Posts

“False in Numerous Respects:” House Democrats Package Up Liz Cheney’s Evidence of “Despicable Malice”

/27 Comments/in , /by

In a letter [alternate link] Cassidy Hutchinson’s attorney, William Jordan, sent to the DC bar, he corrected some of the false claims made in Barry Loudermilk’s report claiming that Liz Cheney had inappropriately suborned perjury from Hutchinson.

The Loudermilk Report is false in numerous respects, including its suggestion that Ms. Hutchinson and Congresswoman Cheney had any improper communications.

[snip]

The Loudermilk Report is replete with other politically motivated falsehoods, but at a minimum Ms. Hutchinson wanted specifically to correct this error because it has been seized on by Mr. Passantino and other individuals in this Complaint. [my emphasis]

The other individuals likely including private citizen Donald Trump.

And that’s interesting because the report in which the letter was published includes an interesting line at the end of a long explanation of why this is an assault on Speech and Debate.

That section cites the Supreme Court opinion holding that “once it is determined that Members are acting within the ‘legitimate legislative sphere’ the Speech or Debate Clause is an absolute bar to interference.” Then it cites the amicus brief the GOP sent in support of Scott Perry’s fight to keep content from his phone involving things that had nothing to do with formal oversight from prosecutors. “The Clause is not abrogated by allegations that a legislative official acted unlawfully or with an unworthy purpose, and applies both in civil cases and criminal prosecutions.” It cites to Scott Perry’s own filing. After including Trump’s tweet invoking the report, it trashes Loudermilk’s shoddy analysis.

Then it notes that Speech and Debate protects Loudermilk from any claim of defamation someone might bring against him.

If the Clause did not apply to congressional investigations, Chairman Loudermilk could be subject to liability himself for defamation.

Oh. And then it notes that those without Speech and Debate protection who falsely accused her of a crime, “may also be liable.”

All those who republish these allegations outside speech or debate may also be liable.

And that’s interesting because Cheney — whose reference to this report in a Tweet was the first I heard of it — specifically said that the “report destroying Loudermilk’s fraudulent allegations shows the despicable malice behind Trump’s efforts.”

“Despicable malice” sounds like the kind of thing you might sue over.

Barry Loudermilk Wasted $250K Making Security Footage available on Rumble

/8 Comments/in , /by

In response to Barry Loudermilk’s report on January 6, his counterpart of the committee, Joe Morelle, released a response. [Alternate link]

I’ll say more about its central Speech and Debate argument; as I’ve noted, DOJ can’t investigate Liz Cheney without falling afoul of the same Speech and Debate that protected Scott Perry from investigation for his role in the insurrection.

But there’s an important detail that deserves its own post.

There’s a long section of the report that describes right wing efforts to make security footage from January 6 available. It describes how, rather than hosting the video on the Committee’s own website, right wingers chose to post it on Rumble instead. It includes a quote from USCP Acting Director of Intelligence Julie Farnham about the downsides of doing so: It meant making the content readily available to extremists.

Ms. Farnam: Well, the audience is largely extremists, and those are people who have — not everyone, but some of them have celebrated the threats to our democracy and have worked to undermine our democracy. And so having that security information makes it even more dangerous for the people trying to protect the Capitol and more dangerous for all the Members of Congress.188

And for the privilege of making security video readily available to extremists, the report reveals, Republicans paid $250,000.

In other words, Barry Loudermilk and Mike Johnson wasted tax payer money to make themselves and their colleagues less safe.

Cotton Swabs and Grievance Myths: Do Not Invite Republicans to Express Support for Kash Patel’s Witch Hunts

/67 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

I want to elaborate on some points I made in a Bluesky exchange I had with Greg Sargent about his post on the Barry Loudermilk report referring Liz Cheney for investigation yesterday. It was, I hope, a civil and substantive exchange (multiple people have mentioned it since), and for that I want to thank Sargent.

But I wanted to explain some points I tried making at more length.

Sargent’s post noted — and he’s right — that Trump’s embrace of Loudermilk’s report discredits false assurances Senate Republicans have offered that Kash Patel won’t pursue political witch hunts if confirmed as FBI Director.

Barely moments after Donald Trump announced that he’d chosen loyalist Kash Patel as FBI director, Republicans stampeded forth to insist that this in no way means Trump will unleash law enforcement on his enemies, even though Trump himself has threatened to do so. Senator John Cornyn suggested such threats were only for “public consumption.” Senator Rick Scott said Trump is “not gonna do it.” And Representative Dan Meuser scoffed that the very idea is “nonsense.”

These lawmakers should take a moment to consult Trump’s Truth Social feed. At 3:11 a.m. on Wednesday, demonstrating characteristic emotional balance, Trump posted this reaction to a new report from a House subcommittee chaired by GOP Representative Barry Loudermilk, which recommends that the FBI investigate former GOP Representative Liz Cheney over her role in the House’s January 6 inquiry:

Liz Cheney could be in a lot of trouble based on the evidence obtained by the subcommittee, which states that “numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, and these violations should be investigated by the FBI.” Thank you to Congressman Barry Loudermilk on a job well done.

Note the trademark mobspeak here: Cheney could be in a lot of trouble for federal lawbreaking, Trump declares, as if he’s merely a passive observer remarking on the danger she faces, rather than someone who will control the nation’s sprawling federal law enforcement apparatus in just over a month. Trump has been raging at Cheney for years and has amplified suggestions that she should face televised military tribunals.

Now, in a dark turn in this whole farcical saga, Trump is pretending that House Republicans have given him a legitimate basis for prosecuting Cheney, when in fact their claims were cooked up in bad faith for precisely that purpose.

Sargent argues that the press should “hound[ GOP Senators] mercilessly” on whether they’ll still support Kash after Trump’s endorsement of Loudermilk’s report.

Trump’s veiled threat toward Cheney should prompt the press to revisit those reassurances from Republicans. GOP senators should be hounded mercilessly by reporters on whether they’ll knowingly support Patel now that Trump has made the corrupt reality of the situation so inescapably, alarmingly clear.

If we lived in a world where Republican hypocrisy could be shamed, where journalists had the skill to manage such an exchange, that would be worthwhile.

We don’t live in that world.

Trying to budge Republicans from their reassurances would backfire.

Here’s why.

First, consider the utter incompetence of most journalists this side of Mehdi Hasan to handle such an exchange.

I’ve been tracking a right wing technique I’ve dubbed “Cotton swabs” (because Tom Cotton is a skilled practitioner in the technique). In it, when Republicans get asked these kind of gotcha questions by Manu Raju in the hallway or by Kristen Welker on a Sunday show, they instead flip the gotcha on its head, using it as an opportunity to air unrebutted propaganda. And the journalist is left as a discredited prop in Trump’s assault on the press.

For example, when Welker recently asked Trump if he would, in the interest of unifying the country, concede he lost the 2020 election, Trump not only refused to concede he lost, but he used the question to blame Biden that the country was divided, and then — with absolutely no pushback from Welker — lied about Joe Biden weaponizing DOJ to go after him, Trump. (The exchange introduced precisely the same kind of false reassurance that Sargent called out.)

KRISTEN WELKER:

Yes. And sir, I don’t have to tell you this, because you’ve talked about it. It comes at a time when the country is deeply divided, and now you’re going to be leading this country for the next four years. For the sake of unifying this country, will you concede the 2020 election and turn the page on that chapter?

PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP:

No. No, why would I do that? But let me just tell you —

KRISTEN WELKER:

You won’t ever concede —

PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP:

– when you say the country is deeply divided, I’m not the president. Joe Biden is the president.

KRISTEN WELKER:

But you’re going to be the president.

PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP:

No, no. I’m not the president. So when you say it’s deeply divided, I agree. But Biden’s the president, I’m not. And he has been a divider. And you know where he divided it more than anything else, and it probably backfired on him. I think definitely is weaponization. When he weaponized the Justice Department and he went after his political opponent, me. He went after his political opponent violently because he knew he couldn’t beat him. And I think it really was a bad thing, and it really divided our country.

So instead of giving the harmless concession she invited, that Trump lost to Joe Biden in 2020, Trump instead hijacked Welker’s platform to lie about being a victim. She asked for something to support unity. He stoked division more, blaming the polarization of the country on Biden. Then he made false claims of grievance.

It had exactly opposite effect Welker imagined. And in the fact check NBC did after the interview? Trump’s lie about Biden weaponizing DOJ went unmentioned.

NBC treated it, a brazen lie, as if it were true.

