A message

Full interview

Real Time with Bill Maher interview

Why Russiagate has been a disservice

I get that it's important we take up the task of keeping foreign interests from influencing our elections, but Matt Taibbi (and others) is right that blaming Russia for Trump being president is dangerously missing the mark.

Forget about the gift the end of Russiagate might give Trump by allowing him to spend 2020 peeing from a great height on the national press corps. The more serious issue has to be the failure to face the reality of why he won last time, because we still haven’t done that.


In the fall of 2015, when I first started covering Trump’s campaign, a few themes popped up:

First, like any good hustler, Trump knew how to work a room. At times, he recalled a comedian trying out new material. If he felt a murmur in the crowd in one speech, he’d hit it harder the next time out.

[...]

As time went on, he made the traveling press part of his act. The standard campaign setup was perfect for him. We were like zoo animals, standing on risers with ropes around us to keep the un-credentialed masses out.

Even that small symbol of VIP-ism Trump turned to his advantage.

[...]

Trump, the billionaire, denounced us as the elitists in the room. He’d call us “bloodsuckers,” “dishonest,” and in one line that produced laughs considering who was saying it, “highly-paid.”

He also did something that I immediately recognized as brilliant (or diabolical, depending on how you look at it). He dared cameramen to turn their cameras to show the size of his crowds.

They usually wouldn’t – hey, we don’t work for the guy – which thrilled Trump, who would then say something to the effect of, “See! They’re very dishonest people.” Audiences would turn toward us, and boo and hiss, and even throw little bits of paper and other things our way. This was unpleasant, but it was hard not to see its effectiveness: he’d re-imagined the lifeless, poll-tested format of the stump speech, turning it into menacing, personal, WWE-style theater.

Trump was gunning for votes in both parties. The core story he told on the stump was one of system-wide corruption, in which there was little difference between Republicans and Democrats.

[...]

On the same day he did the “Cruz is a pussy” routine, he told a story about how Jeb Bush said, (here he put on a Thurston Howell III-artistocrat voice) “I don’t like Donald Trump’s tone.” This was right after claiming Hillary Clinton said the exact same thing. In the same mock-aristocrat voice, he’d done a Hillary impersonation: “I don’t like Donald Trump’s tone.”

The message was clear: Jeb and Hillary were the same political animal, snobs and elite phonies. This dovetailed with his general pitch, which claimed most Americans were struggling because both parties were feeding from the same campaign-finance teat, pimping themselves out to huge job-exporting corporate donors. Which, let’s face it, is more than a little true.

[...]

Like a con man who can lift a wallet in the middle of a melee, Trump thrived amid the chaos. He drank in the condemnation when he denounced McCain for being “captured,” or when he doubled down on absurd claims he’d seen Muslims dancing in New Jersey after 9/11.

Most politicians come crawling to the press begging forgiveness after they say dumb things. Trump did the opposite and went on the offensive. It took a while to grasp that what he was really selling was the image of an outraged political establishment. He wanted his voters to see how much he was getting to “us.”

[...]

If Trump insulted an innocent person like Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, who is disabled, his goal wasn’t to try to win a popularity contest. He was after the thing that always came next: the endless “scornful rebukes” from press and celebrities.

[...]

Trump would push right up until he caught the press having too much fun with something outrageous he’d done (the Washington Post running “Donald Trump’s ‘Schlonged’: A linguistic investigation” was an infamous example), at which point he’d declare victory and move on to the next outrage.

[...]

My first feature on candidate Trump was called “How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable.” The key section read:

[...]

It turns out we let our electoral process devolve into something so fake and dysfunctional that any half-bright con man with the stones to try it could walk right through the front door and tear it to shreds on the first go.

And Trump is no half-bright con man, either. He’s way better than average.

[...]

Trump was selling himself as a traitor to a corrupt class, someone who knew how soulless and greedy the ruling elite was because he was one of them.


His story of essentially buying the attendance of the Clintons at his wedding – no matter what you think of it – resonated powerfully with voters. He sneered at Hillary as the worst kind of aristocrat, a member of a family with title and no money. She and Bill were second-tier gentry, the kind who had to work.

[...]

Trump’s chances increased when pundits ignored polls and insisted he had no shot at the nomination. The universality of this take reeked of the same kind of single-track, orthodox official-think that later plagued the Russia story.

[...]

It isn’t just that wizards of prognostication were wrong. The bigger issue was why they were so confident. A common take was the political establishment just wouldn’t allow it.

[...]

Nate Cohn of The New York Times wrote Trump had “just about no shot of winning the nomination no matter how well he is doing in the early polls.” He prefaced this by saying it is “the party elites who traditionally decide nomination contests.”

[...]

In this case, just by saying out loud the idea that the people who mattered would never let Trump win, probably helped Trump win. It validated his talk about “elites.”

[...]

In one of the worst mistakes of my career, I ended up changing my mind about “free-falling” Trump’s chances, spending the stretch run predicting doom for Republicans. I read too many polls and ignored what I was seeing, i.e. that even the post-Access Hollywood Trump was still packing stadiums.

