Taking #Obamagate Seriously

It is easy to overlook some of the everyday corruptions that President Trump has inflicted on the body politic .
After all , his unique blend of logorrhea , mendacity , and clownishness creates an atmosphere that lends itself to dismissing his daily absurdities .
But when we just shake our heads and say that ’ s just Trump being Trump , we are buying into the false framing preferred by the president and his defenders : that he is a successful leader with great acumen for political gamesmanship and yet also at the very same time an amateur who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own words , and should not be taken seriously .
The president ’ s recent obsession with # Obamagate is a stark example of this .
On the surface , Trump ’ s deranged Mother ’ s Day tweetstorm and the halfhearted trolling of his predecessor at his Monday press conference seem like just a couple more examples of the mad king feeding his fans a juicy porterhouse—in this case , a theory about President Obama ’ s supposed crimes that is so stupid that even the president himself can ’ t answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But underneath the palpable jealousy and the desperate attempt to change the subject to something , anything besides the slow-motion pandemic-management disaster that he is overseeing , is a very real effort by President Trump and his enablers to undermine the rule of law , rewrite the history of the 2016 election , and give a hall pass to a hostile foreign power for its interference in our election .
Trump ’ s allies in the conservative media and the Justice Department are taking # Obamagate very seriously .
This conspiracy theory is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax dollars are being spent in an effort that is going “ full throttle ” to prove that it is correct , and countless Americans are being fed a faux history involving a crime that supposedly “ makes Watergate look small time.
” In that context , “ President Fabricates Crimes By His Predecessor ” should be front-page news , an unprecedented assault on the office of the president and our system of justice .
An action that under any previous president would have sparked a massive backlash from within his own party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political interests and the broader historic implications .
Part of the reason that it isn ’ t happening is , again , the that ’ s-just-Trump-being-Trump impulse : His awful absurdity and absurd awfulness have dulled the senses to such a degree that the journalists who are accused of peddling “ fake news ” attacks on him don ’ t take him seriously , and even people who are well attuned to politics don ’ t understand what he ’ s talking about and believe that his # Obamagate spiel is some throwaway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Republican Senator could not begin to describe to you with any specificity the contours of the purported Obamagate scandal .
Hell , the president himself couldn ’ t even describe it during his press conference .
But his comic incompetence does not make such a matter less serious , it makes it more serious .
So for those who have dismissed this as another passing fancy , here is a breakdown of what exactly # Obamagate is and why it matters .
Last year I went deep into the heart of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracies that President Trump has since dubbed # Obamagate .
Go ahead and read that piece—a rollicking 3,000 words of crazy that I highly recommend you ingest with a stiff cocktail .
But the tl ; dr of what MAGAworld saw as the state of play when it was written was this : Four years ago , there was a global conspiracy—comprised of President Obama , Vice President Biden , Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , FBI Director Jim Comey , much of the FBI , the DNC , a company called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Ukrainian oligarchs—to undermine Donald Trump by planting a phony conspiracy theory that he was colluding with the Russians to win the 2016 election .
These deep state operators framed several top Trump officials , fabricated evidence , and spied on the campaign with the end goal of committing the biggest fraud in American history in order to derail Trump .
This is the “ crime ” that President Trump is accusing Obama of , even if he doesn ’ t realize it .
( N.B .
: One of my proudest moments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of bona fide MAGA media consumers last year who said that , despite being a snarky Never Trump cuck , I pretty much got their story right . )
There are a number of problems with this theory , though .
The main ones being ( a ) when spelled out all in one place it is absurd on its face and ( b ) if anything , the supposed deep-staters ’ actions in 2016 served to help Donald Trump politically , particularly in the final weeks of the election when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preferred candidate , Hillary Clinton and then absolved Donald Trump of the actions they were supposedly framing him of in the New York Times .
These flaws have led some Trump defenders who eschew the more absurd parts of the pre-election “ hoax ” theory to focus on a more narrow “ hoax ” —one in which , after Trump won the election , President Obama orchestrated an effort to stymie the incoming administration with bogus investigations .
This part of the # Obamagate claim is premised on two main elements .
First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from January 5 , 2017 : Second is contemporaneous information from within the FBI about the investigation into Trump ’ s short-tenured first national security advisor , Michael Flynn—specifically emails and handwritten notes : The Trump fabulists have used these elements to construct a story in which President Obama instructed his intelligence apparatus to “ frame ” Flynn as part of the deep state coup against Trump .
Regardless of one ’ s view of the FBI approach to Flynn—and I ’ ve seen compelling arguments made on both sides—the leap from critiquing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was an attempted coup orchestrated by President Obama , as Judge Jeanine argued last night on Fox , is a leap that even Evel Knievel couldn ’ t land .
For starters , as far as we know , President Obama was not whispering in Flynn ’ s ear when Flynn lied to the FBI about contacts with a hostile foreign power , and so even if this were an attempted coup , it was one that could ’ ve been quite easily rebuffed by simply not lying to federal agents .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that President Obama was acting illegally—or even inappropriately—when being cautious about Russian intelligence requires either a view of the environment on January 5 , 2017 that lacks all context about what happened in the 2016 election or having bought into the Trumpian alternative-history hoax , line , and sinker .
After all , Flynn did lie about his contacts with Russia .
Flynn did lie about being a foreign agent on the payroll of both Turkey and Russia .
Trump did call for Russia to hack Clinton ’ s emails .
Trump did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working for Russian interests as his campaign chairman .
Trump ’ s previous fixer did have communications with the Wikileaks about the emails Russia hacked to help Trump .
In these extraordinary circumstances , with an incoming national security advisor who had literally taken income from the country in question , would you not expect the outgoing president to have discussed the implications in a meeting with his national security team ?
What exactly is the crime there again ?
The answer is “ very obvious to everybody ” : none at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to other matters or simply mocks the absurdity of the president ’ s huffing and puffing about # Obamagate , the right-wing media plunge their audiences deeper into it .
Some Republican officials who ought to know better are playing along with the scam , while others cower in fear of a microphone because they have convinced themselves that the president spouting insane conspiracy theories about how his wires were tapped by Obama is less important than their vote on the farm bill .
The result is that President Trump gets to live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choosing .
One that allows him to level unfounded allegations against his foes without even attempting to interact with anything approaching a fact or a piece of evidence , while never facing any consequences .
It ’ s his longstanding , postmodern m.o.—in business , in his personal life , and in politics : Create a preferred universe of convenient facts , then insist they are true , no matter what .
There ’ s no reason we all should let him .

