was one classified Formerly Restricted, meaning that, under the Atomic Energy Act, Trump could not have declassified it by himself.
  • Five more documents, also found in August 2022, that had been stored in boxes in the storage closet, including the one captured in a picture Walt Nauta took of documents that had spilled out of the boxes.
  • Three documents found during the Mar-a-Lago search in the blue leather bound box found in the closet in Trump’s office. At least a few of these likely pertain to Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal. These are likely documents that Trump referred to.

For every charged document besides the Iran one, then, prosecutors can show that Trump withheld the documents after he first returned documents in January 2021. Trump will certainly argue that he may not have known he had those specific documents. But Trump’s decision to end his sorting process in January 2021 and his efforts to thwart Evan Corcoran’s June 2022 search will go a long way to prove intent.

How Trump’s Case Got Dismissed

Trump falsely claimed he “won” his classified documents case. That’s false: Aileen Cannon dismissed it, just in time for the RNC. Her argument that Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed isn’t even the primary one that Trump’s attorneys were making: that Smith required Senate approval and that his funding was improper. Rather, she argued that Merrick Garland simply didn’t have the authority to appoint Smith in the way he did.

There are several reasons the distinction is important.

First, if SCOTUS upholds Cannon’s theory, then it will hold for all similar appointments. That extends unquestionably to Hur’s appointment, because like Smith he was a non-DOJ employee when appointed. It likely also extends to Alexander Smirnov, into whom most investigative steps occurred after David Weiss was appointed as a Special Counsel under the same terms as Smith and Hur, and whose alleged crimes happened somewhere besides Delaware. Whether it applies to Hunter Biden is a closer question: Judge Mark Scarsi seems poised to argue that since Weiss had already charged Hunter, his appointment is different (and given the way Scarsi has worked so far, I don’t rule out him trying to find a way to make this unappealable).

In other words, if the steps Jack Smith took after November 2022 were unconstitutional, then it means everything Hur did after January 2023 was also unconstitutional. If Trump “won,” then he needs to stop making any claims about Hur’s interview with Biden, because it was unconstitutional.

More importantly, not even Aileen Cannon has ruled that Trump didn’t knowingly and intentionally retain classified documents. All she has ruled is that if DOJ wants to charge him for it, they need to recreate the investigative steps completed since November 2022, under the review of US Attorney for Southern Florida Markenzy Lapointe.

America’s Whimpering Democracy Is Trump’s Past, as Well as Future

There was a bit of a kerfuffle yesterday in response to an Erik Wemple claim that the media has not shirked media coverage of the risk posed by Trump while focusing non-stop on Biden’s (but not Trump’s) age.

Wemple made a list — and given the prevalence of lefty columnists, not a particularly impressive one, once you look closely.

But it also betrays the degree to which journalists have the same blind spots I have noted in NYT’s series on the subject (which makes up 15 entries in Wemple’s list): they ignore or understate how much of this Trump did in his first term and continues to do it via his right wing allies in Congress.

Charlie Savage, Maggie Haberman, and Jonathan Swan keep teaming up to write the same story over and over: A second Trump term is going to be bad … really bad.

Just some of these stories, in reverse order from Tuesday’s latest installment, are:

There are several aspects to these stories: a bid to eliminate civil service protections, a personalization of power, and the elevation of people who proved willing to abuse power in his first term: Russel Vought (who helped obstruct the Ukraine investigation), Stephen Miller, and Johnny McEntee (who even before January 6 was making a willingness to invoke the Insurrection Act a litmus test for hiring at DOD), and Jeffrey Clark.

The series, thus far, skirts the language of authoritarianism and fascism.

[snip]

These stories admit that Trump did some of this in his first term. But they describe a process of retribution by the guy who got elected — with abundant assistance from Maggie Haberman — on a platform of “Lock her up!,” who breached the norm of judicial independence 24 days into office when he asked Jim Comey to “let this” Mike Flynn “thing go,” as something that took a while to “ramp up.”