[...]

Right up until the networks called Florida for him on election night, few major American media figures outside of Michael Moore – who incidentally was also right about WMDs and ridiculed for it – believed a Trump win possible.

The only reason most blue-state media audiences had been given for Trump’s poll numbers all along was racism, which was surely part of the story but not the whole picture. A lack of any other explanation meant Democratic audiences, after the shock of election night, were ready to reach for any other data point that might better explain what just happened.

Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation.

[...]

Post-election, Russiagate made it all worse. People could turn on their TVs at any hour of the day and see anyone from Rachel Maddow to Chris Cuomo openly reveling in Trump’s troubles. This is what Fox looks like to liberal audiences.

Worse, the “walls are closing in” theme — two years old now — was just a continuation of the campaign mistake, reporters confusing what they wanted to happen with what was happening. The story was always more complicated than was being represented.

[...]

There are a lot of mysteries left with this affair, and none of them will be cleared up anytime soon. We still don’t even understand the beginning of this story.

     Matt Taibbi

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

We're in a whole new world for political campaigns

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway

UPDATE:



Yep.



In for it?  Why, he's positively counting on it.  He loves a trash-talk fight.

On this, I think we can all agree with Alex Jones

Assume if Trump said it, it's a lie

He's just counting on the people at his rallies to not to know the facts.  I think it's a safe bet.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

And he thinks he might be president one day, too

But how smart am I?  I was so taken by the fact that he doesn't know they give Pulitzers for fiction that I didn't notice the other error until this next tweet reply to  Baby Don:







I actually snorted on that one, Kathy Young.

Counterpoint

Absolutely Jerry Nadler should have the full, unredacted report.  Nadler is the chair of the Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment proceedings would begin.  Nadler WILL get it.  Barr is stalling.  Why?

UPDATE:

Devin Nunes is an ass

And probably a criminal in the Trump campaign's corruption who will never be charged with any crime.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Buttigieg criticism

Not having heard the interview, I wonder if Buttigieg may have been clearer than these tweets make it seem.  But, if they're accurate and there's nothing to mitigate or clarify the statements, then yes, he should have been much more precise (which is why I have some doubts that this is really accurate - he seems careful and thoughtful). 

"Coastal elitism" is a catchall stereotype as much as "Trump supporter".  There are an awful lot of Trump supporters in California as well as New York.  Most of California, I would say, is as conservative as any state in the middle of the country.  But when we talk about the coasts, we tend to imagine New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, maybe DC.  Weird that we do that.

As I've said before, Buttigieg is going to start getting a lot of criticism as his popularity grows.  He'll need to be very watchful of what he says. 

Of course, the interview was in San Francisco, so he could have been referring specifically to people in that community, and "coastal elitism" might not even been something he uttered.

Barr's new letter

The special counsel’s report on the investigation into Russia’s election interference will be made public by mid-April, Attorney General William P. Barr told lawmakers on Friday, adding that the White House would not see the document before he sent it to Congress. [Barr's] declaration on Sunday, two days after the report was delivered to him, that Mr. Trump had not illegally obstructed justice drew swift condemnation from Democrats. They accused him of stepping in where Mr. Mueller had declined to make a prosecutorial decision.

[...]

[In his second letter, written today, Barr] said the report — which covers Moscow’s campaign to sabotage the 2016 presidential race, whether any Trump associates conspired and whether the president obstructed the inquiry — was nearly 400 pages, plus supplements. He said he planned to testify on Capitol Hill in early May, shortly after the report’s release, to discuss it with lawmakers.

[...]

Mr. Barr reiterated that Mr. Trump had publicly stated that he would defer to the Justice Department, “although the president would have the right to assert privilege over certain parts of the report,” the attorney general wrote.

“Accordingly, there are no plans to submit the report to the White House for a privilege review,” Mr. Barr added.However, it remains an open question whether Justice Department lawyers themselves will excise material they believe could be privileged before sending the report to Congress.

  NYT

Because, why? Barr is the head lawyer at the DOJ. The March 29 letter.



Yes, I especially like this part of the letter:




Barr knows full well that summarizing the "principal conclusions" would be interpreted by most people as tantamount to summarizing the whole thing. He intended people to think that.  And that summary was no more in the public interest than would be summarizing the full report or releasing it piecemeal.  Nobody said it was purported to be "exhaustive", and it was not "mischaracterizing" his letter to say it was a summary of the Mueller report.  That's what he intended everyone to see it as.  He's being just as disingenuous in this letter as he was in that one.


Full March 29 letter:

UPDATE:

Absolutely Jerry Nadler should have the full, unredacted report.  Nadler is the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment proceedings would begin.  By the Constitution, the House has the power to impeach, and they cannot be expected to wield that power without full disclosure of the evidence.  He WILL end up getting it.

UPDATE:

I think that's a pretty safe bet.