It is easy to overlook some of the everyday corruptions that President Trump has inflicted on the body politic. After all, his unique blend of logorrhea, mendacity, and clownishness creates an atmosphere that lends itself to dismissing his daily absurdities. But when we just shake our heads and say that’s just Trump being Trump, we are buying into the false framing preferred by the president and his defenders: that he is a successful leader with great acumen for political gamesmanship and yet also at the very same time an amateur who does not understand the impact of his own words, and should not be taken seriously.
The president’s recent obsession with #Obamagate is a stark example of this.
On the surface, Trump’s deranged Mother’s Day tweetstorm and the halfhearted trolling of his predecessor at his Monday press conference seem like just a couple more examples of the mad king feeding his fans a juicy porterhouse—in this case, a theory about President Obama’s supposed crimes that is so stupid that even the president himself can’t answer the most basic question about it.
But underneath the palpable jealousy and the desperate attempt to change the subject to something, anything besides the slow-motion pandemic-management disaster that he is overseeing, is a very real effort by President Trump and his enablers to undermine the rule of law, rewrite the history of the 2016 election, and give a hall pass to a hostile foreign power for its interference in our election. Trump’s allies in the conservative media and the Justice Department are taking #Obamagate very seriously. This conspiracy theory is informing our foreign policy, millions in tax dollars are being spent in an effort that is going “full throttle” to prove that it is correct, and countless Americans are being fed a faux history involving a crime that supposedly “makes Watergate look small time.”
In that context, “President Fabricates Crimes By His Predecessor” should be front-page news, an unprecedented assault on the office of the president and our system of justice. An action that under any previous president would have sparked a massive backlash from within his own party among institutionalists concerned about both their short-term political interests and the broader historic implications.
Part of the reason that it isn’t happening is, again, the that’s-just-Trump-being-Trump impulse: His awful absurdity and absurd awfulness have dulled the senses to such a degree that the journalists who are accused of peddling “fake news” attacks on him don’t take him seriously, and even people who are well attuned to politics don’t understand what he’s talking about and believe that his #Obamagate spiel is some throwaway nonsense. I’m confident that Joe Republican Senator could not begin to describe to you with any specificity the contours of the purported Obamagate scandal. Hell, the president himself couldn’t even describe it during his press conference.
But his comic incompetence does not make such a matter less serious, it makes it more serious.
So for those who have dismissed this as another passing fancy, here is a breakdown of what exactly #Obamagate is and why it matters.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Last year I went deep into the heart of the MAGA web to understand the web of conspiracies that President Trump has since dubbed #Obamagate.
Go ahead and read that piece—a rollicking 3,000 words of crazy that I highly recommend you ingest with a stiff cocktail. But the tl;dr of what MAGAworld saw as the state of play when it was written was this:
Four years ago, there was a global conspiracy—comprised of President Obama, Vice President Biden, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director Jim Comey, much of the FBI, the DNC, a company called CrowdStrike, multiple foreign intelligence services, and Ukrainian oligarchs—to undermine Donald Trump by planting a phony conspiracy theory that he was colluding with the Russians to win the 2016 election. These deep state operators framed several top Trump officials, fabricated evidence, and spied on the campaign with the end goal of committing the biggest fraud in American history in order to derail Trump.
This is the “crime” that President Trump is accusing Obama of, even if he doesn’t realize it. (N.B.: One of my proudest moments at The Bulwark was hearing from a number of bona fide MAGA media consumers last year who said that, despite being a snarky Never Trump cuck, I pretty much got their story right.)
There are a number of problems with this theory, though. The main ones being (a) when spelled out all in one place it is absurd on its face and (b) if anything, the supposed deep-staters’ actions in 2016 served to help Donald Trump politically, particularly in the final weeks of the election when the FBI reopened the investigation into their supposedly preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton and then absolved Donald Trump of the actions they were supposedly framing him of in the New York Times.
These flaws have led some Trump defenders who eschew the more absurd parts of the pre-election “hoax” theory to focus on a more narrow “hoax”—one in which, after Trump won the election, President Obama orchestrated an effort to stymie the incoming administration with bogus investigations.
This part of the #Obamagate claim is premised on two main elements. First is a meeting summary from Susan Rice from January 5, 2017:
On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present. . . . President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book.” . . . From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.
Second is contemporaneous information from within the FBI about the investigation into Trump’s short-tenured first national security advisor, Michael Flynn—specifically emails and handwritten notes:
What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?
The Trump fabulists have used these elements to construct a story in which President Obama instructed his intelligence apparatus to “frame” Flynn as part of the deep state coup against Trump.
Regardless of one’s view of the FBI approach to Flynn—and I’ve seen compelling arguments made on both sides—the leap from critiquing the prosecutorial tactics to claiming that this was an attempted coup orchestrated by President Obama, as Judge Jeanine argued last night on Fox, is a leap that even Evel Knievel couldn’t land.
For starters, as far as we know, President Obama was not whispering in Flynn’s ear when Flynn lied to the FBI about contacts with a hostile foreign power, and so even if this were an attempted coup, it was one that could’ve been quite easily rebuffed by simply not lying to federal agents.
As for the Rice notes, to believe that President Obama was acting illegally—or even inappropriately—when being cautious about Russian intelligence requires either a view of the environment on January 5, 2017 that lacks all context about what happened in the 2016 election or having bought into the Trumpian alternative-history hoax, line, and sinker.
After all, Flynn did lie about his contacts with Russia.
Flynn did lie about being a foreign agent on the payroll of both Turkey and Russia.
Trump did call for Russia to hack Clinton’s emails.
Trump did hire a fixer with a history of working for Russian interests as his campaign chairman.
Trump’s previous fixer did have communications with the Wikileaks about the emails Russia hacked to help Trump.
Trump’s son did email Russian operatives welcoming dirt against Hillary Clinton.
In these extraordinary circumstances, with an incoming national security advisor who had literally taken income from the country in question, would you not expect the outgoing president to have discussed the implications in a meeting with his national security team? What exactly is the crime there again?
The answer is “very obvious to everybody”: none at all.
While the mainstream press moves on to other matters or simply mocks the absurdity of the president’s huffing and puffing about #Obamagate, the right-wing media plunge their audiences deeper into it. Some Republican officials who ought to know better are playing along with the scam, while others cower in fear of a microphone because they have convinced themselves that the president spouting insane conspiracy theories about how his wires were tapped by Obama is less important than their vote on the farm bill.
The result is that President Trump gets to live in an alternate reality of his own choosing. One that allows him to level unfounded allegations against his foes without even attempting to interact with anything approaching a fact or a piece of evidence, while never facing any consequences. It’s his longstanding, postmodern m.o.—in business, in his personal life, and in politics: Create a preferred universe of convenient facts, then insist they are true, no matter what.
There’s no reason we all should let him.


thebulwark--2020-05-12--Donald Trump Shoots 100,000 People on Fifth Avenue

No , Donald Trump didn ’ t literally shoot anybody , nor did he do it on Fifth Avenue .
But soon more than 100,000 Americans will be dead from COVID-19 , and making good on his boast that he could get away with murder in broad daylight , his supporters are working their way toward accepting and excusing this disastrous outcome .
Trump understood his supporters earlier than anyone else .
It was January 2016 when he proclaimed , “ I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody , and I wouldn ’ t lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There has proven to be nothing his core supporters won ’ t excuse to keep from having to admit that they were wrong .
At this point , that means stubbornly , and even insistently , welcoming mass death .
A recent video cobbled together from clips from Trump ’ s press conferences highlights how the president has gone from dismissing the tiny number of COVID-19 cases and claiming it would all go away in a few weeks , to acknowledging higher and higher death tolls , to boasting that it will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ die , and more recently just admitting that there will be at least 100,000 deaths—which at the current rate is a lower bound .
That ’ s more than any other nation in the world , probably including China , even if you assume that their official numbers are dramatically undercounted .
The point of the video is not merely that Trump is in denial .
We know by now that he says whatever he thinks will make him look good at and for that moment .
He lives in an eternal present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to be consistent with what he said yesterday and bears no relation to what he will say tomorrow .
But the deeper and more ominous point is that Trump has gradually acclimatized himself and his supporters to the fact that a lot of people are going to die and that they are not taking even the basic steps necessary to prevent it .
This has been the pattern all along , the method by which Trump gets his supporters to accept his proverbial Fifth Avenue shootings : • First insist it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do it , that it ’ s all a hoax .
• Then admit it ’ s real but it ’ s being overblown and taken out of context by the media .
• Then defiantly proclaim that sure , of course he did it .
It ’ s normal , it ’ s perfect , it ’ s what everybody does , so why are you making such a big deal out of it ?
All of this was previewed , in detail , by last year ’ s impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was no quid pro quo with Ukraine to the insistence that of course there was a quid pro quo , and that ’ s just fine .
Except this time it ’ s about a lot of people dying , and dying unnecessarily .
That the administration was caught flat-footed by this pandemic is not its real sin .
Most countries flailed early on .
The only large country to do well right out of the starting gate was South Korea—but that was because they flubbed their response to a previous outbreak of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet we now have about a half dozen examples of COVID-19 success stories , countries that have contained the virus and limited its spread , making it possible for them to avoid both massive death tolls and draconian , open-ended economic shutdowns .
There ’ s South Korea , New Zealand , Australia , Hong Kong , Iceland , Germany , and a few others , depending on how you count .
These results are not surprising .
The standard practice for controlling infectious diseases is well established : massive testing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This allows a country to identify and isolate those who are infectious , making it possible for everybody else to go back to relatively normal lives .
Consider the big recent coronavirus news out of South Korea : 13 new cases identified when a 29-year-old man noticed symptoms and tested positive after an evening going to nightclubs .
There are three things to note about this story .
First , people were going out to nightclubs , which had recently been reopened .
They may be shut down again for a while after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are opening up .
South Korea was never shut down as tightly at the US and will soon be much more open .
Second , there is enough testing to spot a potential “ super-spreader ” right away .
Third , South Korea has a system of contact tracing so thorough—visitors to nightclubs , for example , are required to give their names as they enter—that everyone who was potentially exposed will soon be located and tested as well .
This could have been us .
It could still be us , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerted effort to implement this model .
It has not done so , leaving it to be implemented piecemeal by the states .
Michael Brendan Dougherty aptly describes the administration ’ s promised response to COVID-19 as “ vaporware ” : Trump ’ s supporters have sensed that he has given up doing anything about coronavirus , and they have decided to excuse that , too .
This explains some of the excitement over the Swedish model for dealing with the pandemic , which involves less stringent lockdowns and less social distancing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ model , ” not as a strategy for containing the virus or reducing its death toll .
Swedes are not social distancing enough to slow the spread of the virus , they ’ re not working toward test-and-trace , and they deny that they are trying to achieve herd immunity .
They have no strategy except to grit their teeth and endure whatever happens .
The real Swedish model is simply to decide that they are willing to accept a large number of deaths .
Given that this is now President Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatives are rushing to embrace it .
None of this is necessary .
Yes , a test-and-trace system would be very difficult to implement , particularly this late in the pandemic .
It would require a vast effort .
But it will never happen if we don ’ t even try—and gosh darn it , this is America .
We have never accepted that we are less capable than other countries of doing difficult things .
If we accept it in this case , it will be because the president decided not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death tallies rise and tick into six figures , it is important to remember that this was a choice , even if it was made by default .
The president didn ’ t shoot those 100,000 people , but he embraced their deaths through his indifference and neglect .
It was all done in broad daylight , and his supporters are now ratifying that decision .