[snip]

[T]hese pieces always vastly understate how much politicization Trump pulled off in his first term, and never describe how that politicization continues at the hands of people like Jim Jordan.

Such reporting will be most salient, I believe, if reports show voters the costs of such abuses of the judicial system have already had and are already having.

Even as the kerfuffle was unrolling, Rosa Brooks published a piece in The Bulwark describing the lessons from a series of five nonpartisan simulations on how American democracy might fare if Trump wins in November.

The simulations showed that the risk Trump poses isn’t necessarily the immediate totalitarianism or civil war liberals sometimes raise, but instead targeted persecution against those who speak up.

The exercises produced some “good news”: None of the simulations devolved into mass violence or civil conflict, and Team Trump found it difficult to fully execute its most ambitious plans. For instance, in one of our exercises, Trump’s efforts to detain millions of undocumented migrants floundered; the money and infrastructure for such a massive operation proved too challenging.

[snip]

High-profile nonprofit groups are undergoing IRS audits, forcing their senior staff to spend most of their time huddled with accountants and lawyers. More university presidents have resigned in the face of investigations, audits, and threats to yank federal funding over curricula and the actions of student protests. Meanwhile, a number of high-profile journalists are the targets of leak investigations. The owners of several major media outlets are under investigation for specious criminal tax code violations, and the FCC is considering revoking the broadcast licenses of a dozen television stations. Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, and retired Gen. Mark Milley are under investigation for allegedly mishandling classified materials.

The nation’s streets are largely peaceful. But around the country, numerous civil servants, reporters, teachers, librarians, election officials, and other community leaders are being doxxed and threatened.

You can imagine how this unfolds. Most people will see the writing on the wall: Speak out, and life becomes unpleasant. Your address and children’s names will be posted on social media. You’ll get a nasty letter from the IRS. Perhaps your brother’s undocumented girlfriend will go to work one day and never come home, and you won’t know if she’s been detained or deported. Your pregnant niece might be stopped by police as she drives from Texas to New Mexico, and grilled about whether she’s heading to an abortion clinic. Maybe the FBI and Homeland Security will use undercover agents—or even government surveillance capabilities—to spy on organizations from school boards to church groups, in search of “illegals,” “Christian-hating communists,” the “woke,” and other “vermin.”

The chilling effect on our politics would be intense. Ordinary citizens would self-censor. Many federal, state, and local leaders, rightly worried about the effects on themselves and their families, will quietly step down from their roles.

Definitely read the piece. As you do, though, consider the ways that this, too, is a story of Trump’s past and present, not just his future.

Just yesterday, for example, FBI’s Deputy Direct Paul Abbate said that he “absolutely did not” sign off on the settlement of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page’s lawsuits and “would never sign off on something like that.”

The allegations in the Privacy Act part of the complaint — the only part included in the settlement — show that before the misconduct allegations against Peter Strzok had been resolved, someone shared his texts with the White House, which in turn got leaked to the press before Sarah Isgur released them en masse, with Rod Rosenstein’s approval.

59. Between late July and December 2017, someone from the Department of Justice alerted the White House to the existence of these texts and, at least, their general content. On information and belief, officials in the White House, in turn, began to contact members of the news media about the texts as a means to try to undermine the Special Counsel’s investigation.

60. No later than December 2, 2017, at least two news organizations printed stories including characterizations of the contents of some of Special Agent Strzok’s texts.

[snip]

62. On December 12, 2017, DOJ willfully and intentionally disclosed to numerous news outlets approximately 375 text messages to, from, and about Special Agent Strzok. In a press release, DOJ called this act a “public release” of the messages.

Years ago, I was told this was a clear violation of the Privacy Act. Having gone through discovery, DOJ appears to agree.

By saying he would never sign a settlement with someone targeted in violation of the law, Abbate was (wittingly or not) stating an unwillingness to make things right after the government violates the rights of a long-valued FBI employee. And Abbate has to know that there are plenty of right wing agents who never got disciplined for sending pro-Trump texts on their phones, including the agents who handled one of the informants targeting the Clinton Foundation.