If you want to know how Trump got elected even after being charged in two federal indictments, you might start with the way that every legacy media outlet lets lies like this go uncontested.* Always. Trump never gets fact checked on his false claims about the federal investigations into his attempted coup and stolen documents.

As a result, even newsies who watch mainstream Sunday shows might be forgiven for believing the cases against Trump were ginned up, to say nothing of the judges and lawyers, from Aileen Cannon to Bill Barr to Sam Alito, who instead pickle their brains with the propaganda on Fox News.

If journalists don’t fact check these false claims, where would voters learn differently? Where would your average voter learn that the investigations against Trump were just?

Sometimes Cotton swabs involve speaking over the questioner (a favorite technique of JD Vance [see update below for an example] and Marco Rubio). Sometimes it involves flipping the entire premise of the question. It always involves, first, a shameless refusal to disavow the outrageous Trump practice or statement. As such, these are performative moments of obeisance, reinforcing Trump’s power and the assault on truth he demands.

And on questions regarding Trump’s troubled relationship with rule of law, it always involves false claims about past DOJ practice, either denials he politicized DOJ or false claims it was politicized against him. Sometimes both!

Trump and his allies have used Cotton swabs to sneak hundreds — probably thousands — of false claims that he, and not his adversaries, was a victim of politicized prosecution onto purportedly factual news outlets with no pushback.

None.

Indeed, at least one of the underlying examples of Republicans giving reassurances about Kash that Sargent cited was itself a Cotton swab. Rick Scott didn’t just say that Trump wouldn’t launch investigations in his second term, the part Sargent quoted, he premised his answer on a false claim that Trump didn’t do so in his first term (a very common claim among Trump’s most loyal allies).

“He didn’t do it the first time. He’s not gonna do it this time,” Scott said. (Trump actually did press for prosecutions of his enemies during his first term, such as by publicly musing there should be probes of former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and he also pushed for a criminal investigation into a previous investigation of his 2016 campaign.)

Even with Arthur Delaney’s fact check (a rarity in the reporting of Cotton swabs), HuffPo didn’t note that Trump did more than simply demand investigations of his adversaries, he got them. A key prong of the John Durham investigation chased possible Russian disinformation exacerbated by Durham’s own fabrications to criminalize Hillary’s use of oppo research. And both Durham’s indictments presented dodgy false statement accusations as conspiracies extending to the Hillary campaign. Trump’s DOJ set up a side channel via which Biden was framed — a false allegation used to ratchet up felony charges against his son. And there’s a long line of investigations — IRS audits, DOJ IG investigations used to fire people without due process, US Attorneys ordered to pursue special investigations (including another one targeting Hillary) — that targeted Trump’s enemies.

Trump’s administration targeted his enemies all the time, via a variety of means. And yet that gets buried in the HuffPo report. What should have been an opportunity to debunk Scott’s premise was, even from a diligent journalist, an exchange that still obscured how systematically Trump politicized rule of law in his first term.

And these Cotton swabs are part of a larger process, the extended con via which Trump has gotten Republicans to hate rule of law that LOLGOP and I have been tracing in the Ball of Thread podcast. Rather than treating the Russian investigation as a welcome review of four associates all of whom were monetizing their access to Trump with foreign countries, he instead latched onto false claims he was wiretapped, making himself a victim. With the help of Kash Patel, Trump substituted the Steele dossier for the real substance of the Russian investigation, convincing most Republicans that the investigation started not from the Trump campaign’s foreknowledge of the Russian attack on Hillary, but instead from Hillary’s attempt to understand Trump’s unabashed Russian ties — that oppo research Durham would criminalize. Trump then turned on the FBI, claiming that a bunch of people who were just trying to protect the country from an attack by a hostile country were instead targeting him personally; the myth that FBI targeted him is precisely what John Cornyn internalized when he attributed his support for Kash because Kash planned, “to restore the FBI to its former reputation as a nonpartisan, no political institution, and he told me he agreed” (also part of the Delaney story). Via both his own propaganda and the Durham investigation designed to flip the script on Hillary, Bill Barr reinforced that myth of Trump grievance. And all that while the entire Republican party responded to Trump’s extortion of Ukraine by relentlessly pursuing Joe Biden’s kid to the exclusion of pursuing policy, using a fabricated bribery allegation to ratchet things up before their rematch. Think about that! Trump dodged his first impeachment by ginning up a politicized investigation of Biden and his kid, and that entire process has been memory holed!

Gone!

Poof!

And while LOLGOP and I still have several episodes to do, it is no accident that the same team that turned a hard drive of Hunter’s dick pics — a relentless campaign of revenge porn — into yet another claim that poor Donald Trump was the victim, it is no accident that that very same team turned immediately to using the Big Lie to attack the foundations of American democracy. And Trump did it again when he beat the second (impeachment) and third (criminal indictment) attempts to hold him accountable. The price of admission in today’s GOP is these moments of performed fealty, the willingness to use legitimate questions about the politicized justice Kash has promised to instead publicly adopt Trump’s false claims that he is a victim.

The entire GOP is currently built around this myth of grievance. It gets reinforced with every Cotton swab. It was Trump’s platform during the election. It was the lie he used to make a bunch of disaffected Americans believe they had something in common with a billionaire grifting off their vulnerabilities.

This is the core of Trump’s super power, the claims of grievance he manufactures to justify his assault on rule of law.

The last thing you should want is for journalists to rush out to give Republican Senators yet another opportunity to perform their obeisance to Trump and his false myths of grievance, because all it will do is reinforce the polarization Trump thrives on and do further damage to truth and rule of law.

If we’re going to break this spell, we need to go about it a different way, some of which Sargent and I also discussed with respect to Kash, some of which I laid out in an earlier post responding to something Sargent wrote.

You are not going to defeat a Kash Patel or Pam Bondi nomination by asking for promises about political investigations. As I noted in that earlier post, Democrats (and even Lindsey Graham) attempted that approach with Bill Barr, and he proceeded directly from his confirmation to turn DOJ into a propaganda factory, down to the fabricated bribery allegation against Joe Biden.

Leave the direct assault on Kash to Olivia Troye (if she remains willing), to whom Kash already provided opportunity to talk not about his past role in abusing rule of law for Trump, but instead about how he lied to the people who relied on him, up to and including Mike Pence. Troye gives Republicans reason to oppose Kash because he has harmed Republicans. If you instead focus on Kash’s past and promised politicization, you’ll just trigger more obeisance to Trump’s myth of grievance.

Luckily, with Kash, there are other ways to get at this.

The question that kicked off the entire exchange between Sargent and me, for example, was about Speech and Debate, which should protect Liz Cheney from any scrutiny even if the false claims alleged in the Loudermilk report were true. Raising the Loudermilk referral as a question about Speech and Debate has the advantage of addressing the one area that has gotten Republicans to stand up to Trump, their own prerogatives (for example, by defending advice and consent on nominations). Questions about Speech and Debate would provide cause to raise the opinion — written by Trump appointee Neomi Rao, with a concurrence from former Trump White House Counsel Greg Katsas — that extended Speech and Debate protection to Scott Perry’s plotting on the Big Lie and affirmed its application in less formal situations than Liz Cheney’s communication with Cassidy Hutchinson at the core of Loudermilk’s report.

The district court, however, incorrectly withheld the privilege from communications between Representative Perry and other Members about the 2020 election certification vote and a vote on proposed election reform legislation.

Does Kash know better than Neomi Rao about Liz Cheney’s immunity from this kind of investigation, he should be asked (whether Rao or Kash is a bigger nutball is admittedly a close question, but one that can sow some useful discomfort). Questions to Kash about whether Speech and Debate defeats Loudermilk’s referral would have a very different valence than questions about politicization, because they would carry with them the implication that if Kash can investigate Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell will be next.

Plus, they provide cause to focus on something Senators should address anyway: Kash’s lawsuit against DOJ for his own subpoena. In addition to claiming that the subpoena targeting him and others (including Adam Schiff, though he neglected to mention that) was “a chilling attempt to surveil the person leading the Legislative Branch’s investigation into the Department of Justice’s conduct,” something also included in the scope of the January 6 Committee, Kash also made preposterous claims about the standard for subpoenas (which is why it was dismissed unceremoniously in September).

Even Kash’s legally illiterate claims won’t disqualify him with Republican Senators, but raising them gets him on the record as to his understanding of the law before he signs a bunch of orders adopting wildly different standards targeting Trump’s adversaries. Kash has made expansive claims about privacy rights and right of redress against the federal government. Fine. Let’s make aspiring FBI Director Kash Patel adhere to that standard.