No, Donald Trump didn’t literally shoot anybody, nor did he do it on Fifth Avenue. But soon more than 100,000 Americans will be dead from COVID-19, and making good on his boast that he could get away with murder in broad daylight, his supporters are working their way toward accepting and excusing this disastrous outcome.
Trump understood his supporters earlier than anyone else. It was January 2016 when he proclaimed, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”
He was right. There has proven to be nothing his core supporters won’t excuse to keep from having to admit that they were wrong.
At this point, that means stubbornly, and even insistently, welcoming mass death.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
A recent video cobbled together from clips from Trump’s press conferences highlights how the president has gone from dismissing the tiny number of COVID-19 cases and claiming it would all go away in a few weeks, to acknowledging higher and higher death tolls, to boasting that it will be a big success if only 90,000 people die, and more recently just admitting that there will be at least 100,000 deaths—which at the current rate is a lower bound. That’s more than any other nation in the world, probably including China, even if you assume that their official numbers are dramatically undercounted.
The point of the video is not merely that Trump is in denial. We know by now that he says whatever he thinks will make him look good at and for that moment. He lives in an eternal present where what he says today does not have to be consistent with what he said yesterday and bears no relation to what he will say tomorrow.
But the deeper and more ominous point is that Trump has gradually acclimatized himself and his supporters to the fact that a lot of people are going to die and that they are not taking even the basic steps necessary to prevent it.
This has been the pattern all along, the method by which Trump gets his supporters to accept his proverbial Fifth Avenue shootings:
First insist it’s not real, that he didn’t do it, that it’s all a hoax.
Then admit it’s real but it’s being overblown and taken out of context by the media.
Then defiantly proclaim that sure, of course he did it. It’s normal, it’s perfect, it’s what everybody does, so why are you making such a big deal out of it?
All of this was previewed, in detail, by last year’s impeachment trial, from the assurance that there was no quid pro quo with Ukraine to the insistence that of course there was a quid pro quo, and that’s just fine.
Except this time it’s about a lot of people dying, and dying unnecessarily.
That the administration was caught flat-footed by this pandemic is not its real sin. Most countries flailed early on. The only large country to do well right out of the starting gate was South Korea—but that was because they flubbed their response to a previous outbreak of MERS and learned the lessons from it. Yet we now have about a half dozen examples of COVID-19 success stories, countries that have contained the virus and limited its spread, making it possible for them to avoid both massive death tolls and draconian, open-ended economic shutdowns.
There’s South Korea, New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong, Iceland, Germany, and a few others, depending on how you count. These results are not surprising. The standard practice for controlling infectious diseases is well established: massive testing to support a system of contract tracing. This allows a country to identify and isolate those who are infectious, making it possible for everybody else to go back to relatively normal lives.
Consider the big recent coronavirus news out of South Korea: 13 new cases identified when a 29-year-old man noticed symptoms and tested positive after an evening going to nightclubs.
There are three things to note about this story.
First, people were going out to nightclubs, which had recently been reopened. They may be shut down again for a while after this, but schools and baseball leagues are opening up. South Korea was never shut down as tightly at the US and will soon be much more open.
Second, there is enough testing to spot a potential “super-spreader” right away.
Third, South Korea has a system of contact tracing so thorough—visitors to nightclubs, for example, are required to give their names as they enter—that everyone who was potentially exposed will soon be located and tested as well.
This could have been us. It could still be us, if the Trump administration would put forward a concerted effort to implement this model. It has not done so, leaving it to be implemented piecemeal by the states. Michael Brendan Dougherty aptly describes the administration’s promised response to COVID-19 as “vaporware”:
We’ve gotten lots of advertising and an implicit promise of a world-class operation to fight the disease. But it doesn’t exist yet and it’s becoming clearer that the White House is spinning its wheels, looking for something—anything—to do other than solving the crisis at hand.
Trump’s supporters have sensed that he has given up doing anything about coronavirus, and they have decided to excuse that, too.
This explains some of the excitement over the Swedish model for dealing with the pandemic, which involves less stringent lockdowns and less social distancing. But there really is no “Swedish model,” not as a strategy for containing the virus or reducing its death toll. Swedes are not social distancing enough to slow the spread of the virus, they’re not working toward test-and-trace, and they deny that they are trying to achieve herd immunity. They have no strategy except to grit their teeth and endure whatever happens.
The real Swedish model is simply to decide that they are willing to accept a large number of deaths. Given that this is now President Trump’s strategy, you can see why conservatives are rushing to embrace it.
None of this is necessary. Yes, a test-and-trace system would be very difficult to implement, particularly this late in the pandemic. It would require a vast effort. But it will never happen if we don’t even try—and gosh darn it, this is America. We have never accepted that we are less capable than other countries of doing difficult things. If we accept it in this case, it will be because the president decided not to bother doing the work.
As the death tallies rise and tick into six figures, it is important to remember that this was a choice, even if it was made by default. The president didn’t shoot those 100,000 people, but he embraced their deaths through his indifference and neglect.
It was all done in broad daylight, and his supporters are now ratifying that decision.


thebulwark--2020-05-12--March Divided, Strike United

March Divided, Strike United

Thinking about the next six months until Election Day reminded me , for some reason , of the great TV show of my youth , Car 54 , Where Are You ?
While it tragically lasted only from 1961 to 1963 , the show ’ s opening theme is seared—seared—on the nation ’ s memory : Life is chaotic .
The forces of civilization ( embodied by Officers Toody and Muldoon in New York Police Car 54 ) have to struggle to deal with it .
And it won ’ t always be easy or pretty .
As I recall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe Car 54 usually succeeded in its mission civilisatrice .
Which brings me to the Biden campaign .
Joe Biden would have been in college during Car 54 ’ s heyday , perhaps a bit too old to really appreciate its brilliance as we 10-year-olds did .
But I like to think of young Joe watching the show with his classmates on the lone black-and-white TV in his dorm at the University of Delaware .
Genius transcends age groups .
In any case , what ’ s the connection between Car 54 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this : The Biden campaign is going to be chaotic .
It isn ’ t going to be a smoothly oiled machine .
More to the point , the coalition behind Joe Biden—or should I say the coalitions behind Joe Biden ?
—aren ’ t all going to be pulling in the same direction at the same time with military precision .
The chaos , the disorder , the mixed signals will occasion some frustration , some anxiety , and even some recriminations among the diverse assemblage of Biden supporters .
One already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Biden 2020 voters is this : Calm down .
Elizabeth Warren supporters aren ’ t going to change their views about the deficiencies of American capitalism just because they ’ re in alliance for the next six months with Never Trump free marketeers—who will not , in turn , experience a sudden conversion to democratic socialism .
Bernie Sanders enthusiasts will continue to have different world views than Mayor Pete aficionados .
Woke millennials won ’ t suddenly have the same priorities as old-fashioned senior citizens.And guess what ?
Welcome to American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million votes for a presidential candidate , you need a big , diverse coalition .
Groups in that coalition don ’ t have to love one another , or agree with one another , beyond one baseline conviction : Four years of Joe Biden will be preferable to four more years of Donald Trump .
These groups and their representatives won ’ t stop making their own cases for their preferred policies to the American people just because there ’ s a presidential campaign going on .
Nor should they .
But those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ Coalition of All Democratic Forces ” should perhaps try to suspend the most intense hostilities among themselves for the next six months .
There ’ s no need to make life for all who are fighting for a decent American future more difficult than Trump will make it anyway , with his shameless attempts at public disinformation , his unscrupulous efforts at voter suppression , his unchecked indulging in intellectual gaslighting and emotional scapegoating .
All they can do in response is make their varying cases against four more years of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can , following the counsel of military commanders from Napoleon to Count von Moltke , “ march divided , strike united.
” On November 3 they strike united .
But until then , they march separately , loosely affiliated , and trying not to get in one another ’ s way : divisions of Clinton and Obama Democrats ; democratic socialists and neoliberal capitalists ; young and old—supported by smaller scouting units of Never Trumpers and expeditionary platoons of soon-to-be-former Republicans .
Because in the real world of 2020 there isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Thinking about the next six months until Election Day reminded me, for some reason, of the great TV show of my youth, Car 54, Where Are You?
While it tragically lasted only from 1961 to 1963, the show’s opening theme is seared—seared—on the nation’s memory:
Car 54 Where are You Theme
Watch this video on YouTube
To interpret:
Life is chaotic. The forces of civilization (embodied by Officers Toody and Muldoon in New York Police Car 54) have to struggle to deal with it. And it won’t always be easy or pretty. As I recall, it wasn’t—but I do believe Car 54 usually succeeded in its mission civilisatrice.
Which brings me to the Biden campaign. Joe Biden would have been in college during Car 54’s heyday, perhaps a bit too old to really appreciate its brilliance as we 10-year-olds did. But I like to think of young Joe watching the show with his classmates on the lone black-and-white TV in his dorm at the University of Delaware. Genius transcends age groups.
In any case, what’s the connection between Car 54 and the Biden campaign?
It’s this: The Biden campaign is going to be chaotic. It isn’t going to be a smoothly oiled machine. More to the point, the coalition behind Joe Biden—or should I say the coalitions behind Joe Biden?—aren’t all going to be pulling in the same direction at the same time with military precision.
The chaos, the disorder, the mixed signals will occasion some frustration, some anxiety, and even some recriminations among the diverse assemblage of Biden supporters. One already sees signs of this.
My advice to Biden 2020 voters is this: Calm down. Elizabeth Warren supporters aren’t going to change their views about the deficiencies of American capitalism just because they’re in alliance for the next six months with Never Trump free marketeers—who will not, in turn, experience a sudden conversion to democratic socialism.
Bernie Sanders enthusiasts will continue to have different world views than Mayor Pete aficionados. Woke millennials won’t suddenly have the same priorities as old-fashioned senior citizens.And guess what?
Welcome to American politics. To get 70 or 80 million votes for a presidential candidate, you need a big, diverse coalition. Groups in that coalition don’t have to love one another, or agree with one another, beyond one baseline conviction: Four years of Joe Biden will be preferable to four more years of Donald Trump.
These groups and their representatives won’t stop making their own cases for their preferred policies to the American people just because there’s a presidential campaign going on.
Nor should they.
But those who belong to what Ben Wittes calls the “Coalition of All Democratic Forces” should perhaps try to suspend the most intense hostilities among themselves for the next six months. There’s no need to make life for all who are fighting for a decent American future more difficult than Trump will make it anyway, with his shameless attempts at public disinformation, his unscrupulous efforts at voter suppression, his unchecked indulging in intellectual gaslighting and emotional scapegoating.
All they can do in response is make their varying cases against four more years of Trump. In doing so, they can, following the counsel of military commanders from Napoleon to Count von Moltke, “march divided, strike united.”
On November 3 they strike united. But until then, they march separately, loosely affiliated, and trying not to get in one another’s way: divisions of Clinton and Obama Democrats; democratic socialists and neoliberal capitalists; young and old—supported by smaller scouting units of Never Trumpers and expeditionary platoons of soon-to-be-former Republicans.
Because in the real world of 2020 there isn’t a Car 54 to save the day.