Republicans threw a similar tizzy fit after DOJ settled Andrew McCabe’s lawsuit for a similar violation of his rights — in that case, of his due process rights. And in McCabe’s case, granting McCabe’s due process would likely have revealed that the allegations he willfully lied about his role in a story that exposed the investigation into the Clinton Foundation were unproven.

The time to stand up to the kind of individualized targeting that Trump has long used is now, was last year, was seven years ago, when the extended campaign to turn Strzok and Page into the face of the Deep State first began.

Waiting to learn the outcome of the election is a cop out.

The time to catalog the damage Trump has already done by the kind of treatment the Bulwark projects in the future is now. All the more so given that its anonymous participants, described to include “former senior officials from President Trump’s first administration, along with former senators and members of Congress,” surely include a number of people who’ve received this treatment. If the way to combat Trump involves solidarity to prevent this isolating doxxing, then such a group is precisely the kind of group that should set an example.

LOLGOP and I are working on a podcast episode that talks about all the people at the FBI that Trump targeted: in addition to Strzok and Page, McCabe and Jim Comey, every person mentioned in the Carter Page IG Report, a number of key witnesses in the Durham investigation, often leveraged to cultivate the testimony Durham needed to sustain his conspiracy theory. That retaliation did real damage to the FBI’s expertise on Russia.

But it has continued even since Trump left office. After first being investigated in the wake of the IG Report, a top Russian analyst, Brian Auten, remains a target because he tracked Russia efforts to influence the 2020 election. Laura Dehmlow — then a unit chief in FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force and now the Deputy Director of the National Counterintelligence Center, was bullied because she didn’t come out and say that the FBI had obtained a laptop attributed to Hunter Biden from a computer repairman (which remains inconclusive regarding any Russian influence). Tim Thibault, who in 2016 was one of the people who predicated investigations of the Clinton Foundation, was targeted in part because he made the decision — at the request of FBI agents trying to preserve the integrity of the Hunter Biden investigation — to shut down Peter Schweizer as an informant. Elvis Chan, long one of the most important FBI agents in fighting Russian hacking, was misrepresented as part of the Twitter Files, and ever since, the House GOP has been demanding he sit for a deposition either represented by his personal lawyer or the FBI’s lawyer.

Other members of the “Deep State” that Trump or his flunkies have targeted include:

  • The 51 former spooks who signed a letter stating that the release of the Hunter Biden laptop before the 2020 elections “has the earmarks of a Russian information operation”
  • Witnesses at either of Trump’s impeachments
  • January 6 Committee witnesses and members
  • Capitol Hill Police who testified in January 6 trials
  • Witnesses in the Durham investigation
  • Former Trump officials who’ve spoken out against Trump (again, these likely include some participants in Bulwark’s simulations)
  • Members of the Hunter Biden investigative team, including those who were engaged in the more aggressive targeting of him
  • Every judge, prosecutor, and identified FBI agent who has investigated Trump (note: Aileen Cannon was also targeted)
  • Judges who’ve overseen January 6 trials or those of Trump’s associates
  • Those who didn’t support Jim Jordan as speaker

This has a noticeable effect. Not only does Abbate (along with Chris Wray) cow before Congress rather than explain that Trump’s Administration violated the law, which has repercussions, but it led the FBI to hesitate before going after Trump and his people both before January 6 and during the stolen documents case.

There are those outside of government, too.

A sustained campaign to shut down efforts, both within and outside social media companies, to limit mis- and disinformation has led many programs and experts to quit, largely after sustained doxing and disinformation campaigns.

Perhaps most alarmingly, Trump and his mob have targeted election administrators around the country, both prominent and not. Even if Kamala Harris wins more votes than Trump in November, there are known localities and states where there’s real question whether election denying voting officials will certify the vote. Patrick Byrne has even started issuing death threats against those prosecuting Tina Peters for tampering with election equipment back in 2020.

This is not just about loyalty. This is not just about cowing law enforcement. This is not just retribution — though that serves as cover.