But they also provide a way to point out that Kash’s targets actually aren’t Trump’s targets. Many of those on his enemies list, for example, are people, like Rod Rosenstein (the real target of Kash’s lawsuit) against whom he’s got a grudge. Trump and GOP Republicans don’t give a damn if Kash pursues Trump’s enemies. Either they’re too cynical to care, or they believe — or have to feign that they believe — that Trump’s enemies have it coming. But if Kash turns the FBI into his own personal fiefdom? Too many Republicans have been at odds with Kash to abide by that.

Finally, there’s the point I made about the Loudermilk report, after actually taking the time to read it (which no one else seems to have done). In the 39 pages of his report dedicated to DOD’s inaction, Loudermilk gets vanishingly close to accusing then Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller of criminal insubordination for not deploying 10,000 members of the National Guard on January 6.

President Trump instructed the highest-ranking Pentagon official to use any and all military assets to ensure safety three days prior to January 6, 2021. The Acting Secretary of Defense concedes that external variables, such as the “Twitter sphere”, accusations of being a “Trump crony” and Representative Cheney’s Op-Ed, weighed on his mind as he determined how and whether to employ the National Guard on January 6, 2021. During this period of time, Acting Secretary Miller published his January 4 memo, with significant restrictions and control measures on the DCNG.

To date, no investigation or disciplinary action has taken place against Acting Secretary of Defense Miller for his failure to follow directives from the sitting Commander-in-Chief on January 3, 2021.

Loudermilk sources this accusation in DOD IG’s own investigation of their inaction for some very good reasons. First, the January 6 Committee revealed that what really happened is that a bunch of Trump loyalists, up to and including Mark Meadows, scoffed at the notion that Trump would march to the Capitol protected by 10,000 National Guard troops. More importantly, Kash Patel’s claims about his own involvement in this process put him right there at Miller’s side, part of the same insubordinate inaction. That’s a fiction Loudermilk needed to spin. It’s a fiction even more outrageous than his referral of Liz Cheney.

But it’s also a referral that implicates Trump’s pick for FBI Director personally. Did Kash fail the President? Or did he instead join everyone else in recognizing what it would mean for Trump to march to the Capitol?

A damn good question for a confirmation hearing.

Kash Patel’s own big mouth, past actions, and wacky legal claims provide ample material to create friction between him and Senate Republicans guarding their own prerogatives. That’s almost certainly not enough to sink his nomination, though it would be more effective than inviting Republicans to reaffirm their belief in Trump’s grievance myth. But questions about such topics may provide better material going forward to box him in.

About one thing I’m certain, though: you will get nowhere if you make this a loyalty contest. You will get nowhere if you keep framing this as an opportunity for Republicans to either reaffirm that loyalty oath, even if it entails a direct assault on rule of law, or invite an attack on themselves personally.

Virtually all GOP Senators will find a way to back Trump and his assault on rule of law. Every single time.

And given the inept media we’ve got right now, it will serve only to do more damage, reinforcing Trump’s conceit that the law is just a matter of political loyalty.

Do not give Republicans an opportunity to condemn or endorse Kash Patel’s witch hunt against Trump’s enemies. It’s the quickest way to ensure they remain unified in supporting him.

*The night after I wrote this, I woke up and remembered that CNN’s Daniel Dale had written a fairly extensive fact check about Trump going after his adversaries. The exchange with Martha Raddatz he responded to was a good example of how JD Vance talks over people to deliver his Cotton swabs, filibustering to prevent any rebuttal.

RADDATZ: Would Donald Trump go after his political opponents?

VANCE: No —

RADDATZ: He suggested that in the past.

VANCE: Martha, he was president for four years and he didn’t go after his political opponents.

You know who did go after her political opponents? Kamala Harris, who has tried to arrest everything from pro-life activists to her political opponents —

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: He said those people who cheated would be prosecuted.

VANCE: — and used the Department of Justice as a weapon against people — well, he said that people who violated our election laws will be prosecuted. I think that’s the administration of law. He didn’t say people are going to go to jail because they disagree with me. That is, in fact, been the administration and the policy of Kamala Harris, Martha.

Look, under the last three-and-a-half years, we have seen politically-motivated after politically-motivated prosecution. I’d like us to just get back to a system of law and order where we try to arrest people when they break the law, not because they disagree with the prevailing opinion of the day, and there’s a fundamental difference here between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Donald Trump may agree — agree or disagree on a particular issue, but he will fight for your right to speak your mind without the government trying to silence you.

Kamala Harris is explicitly —

RADDATZ: Senator Vance, I —

(CROSSTALK)

VANCE: — censorship of folks who disagree with her.

RADDATZ: I want to go back to Donald Trump.

(CROSSTALK)

In response to Dale’s fact check, Trump’s campaign accused the media of a double standard because DOJ hadn’t indicted Biden or Hillary for their non-crimes.

Trump made extensive behind-the-scenes efforts to get his political opponents charged with crimes. But you don’t have to rely on investigative reporting or the memoirs of former administration officials to know that Trump went after political opponents as president.

He often went after them in public, too.

As CNN reporter Marshall Cohen has noted, there is a long list of political opponents whom Trump publicly called for the Justice Department and others to investigate or prosecute. The list includes not only 2016 election opponent Hillary Clinton and 2020 election opponent Joe Biden but also Biden’s son Hunter Biden, Democratic former Secretary of State John Kerry, Trump’s former national security advisor turned critic John Bolton, Democratic former President Barack Obama, unspecified Obama administration officials, the anonymous author of a New York Times op-ed by a Trump administration official critical of Trump, MSNBC host and Trump critic Joe Scarborough, former FBI director turned Trump critic James Comey, other former FBI officials, former British spy Christopher Steele (the author of a controversial dossier of allegations against Trump), and various congressional Democrats – including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia.

Asked for comment for this article on Monday, Vance spokesperson Taylor Van Kirk accused the media of having a biased “double standard” and said “it is indisputable that under Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s DOJ, the Republican nominee for president was targeted and indicted, while under President Trump, nothing like that ever transpired against either of the Democrats he faced off with in 2016 or 2020.”

But that wasn’t for a lack of Trump trying.

Trump repeatedly pressured the Justice Department as president to prosecute both Clinton and Biden, in addition to trying to get foreign countries to investigate Biden. That the Trump-era Justice Department declined to charge Clinton and Biden doesn’t mean it’s true that Trump didn’t “go after” them or others. (In fact, Trump literally said in 2017 that he wanted the department to be “going after” Clinton.) [my emphasis]

But even Dale, the best in the business, made no mention of how aggressively Durham investigated Hillary and her campaign and ignored that the Brady side channel led directly to the elevation of Alexander Smirnov’s attempt to frame Joe Biden, which had a role in David Weiss’ elevation as Special Counsel, which led to the felony conviction of Hunter [Dale relies heavily on CNN’s Marshall Cohen, who got the Durham investigation wildly wrong].

In 2019, Barr satisfied Trump’s investigate-the-investigators demand by tasking a federal prosecutor to help investigate the origins of the FBI’s probe related to Russia and the 2016 election. In late 2020, with about three months left in Trump’s presidency, Barr gave that prosecutor, John Durham, the status of special counsel.

And in early 2020, Barr tasked a different federal prosecutor with taking in information from members of the public, notably including then-Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, related to allegations about the Bidens and Ukraine, which had been a subject of Trump’s public and private focus.

“Friendly to Us:” NYT Buries Its Own Role in Trump’s Attacks on Rule of Law

/30 Comments/in , , /by

There comes a time in almost every Trump legal scandal where evidence comes out that Trump insiders believe they manipulated Maggie Haberman to serve Trump’s interests.

Evidence that both Roger Stone and Rick Gates used Maggie for various purposes came out in the Mueller investigation files, as when Gates claimed leaking Trump’s foreign policy speech to Maggie was a way to share it with Stone.

At Trump’s NY trial, Michael Cohen described how he deliberately misled Maggie about the nature of the payments he made to Stormy Daniels.

Perhaps the most damning example came in Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony, where she described how, after her last appearance before the January 6 Committee while still represented by Stefan Passantino, he took a call from Maggie and confirmed that Hutchinson had just finished testifying to the committee.

His phone is ringing.

I look down at his phone. It’s Maggie Haberman calling him. And I looked at Stefan, and I said, “Stefan, did you tell Maggie Haberman that we were meeting with the committee today?”

And he’s like, “No, no. Maybe that’s not what she’s calling me about.”

And I said, “Stefan, did you tell Maggie that we were meeting with the committee today?

And he said, “No, no, but I should probably answer to see if she knows, right? I should answer.”