thebulwark--2020-05-12--What the Supreme Court Clash Over Trump’s Taxes Means for Democracy

After hours of oral argument today , it looks like the Supreme Court may be headed toward a fractured decision in Trump v. Vance .
If President Trump ’ s claims of absolute immunity from legal process prevail , the case could define the fate of American democracy by , in effect , reversing its express rejection of an unlimited monarchy .
The case before the Court is actually three cases , consolidated because they are closely related .
They involve requests for information from third parties ( not Trump or the White House , mind you ) coming from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the one hand , and the Manhattan district attorney on the other .
Democratic-led House committees on oversight , intelligence , and financial services issued subpoenas seeking financial records from Donald Trump ’ s accounting firm , Mazars USA , and two banks , Capital One and Deutsche Bank .
The Manhattan district attorney , Cyrus Vance Jr. , likewise subpoenaed several years of tax documents from Mazars .
The various congressional committees served the subpoenas in connection with their interest in the accuracy of Trump ’ s financial disclosures , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a federal lease for the Trump International Hotel , possible violations of the Emoluments Clauses , possible money-laundering and loan fraud schemes , the counterintelligence risks associated with efforts by Russia and other foreign governments to influence the U.S. political process , and whether legislative reforms are needed to address these issues going forward .
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted during today ’ s livestreamed session , the reason these subpoenas ended up in federal court is that—unlike prior presidents , such as Bill Clinton , who responded to a similar request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation—Trump did not cooperate .
Vance is investigating possible criminal misconduct in connection with the Trump Organization under New York state law .
Keep in mind that these subpoenas are to private parties—they are not subpoenas directed to an executive branch agency or employee , or to the White House for records relating to Trump ’ s time in office .
They are for information about Trump ’ s activities while he was a private person .
And Trump filed suit to stop the congressional subpoenas in his capacity as a private citizen—not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oldest children and a number of his business entities are also listed as plaintiffs in the cases involving Congress .
At bottom , Trump ’ s claim is that once he became president any private party with information relating to him , his family , and his businesses is forbidden from turning it over in response to lawful subpoenas because Trump , his family , and his businesses are now shrouded in blanket immunity from any legal process at all under Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s sweeping argument differently based on the source of the subpoenas .
For Congress , the justices seemed worried about greenlighting politically motivated congressional subpoenas with no limiting principle .
For the New York case , the justices focused more on the time and energy that a president would have to expend monitoring third parties ’ disclosure of his personal records to a state grand jury .
First , as Justice Clarence Thomas pinned down at oral argument , Article II of the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about immunity for the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity—as they did with members of Congress going about their official business , via the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I—but they didn ’ t include any immunity for presidents .
While they worried that a president with the power to execute the laws could use it to bully legislators from taking actions he doesn ’ t like , they were apparently not equally worried about a president ’ s ability to respond to lawsuits , congressional inquiries , or criminal investigations .
And , as a matter of federalism , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their legal proceedings—a point made by Justice Sonia Sotomayor , observing that the Framers did not extend the president ’ s pardon power to criminal convictions in state courts .
Second , the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the president has absolute immunity from legal process .
( Presidents do have immunity from civil lawsuits challenging their official acts as president . )
To the contrary , both times that presidents tried to hide behind the mantle of the presidency to evade oversight , the Supreme Court didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unanimous court required Richard Nixon to turn over tapes of his Oval Office conversations to a federal district court—a ruling that effectively led to the end of his presidency—notwithstanding claims of executive privilege , which aren ’ t even relevant in the present case because the subpoenas seek Trump-related documents prior to his time as president .
And in 1997 , the court unanimously ordered Bill Clinton to sit for a civil deposition in a case alleging sexual misconduct prior to his taking office .
No grand jury was even involved in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paula Jones ’ s claim for money damages from Clinton personally .
Clinton ’ s false deposition testimony led to a contempt of court citation , a $ 90,000 fine , and the suspension of his Arkansas law license , and was one reason he was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1998 .
In Clinton ’ s case , the fact that he was president did not shield him from personally having to take time from his official duties to answer to private lawyers—just like the rest of us who might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump is arguing that—even though sitting presidents themselves lack absolute immunity from federal criminal trial subpoenas for Oval Office records and civil deposition subpoenas involving sexual harassment lawsuits by private parties—third parties are precluded from producing information relating to a president ’ s personal business finances until he leaves office .
If this kind of illogic makes your brain hurt , it should .
Third , the strongest “ legal ” support for such a position derives from two memoranda issued by the Department of Justice under Nixon in 1973 and Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel ( OLC ) —who answered to the president—drafted arguments for protecting their bosses from federal indictment as a matter of Article II of the Constitution .
Those memos are not laws .
They are not statutes .
They are not opinions of judges .
They are not regulations .
They are briefs written by lawyers , and they have been treated with too much reverence and authority as a gloss on the Constitution itself .
At the heart of the “ can ’ t-prosecute-a-sitting-president ” memos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too much trouble for presidents to undergo criminal indictment and prosecution while they are busy running the country .
The Clinton memo makes the case that a civil deposition—from which presidents are not immune under Clinton v. Jones—isn ’ t nearly as taxing as a criminal trial .
Maybe so .
But that nuance is not in play in Trump v. Vance .
Trump is arguing for king-like immunity from any third-party compliance with any oversight at all for himself , his family , and his businesses—prior to any legislation or indictment even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that even conservative justices—who might be expected to side with President Trump—will be hard-pressed to read the Constitution as mandating such sweeping protections for the accounting and financial records of the president , his private family members , and his closely held businesses prior to taking office .
Ours is a system of separated powers , after all , and Congress is uniquely situated as a check on the presidency—due in part to the unwarranted authority afforded the “ non-prosecution ” memos from the OLC .
Here ’ s how things might shake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justices pressed the lawyer for the House of Representatives for a limiting principle—a standard that could be used to distinguish between politically motivated harassing subpoenas and valid subpoenas designed to serve a legislative purpose .
They didn ’ t get one , which suggests that they might feel justified in making one up .
The problem with that would not just be that an express limit on Congress ’ s subpoena power would enhance the powers of the presidency by hampering congressional oversight , but also that such a rule would enhance the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself .
If the Supreme Court decides to manufacture a standard that Congress will have to satisfy in order to subpoena records from third parties implicating presidents , courts could then verge on becoming über-legislatures charged with deciding whether Congress is properly pondering certain legislation .
In the case involving the Manhattan district attorney , Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow made his familiar , circular arguments about unlimited Article II power for the sake of unlimited Article II power .
The general counsel for Vance ’ s office ably retorted that claims of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfounded .
Although seemingly sympathetic to the Trumpian point of view , Justice Samuel Alito also asked counsel whether concerns that presidents would be subjected to tsunamis of civil litigation after Clinton v. Jones came to fruition .
The answer was no .
At the end of the day , the burden on the presidency in having to comply with valid requests for information in relation to valid efforts at oversight is slim and depends on the particulars of a given situation .
Justices Sotomayor , Stephen Breyer , and Elena Kagan convincingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of us have to do when faced with an overly burdensome subpoena : go to court and ask that it be struck down or limited .
In connection with that exercise , presidents can raise the special concerns that only presidents have in juggling the various responsibilities of the office with other pressures on their time .
A blanket , prophylactic bar to any congressional or prosecutorial requests for information from third parties bearing on a president ’ s private life is not warranted—at least on the facts presented in the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to presidential immunity from such oversight would mean the Supreme Court ’ s validation of a quasi-monarchy in America .
So much for the views of the Framers and revolutionaries who fought and died to avoid that very outcome .
[ Note : The author is a signatory to an amicus brief filed in Trump v. Vance .
She is also the author of a forthcoming article in the Stanford Law & Policy Review on the two OLC memos on Article II immunity . ]

