Two comments: First, my 21-year-old son knows little of Rudy pre-Trump. To him, Rudy is 100% clown, an embarrassing hack. I would think for a large percentage of Americans, he is an embarrassment, even for pro-Trump folks. Even if you like Trump, you have to find Rudy a boob by comparison.
Second, when Sarah Isgur says, “At a time when so…
Two comments: First, my 21-year-old son knows little of Rudy pre-Trump. To him, Rudy is 100% clown, an embarrassing hack. I would think for a large percentage of Americans, he is an embarrassment, even for pro-Trump folks. Even if you like Trump, you have to find Rudy a boob by comparison.
Second, when Sarah Isgur says, “At a time when so many Americans are questioning the legitimacy of our institutions," does she not realize that the whole goal of Trump and the Trumpist GOP, going back more than a decade, has been to destroy institutional legitimacy? Tucker/Tuberville et al are now trying to even destroy the legitimacy of the US military. The Trumpist GOP might as well be paid by the Russians and the Chinese; both countries have spent decades and decades trying to undermine our democracy and our institutions. The propogandists at Fox and in the GOP do their bidding for free.
Do you think that it's an accident that Fox News is mimicking the Russian trolls? I believe the owner has long harbored a hatred if America and real8zed that a good portion of our citizens have very poor reasoning power and can't tell the difference between propaganda and the truth.
A plausible case can be made that institutions often need reforming -- that they may come to serve those who staff them more than the public good; that they spend public money carelessly (under the "use it or lose it" rule); and that agencies have exercised unchecked legislative and judicial as well as executive powers -- and that there is, in fact, a partisan tilt in the permanent bureaucracy.
But the serious arguments lose credibility when they're attached to a sociopath with despot-envoy who has little understanding of how our institutions are intended to work, and who's guided by an "I alone can fix it" pretension and a belief that nothing should impede his sovereign will -- and who is supported by fanatical cult followers wanting him to crush their enemies.
Then we get a sustained assault on all rules and institutional guardrails.
I think she pretends not to realize it so she can make a living as that contrarian who boldly goes against conventional wisdom. We have a lot of people pretending not to understand things because their paychecks depend on not understanding them.
I usually enjoy David French and Sarah Isgur on their "Advisory Opinions" podcast, but yesterday Sarah seemed to be channeling some Republican booster, and I turned it off out of disgust and dismay.
Kathe, question for you. Did sarah ever actually practice law? I know she clerked for a Republican judge but I think she has basically only worked in politics/pr.
I think I've only listened to their podcast once, but I may give that one a listen. I'm a glutton for punishment. I likely won't make it any further in than you did, though.
"Talking Feds" had Norm Eisen and Jennifer Rubin on their last podcast. If you include Harry Litman, the host, they have a lot more legal firepower than Sarah, and they thought it was a very well-conceived case. So there was some small comfort there.
I listened to that one and that it was excellent. I especially liked Rubin's last take of the episode where she explains how Trump may have brought all of this on himself by declaring his candidacy. She made a series of excellent points.
Didn't hear it, but I'm not following the idea that Trump brought this on himself by any actions after the conspiracy. Luttig said something similar about how he could have made it all go away.
I get that for the documents, just cooperate and return them, but not this. This was a criminal act committed over a discrete period of time. What actions after Jan 20, 2021 could Trump have taken or refrained from that would make the crime any less serious?
Yeah, my guess is what Lee says. If there was ever an out for Trump, it would be that he would (somehow convincingly...) promise to retreat from political life and stop his shenanigans re: delegitimizing US institutions and in exchange, the Feds leave him alone (he'd have to make his own agreements with the states). Since I don't think he's capable of doing so, this would likely never work anyway, but it's the only way I could imagine letting him go unpunished.
It's all about him declaring his candidacy for the presidency. Rubin was pointing out the irony that he declared so soon to insulate himself from prosecution, but that declaring it is really what led to him being in his current position with respect to his actions surrounding J6.