And said, “Stefan, no. I don’t think you should answer that call. She probably wants to know if we met with the committee today.”

He said, “Cass, I’m just going to answer. It will just be 2 seconds. I just want to find out what she’s going to talk to me about.”

He answers.

I can’t hear what she’s saying, but I hear Stefan say, “Yeah, yeah, we did just leave her third interview. You can put it out, but don’t don’t – don’t – don’t make it too big of a deal. I don’t think she’ll want it to be too big of a deal. All right. Thanks.”

And I said, “Stefan, was that Maggie Haberman asking about my interview?”

And he said, “Yeah, but don’t worry. She’s not going to make it a big deal.”

I said, “Stefan, I don’t want this out there.”

He said, “Don’t worry. Like, Maggie’s friendly to us. We’ll be fine.”

So I was just like, “Whatever.” I was annoyed.

Hutchinson went on to describe how, even as Passantino was discouraging Hutchinson from reviewing documents in a SCIF that would allow a follow-up appearance, Passantino and Alex Cannon spent the weekend talking to Maggie about Hutchinson’s testimony.

So I reached out to him on Monday, May 23rd: “Has [redacted] reached out about the SCIF?”

And then he was just kind of being wishy-washy with it.

He also let me know on that phone conversation that Maggie Haberman, quote, “got a story from the committee about my third interview,” end quote, and he spent he, Stefan, spent the whole weekend with Alex Cannon convincing Maggie Haberman not to publish the story that she got from the committee about my third interview.

Hutchinson described her particular disinterest in sharing her story with Maggie (and Josh Dawsey, another Trump whisperer).

And s0 now we’re moving into the phase of you know, I did my best throughout this whole period — I don’ like talking to reporters. Reporters would text me during this period. Ninety-nine percent of reporter texts always go unresponded to. I don’t like talking to reporters. I think there are some that I have, like, a friendship/working relationship with that I knew from being on the Hill and at the White House, but, like, Josh [Dawsey], Maggie Haberman, all those people, I stay very clear from.

But Josh [Dawsey], for example, had started reaching out to me and saying that he heard that the committee was in talks with Stefan about bringing me in for a SCIF interview and a live testimony; where did I stand on that with Stefan?

Say what you will about Maggie’s role in all this: Assuming it was her on Passantino’s phone (Hutchinson does not name the journalist in her book), she was just chasing a big story.

But there’s no doubt that one source of Hutchinson’s distrust of Passantino in the period leading up to her decision to get new lawyers stemmed from his willingness to share details of her testimony with Maggie — at least as she portrayed it — against her wishes.

“I don’t think you should answer that call,” Hutchinson said.

“Don’t worry,” the attorney representing Hutchinson but paid by a Trump entity said. “Like, Maggie’s friendly to us. We’ll be fine.”

None of that shows up in NYT’s faux savvy review of the game behind Barry Loudermilk’s referral of Liz Cheney for criminal investigation for allegedly intervening in Hutchinson’s legal representation at the time. NYT doesn’t bother to disclose to readers that, as Hutchinson described it, Maggie — who is bylined — played as significant a role in the breakup of the relationship between Passantino and Hutchinson as Cheney did.

Having failed to disclose Maggie’s alleged role in all that, here’s how — starting 28¶¶ in — NYT ultimately describes Loudermilk’s report and the claims within it.

The House report on Ms. Cheney, prepared by a Republican-led subcommittee on oversight, was specifically focused on the former representative, who broke with her G.O.P. colleagues over their ongoing support of Mr. Trump in 2021. But she has also infuriated Mr. Trump not only because she helped to lead the congressional investigation into him, but because she crossed party lines in the election and campaigned against him in support of Ms. Harris.

The report claimed that Ms. Cheney may have violated “numerous federal laws” by secretly communicating with Cassidy Hutchinson, a star witness for the Jan. 6 committee, without the knowledge of Ms. Hutchinson’s lawyer.

When Ms. Hutchinson was first approached to provide testimony to the committee, she was represented by a lawyer who had once worked in the Trump administration’s White House Counsel’s Office.

After meeting with Ms. Cheney, she hired a different lawyer and her subsequent public testimony was damaging to Mr. Trump. It included allegations that he had been warned his supporters were carrying weapons on Jan. 6, but expressed no concern because they were not a threat to him.

The report asked the F.B.I. to investigate whether Ms. Cheney’s dealings with Ms. Hutchinson were carried out in violation of a federal obstruction statute that prohibits tampering with witnesses. The report also accused Ms. Hutchinson of lying under oath to the committee several times and suggested that investigators examine whether Ms. Cheney had played any role in “procuring another person to commit perjury.” [my emphasis]

There’s a lot that’s misleading in this description. As I’ve noted, the section of the report describing DOD’s failures is actually longer (39 pages as compared to 36) than the section on Cheney and Hutchinson. Particularly given Loudermilk’s silence about Kash Patel’s role in what Loudermilk claims was DOD misconduct, to claim the report was “specifically focused” on Cheney is particularly misleading.

Maggie, writing with Alan Feuer, takes as proven the timeline Loudermilk lays out, which overstates what the evidence shows. While Cheney did communicate directly with Hutchinson, that was in June 2022, hours after Passantino had advised Hutchinson to take the “small element of risk to refus[e] to cooperate” with the committee any further in light of DOJ’s declination to press contempt charges against Mark Meadows. Hutchinson initiated the communication with Cheney and did so because, as she told Passantino, “I don’t want to gamble with being held in contempt.”

NYT asserts that what was damning about Hutchinson’s testimony after she ditched Passantino was Trump’s knowledge that people were refusing to go through magnetometers, but he wasn’t concerned because they wouldn’t hurt him. Hutchinson did tell that story publicly on June 28, 2022 (and J6C played earlier video testimony she had provided). But that thread of testimony started in her first interview in February 2022 and continued in her May 2022 interview, both of which Passantino attended. It all stemmed from texts she exchanged with Tony Ornato (texts that also make clear Trump “kept mentioning [a trip to the Capitol] before he took the stage” to give his speech).

To the extent this is among the things Loudermilk claimed Hutchinson lied about, Loudermilk’s case is based on word games, conflating formal intelligence with notice from Secret Service manning the rally that rally goers had (at least) flagpoles that were triggering the mags, misrepresenting a conversation Hutchinson claims she and Tony Ornato had with Mark Meadows, and ignoring that one of Ornato’s denials amounted to a claim he didn’t remember.

Plus, Hutchinson always emphasized that Trump’s concern was “get[ting] the shot,” packing enough bodies into the audience to make it look crowded, and not about ensuring that his supporters could keep their weapons before they marched to the Capitol. The claim that Trump knew his supporters were armed was legally damaging; it meant he knew the risk when he riled them up further about Mike Pence. But that’s not how Hutchinson spun it and it was testimony rooted in what she said in Passantino’s presence.

A reader might expect some assessment of Loudermilk’s claims in an article that boasts, as the headline of this does, that “Republicans Map a Case Against Liz Cheney.” No they didn’t. They floated a number of flimsy claims that don’t amount to a crime. You’re reporters. Act like it. Make that clear (as Philip Bump did here), rather than pretending Loudermilk’s claims aren’t mere whitewash.

The report neither links nor shows much understanding of the report itself. Even where it quotes lawyers about the viability of the charges, it doesn’t mention (for example) that the Jack Smith investigation resulted in a new Speech and Debate opinion that would apply to Cheney’s actions.

The real sin with the four-paragraph description of Loudermilk’s case, however, is one closely tied to Maggie’s own undisclosed role in it. NYT claims that Passantino was merely a former Trump White House Counsel. That’s not the issue. The issue, which goes to the core of the dispute and the reason Hutchinson replaced him, is that he was paid by entities associated with Trump, and Hutchinson came to believe he represented Trump’s interests over her own.

Loudermilk packages up as a crime actions Cheney took to give Hutchinson confidence her attorney was representing her interests, not Trump’s. Loudermilk packages up as a crime Hutchinson’s effort to avoid what even Passantino depicted as a risk of a contempt referral.

When Passantino told Hutchinson that it was okay for him to share information against her wishes because, “Maggie’s friendly to us,” was he also expecting that Maggie might misrepresent his role in all this (and leave his name unmentioned)?

That’s why you disclose such things.

The rest of this column (NYT bills it as analysis and claims the reporters who wrote it have “deep experience in the subject,” which is one way you might describe involvement in the story you’re telling) focuses on describing how delivering this report after Trump’s public demands, “reliev[es] Mr. Trump of the potentially fraught step of explicitly ordering the inquiry himself.”