After hours of oral argument today, it looks like the Supreme Court may be headed toward a fractured decision in Trump v. Vance. If President Trump’s claims of absolute immunity from legal process prevail, the case could define the fate of American democracy by, in effect, reversing its express rejection of an unlimited monarchy.
The case before the Court is actually three cases, consolidated because they are closely related. They involve requests for information from third parties (not Trump or the White House, mind you) coming from two sources: the United States Congress on the one hand, and the Manhattan district attorney on the other. Democratic-led House committees on oversight, intelligence, and financial services issued subpoenas seeking financial records from Donald Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, and two banks, Capital One and Deutsche Bank. The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., likewise subpoenaed several years of tax documents from Mazars.
The various congressional committees served the subpoenas in connection with their interest in the accuracy of Trump’s financial disclosures, the General Service Administration’s management of a federal lease for the Trump International Hotel, possible violations of the Emoluments Clauses, possible money-laundering and loan fraud schemes, the counterintelligence risks associated with efforts by Russia and other foreign governments to influence the U.S. political process, and whether legislative reforms are needed to address these issues going forward. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted during today’s livestreamed session, the reason these subpoenas ended up in federal court is that—unlike prior presidents, such as Bill Clinton, who responded to a similar request for information in connection with the Whitewater investigation—Trump did not cooperate.
Vance is investigating possible criminal misconduct in connection with the Trump Organization under New York state law.
Keep in mind that these subpoenas are to private parties—they are not subpoenas directed to an executive branch agency or employee, or to the White House for records relating to Trump’s time in office. They are for information about Trump’s activities while he was a private person. And Trump filed suit to stop the congressional subpoenas in his capacity as a private citizen—not as president. Trump’s three oldest children and a number of his business entities are also listed as plaintiffs in the cases involving Congress.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
At bottom, Trump’s claim is that once he became president any private party with information relating to him, his family, and his businesses is forbidden from turning it over in response to lawful subpoenas because Trump, his family, and his businesses are now shrouded in blanket immunity from any legal process at all under Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court justices today approached the president’s sweeping argument differently based on the source of the subpoenas. For Congress, the justices seemed worried about greenlighting politically motivated congressional subpoenas with no limiting principle. For the New York case, the justices focused more on the time and energy that a president would have to expend monitoring third parties’ disclosure of his personal records to a state grand jury.
Let’s unpack this a bit.
First, as Justice Clarence Thomas pinned down at oral argument, Article II of the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about immunity for the president. The Framers knew how to grant immunity—as they did with members of Congress going about their official business, via the Speech and Debate Clause of Article I—but they didn’t include any immunity for presidents. While they worried that a president with the power to execute the laws could use it to bully legislators from taking actions he doesn’t like, they were apparently not equally worried about a president’s ability to respond to lawsuits, congressional inquiries, or criminal investigations.
And, as a matter of federalism, even presidents must respect the sovereignty of states and their legal proceedings—a point made by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, observing that the Framers did not extend the president’s pardon power to criminal convictions in state courts.
Second, the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the president has absolute immunity from legal process. (Presidents do have immunity from civil lawsuits challenging their official acts as president.) To the contrary, both times that presidents tried to hide behind the mantle of the presidency to evade oversight, the Supreme Court didn’t let them. In 1974, a unanimous court required Richard Nixon to turn over tapes of his Oval Office conversations to a federal district court—a ruling that effectively led to the end of his presidency—notwithstanding claims of executive privilege, which aren’t even relevant in the present case because the subpoenas seek Trump-related documents prior to his time as president.
And in 1997, the court unanimously ordered Bill Clinton to sit for a civil deposition in a case alleging sexual misconduct prior to his taking office. No grand jury was even involved in that civil case, which was all about Paula Jones’s claim for money damages from Clinton personally. Clinton’s false deposition testimony led to a contempt of court citation, a $90,000 fine, and the suspension of his Arkansas law license, and was one reason he was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1998. In Clinton’s case, the fact that he was president did not shield him from personally having to take time from his official duties to answer to private lawyers—just like the rest of us who might become embroiled in lawsuits.
But now, Trump is arguing that—even though sitting presidents themselves lack absolute immunity from federal criminal trial subpoenas for Oval Office records and civil deposition subpoenas involving sexual harassment lawsuits by private parties—third parties are precluded from producing information relating to a president’s personal business finances until he leaves office.
If this kind of illogic makes your brain hurt, it should.
Third, the strongest “legal” support for such a position derives from two memoranda issued by the Department of Justice under Nixon in 1973 and Clinton in 2000. In those memos, lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)—who answered to the president—drafted arguments for protecting their bosses from federal indictment as a matter of Article II of the Constitution. Those memos are not laws. They are not statutes. They are not opinions of judges. They are not regulations. They are briefs written by lawyers, and they have been treated with too much reverence and authority as a gloss on the Constitution itself.
At the heart of the “can’t-prosecute-a-sitting-president” memos is the argument that it would be too much trouble for presidents to undergo criminal indictment and prosecution while they are busy running the country. The Clinton memo makes the case that a civil deposition—from which presidents are not immune under Clinton v. Jones—isn’t nearly as taxing as a criminal trial. Maybe so. But that nuance is not in play in Trump v. Vance. Trump is arguing for king-like immunity from any third-party compliance with any oversight at all for himself, his family, and his businesses—prior to any legislation or indictment even being proposed.
My educated guess is that even conservative justices—who might be expected to side with President Trump—will be hard-pressed to read the Constitution as mandating such sweeping protections for the accounting and financial records of the president, his private family members, and his closely held businesses prior to taking office. Ours is a system of separated powers, after all, and Congress is uniquely situated as a check on the presidency—due in part to the unwarranted authority afforded the “non-prosecution” memos from the OLC.
Here’s how things might shake out:
Regarding congressional subpoenas, conservative justices pressed the lawyer for the House of Representatives for a limiting principle—a standard that could be used to distinguish between politically motivated harassing subpoenas and valid subpoenas designed to serve a legislative purpose. They didn’t get one, which suggests that they might feel justified in making one up.
The problem with that would not just be that an express limit on Congress’s subpoena power would enhance the powers of the presidency by hampering congressional oversight, but also that such a rule would enhance the powers of the federal courts over Congress itself. If the Supreme Court decides to manufacture a standard that Congress will have to satisfy in order to subpoena records from third parties implicating presidents, courts could then verge on becoming über-legislatures charged with deciding whether Congress is properly pondering certain legislation.
In the case involving the Manhattan district attorney, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow made his familiar, circular arguments about unlimited Article II power for the sake of unlimited Article II power. The general counsel for Vance’s office ably retorted that claims of “reckless mania” by state prosecutors are unfounded. Although seemingly sympathetic to the Trumpian point of view, Justice Samuel Alito also asked counsel whether concerns that presidents would be subjected to tsunamis of civil litigation after Clinton v. Jones came to fruition. The answer was no.
At the end of the day, the burden on the presidency in having to comply with valid requests for information in relation to valid efforts at oversight is slim and depends on the particulars of a given situation. Justices Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan convincingly suggested that presidents should do what the rest of us have to do when faced with an overly burdensome subpoena: go to court and ask that it be struck down or limited. In connection with that exercise, presidents can raise the special concerns that only presidents have in juggling the various responsibilities of the office with other pressures on their time.
A blanket, prophylactic bar to any congressional or prosecutorial requests for information from third parties bearing on a president’s private life is not warranted—at least on the facts presented in the Trump v. Vance cases. Yet a nod to presidential immunity from such oversight would mean the Supreme Court’s validation of a quasi-monarchy in America. So much for the views of the Framers and revolutionaries who fought and died to avoid that very outcome.
[Note: The author is a signatory to an amicus brief filed in Trump v. Vance. She is also the author of a forthcoming article in the Stanford Law & Policy Review on the two OLC memos on Article II immunity.]