She mentioned the approach Garland was taking and contrasted it with the approach of Smith. Garland took the bottom-up tack, and Smith seemed to take an approach more similar to that of the J6 Committee, focusing on ringleaders right away. And he produced an indictment that, were a bottom-up approach taken, may have never come. The indictment doesn't rely on anything from the rioters or the militias; it's all based on Trump and his coterie's activities. If Trump didn't declare his candidacy, Garland never appoints a Special Counsel, and if we ever would have gotten an indictment, it certainly would not have been this soon, and may have never come based on that bottom-up approach.
I would guess they mean if he went away, they might be inclined to just let it go to avoid the hornets nest and political destabilization. I get that, though certainly not my preference.
Sarah’s takes on anything to do with Donald are clouded by something that obscures her legal mind from the politics of it all. I can’t even listen to Advisory Opinions. And don’t get me started on her new newsletter.
Sarah can be tough to take at times, maybe most times. I will say that she has been on point in describing Trump's "crime-ing" in the M-L docs. On J6 charges, she is taking the point of view that behavior was abhorrent but not criminal. Maybe there isn't a clear statute on fraudulently inserting fake electors, but to me this is as bad as it gets.
I wouldn't completely throw out the Dispatch baby with the bath water. Hayes and Goldberg have been consistent in their Trump outrage for years and continue to express it. If I had to be in a one-dimensional eco-chamber it would be the Remnant. The Dispatch does help me walk around the issues and kick the tires.
My only response is that Hayes and Goldberg stuck around fox for a longtime though (they didn’t leave until after Tucker made that ridiculous “documentary” about j6).
Also, has sarah actually practiced law for any amount of time? I can’t find what law firms or government work (other than in pr or a political role) she has had other than as a clerk. She comments on law like 25 year doj vet though
Hi Migs, wasn't sure what you meant about Hayes and Goldberg sticking around? Did you mean before they punched out of Fox? Think that was a pretty long time ago.
Yeah I was talking about Hayes and Goldberg sticking around at fox. He left nov 2021. He wrote an article on why he left. It was somewhat interesting in that they specifically brought him and hayes on never to comment on trump (bc fox was pro trump) but to bash democrat ideas/plans. Pretty interesting right rope for them to walk
I would agree. She's been very strong on the M-L docs case and has said several times that it's an extremely strong case. This is subject to opinion, but one of her points is she feels the M-L docs case is stronger than the J6 case.
I like the Dispatch overall. It's different than the Bulwark but I do enjoy it. Steve Hayes blew up DeSantis last week over his RFK comments which was great and much needed!
The Dispatch’s anti-Trumpism seems too wan for my tastes. I like the more joyfully emphatic Bulwark.
Perhaps, just as Nixon gave us the Presidential Records Act (which does NOT mean a President can keep any damn thing he wants to on his way out the door), we will get statutes forbidding fake electors, and ensuring that losing all arguments in all courts is definitively final in election challenges.
Hey, that’s exactly when I dropped my subscription. I only joined because of David (in particular his Sunday French Press) and now I can get that in my sub to the NYT.
I also signed up because of David and love reading him over at the NYT. I like Nick’s column on most days but he def falls into ruts. My sub ends in November and I will not be renewing either. Although, if Trump wins the nomination - as looks likely - it might be an interesting time over there watching them twist themselves into knots. 😆
The other thing I noticed with The Dispatch is that their comments section is much less fun and congenial compared to here. Say anything outside NR/conservative orthodoxy in response to one of Jonah’s columns and the mad dogs come a’runnin.
That really is the problem. The mad dogs are not going away. They have been unlashed and they are foaming at the mouth. It is unclear how many there are, anywhere from 15 to 35 % of Americans. But they display a combination of "don't know," and "don't care." That applies to democracy, the economy, the war, global warming, fake news, human rights of all kinds, and living in a sane society. Their fun is in the power of cruelty and destruction. Trump and social media have given them a voice and a cover. They are also well funded, whether they know it or not, by a bunch of greedy billionaires.
I follow Jonah on Twitter (I frequently disagree with him, but admire that he is willing to go against the grain), and my strong impression is that he is an anti-Trumper.. I don’t know about the rest of the staff, though.