A “friendly to us” reporter treats Trump’s word games as if they absolve him of responsibility.

¶¶4-14 describe Trump’s contradictory claims, including an uncorrected quote from Trump’s spox that “the nation’s ‘system of justice must be fixed and due process must be restored for all Americans.'”

¶¶15-23 describe Trump’s efforts to gin up investigations into his adversaries in his first term and going forward. The section includes multiple grossly misleading claims. First, it falsely insinuates that Trump never got the investigation of Hillary he demanded.

During his first presidential campaign, he often joined crowds at his rallies in chanting, “Lock her up!” — a reference to his opponent Hillary Clinton, whom he and other Republicans believed should have been investigated for using a private email server while she was secretary of state. After he won that election, however, Mr. Trump appeared to soften his stance, telling The New York Times editorial board that he did not want to “hurt the Clintons.”

But Mr. Trump, facing a special counsel investigation of his own, changed his mind again in 2018, telling his White House counsel that he wanted to order the Justice Department to investigate Mrs. Clinton.

[snip]

While the White House counsel ultimately declined to approve his plans to investigate Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump made clear on social media during his years in office that he believed various people should be prosecuted.

NYT simply ignores the Clinton Foundation investigation predicated in significant part on Bannon-associated oppo research that (as NYT reported) continued throughout Trump’s first term.

More problematic, given the suggestion that someone stopped Trump from getting a Special Counsel investigation into Hillary, it ignores that Special Counsel John Durham not only insinuated two false statement indictments against people associated with Hillary — both of which ended in acquittal — were conspiracies, but fabricated a claim about Hillary to which he dedicated an 18-page section in his final report.

NYT goes onto to — again — falsely suggest that Trump never got a special counsel investigation into Joe Biden.

Mr. Trump has called for Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two criminal cases against him last year, to be “thrown out of the country.” And after he was arraigned on the first of Mr. Smith’s indictments, he said that, as president, he would appoint “a real special prosecutor” to “go after” President Biden and his family. (He has since backed away from his position on specifically investigating the Bidens.)

NYT’s “friendly” journalists would have you to believe they are ignorant that:

  • Trump extorted Ukraine for dirt on Hunter and Joe Biden
  • During Trump’s first impeachment, his personal attorney solicited such dirt from known Russian agents
  • Bill Barr set up a side channel via which Rudy could share that dirt obtained from Russian agents and others
  • Somehow, an FBI informant willing to frame Joe Biden came to share a claim that Mykola Zlochevsky bribed Biden that got laundered to the Biden investigation via that side channel
  • Trump spoke directly to both Barr and Jeffrey Rosen about the investigation into the Bidens
  • After David Weiss announced a plea deal with Hunter Biden, Trump attacked Weiss, contributing to threats against Weiss’ family
  • After Barr made public representations about the false bribery allegation, Weiss reneged on Hunter’s plea deal and obtained Special Counsel status and chased the bribery allegation, only to discover it was false

Trump already got his Special Counsel to investigate Joe Biden, and just in time for election season. And while it flopped when Weiss discovered Scott Brady’s vetting failed to find obvious problems with the bribery claim, it nevertheless led to felony charges against Hunter and a humiliating trial in June.

Suggesting Trump didn’t get a Special Counsel to investigate the Bidens is propaganda, just as suggesting he didn’t get one to pursue Hillary is.

But I guess that’s what Trump’s people know they’ll get when they work with a journalist “friendly to us.”

Barry Loudermilk Provides Proof of Kash Patel’s Incompetence Wrapped Up inside His Liz Cheney Referral

/9 Comments/in , , /by

As you’ve no doubt heard, Congressman Barry Loudermilk released a report that, beneath what seems to be an appendix, refers Liz Cheney for investigation because she made sure that Cassidy Hutchinson had a lawyer who represented the former Mark Meadows aide’s interests when testifying before the Committee.

Loudermilk claims obtaining witness testimony for a proceeding amounts to obstructing it and also claims Cheney — and not those who provided testimony inconsistent with other sworn documents — suborned perjury.

Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, numerous federal laws were likely broken by Liz Cheney, the former Vice Chair of the January 6 Select Committee, and these violations should be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Evidence uncovered by the Subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge. This secret communication with a witness is improper and likely violates 18 U.S.C. 1512. Such action is outside the due functioning of the legislative process and therefore not protected by the Speech and Debate clause.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation must also investigate Representative Cheney for violating 18 U.S.C. 1622, which prohibits any person from procuring another person to commit perjury. Based on the evidence obtained by this Subcommittee, Hutchinson committed perjury when she lied under oath to the Select Committee. Additionally, Hutchinson was interviewed by the FBI as part of its investigation into President Trump. This Subcommittee sought a copy of the FBI report 302, documenting this interview and Hutchinson’s statements, but the FBI has refused to produce this vital document. The FBI must immediately review the testimony given by Hutchinson in this interview to determine if she also lied in her FBI interview, and, if so, the role former Representative Cheney played in instigating Hutchinson to radically change her testimony.

Loudermilk’s tribute to Kash Patel’s leadership

Before Loudermilk delivers his welcome wagon for aspiring FBI Director Kash Patel, however, he provides solid evidence that Kash Patel is not fit to be FBI Director.

It turns out that the longest section of his report — 39 pages as compared to 36 for the Cassidy and Liz section — lays out how top DOD officials misrepresented their decisions regarding the National Guard leading up to and on January 6.

Just five pages of that pertain to Christopher Miller’s inaction on what Loudermilk treats as a legitimate request from Trump to have 10,000 National Guard in DC (Loudermilk doesn’t lay out the testimony from top Trump aides nixing that idea, based in part on a fear that Trump wanted an armed guard to accompany him to the Capitol).

But the rest has to do with delays created in deploying the Guard after the riot started. It has long been clear that DOD was blowing smoke about their claimed actions that day. On its face, this part of Loudermilk’s report is fair pushback to DOD’s past unpersuasive claims. He even sneaks some quasi-referrals — whether to aspiring FBI Director Kash Patel or aspiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, it’s not clear — for Miller and Ryan McCarthy into his report.

To date, no investigation or disciplinary action has taken place against Acting Secretary of
Defense Miller for his failure to follow directives from the sitting Commander-in-Chief on
January 3, 2021.

[snip]

To date, no investigation or disciplinary action has taken place against Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy for his failure to relay the Acting Secretary of Defense’s lawful deployment order at 3:04 PM on January 6, 2021.

[snip]

To date, no investigation or disciplinary action has taken place against Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy for deceiving congressional leadership with false statements regarding the delay in deployment of the D.C. National Guard to the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The referrals are kind of interesting because McCarthy, at least, is on Kash’s dated and disorderly enemies list.

Mind you, if McCarthy was at fault for his January 6 response, it suggests there was something real to be at fault for. Maybe that’s why these referrals are snuck into the longest section of the report?

What’s most interesting, however, is Loudermilk’s picture of the DOD leadership that failed.

Someone — DOD’s then Acting Chief of Staff at the time — is missing.

Indeed, Kash’s name doesn’t show up anywhere in the 128-page report. Kash is a no-show even though, in the immediate wake of the insurrection, he had a great deal to say to Vanity Fair about his personal involvement in the two issues for which Loudermilk faults DOD.

On the evening of January 5—the night before a white supremacist mob stormed Capitol Hill in a siege that would leave five dead—the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller, was at the White House with his chief of staff, Kash Patel. They were meeting with President Trump on “an Iran issue,” Miller told me. But then the conversation switched gears. The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. “We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’” Miller responded. “And [Trump] goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking bullshit. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’” At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, “‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God.”

[snip]

On the morning of January 6, as Miller recounted, he was hopeful that the day would prove uneventful. But decades in special operations and intelligence had honed his senses. “It was the first day I brought an overnight bag to work. My wife was like, ‘What are you doing there?’ I’m like, ‘I don’t know when I’m going to be home.’” To hear Patel tell it, they were on autopilot for most of the day: “We had talked to [the president] in person the day before, on the phone the day before, and two days before that. We were given clear instructions. We had all our authorizations. We didn’t need to talk to the president. I was talking to [Trump’s chief of staff, Mark] Meadows, nonstop that day.”

[snip]

Miller and Patel both insisted, in separate conversations, that they neither tried nor needed to contact the president on January 6; they had already gotten approval to deploy forces. However, another senior defense official remembered things quite differently, “They couldn’t get through. They tried to call him”—meaning the president.The implication: Either Trump was shell-shocked, effectively abdicating his role as commander in chief, or he was deliberately stiff-arming some of his top officials because he was, in effect, siding with the insurrectionists and their cause of denying Biden’s victory.