thebulwark--2020-05-13--Poland’s Election Mess Is a Warning to America

On Sunday , Poland held a presidential election .
However , no polling stations were open , no votes were cast or counted and the National Electoral Commission ruled the same day that a new election had to be called—probably in June or July .
The shambolic election and its coming repeat are a defeat for the leader of the governing Law and Justice ( PiS ) party , Jarosław Kaczyński , who pressed for a dramatic rewrite of the electoral law just weeks before the vote and tried to issue an ultimatum to the opposition : It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on May 10 , or an extension of the president ’ s mandate by two years .
The changes envisaged by PiS were massive .
The entire election was to be held by mail and the responsibility for distributing and counting votes was to be taken away from the Electoral Commission , an independent body .
Under the new rules , the responsibility would fall on the Post Office .
Yet , as Marcin Zaborowski , the editor in chief of Res Publica , noted , the latter is a “ state-owned company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zdzikot , a staunch PiS ] loyalist and until recently a deputy minister of defense .
A number of other strategic positions in the Post Office have been staffed now with former employees of the Ministry of Defense.
” Because PiS does not control the upper house , the legislation was being held up in the senate until the last moment—otherwise the lower house , the Sejm , could simply break the senate veto and rush ahead with the election .
Because the law was not in effect , local authorities were reluctant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Post Office .
Yet , until Wednesday—just three days before the vote—Kaczyński insisted on holding the election under the new rules , even though there was no feasible way of doing so .
In the end , the governing coalition decided to let the election proceed under the old rules , while also not letting it proceed at all .
Holding the presidential election on May 10 was a risky proposition from the moment the country had gone into lockdown in March .
The Polish constitution provides for a solution : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election could be postponed by three months .
With enough advance notice , a robust vote-by-mail system could also be devised , based on a cross-party consensus , so that the election can be held remotely .
PiS tried to avoid that path .
Instead , it first proposed that only citizens above the age of 60 and diaspora members be allowed to vote by mail .
Unsurprisingly , the party enjoys disproportionate levels of support among those demographic groups .
Then , it announced that the entire election would be done by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notice .
Also , because of COVID-19 , all campaigning was halted—yet , Andrzej Duda , the incumbent president and a PiS member for a decade , until he renounced party membership when elected president , was given unlimited airtime on state media .
Before arriving in power in 2015 , Kaczyński famously promised to build a “ Budapest in Warsaw.
” He has since modeled his party ’ s governance style after that of Viktor Orbán ’ s Fidesz party , which has now all but suspended the normal functioning of Hungary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made sweeping changes to Poland ’ s judiciary and effectively suspended constitutional review of new legislation , turned public broadcasting into a propaganda machine , and started “ repolonizing ” large parts of the economy by using the government to purchase prominent banks and media corporations from foreign investors .
Yet it is fair to say that Poland has not followed Hungary ’ s example in all respects .
Poles are more distrustful of Russia and the opposition and civil society are stronger and far better organized in Poland than in Hungary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of days before the holding what would have been an illegitimate presidential election is certainly good news , even though the chaos has necessarily eroded the trust that Poles can have in the integrity of the political and electoral system .
For Americans , there is a twofold lesson in Poland ’ s current electoral shambles .
First , even peoples as committed to freedom and democracy as Poles are risk losing them at the hands of aspiring autocrats .
Similarly , the idea that one of the two main parties in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 and refuse to accept the election ’ s results as legitimate is far from hysterical .
Second , avoiding an election embarrassment , if not catastrophe , requires thoughtful action by the state now , not at the last minute like in Poland .
States must plan ahead , not procrastinate , to make sure that there are avenues for safe , fair , and legitimate voting regardless of whether the pandemic continues to affect the United States by then or not .
Let us hope that it can be done .

On Sunday, Poland held a presidential election. However, no polling stations were open, no votes were cast or counted and the National Electoral Commission ruled the same day that a new election had to be called—probably in June or July.
The shambolic election and its coming repeat are a defeat for the leader of the governing Law and Justice (PiS) party, Jarosław Kaczyński, who pressed for a dramatic rewrite of the electoral law just weeks before the vote and tried to issue an ultimatum to the opposition: It’s either an election under our rules, on May 10, or an extension of the president’s mandate by two years.
The changes envisaged by PiS were massive. The entire election was to be held by mail and the responsibility for distributing and counting votes was to be taken away from the Electoral Commission, an independent body. Under the new rules, the responsibility would fall on the Post Office. Yet, as Marcin Zaborowski, the editor in chief of Res Publica, noted, the latter is a “state-owned company headed by . . . [Tomasz Zdzikot, a staunch PiS] loyalist and until recently a deputy minister of defense. A number of other strategic positions in the Post Office have been staffed now with former employees of the Ministry of Defense.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Because PiS does not control the upper house, the legislation was being held up in the senate until the last moment—otherwise the lower house, the Sejm, could simply break the senate veto and rush ahead with the election. Because the law was not in effect, local authorities were reluctant to share their citizens’ personal information with the Post Office. Yet, until Wednesday—just three days before the vote—Kaczyński insisted on holding the election under the new rules, even though there was no feasible way of doing so. In the end, the governing coalition decided to let the election proceed under the old rules, while also not letting it proceed at all.
Holding the presidential election on May 10 was a risky proposition from the moment the country had gone into lockdown in March. The Polish constitution provides for a solution: under a state of emergency, the election could be postponed by three months. With enough advance notice, a robust vote-by-mail system could also be devised, based on a cross-party consensus, so that the election can be held remotely.
PiS tried to avoid that path. Instead, it first proposed that only citizens above the age of 60 and diaspora members be allowed to vote by mail. Unsurprisingly, the party enjoys disproportionate levels of support among those demographic groups. Then, it announced that the entire election would be done by mail, at a few weeks’ notice. Also, because of COVID-19, all campaigning was halted—yet, Andrzej Duda, the incumbent president and a PiS member for a decade, until he renounced party membership when elected president, was given unlimited airtime on state media.
Before arriving in power in 2015, Kaczyński famously promised to build a “Budapest in Warsaw.” He has since modeled his party’s governance style after that of Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party, which has now all but suspended the normal functioning of Hungary’s democracy. The party has made sweeping changes to Poland’s judiciary and effectively suspended constitutional review of new legislation, turned public broadcasting into a propaganda machine, and started “repolonizing” large parts of the economy by using the government to purchase prominent banks and media corporations from foreign investors.
Yet it is fair to say that Poland has not followed Hungary’s example in all respects. Poles are more distrustful of Russia and the opposition and civil society are stronger and far better organized in Poland than in Hungary. The fact that PiS blinked a couple of days before the holding what would have been an illegitimate presidential election is certainly good news, even though the chaos has necessarily eroded the trust that Poles can have in the integrity of the political and electoral system.
For Americans, there is a twofold lesson in Poland’s current electoral shambles. First, even peoples as committed to freedom and democracy as Poles are risk losing them at the hands of aspiring autocrats. Similarly, the idea that one of the two main parties in the United States will cry foul after November 3 and refuse to accept the election’s results as legitimate is far from hysterical. Second, avoiding an election embarrassment, if not catastrophe, requires thoughtful action by the state now, not at the last minute like in Poland. States must plan ahead, not procrastinate, to make sure that there are avenues for safe, fair, and legitimate voting regardless of whether the pandemic continues to affect the United States by then or not. Let us hope that it can be done.


thebulwark--2020-05-13--Government Debt Still Matters – Just Ask Italy

It has become fashionable in academic and political circles to argue that large government budget deficits are harmless as long as the interest rate at which the government can borrow remains very low .
Proponents of such a theory have to contend with the difficult case currently unfolding in Italy .
Even with low interest rates , a country can run into a serious public-debt crisis .
It can do so if , as is presently the case in Italy and to a lesser extent in the United States , it has the unfortunate combination of a high starting public-debt-to-GDP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( the budget deficit excluding interest payments ) , and trouble generating economic growth .
Before the coronavirus epidemic pummeled the Italian economy , Italy had a public-debt-to-GDP ratio of 135 percent .
That made Italy the Eurozone ’ s second-most indebted country after Greece .
The coronavirus epidemic will now make Italy ’ s already bad debt situation worse by causing the Italian economy to contract by a projected 10 percent in 2020 .
That , in turn , will likely result in the Italian budget deficit ballooning to around 9 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Italy ’ s public-debt -to-GDP ratio skyrockets to a staggering 160 percent of GDP by the end of 2020 .
Italy ’ s public debt vulnerability results not only from the country ’ s high debt-to-GDP ratio .
Rather , it ’ s also because Italy has a high primary budget deficit and a poor growth record that will be difficult to correct as long as policymakers are constricted by the Euro .
Those two weaknesses will cause Italy ’ s debt-to-GDP ratio to keep rising even were Italy continue to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Take an arithmetical example based on Italy ’ s current situation to illustrate the point .
Even assuming that Italy could borrow at an inflation-adjusted rate of 1 percent and that it could get its economy to grow by 2 percent , it would still need to have a primary budget deficit of no more than 1.5 percent of GDP if its public-debt-to-GDP ratio was not to keep rising above its projected level .
But Italy is now running a primary budget deficit of more than 5 percent of GDP .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its public-debt-to-GDP ratio to keep rising to ever-higher levels .
It also does not help matters that Italy is stuck with the Euro as its currency , denying it an independent monetary or exchange rate policy to help boost its economy .
As a result , if Italy tried to reduce its budget deficit by cutting government expenditures , its economy would almost certainly not grow at 2 percent , and its public-debt-to-GDP ratio would still keep rising .
It gets worse .
Italy ’ s shaky banking system is likely to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst post-war economic recession on record .
That shock is likely to cause non-performing loans to balloon , which might require that the Italian government will have to bail out its banks at a cost of between 10 and 15 percent of GDP .
Another factor that could cause Italy ’ s public-debt-to-GDP ratio to rise at an even faster rate would be if the interest rates available to the Italian government were to rise—which already seems to be happening .
The interest rate at which the Italian government can borrow is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Germany ( and the reason isn ’ t Germany ) .
Past experience suggests that the spread between Italian and German government borrowing rates could rise further if investors came to believe that Italy ’ s public-debt-to-GDP ratio was on an ever-rising path , or if the rating agencies were to downgrade Italian government bonds to junk status .
All of this suggests that Italy could be headed for another round of its sovereign debt crisis later this year .
That does not bode well for an early U.S. and global economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third largest sovereign debt market , an Italian debt crisis has the potential to roil world financial markets .
It also has to be of concern that an Italian debt crisis would come in the wake of a recent German Constitutional Court ruling that appears to have severely limited the European Central Bank ’ s ability to bail Italy out .
But at least it could be a productive opportunity to dispel a kooky theory that in a world of low interest rates we need not worry about budget deficits .