Particularly taking account of the election workers targeted in service of Trump’s Big Lie, this must be understood as systematic: an attack on particular institutions and norms of liberal society: the rule of law, elections, and truth.

We don’t have the luxury of waiting until after November to start defanging the right wing’s stochastic terrorism. That’s true, because they’ll be using it to stoke fear leading up to the election. That’s true because Jim Jordan still has three months wielding a gavel to elicit lynching threats. But it’s also true because the guy managing the FBI is so afraid of Congress that he’s unwilling to say that people selectively targeted for such treatment by Donald Trump are entitled to due process.

Trump’s Stranglehold on the GOP Is a Vulnerability

Kamala Harris’ first couple of stump speeches as Presidential candidate included three parts:

  • Set up of prosecutor versus felon contrast (“I know his type”)
  • Tribute to Joe Biden
  • Lay out promise for the future (“Not going back”)

Last night’s speech (at least until CSPAN’s feed crapped out) swapped the second part — the tribute to Biden — and replaced it with an attack on Trump’s role in tanking the border bill.

That swap came after the Vice President’s campaign released this ad, similarly targeting Trump for his role in killing the bill.

To be sure — this is the same approach Biden has taken: imputing from Trump’s deliberate tanking of the border bill opposition to fixing the border. It was undoubtedly one of the reasons Biden spent so much time negotiating the border bill, only to have Congress tank it.

But when Biden used that approach, he explained it. Harris turned it into an attack on Trump’s selfishness.

These ads will not deflate Republican efforts to turn Harris’ role in working with Central America to try to decrease the flow of migrants, which they’ve spun into being the border czar in charge of the entire border, into fear about her approach to the border. But it succinctly flips the script.

It holds Trump accountable for things he made other Republicans do at his behest.

The same is true of the departure of Paul Dans, the head of Project 2025, from Heritage Foundation.

Trump’s campaign managers — Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles — released a statement crowing after Dans’ departure.

Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign — it will not end well for you.

And Dans booked, then no-showed, an appearance with Kaitlan Collins show.

But ultimately, if you’re making the personnel decisions, as it appears Trump’s campaign did on Dans’ departure, then you own it. It only serves to reaffirm Trump’s role in the project.

And none too soon. Multiple outlets are publishing the forward that JD Vance did for Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, including his adoption of Roberts’ call to “circle the wagons and load the muskets” to take out government.

Vance has deep ties to the Heritage Foundation, and in particular to Kevin Roberts, who has been president of the right-wing think tank since 2021 and is the architect of Project 2025. Vance has praised Roberts for helping to turn the organization “into the de facto institutional home of Trumpism” and has endorsed elements of Project 2025. Vance is also the author of the foreword to Roberts’s upcoming book, Dawn’s Early Light, which The New Republic has obtained in full even though the book’s publisher, HarperCollins’s Broadside Books, has apparently tried to suppress it amid the scrutiny of Project 2025 and Vance’s ties to Roberts.

The subtitle and cover of Roberts’s book were softened as scrutiny of the Trump campaign’s ties to Project 2025 grew. The book was originally announced with the subtitle “Burning Down Washington to Save America” and featured a match on the center of its cover. The subtitle is now “Taking Back Washington to Save America,” and the match is nowhere to be seen. Promotional language invoking conservatives on the “warpath” to “burn down … institutions” like the FBI, the Department of Justice, and universities has also been removed or toned down, though it is still present in some sales pages.

But the inspiration for that extreme language can be found in Vance’s foreword, which ends with a call for followers to “circle the wagons and load the muskets,” and describes Roberts’s ideas as an “essential weapon” in the “fights that lay [sic] ahead.” (The New Republic downloaded Dawn’s Early Light earlier this month from NetGalley, which provides advance copies of books to reviewers and booksellers. Copies were removed from the platform earlier this month.)

Trump might yet replace Vance — though he has only a few weeks before ballot finalization would make that far more difficult.

But he can’t disown the hundreds of top Trump aides associated with this project.