As for Mike Pence, Miller disputed reports that the vice president was calling the shots or was the one who sent in the Guard. The SECDEF stated that he did speak with Pence—then in a secure location on the Hill—and provided a situation report. Referring to the Electoral College certification that had been paused when the mob stormed the building, Miller recalled Pence telling him, “We got to get this thing going again,” to which the defense secretary replied, “Roger. We’re moving.” Patel, for his part, said that those assembled in Miller’s office also spoke with congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Mitch McConnell. “We were called upon to do our job, and we executed because we had the reps and sets built into our process to get the troops where they were requested, to put up a fence, to secure a perimeter, and to help clear the Capitol compound. I mean, that’s just what we do.”

Some of what Kash said to Vanity Fair somewhat resembles Kash’s testimony to the January 6 Committee.

Although look forward to discussing these events in detail, I would like to make three things clear at the outset — excuse me — at the outset:

One, the actions the DOD took before January 6, 2021, to prepare for the planned protest in Washington, D.C., on January 5th and 6th, 2021, were appropriate, supported by requirements, consistent with the DOD’s roles and responsibilities, and compliant with laws, regulations, and other applicable guidance; two, the DOD’s actions to respond to the United States Capitol Police request for assistance on January 6th, 2021, were appropriate, supported by requirements, consistent with the DOD’s roles and responsibilities, and compliant with the laws, regulations, and other applicable guidance; and, three, DOD officials did not delay or obstruct the DOD’s response to the United States Capitol Police request for assistance on January 6th, 2021.

These are not just my words but, in fact, the findings of the DOD’s independent inspector general under President Biden’s administration. The IG’s November 16, 2021, report has marked has been marked as exhibit 3, I think.

But when January 6 Committee staffers asked the now-aspiring FBI Director about the Vanity Fair article itself he got … squirmy. His testimony to J6C was inconsistent with both what he told Vanity Fair and what Loudermilk lays out in his report.

A Oh, so you remember stuff like that. So, going off just the memory, and we can go back to the article when you bring it up, there was a meeting with the President of the United States, Acting Secretary Miller, and some others — I can’t recall off the top of my head where we were discussing, as the article states, something related to Iran.

And, in that same meeting, I believe it was on or around January 4th, 3rd, 4th, or 5th, the -as I stated earlier, in order for the Department of Defense’s National Guard to 11 be activated in any way we needed Presidential authorization. And President Trump at that

[Discussion off the record.]

Q sure. Go ahead.

A Okay. And so this question appears to implicate core executive privilege concems. I’m prepared to answer it, but I want the record to reflect my serious concerns about congressional overreaching of this matter.

So what I remember is that we knew, in order to get the National Guard even mobilized, we needed the President to at least say yes first. So what — my recollection of that meeting is the President preemptively authorized 10 to 20 National Guardsmen and-women around the country sorry? 10- to 20,000.

[snip]

Q Do you remember if the President mentioned anything that he may need these 19 troops to protect the Trump people?

A don’t recall him ever saying that.

Whichever Kash story you believe, however, both stories put Kash in the center of everything. Both stories claim he had the ability to directly affect all of the failures Loudermilk lays out (which might also explain why DOD’s story about January 6 is so unpersuasive).

If Kash was right there at the center of the story of DOD’s failures leading up to and on January 6, as told by Barry Loudermilk, then Loudermilk would have to include him, the aspiring FBI Director, among the referrals for investigation.

Perhaps that’s why Loudermilk instead just disappears the aspiring FBI Director: to avoid referring him to the aspiring FBI Director for accountability for his failures on that day?

How Barry Loudermilk covers up his own coverup

Which brings us to Loudermilk’s own coverup.

Loudermilk has been fluffing Trump’s non-response for some time as in this report, when he shows no interest in the Commander in Chief’s inaction that day.

Rather than dwelling on Trump’s demonstrable inaction, including in accelerating the Guard deployment, Loudermilk claims there was a witness present that day who would have heard if (as Hutchinson testified) Trump had cheered the taunts of “Hang Mike Pence,” rather than (as Jack Smith described) Nick Luna testifying that Trump simply said, “So what” when told Pence was evacuated.

Loudermilk puts great stock in this witness being better situated than Hutchinson to hear what Trump was saying.

This individual was within earshot of President Trump the entire time the President was in the President’s Dining Room. Additionally, in its investigation, the Subcommittee spoke with numerous individuals who worked closely with Meadows in the White House, and they confirmed that Meadows would not react apathetically to calls for violence, nor repeat an incident like the one alleged by Hutchinson so carelessly in a public space.

Only, this appears to be the area where Loudermilk was dealing with incomplete information. As Kyle Cheney first pointed out, Loudermilk released a redacted copy of what appears to be this person’s transcript.

But Jack Smith released an unredacted fragment of that transcript.

The transcript suggests Trump was far more entranced with the mob than Loudermilk wants to admit.

Loudermilk excuses his own gaps in knowledge by accusing Jack Smith of … collusion.

Chairman Loudermilk and the Subcommittee have uncovered evidence of collusion between the Special Counsel Jack Smith—the prosecutor appointed by Attorney General Merick Garland to conduct two separate criminal investigations into President Trump207—and either the White House or the Select Committee. On October 18, 2024, Special Counsel Smith released some of the documents used in his filing against President Trump.208

Among the released documents was an unredacted version of the transcript of a Select Committee interview with a certain White House employee. 209 Given that the Select Committee did not archive, or otherwise destroyed this transcript, and that the White House refused to provide an unredacted version to the Subcommittee, the only remaining explanation is that Special Counsel Smith received the unredacted version from one of the two institutions which did not cooperate fully with the Subcommittee.

207 Press Release, U.S. DEP’T OF JUST., Appointment of a Special Counsel (Nov. 18, 2022).

208 April Ruben, More docs unsealed in Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case against Trump, AXIOS (Oct. 18, 2024).

209 Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney), X (Oct. 18, 2024, 11:45 AM).

We may find out soon enough how Jack Smith got an unredacted transcript that Loudermilk did not get. But he’s wrong that they’re the same transcript. They’re paginated differently (what is page 38 on Loudermilk’s copy is page 30 on Smith’s). Which ought to be a hint to Loudermilk’s crack team: the transcript is sourced differently, which may prove that January 6 committee didn’t destroy evidence he accuses them of destroying.

Plus, the point remains: Loudermilk’s own excuses for Trump’s inaction look different in light of more fulsome evidence, which shows Trump was entranced by the riot as soon as he returned to his office.

Loudermilk’s sketchy evidence

As to Loudermilk’s referral of Liz Cheney to an aspiring FBI Director whom Loudermilk would have to refer as well if not for his utter silence about the aspiring FBI Director’s centrality to what Loudermilk describes as insubordination and misconduct?

I hope, for Loudermilk’s sake, that it is intentionally half-hearted, an effort to do what he knows Trump is demanding, to simply give the aspiring FBI Director an excuse to predicate an investigation into Liz Cheney (if not himself).

Because key parts of his argument don’t say what he claims they do.

For example, a footnote in Loudermilk’s report appears to claim that texts between Cassidy Hutchinson and Alyssa Farrah apparently dated May 2 (by context, this would be 2022) are instead from June 6 (2021, the footnote says; my annotations, but Loudermilk appears to have mixed up two sets of texts he has).

Even assuming the footnote meant June 6, 2022, not 2021, the difference matters, because as Loudermilk notes, Hutchinson appeared a third time before the committee represented by Stefan Passantino on May 17, 2022, so her continued satisfaction with Passantino on May 2, 2022 is inconsistent with Loudermilk’s story and consistent with Cheney’s.

Loudermilk makes much of the fact that Passantino was not disciplined after a complaint in which Hutchinson refused to cooperate. Except the source he relies on for that claim, this NYT story, describes (in addition to the fact that Hutchinson refused to cooperate) that Passantino was ordered to do training about written conflict disclosure to his clients.

In a Feb. 2 letter, the office said that while Ms. Hutchinson had consented to having Mr. Passantino’s fees paid by the political action committee aligned with Mr. Trump, putting the arrangement in writing is mandatory under Rule l. 5(b) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. It required him to take legal ethics training classes during a probation period.

But, citing Ms. Hutchinson’s unwillingness to talk to investigators, the office said there was insufficient evidence on the larger matter.

“Ms. Hutchinson made some allegations about your conduct to the committee, but she refused to cooperate in our investigation,” it said. “Accordingly, except for the Rule l. 5(b) allegation, which you admit, we are not proceeding on her other allegations at this time. We are unable to prove those allegations by clear and convincing evidence, as we must.”