It has become fashionable in academic and political circles to argue that large government budget deficits are harmless as long as the interest rate at which the government can borrow remains very low. Proponents of such a theory have to contend with the difficult case currently unfolding in Italy.
Even with low interest rates, a country can run into a serious public-debt crisis. It can do so if, as is presently the case in Italy and to a lesser extent in the United States, it has the unfortunate combination of a high starting public-debt-to-GDP ratio, a large primary budget deficit (the budget deficit excluding interest payments), and trouble generating economic growth.
Before the coronavirus epidemic pummeled the Italian economy, Italy had a public-debt-to-GDP ratio of 135 percent. That made Italy the Eurozone’s second-most indebted country after Greece. The coronavirus epidemic will now make Italy’s already bad debt situation worse by causing the Italian economy to contract by a projected 10 percent in 2020. That, in turn, will likely result in the Italian budget deficit ballooning to around 9 percent of GDP as tax revenues decline, while Italy’s public-debt -to-GDP ratio skyrockets to a staggering 160 percent of GDP by the end of 2020.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Italy’s public debt vulnerability results not only from the country’s high debt-to-GDP ratio. Rather, it’s also because Italy has a high primary budget deficit and a poor growth record that will be difficult to correct as long as policymakers are constricted by the Euro. Those two weaknesses will cause Italy’s debt-to-GDP ratio to keep rising even were Italy continue to be able to borrow at low interest rates.
Take an arithmetical example based on Italy’s current situation to illustrate the point. Even assuming that Italy could borrow at an inflation-adjusted rate of 1 percent and that it could get its economy to grow by 2 percent, it would still need to have a primary budget deficit of no more than 1.5 percent of GDP if its public-debt-to-GDP ratio was not to keep rising above its projected level. But Italy is now running a primary budget deficit of more than 5 percent of GDP. If maintained, such a deficit will cause its public-debt-to-GDP ratio to keep rising to ever-higher levels.
It also does not help matters that Italy is stuck with the Euro as its currency, denying it an independent monetary or exchange rate policy to help boost its economy. As a result, if Italy tried to reduce its budget deficit by cutting government expenditures, its economy would almost certainly not grow at 2 percent, and its public-debt-to-GDP ratio would still keep rising.
It gets worse. Italy’s shaky banking system is likely to be hit hard by the country’s worst post-war economic recession on record. That shock is likely to cause non-performing loans to balloon, which might require that the Italian government will have to bail out its banks at a cost of between 10 and 15 percent of GDP.
Another factor that could cause Italy’s public-debt-to-GDP ratio to rise at an even faster rate would be if the interest rates available to the Italian government were to rise—which already seems to be happening. The interest rate at which the Italian government can borrow is now 2.5 percent higher than the rates offered to Germany (and the reason isn’t Germany). Past experience suggests that the spread between Italian and German government borrowing rates could rise further if investors came to believe that Italy’s public-debt-to-GDP ratio was on an ever-rising path, or if the rating agencies were to downgrade Italian government bonds to junk status.
All of this suggests that Italy could be headed for another round of its sovereign debt crisis later this year. That does not bode well for an early U.S. and global economic recovery. Being the world’s third largest sovereign debt market, an Italian debt crisis has the potential to roil world financial markets. It also has to be of concern that an Italian debt crisis would come in the wake of a recent German Constitutional Court ruling that appears to have severely limited the European Central Bank’s ability to bail Italy out.
But at least it could be a productive opportunity to dispel a kooky theory that in a world of low interest rates we need not worry about budget deficits.


thebulwark--2020-05-13--Is the Trump Campaign App Designed to Win the Election, or Launch Trump TV?

At first glance , President Trump ’ s digital campaign operation appears fairly impressive .
Like most things related to Trump , once you observe it for a while , it ain ’ t all that .
The Trump App , as a technical matter , is sound .
It ’ s easy to sign up !
There are social-media tutorials for the olds on how to spread the gospel online !
The text messaging is seamless !
They have merch !
And oooh , look at all those nightly video “ events ” on live stream !
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardest-core Trump supporters , is going to consume all this Trumptastic content ?
Probably no one .
And that ’ s the point .
The Trump campaign isn ’ t trying to entice new voters by sneakily suckering them into their digital tractor beam ; it ’ s radicalizing the people who are already on the Death Star .
This effort has been called a “ gamified campaign , ” a “ digital mousetrap , ” and Candy Crush for MAGA-land—and all those descriptions that ring true .
A Trump supporter uses the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discounts , early event access , and even a photo with Trump .
There are memes to be spread , hashtags to plant , and lots of prompts to donate and leverage contacts to recruit friends and family .
When Brad Parscale called this operation his Death Star , he was , no doubt , thinking like Grand Moff Tarkin and believing that he had built the ultimate power in the 2020 galaxy .
It must have slipped his mind that the Death Star—and every subsequent Death Star ever built—included a fatal flaw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to be destroyed at minimal cost by a small band of rebels .
So in a way , Parscale isn ’ t wrong , exactly .
The Trump campaign is loading their existing followers onto an all-inclusive Trump battle station that , despite all the bells and whistles , might very well blow up in their faces .
The salvage parts probably have more value .
Usually , a campaign sells the public a candidate who has a message , amplified over a variety of networks , to unify a majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail , emails , and earned media to get this message out .
Not the Trump campaign .
Trump ’ s team has built a content farm to silo supporters off from the rest of the country and force-feed them a steady diet of political amphetamines in order keep them hyped up up through Election Day .
The app ’ s premier offering is a video the Trump campaign churns out each evening at 8:00 p.m .
Imagine the overwrought rhetoric from a direct-mail pitch being live-read and turned into dialogue for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Team Trump Online.
” It ’ s innovative because you watch it on your phone .
At its core , “ Team Trump Online ” is an especially unsophisticated political infomercial , the kind of thing that makes OANN look subtle and intelligent .
There ’ s a rotating cast of characters riffing on a carousel of topics : The media is bad .
Trump is phenomenal .
Joe Biden and the Democrats must be defeated .
As we ’ ve come to expect , nepotism is a part of the act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a frequent host and has adopted all the affectations of a blended North Korean newscaster .
It ’ s the kind of thing that would embarrass even the talking heads at RT .
For example , on a recent episode , Lara Trump interviewed Parscale , where she asked , Occasionally , the guests on “ Team Trump Online ” are accidentally revealing .
In the above interview , for instance , Parscale talked generically about the Trump campaign ’ s digital operation before explaining what he perceives as their primary strength @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t producing material that will win over undecided voters or forge a governing majority .
The mission is , explicitly , is to produce nuggets that Trump voters already want to hear that will , in turn , get picked up by other Trump voters , and spread across the Internet to even more Trump voters .
The videos that tend to draw the most eyeballs , according to the YouTube counts , are those hosted by self-knighted “ General in the Meme Wars , ” Donald J. Trump Jr.—DJTJ to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Like his father , Don Jr. seems to have a lizard-brain understanding of how his shtick works with the marks .
( In one of the early shows , DJTJ even says out loud that he needs to consume more caffeine in order to make his rants more interesting . )
His show on the App is called “ Triggered , ” which—branding alert—is also the title of his best-selling book and may or may not be the theme of his 2024 presidential campaign .
As a performer , what ’ s interesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an app-based show designed to be watched on a 3 ” screen , surrounded by allies , he ’ s always yelling and gesturing wildly about how poorly he ’ s treated by the media , including platforms such as Twitter .
Where his father is all about gorilla-channel dominance , Don Jr. ’ s mode is more like the perpetually aggrieved Laura Loomer .
“ You ’ ve never heard a leftist complain about being de-platformed and thrown off a platform , and they say some pretty outrageous stuff , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ m not looking for a conservative platform .
I just want to be able to say what I want to say , and they can say whatever they want to say and let people choose .
But when someone is getting bombarded with ‘ this ’ as though it ’ s truth and ‘ this ’ as though it ’ s lies , it ’ s not so fair.
” He wasn ’ t done .
“ [ T ] hey just are screwing with the algorithms and trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But say what you will about Don .
Jr.—his show is the most thoughtful and authentic production on the platform .
Most of the characters on the app pass the time reaching for new ways to describe their dear leader .
At least Don Jr. has his own thing going on .
For instance , in a recent “ Moms for Trump ” video that aired on Saturday Katrina Pierson ( yes , she ’ s still orbiting around Planet Trump ) talked about the pandemic and worried , “ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been today , if not for President Trump ’ s leadership over the last few years…I tell people all the time we have hope because we have a leader who actually puts Americans and America first…I sleep well at night knowing that President Trump is at the helm.
” This is an interesting pitch at a moment when 82,000 Americans have died and unemployment is close to 15 percent .
Trump 2020 : It could have been worse !
When you think about it , the Trump App might be a less of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , than a hedge against him losing .
Because while it isn ’ t going to convert undecided voters , it sure looks like an effective vehicle for creating an audience for a new media platform .
It would be the smartest thing his campaign has done , actually : Trump has built a massive data operation that could be turned into a viable media property that could become something like TrumpTV come January 20 , 2021 .
And he got his political donors to foot the bill .
Talk about a great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the vision it would become a powerhouse media ecosystem for Republicans .
A new media channel pioneered by a former Republican president with a built-in following could easily be the next step .
Trump TV would probably eat Fox ’ s lunch .
He has a more significant and devoted following than any Fox star with access to the entire cosmos of Republican politicians eager to court him .
And Fox itself is at a crossroads where its corporate leadership no longer even seems to know whether it wants to ride this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of Americans who love them some Trump be willing to settle for a throne sniffer like Sean Hannity or a knock-off brand like OANN when they could get the real thing ?
One of the hallmarks of Donald Trump ’ s business career was his uncanny ability to step away from one failing endeavor after another and always have a new project waiting .
That ’ s what the Trump App “ Death Star ” is .
Trump ’ s voters just don ’ t know it yet .