Because of Trump’s stranglehold on the Republican Party, Kamala Harris is in a sweet spot: She can claim credit for Joe Biden’s successful policies. But she can also treat Trump as a near-incumbent, holding him accountable for all the things Republicans have been doing to help Trump beat Joe Biden for the last two years.

That may turn out to be a serious vulnerability for Trump going forward.

Update: Roger Sollenberger confirms that LaCivita pushed Dans out.

The Trump campaign forced the architect of the ultraconservative Project 2025 manifesto out of his job on Tuesday as it sought political cover from a controversy dogging Republicans, the Daily Beast can report exclusively.

Trump campaign manager Chris LaCivita “put the screws” to mastermind Paul Dans in an effort to force him out and shut down the right-wing shop behind Proejct 2025, a sprawling blueprint that sought to overhaul the federal government and implement an array of far-right policies for a potential second Trump administration, a well-placed source told the Daily Beast.

DOJ IG Finds Bill Barr’s Personal Intervention in Roger Stone Sentencing “Highly Unusual” But Not Illegal

DOJ IG has released their long-awaited report on Bill Barr’s intervention in the Roger Stone sentencing.

The takeaway conclusion is that Barr (who refused to cooperate, as did several others) did not intervene in response to Trump’s tweets that day. Based on newly installed Acting US Attorney Tim Shea’s intervention, he had already intervened. DOJ IG concluded that Barr’s intervention was highly unsual, but did not look bad.

We recognize that the Department’s handling of the sentencing in the Stone case was highly unusual, including its filing of a second sentencing memorandum and DOJ leadership’s personal involvement in the preparation of that second memorandum. Moreover, Shea’s and Barr’s participation in the Stone sentencing, given their status as Administration political appointees and Stone’s relationship with the then President, resulted in questions being asked and allegations being made about the Department’s decision making. However, absent a law, rule, regulation, or Department policy that prohibits their participation (none of which exist here), whether the U.S. Attorney and/or the Attorney General should personally participate in such a matter is ultimately left to their discretion and judgment, including their assessment of how such involvement will affect public perceptions of the federal justice system and the Department’s integrity, independence, and objectivity

The report concluded that Aaron Zelinsky did not intentionally lie when he claimed there was a great deal of pressure. His belief that that was the case was good faith.

I’ll have more later.

Speaker Mike Johnson Demands Better Treatment for Israel’s Prime Minister Than Given the President of the United States

Ahead of Bibi Netanyahu’s address to Congress, much of the attention has focused on those — starting with Vice President Harris — who will not attend. Speaker Emerita Pelosi is one of a growing number of Democrats who will instead meet with the families of those still held hostage by Hamas.

Right wingers are trying to make a big stink out of Democrats’ decision not to attend an address by a guy accused of war crimes who openly sides with Republicans (I’ve altered this cover slightly).

What has gone unmentioned, however, is that Speaker Mike Johnson sent out a letter ordering members and their guests to maintain decorum.

In the interests of all involved, we will enforce a zero-tolerance policy for disturbances in the building.

All Members should kindly inform their guests that any disruption of the proceedings of the House is a violation of the rules and may subject the offenders to prosecution. If any disturbance does occur, the Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police will remove the offending visitor(s) from the gallery and subject them to arrest.

As Members, it is incumbent upon us all to likewise model respect and proper decorum as representatives of the American people and our institution, and as ambassadors of the United States on the world stage.

This is, of course, greater reverence than Republicans have offered of late to Democratic Presidents, most recently when Marjorie Taylor Greene interrupted President Biden’s State of the Union.

It’s not Israel that has been left behind, Speaker Mike.

Now that Joe Biden Stepped Down for the Good of the Country, Joe Kahn Must Join Him

In their latest installment of an editorial making demands of Joe Biden, other Democrats, and voters, but never Donald Trump, the NYT on Monday joined the horde of outlets begging for an open primary.

They were, of course, too slow to keep up with the Old Geezer they’ve spent the last month calling slow, to say nothing of his Vice President who, in just 36-hours, sealed up the nomination and raised $100 million. It was over.

Try to keep up, NYT?