Elsewhere, Loudermilk claims that Hutchinson’s own House testimony supports his claim that Hutchinson selected Alston & Bird “at the recommendation of Representative Cheney” (he doesn’t provide a page number). But that section of Hutchinson’s testimony doesn’t support his contention about Cheney’s role in it.

Which brings us to the biggest problem with all this. Loudermilk’s conspiracy theory that Liz Cheney went out and got Hutchinson a lawyer who would support a propaganda line that Committee was seeking gets very close to claiming that Hutchinson’s new legal team, including former top DOJ official Jody Hunt, was himself engaged in unethical conduct.

I would bet a good deal of money that if Hunt were ever asked if he acted ethically when he represented Hutchinson’s later appearances before the committee, he would say he did.

And even if everything Loudermilk claimed were true, even if Cheney were acting as a lawyer and not a Committee member, she’d still be guilty of no more than unethical — not illegal — conduct.

Especially when by focusing on Cheney but ignoring aspiring FBI Director Kash Patel, Loudermilk gives up the game.

This report does more to cover up what Loudermilk himself suggests is potential misconduct from aspiring FBI Director than it exposes real crimes by Liz Cheney.

And he provides this evidence of either incompetence or (Loudermilk claims) misconduct in the black hole where Kash Patel should be just in time for Kash’s confirmation hearings before the Senate.

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

Batting Down Election-Day Conspiracy Theories

/141 Comments/in , /by

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

There is no truth to the rumor that Donald J. Trump wearing an apron while dispensing french fries at a McDonald’s fast food restaurant in Pennsylvania was part of his preparation for a new career move should he lose tonight [Sunday, October 20, 2024. Photo by Doug Mills/AP.]

As the voters stream to the polls today, as workers at precincts around the country welcome voters to cast their ballots, as state and county election officials prepare for the counting that will take place, and as lawyers prepare for the inevitable fights in the days to come, it is incumbent on us at EW to shoot down rumors of conspiracies flying around on this momentous day.

So let’s get right to it.

There is no truth to the rumor that the staff at Mar-a-Lago has put plastic sheeting over the walls, to make cleaning up any thrown pasta easier. If anyone tells you that the custodial staff is worried about Trump throwing his dinner around once results start coming in, do not believe them.

There is no truth to the rumor that JD Vance has prepared a concession speech filled with remorse for the things he said about Kamala Harris during the campaign, and there is absolutely no truth whatsoever that Peter Thiel is preparing to have JD Vance disappeared for his failure to win.

There is no truth to the rumor that Lara Trump is planning to move to Saudi Arabia should Harris/Walz win.

There is no truth to the rumor that Fox News has a contingency plan to have an intern shut down the power to the FOX studios and take them off the air on election night if the results come in putting Harris over the top.

There is no truth to the rumor that Ivanka and Jared are giving the Saudi’s back the money they were given to “invest” back in 2020.

There is no truth to the rumor that Elon Musk is shorting DJT stock.

There is no truth to the rumor that Mike Pence has a bottle of champagne on ice for he and Mother to share this evening, should Trump/Vance lose.

There is no truth to the rumor that Alito and Thomas are so despondent at the mere thought of Trump losing that their doctors are worried about them succumbing to heart attacks in the next 72 hours.

There is no truth to the rumor that Bill Barr is preparing a memo for Kamala Harris, laying out the rationale for her naming him as her new AG should Trump lose.

There is no truth to the rumor that Liz Cheney has practicing her sincerity in anticipation of making a call later this evening to Donald Trump, offering her solemn condolences at Trump’s loss, and absolutely no truth whatsoever that her practice sessions are not going well because she can’t get through two sentences without laughing.

There is no truth to the rumor that Gavin Newsom is planning a call to Donald Trump Junior and Kimberly Guilfoyle, offering condolences on the occasion of the loss of Trump/Vance.

There is no truth to the rumor that Ted Cruz already has purchased a new home in Cancun, and absolutely no truth whatsoever that in a gesture of bipartisanship, Colin Allred has already generously agreed to bring pizza and empty boxes to help him pack.

There is no truth to the rumor that Mitt Romney has laid in numerous kegs of beer for his watch party tonight at the Romney family home, and absolutely no truth whatsoever that Mitt’s sister niece Ronna McDaniel is planning to resume using “Romney” in her name again.

There is no truth to the rumor that Trump’s staffers are secretly preparing to call in sick this evening, rather than attend any watch parties or “victory” rallies, so that they can prepare to enter witness protection programs.

THERE IS NO TRUTH TO ANY OF THESE THINGS.

There is also a rumor that the members of Putin’s election interference unit are reeling in terror at the mere thought that Harris/Walz may win, resulting in an all-expenses paid one way trip to Ukraine for the entire group. This rumor we have been unable to debunk or verify.

If you have heard other rumors that need to be shut down, please add them in the comments.

How America’s First Woman Vice President Stepped Up

/105 Comments/in /by

Win or lose, I think by the time exit polls come in this week, there will be real cause to question the poll-driven narrative we’ve been fed since February. Indeed, that’s already happening as Black and Hispanic and young voters are moving to Kamala Harris in recent polls, which is precisely what people skeptical of early polls said would happen months ago.

That technically means that Joe Biden might have been in far better position in the polls than reported — not in terms of favorability, but in a head-to-head with Trump. Still, the debate debacle (which Bob Woodward subsequently disclosed was significantly a reflection of Biden’s stress about Hunter, something I noted in real time) provided the opportunity to switch candidates. And Biden put his ego aside for the good of the country.

He entrusted to his Vice President the fate of the nation.

On June 29, I suggested that if Biden dropped out, whoever replaced him might break through the Double Haters logjam.

There is no chance that Trump will become anymore likeable, honest, or coherent. If someone besides Biden had four months to capitalize on his negatives, it might flip the table. It would eliminate the double haters election. If someone [not] named Biden found a way to make Trump’s malice matter more than his stammer, it might well matter.

Joe Biden has a choice to make about whether he remains the best shot to beat Donald Trump. And one way or another, Republicans will be stuck with a candidate who vigorously acts unpresidential.

On July 21, almost immediately after Biden endorsed Harris (remember this time stamp reflects Irish time), I repeated my Double Haters comment and noted that Harris speaks about choice better than anyone but Gretchen Whitmer (in retrospect I realize I underestimated the Vice President).

On September 1, I described how Harris’ focus on choice was forcing accountability on Trump for one of his most disastrous actions as President.

Kamala’s team has succeeded in making abortion something more: the most obvious item on a laundry list of the ways the far right has tried to take rights (and books) away, a fight for Freedom, one that has enthused millions of younger voters, especially women of child-bearing age.

And so, as I thought it might, Kamala’s focus on choice is one of the things that has remade the race.

[snip]

Thus far in this campaign, a focus on abortion has also provided a way to make visible the patriarchy presumed in most threads of the right wing coalition backing Trump, especially but by no means exclusively Christian nationalism. Lest voters ever forget, Kamala’s campaign keeps rolling out one after another video in which JD Vance demands women get back to the role his Church dictates for them: breeding children.

A number of things — the successful convention, a surge in registration among those women of child-bearing age, polls showing that abortion is the most important issue for a larger number of voters — have led horserace journalists to finally cop on.

[snip]

This is more than agitation.

It is flailing.

Panic.

A recognition that he is losing because of actions he took as President, he is losing because of what the payoff he owed to social conservatives who put him in the White House, a far right SCOTUS, did to women. What NYT journalists with another book contract describe as “head-spinning” is not about branding, it’s about panic because Kamala threatens to hold him accountable for his actions.

No matter how many contradictory statements Trump makes about what a second Trump term would do, there’s no escaping what his first term did do. There are no backsies on Dobbs. There are no backsies on Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. There aren’t even any backsies on that platform granting fetuses protection under the 14th Amendment, even if NYT’s Trump whisperers continue to pretend that didn’t happen.

[snip]

[E]ven as Kamala has already made Trump an equivocating wreck, nine-tenths of the way through his campaign and just in time for low-information voters to witness it, she has only just laid a foundation to build on.

Both before and after the debate, I described how Kamala Harris’ very deliberate and perfectly executed plan to get under his skin made her the protagonist of the campaign.

Journalists missed the Vice President’s clear intent because they treated Donald Trump as the protagonist of this story.