At first glance, President Trump’s digital campaign operation appears fairly impressive. Like most things related to Trump, once you observe it for a while, it ain’t all that.
The Trump App, as a technical matter, is sound. It’s easy to sign up! There are social-media tutorials for the olds on how to spread the gospel online! The text messaging is seamless! They have merch! And oooh, look at all those nightly video “events” on live stream!
But the real question is who, besides the hardest-core Trump supporters, is going to consume all this Trumptastic content?
Probably no one. And that’s the point.
The Trump campaign isn’t trying to entice new voters by sneakily suckering them into their digital tractor beam; it’s radicalizing the people who are already on the Death Star. This effort has been called a “gamified campaign,” a “digital mousetrap,” and Candy Crush for MAGA-land—and all those descriptions that ring true. A Trump supporter uses the app to earn points redeemable for merchandise discounts, early event access, and even a photo with Trump. There are memes to be spread, hashtags to plant, and lots of prompts to donate and leverage contacts to recruit friends and family.
When Brad Parscale called this operation his Death Star, he was, no doubt, thinking like Grand Moff Tarkin and believing that he had built the ultimate power in the 2020 galaxy. It must have slipped his mind that the Death Star—and every subsequent Death Star ever built—included a fatal flaw so glaring and dangerous that it was able to be destroyed at minimal cost by a small band of rebels.
So in a way, Parscale isn’t wrong, exactly. The Trump campaign is loading their existing followers onto an all-inclusive Trump battle station that, despite all the bells and whistles, might very well blow up in their faces.
The salvage parts probably have more value.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Usually, a campaign sells the public a candidate who has a message, amplified over a variety of networks, to unify a majority of the country. It relies on direct mail, emails, and earned media to get this message out.
Not the Trump campaign. Trump’s team has built a content farm to silo supporters off from the rest of the country and force-feed them a steady diet of political amphetamines in order keep them hyped up up through Election Day.
The app’s premier offering is a video the Trump campaign churns out each evening at 8:00 p.m. Imagine the overwrought rhetoric from a direct-mail pitch being live-read and turned into dialogue for a TV show. It’s called “Team Trump Online.” It’s innovative because you watch it on your phone.
At its core, “Team Trump Online” is an especially unsophisticated political infomercial, the kind of thing that makes OANN look subtle and intelligent. There’s a rotating cast of characters riffing on a carousel of topics: The media is bad. Trump is phenomenal. Joe Biden and the Democrats must be defeated.
As we’ve come to expect, nepotism is a part of the act. Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump is a frequent host and has adopted all the affectations of a blended North Korean newscaster.
30 Rock - North Korean Weather
Watch this video on YouTube
It’s the kind of thing that would embarrass even the talking heads at RT.
For example, on a recent episode, Lara Trump interviewed Parscale, where she asked,
Someone who really hasn’t adjusted well, Brad, to the online campaign platform is sleepy Joe Biden. In fact, the best they’ve got is Biden in the basement. What do you think that his problem is? Is he just too old to do this? What’s the story with Joe Biden?”
Boom? Roasted?
Occasionally, the guests on “Team Trump Online” are accidentally revealing. In the above interview, for instance, Parscale talked generically about the Trump campaign’s digital operation before explaining what he perceives as their primary strength:
Our team produces so much content, and our content is engaging, and I think we just say things that people want to hear.
In other words, the campaign isn’t producing material that will win over undecided voters or forge a governing majority. The mission is, explicitly, is to produce nuggets that Trump voters already want to hear that will, in turn, get picked up by other Trump voters, and spread across the Internet to even more Trump voters.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
The videos that tend to draw the most eyeballs, according to the YouTube counts, are those hosted by self-knighted “General in the Meme Wars,” Donald J. Trump Jr.—DJTJ to his broskis and the Pepe brigade.
Like his father, Don Jr. seems to have a lizard-brain understanding of how his shtick works with the marks. (In one of the early shows, DJTJ even says out loud that he needs to consume more caffeine in order to make his rants more interesting.) His show on the App is called “Triggered,” which—branding alert—is also the title of his best-selling book and may or may not be the theme of his 2024 presidential campaign.
As a performer, what’s interesting about Don Jr. is that even on an app-based show designed to be watched on a 3” screen, surrounded by allies, he’s always yelling and gesturing wildly about how poorly he’s treated by the media, including platforms such as Twitter. Where his father is all about gorilla-channel dominance, Don Jr.’s mode is more like the perpetually aggrieved Laura Loomer.
“You’ve never heard a leftist complain about being de-platformed and thrown off a platform, and they say some pretty outrageous stuff,” he said during a show last week. “I’m not looking for a conservative platform. I just want to be able to say what I want to say, and they can say whatever they want to say and let people choose. But when someone is getting bombarded with ‘this’ as though it’s truth and ‘this’ as though it’s lies, it’s not so fair.”
He wasn’t done. “[T]hey just are screwing with the algorithms and trying to hurt me,” he whined.
I can’t tell you what the algorithm says, but I do enough of this stuff, and I pay enough attention that if you have a brain, you realize it’s going on and, again, it feels like a dry run as they are knocking conservative thought leaders off, pushing leftists as hard as they can, knocking conservatives off, to influence the outcome of the 2020 election.
But say what you will about Don. Jr.—his show is the most thoughtful and authentic production on the platform. Most of the characters on the app pass the time reaching for new ways to describe their dear leader. At least Don Jr. has his own thing going on.
For instance, in a recent “Moms for Trump” video that aired on Saturday Katrina Pierson (yes, she’s still orbiting around Planet Trump) talked about the pandemic and worried, “It’s scary to know where we would have been today, if not for President Trump’s leadership over the last few years…I tell people all the time we have hope because we have a leader who actually puts Americans and America first…I sleep well at night knowing that President Trump is at the helm.”
This is an interesting pitch at a moment when 82,000 Americans have died and unemployment is close to 15 percent.
Trump 2020: It could have been worse!
When you think about it, the Trump App might be a less of a tool designed to help Trump win, than a hedge against him losing. Because while it isn’t going to convert undecided voters, it sure looks like an effective vehicle for creating an audience for a new media platform.
It would be the smartest thing his campaign has done, actually: Trump has built a massive data operation that could be turned into a viable media property that could become something like TrumpTV come January 20, 2021. And he got his political donors to foot the bill. Talk about a great kickstarter campaign.
Roger Ailes founded Fox with the vision it would become a powerhouse media ecosystem for Republicans. A new media channel pioneered by a former Republican president with a built-in following could easily be the next step. Trump TV would probably eat Fox’s lunch. He has a more significant and devoted following than any Fox star with access to the entire cosmos of Republican politicians eager to court him. And Fox itself is at a crossroads where its corporate leadership no longer even seems to know whether it wants to ride this tiger.
Besides, why would the millions of Americans who love them some Trump be willing to settle for a throne sniffer like Sean Hannity or a knock-off brand like OANN when they could get the real thing?
One of the hallmarks of Donald Trump’s business career was his uncanny ability to step away from one failing endeavor after another and always have a new project waiting.
That’s what the Trump App “Death Star” is. Trump’s voters just don’t know it yet.