Lol. Oh yes, my dear, the libertarian is quite strong over there. From Scott to Kevin to Jonah there is no getting away from it. I appreciate some takes (I live in New England and love when Scott rails against the Jones Act (all ships carrying cargo between US ports must be US built and crewed. Unfortunately, there’s are zero LNG tankers to travel between US ports so we buy all the gas that we can’t squeeze through our meager pipelines on the open market - in times past, even from the Russians - which is contributing to higher winter heating prices for us). But aside from that, I find it all very painful sometimes.
Although they do have some awesome MAGAs that comment over there. Getting the pulse of that crowd is always a good thing to keep tabs on and I must admit that their comments sections make that task very easy - especially now that Twitt…, errr, X is such a useless pile of crap for doing any research these days.
The Jones Act was supposed to protect American shipping and encourage it back in 1920. It has turned into an albatross that now hurts American shipping and needs to go.
Exemptions for things like fuel should be made and written into law. I would say “it would be great to open up places like Guam, Hawaii and Puerto Rico too”, but interestingly , Hawaii’s congressional delegation (all D) is part of the group who are fighting to keep it as is.
I have not looked up the qualifications to be AG, but wouldn't a valid law license be something that should be one? Having a disbarred lawyer as AG is like having a de-frocked priest as the Pope (no offense to Catholics intended, it was for the analogy).
That would certainly fit Rudi who has been "acting" as a legal advisor for TFG for quite a while. Of course, even an acting AG should be good actor, not a bad one. x😏
Are you implying equivalency with anything that is going on right now? Even Watergate and Nixon's misdeeds pale. Having consensual sex with an intern is not rape either.
Clinton*: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.*
*that woman 23 year old woman girl. *Clinton- POTUS. Hey, I voted for the guy twice. This happened in the before times when lecherous men were given permission to act out sexually and disregard the consequences. But the consequences happened. One of the consequences, to my mind, was 2016, when Hillary lost the election, due in part to his cheating and lying.
Trump did not just get caught cheating, he worked at having it all publicized in the likes of the National Enquirer. His wives' maximum humiliation was not his problem.
I think she worked at DOJ for a bit, was Carly Fiorina's campaign manager, worked for Ted Cruz, teaches something at Harvard Law and is pretty ensconced in the Ivy League legal scene generally. I listen to their podcast, and can't remember her ever mentioning actually practicing law, but might have missed it.
That fragment of a sentence coupled with what she shoveled damns at least one of our pinnacles of higher education. I mean, if all she teaches if how to shovel or fling stuff, does one really need an Ivy League degree?
Robin Williams once wondered aloud why men always take a woman's boobs and squeeze them together, "like they're trying to make one good one out of them?"
Two comments: First, my 21-year-old son knows little of Rudy pre-Trump. To him, Rudy is 100% clown, an embarrassing hack. I would think for a large percentage of Americans, he is an embarrassment, even for pro-Trump folks. Even if you like Trump, you have to find Rudy a boob by comparison.
Second, when Sarah Isgur says, “At a time when so many Americans are questioning the legitimacy of our institutions," does she not realize that the whole goal of Trump and the Trumpist GOP, going back more than a decade, has been to destroy institutional legitimacy? Tucker/Tuberville et al are now trying to even destroy the legitimacy of the US military. The Trumpist GOP might as well be paid by the Russians and the Chinese; both countries have spent decades and decades trying to undermine our democracy and our institutions. The propogandists at Fox and in the GOP do their bidding for free.
Do you think that it's an accident that Fox News is mimicking the Russian trolls? I believe the owner has long harbored a hatred if America and real8zed that a good portion of our citizens have very poor reasoning power and can't tell the difference between propaganda and the truth.
A plausible case can be made that institutions often need reforming -- that they may come to serve those who staff them more than the public good; that they spend public money carelessly (under the "use it or lose it" rule); and that agencies have exercised unchecked legislative and judicial as well as executive powers -- and that there is, in fact, a partisan tilt in the permanent bureaucracy.
But the serious arguments lose credibility when they're attached to a sociopath with despot-envoy who has little understanding of how our institutions are intended to work, and who's guided by an "I alone can fix it" pretension and a belief that nothing should impede his sovereign will -- and who is supported by fanatical cult followers wanting him to crush their enemies.
Then we get a sustained assault on all rules and institutional guardrails.