I don’t know how much the debate will affect the direction of the race. Though she struck blow after blow, it was still the 60/40-40/60 result I also predicted. The debate itself is most likely to have an effect for the way it gives Brian Fallon another opportunity to suggest Trump is too weak to take Harris on in a second debate. It might even lead some Trump cultists to wonder — to merely begin the process — of asking whether he really is the loser that Kamala Harris said he is.

But it may do something more important, indirectly.

In August, the press treated Kamala as the story largely because Trump was huddled in his mansions. But they still treated him as the protagonist. Every time he gave the order, they scurried to attend things billed as press conferences which were little different from his rambling rally speeches. He made them props in a fantasy that he had shared more about what he plans to do as President than Kamala Harris, and they were happy to play the role he demanded.

Yesterday, the press got their first chance — likely their only chance — to see the two candidates side-by-side.

And they left with the certainty that Vice President Kamala Harris was the protagonist of that story. Of this story.

Since that moment — since Vice President Harris made her hulking opponent look small on the stage — Trump has utterly failed, day after day, to regain control his emotion. He has lashed out at everyone. Harris, Jews, reporters, everyone who has ever crossed him.

In an attempt to sow distrust and division, he unleashed a flood of disinformation that exacerbated the floods Helene and Milton built.

By mid-October, as record numbers of voters started casting early in-person votes, Harris waltzed into Fox News and caught them cooking the books. That same week, Trump swayed on stage for almost 40 minutes, got embarrassed in a Bloomberg interview, and chose to defend January 6 rather than win Ramiro González’ vote. Charlamagne tha God nudged Harris to use the word fascism.

Sure, there were moments in October where Trump’s increasing fascism fed despair.

Vice President Harris’ response taught a lot of white people the lessons of leadership she learned as a child of the Civil Rights movement.

And she carried on, executing the plan. She and Liz Cheney kept methodically reaching out to women — to the kind of white women who voted against Hillary Clinton in 2016.

As Trump wallowed in his toxic emotions, in the insecurities  being made to look small by a Black women elicited, his handlers allowed him one after another indulgence, all leading up to the potentially fatal one: the Madison Square Garden fascist rally that seemingly confirmed the concerns raised by Trump’s generals. Just as the low-information voters he had been banking on all year started to tune in, Trump’s fascist rally mocked them, recalling back his refusal as President to treat them with respect.

And it wasn’t just Hispanics that could lose him Pennsylvania. Trump provided an opportunity for key validators like Lebron James to explain, succinctly, that America is still fighting for equal rights.

All this time, pollsters kept contorting their polls for fear of missing Trump voters.

Until Ann Selzer came along and told us what pollsters should have recognized from the start: Women vote. And this year, women will vote for a woman to be the first woman President.

Symbolically, Kamala Harris went to East Lansing last night and refused to even speak of Donald Trump.

Turn the page.

This thing is not over. Harris’ thousands of volunteers have to get out every vote tomorrow.  A flood of bros might come to the polls tomorrow and make that effort meaningless. Harris lawyers have to fight to count every vote — and keep fighting all the way to January if Trump attempts to cheat again.

This thing is not over.

But holy hell, Kamala Harris and her entire team stepped up.

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

/120 Comments/in /by

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

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

May she help others feel safe in rejecting this scourge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Cheney: Thank you!]

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

Harris didn’t respond at first; Cheney did.

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

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

[applause]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t know whether it will work.

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

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

Kamala Harris against Despair

/35 Comments/in , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not eating gummies, Harris responded.

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

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

Oh there’s great strength in that.

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

And so let’s not feel powerless.

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

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

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

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

That’s how I feel about this.

The entire event is worth watching.

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

Whatever Happens with the Debate, Kamala Harris’ Campaign Is Not Yet Half Done

/72 Comments/in /by

As you watch the torrent of news obsessing about the debate tonight, remember this stat:

Trump’s campaign is 92% done (665 of 721 days).

Kamala Harris’ campaign is not quite half done (48%, or 51 of 107 days).

Lots can and likely will still happen in this race, but Trump is almost done and the Vice President is only halfway there.

The debate coverage is almost entirely focused on what Kamala Harris can do with it (though Peter Baker finally wrote a story — one published above the fold in the dead tree version — that Trump might look old). Polls show that almost a third of voters will look to the debate to learn more about what Harris stands for — which likely is code for “feels.” But pundits are focused on whether Harris can define her policy agenda, or whether Trump can succeed in branding her with policy failures on immigration, inflation, and the Afghan withdrawal.

There has been far less focus — or just as often, outright misunderstanding — on Harris’ efforts to make a Trump meltdown more likely. I’ve argued that was one purpose of Brian Fallon’s very public effort to get ABC to allow live mics. Even though the effort failed, it sets up a focus on the worries from Trump’s own handlers that he’ll lose his cool.

And yesterday and today, Harris has taken steps to make that more likely. Today, she released an ad based on President Obama’s mockery of Trump’s obsession with [cough] crowd sizes.

 

I’m not a fan of the ad. The glimpse of Trump’s very small hand is over the top.

I’m also not the audience for this ad.

Trump is.

Seeing a Black former President mocking his masculinity is the kind of thing that Trump is often unable to shake without a lot of babysitting.

I’m more fond of yesterday’s ad, which makes a far more substantial point: That none of the “best people” who used to work for Trump support him this time.

 

It, too, is designed to get under Trump’s skin. Anything involving Mark Milley gets under Trump’s skin! And Harris released it with enough lead time that ABC might even ask Trump about the ad, one of those stupid questions about the campaign that horserace journalists can’t resist. Perhaps the ad will lead ABC to ask a far more substantive question about why Trump is the first former president in history whose former VP refuses to back him.

So Harris is doing what she can to raise the chances that a man with no impulse control will act like a whiny baby in front of the whole country today. He’ll probably avoid saying the N-word (though I don’t rule it out). But there’s a decent chance he’ll say or do something that will display his insecurities about facing a very smart Black woman for all the world to see.

My point about the timing, though, is that the most likely outcome is that this won’t matter. The most likely outcome of tonight’s debate is that whatever happens, pundits will review the debate and decide, 60-40, that one of these candidates won the debate. Focus groups will tell pollsters, 40-60, that the other candidate won the debate.

If that’s the outcome, if Kamala can’t immediately win over a chunk of new supporters, if Trump can’t brand the Vice President as a communist, then it is unlikely to significantly affect the race.

Tomorrow morning, we’re most likely to be where we are today: with a tie race, only with 55 days left instead of 56. Trump will still be 92% done and Harris will be 49% done.

The reason I keep harping on that timing, though, is that most campaign journalists are not accounting for the fact that Harris did in the last 51 days what Trump did (or was supposed to do, but the Guardian reports he has not) in the last twenty months: lay a foundation for the rest of the campaign: Set up offices, recruit volunteers, identify likely voters, prepare a voter persuasion and mobilization plan.

While pundits were focused on crowd sizes, Harris used those huge rallies for a very specific purpose: to very quickly recruit a ton of volunteers who would find and turn out every possible vote. Tim and Gwen Walz and Doug Emhoff are swooping into campaign offices and randomly getting on phone calls that volunteers are already placing to identify and persuade voters, something that wows the voters, but also inspires volunteers that their efforts are not isolated from the larger whole.

But Harris has done something else in the last 51 days that has largely been measured only in terms of enthusiasm, if at all. She has:

  • Provided a permission structure (most recently with the Liz and Dick Cheney endorsements) for Republicans to support her
  • Elevated reproductive rights from one of many issues to the most important issue for many voters
  • Gotten a whole lot of younger voters of color, especially women, to register to vote

All three of those things are a foundation. Only the first one — a permission structure via which self-identified Republicans first consider and then, maybe, vote for Harris — will play a very important role tonight. If she succeeds in presenting herself as the better national security candidate (which should be child’s play) and if she succeeds in allaying concerns about her liberal record, it may advance that permission structure, little by little. Even that won’t immediately show up in the polls.

But the rest of that foundation — the new voters, the newly central reproductive rights as campaign issue — may not show up in polls at all. It’s not even clear which pollsters are using up-to-date registration lists to do their polling. It’s definitely unclear what the likely voter model will look like.

No one knows.

No one knows, in part, because Kamala Harris is only halfway through her campaign.

It’s certainly possible that one or the other campaign will do something that dramatically alters the shape of this race tonight. Though for all the bluster about Trump’s gish galloping debate prowess, if he looks old or melts down, the flood of lies may not be enough, this time.

But if that doesn’t happen — if neither candidate manages to disrupt the tied race with their debate performance — than that other detail becomes important again.

Donald Trump is more than nine-tenths of the way through this race.

Kamala Harris still has half the race to build on the foundation she has laid in the last 51 days.