Even with that embarrassment, NYT decided to keep running the endless stream of print, with Ezra Klein whining like he has done and Patrick Healy leading a panel discussion, as well as his own unsubstantiated claims about competition — especially around convention time — helping a candidacy. Bret Stephens had the audacity to claim that by winning the support of democratically elected delegates, Kamala had been coronated.

Try to keep up, NYT.

So back to the editorial NYT posted after it was over, demanding — begging — that it not be over.

Along with its tribute to Biden and a pitch to use this “fresh chance to address voters’ concerns with better policies” (followed by misrepresentations of the current state of both Biden’s immigration and housing policies — try to keep up, NYT!), the editorial nodded to the import of “describ[ing] all the harm Mr. Trump would do to this country.”

Mr. Trump is a felon who flouts the law and the Constitution, an inveterate liar beholden to no higher cause than his self-interest and a reckless policymaker indifferent to the well-being of the American people. His term in office did lasting damage to the people and the project of America and to its reputation around the world. In a second term he would operate with fewer restraints and more willing enablers, and he and his emboldened advisers have made clear they intend to exercise power ruthlessly.

Yet it’s not enough to describe all the harm Mr. Trump would do to this country: The Democratic Party needs to offer the American people a road map to a better future.

This is the second time that this bossy stream of editorials has emphasized the import of describing the danger of Trump: In the first, NYT faulted Biden for failing to “hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies” during the debate.

But this second editorial expands its descriptive scope: Trump’s lies must be debunked and the harm Trump did to this country must be described.

By others. By Democrats.

Yet, even as NYT was obsessing with Biden’s age, it failed in those duties, debunking Trump’s lies and describing the damage he has done.

For example, NYT fell for a PR effort by the Trump campaign to pitch a platform that embraced fetal personhood as a moderation on choice. After spending months leading others on efforts to describe Trump’s amped up authoritarianism in a second term, NYT both-sidesed Trump’s efforts to disavow Project 2025. Even as NYT front-paged Peter Baker’s pursuit of conspiracy theories about the official medical records Biden did release, NYT never described asking for official medical records on Trump’s shooting injury, even while it joined Maria Bartiromo and Benny Johnson to platform Ronny Jackson’s claims instead. NYT finally got around to fact-checking Trump’s RNC speech; they posted it just after midnight overnight, today. CNN, by comparison, had their fact-check up while people were still talking about the speech.

Neither is NYT fulfilling the job of describing the harm Trump would and did do to this country. The other day, NYT let its pharmaceutical reporter falsely claim that Mueller found “no evidence that Mr. Trump or his aides had coordinated with [Russia’s 2016] interference effort,” something that not even the linked story from March 2019 supported, and something that has been further debunked by subsequent reports that Konstantin Kilimnik was a Russian agent and that he passed on the strategy Paul Manafort gave him to other Russian spies (which NYT has reported but presented as limited to polling data) or the footnote unveiled just before the 2020 election that showed the investigation into whether Roger Stone conspired in a hack-and-leak with GRU was ongoing when Mueller finished (something NYT has never reported).

In March, NYT had a good story on Manafort’s reappearance in Trump’s orbit. It did an op-ed on Manafort’s likely role in a second Trump term. While both noted that Trump pardoned Manafort, neither laid out that Amy Berman Jackson judged Manafort to have lied about sharing that campaign strategy with Kilimnik and the deal to carve up Ukraine discussed at the same time. NYT appears to have ignored Manafort’s appearance at the convention.

Nor has NYT shown the least curiosity regarding the role of Donald Trump or his Attorney General in framing his opponent back in 2020. While, in real time, NYT did an exceptionally good story about the Brady side channel Bill Barr set up to ingest dirt Rudy Giuliani had obtained, in part from a known Russian spy, when they attempted to write this after the Alexander Smirnov indictment, NYT covered up Rudy’s central role in related matters. How did the entire Biden – Trump rematch pass without a single story on Trump’s role in framing his opponent?