I think she pretends not to realize it so she can make a living as that contrarian who boldly goes against conventional wisdom. We have a lot of people pretending not to understand things because their paychecks depend on not understanding them.
I usually enjoy David French and Sarah Isgur on their "Advisory Opinions" podcast, but yesterday Sarah seemed to be channeling some Republican booster, and I turned it off out of disgust and dismay.
Agreed. Did the same thing.
Kathe, question for you. Did sarah ever actually practice law? I know she clerked for a Republican judge but I think she has basically only worked in politics/pr.
I think I've only listened to their podcast once, but I may give that one a listen. I'm a glutton for punishment. I likely won't make it any further in than you did, though.
"Talking Feds" had Norm Eisen and Jennifer Rubin on their last podcast. If you include Harry Litman, the host, they have a lot more legal firepower than Sarah, and they thought it was a very well-conceived case. So there was some small comfort there.
I listened to that one and that it was excellent. I especially liked Rubin's last take of the episode where she explains how Trump may have brought all of this on himself by declaring his candidacy. She made a series of excellent points.
Didn't hear it, but I'm not following the idea that Trump brought this on himself by any actions after the conspiracy. Luttig said something similar about how he could have made it all go away.
I get that for the documents, just cooperate and return them, but not this. This was a criminal act committed over a discrete period of time. What actions after Jan 20, 2021 could Trump have taken or refrained from that would make the crime any less serious?
Yeah, my guess is what Lee says. If there was ever an out for Trump, it would be that he would (somehow convincingly...) promise to retreat from political life and stop his shenanigans re: delegitimizing US institutions and in exchange, the Feds leave him alone (he'd have to make his own agreements with the states). Since I don't think he's capable of doing so, this would likely never work anyway, but it's the only way I could imagine letting him go unpunished.
It's all about him declaring his candidacy for the presidency. Rubin was pointing out the irony that he declared so soon to insulate himself from prosecution, but that declaring it is really what led to him being in his current position with respect to his actions surrounding J6.
She mentioned the approach Garland was taking and contrasted it with the approach of Smith. Garland took the bottom-up tack, and Smith seemed to take an approach more similar to that of the J6 Committee, focusing on ringleaders right away. And he produced an indictment that, were a bottom-up approach taken, may have never come. The indictment doesn't rely on anything from the rioters or the militias; it's all based on Trump and his coterie's activities. If Trump didn't declare his candidacy, Garland never appoints a Special Counsel, and if we ever would have gotten an indictment, it certainly would not have been this soon, and may have never come based on that bottom-up approach.
I found it a thought-provoking take.
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks.
I would guess they mean if he went away, they might be inclined to just let it go to avoid the hornets nest and political destabilization. I get that, though certainly not my preference.
Sarah’s takes on anything to do with Donald are clouded by something that obscures her legal mind from the politics of it all. I can’t even listen to Advisory Opinions. And don’t get me started on her new newsletter.
Sarah can be tough to take at times, maybe most times. I will say that she has been on point in describing Trump's "crime-ing" in the M-L docs. On J6 charges, she is taking the point of view that behavior was abhorrent but not criminal. Maybe there isn't a clear statute on fraudulently inserting fake electors, but to me this is as bad as it gets.
I wouldn't completely throw out the Dispatch baby with the bath water. Hayes and Goldberg have been consistent in their Trump outrage for years and continue to express it. If I had to be in a one-dimensional eco-chamber it would be the Remnant. The Dispatch does help me walk around the issues and kick the tires.
My only response is that Hayes and Goldberg stuck around fox for a longtime though (they didn’t leave until after Tucker made that ridiculous “documentary” about j6).
Also, has sarah actually practiced law for any amount of time? I can’t find what law firms or government work (other than in pr or a political role) she has had other than as a clerk. She comments on law like 25 year doj vet though
Hi Migs, wasn't sure what you meant about Hayes and Goldberg sticking around? Did you mean before they punched out of Fox? Think that was a pretty long time ago.
Don't know Sarah Isgur's bio. Here is the Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Isgur
She does have that often wrong but always certain approach.