NYT has covered Trump’s recent coziness with Viktor Orbán, though it was late to the story of Orbán’s post NATO visit and didn’t mention Orbán efforts to end the Ukraine war with Trump. A far better follow-up described that Orbán had relayed Trump’s plans for “a swift push for a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.” That was buried, just like NYT’s report on Trump’s growing financial entanglement with the Saudi state, this time on page A8. In NYT’s simpering coverage of Trump’s RNC platform, it mentioned neither the reversals on Ukraine or Taiwan from 2016. And while NYT claims to value descriptions of the damage Trump did to “the project of America and to its reputation around the world,” it recently blamed NATO allies’ concerns about the election exclusively to Biden’s age, rather than the threat that Trump himself poses — and even that was buried in a story buried below other Biden stories.

Joe Kahn’s NYT insists that these topics should be covered.

Yet Joe Kahn’s NYT isn’t doing that job, its day job. It is instead pawning that job off onto Democrats, all the while complaining about the way Democrats are fulfilling the duties of their day job.

And when you raise NYT’s own failures, NYT exhibits the same arrogance, defensiveness, and blindness for which it faulted Joe Biden.

For the good of the country, NYT imperiously demanded, Joe Biden had to step down.

Fine, he did that.

Now either meet the standards your own editorial page lays out or, for the good of the country, find a leader who will.

Update: Pointing to a dumb Nate Cohn report unrelated to NYT’s negligence on Trump coverage (and so not covered here, though I thought about including it), Dan Drezner calls on NYT to get its shit together.

Cohn’s analysis would ordinarily be the kind of piece that I would be defending on social media against those who say, “I cancelled my Times subscription months ago!” But then I got to the last paragraph, which included a particularly jaw-dropping sentence:

In fairness to Ms. Harris, it would be challenging for any Democrat today to advance a clear agenda for the future. Mr. Biden struggled to do so in his re-election campaign. The party has held power for almost 12 of the last 16 years, and it has exhausted much of its agenda; there aren’t many popular, liberal policies left in the cupboard. As long as voters remain dissatisfied with the status quo and the Democratic nominee, a campaign to defend the system might not be the slam dunk Democrats once thought it was (emphasis added).

I am not a Democrat. There are parts of their agenda in their cupboard that I do not want to see implemented. But I have to ask: how in the name of all that is holy did that tendentious sentence get put into Cohn’s piece?! Are you trying to troll the libs?

Just to quickly list what is wrong with this claim:

  1. Controlling the White House is not the same thing as holding unconstrained power. Obama and Biden commanded party majorities in Congress for exactly four of those twelve years. Unsurprisingly, a lot of what they wanted to do did not get through Congress.
  2. Polling shows that Democrats have some agenda items in the cupboard that are pretty popular: expanding access to women’s reproductive healthgun controlbolstering U.S. alliancesreforming the judicial branchproviding a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers; heck, even DEI polls well. In contrast, the Trump-affiliated Project 2025 agenda is ridiculously unpopular.
  3. As Cohn would hopefully acknowledge past Democratic policy initiatives, like the Affordable Care Act, used to be unpopular but have become quite popular over time. When Harris said at her Wisconsin rally that, “we are not going back,” the point is that she can justifiably claim to be defending popular Democratic policies.

My point is that it’s a horrible, unnecessary, inaccurate sentence does not even fit with the rest of Cohn’s essay. So what were you thinking when you dropped it in there? Was it the same person who thought publishing predictable op-eds about the current state of politics from Bill Maher or Aaron f**king Sorkin was a nifty idea?!1

I had a discussion with someone who writes for your paper after Cohn’s piece dropped who mentioned the “same five dinner parties problem” of your editorial staff. You keep talking amongst yourselves so much that the result is an insular conversation in which your perception about what the American people think and want is badly distorted. And then you react to the criticism with vindication — that if you’re getting heat from “both sides” then you must be doing something right.

With Biden’s departure you have an opportunity to do a reset of how you cover and interpret the 2024 election. Please, for the love of God, take it. Get better op-ed submissions. Be better at your jobs!