Yeah I was talking about Hayes and Goldberg sticking around at fox. He left nov 2021. He wrote an article on why he left. It was somewhat interesting in that they specifically brought him and hayes on never to comment on trump (bc fox was pro trump) but to bash democrat ideas/plans. Pretty interesting right rope for them to walk
I would agree. She's been very strong on the M-L docs case and has said several times that it's an extremely strong case. This is subject to opinion, but one of her points is she feels the M-L docs case is stronger than the J6 case.
I like the Dispatch overall. It's different than the Bulwark but I do enjoy it. Steve Hayes blew up DeSantis last week over his RFK comments which was great and much needed!
The Dispatch’s anti-Trumpism seems too wan for my tastes. I like the more joyfully emphatic Bulwark.
Perhaps, just as Nixon gave us the Presidential Records Act (which does NOT mean a President can keep any damn thing he wants to on his way out the door), we will get statutes forbidding fake electors, and ensuring that losing all arguments in all courts is definitively final in election challenges.
Yeah I ended my Dispatch subscription when David French left.
Same
Hey, that’s exactly when I dropped my subscription. I only joined because of David (in particular his Sunday French Press) and now I can get that in my sub to the NYT.
I also signed up because of David and love reading him over at the NYT. I like Nick’s column on most days but he def falls into ruts. My sub ends in November and I will not be renewing either. Although, if Trump wins the nomination - as looks likely - it might be an interesting time over there watching them twist themselves into knots. 😆
The other thing I noticed with The Dispatch is that their comments section is much less fun and congenial compared to here. Say anything outside NR/conservative orthodoxy in response to one of Jonah’s columns and the mad dogs come a’runnin.
That really is the problem. The mad dogs are not going away. They have been unlashed and they are foaming at the mouth. It is unclear how many there are, anywhere from 15 to 35 % of Americans. But they display a combination of "don't know," and "don't care." That applies to democracy, the economy, the war, global warming, fake news, human rights of all kinds, and living in a sane society. Their fun is in the power of cruelty and destruction. Trump and social media have given them a voice and a cover. They are also well funded, whether they know it or not, by a bunch of greedy billionaires.
I follow Jonah on Twitter (I frequently disagree with him, but admire that he is willing to go against the grain), and my strong impression is that he is an anti-Trumper.. I don’t know about the rest of the staff, though.
I think anti-anti is too far, but they certainly are too infected with Long NR, though I do see green shoots periodically
Lol. Oh yes, my dear, the libertarian is quite strong over there. From Scott to Kevin to Jonah there is no getting away from it. I appreciate some takes (I live in New England and love when Scott rails against the Jones Act (all ships carrying cargo between US ports must be US built and crewed. Unfortunately, there’s are zero LNG tankers to travel between US ports so we buy all the gas that we can’t squeeze through our meager pipelines on the open market - in times past, even from the Russians - which is contributing to higher winter heating prices for us). But aside from that, I find it all very painful sometimes.
Although they do have some awesome MAGAs that comment over there. Getting the pulse of that crowd is always a good thing to keep tabs on and I must admit that their comments sections make that task very easy - especially now that Twitt…, errr, X is such a useless pile of crap for doing any research these days.
The Jones Act was supposed to protect American shipping and encourage it back in 1920. It has turned into an albatross that now hurts American shipping and needs to go.
It needs to be fixed, but not thrown out. One word, "Reforger."
Exemptions for things like fuel should be made and written into law. I would say “it would be great to open up places like Guam, Hawaii and Puerto Rico too”, but interestingly , Hawaii’s congressional delegation (all D) is part of the group who are fighting to keep it as is.
Bless your heart.
Signed,
American Trucking Association
I went through history and counted up all the Communist Utopias and all the Randian Utopias and came up with a statistical tie.
I do not have degrees in poli-sci, anthropology, sociology, history, or anything else remotely relevant, so make of that what you will.
It's the zombie conservatism and inability to change with the times that drove me insane. For example, they would find this to be heretical: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/how-misreading-adam-smith-helped-spawn-deaths-of-despair/
Great article. Thanks for sharing. It does a very credible job of talking about free markets and healthcare.
That’s a poor way to talk about Trump’s next attorney general. Hopefully only in his mind and living in the cell next to him.
What I came to point out the underrated brilliance of Jenna Ellis who managed to escape all of it without a co-conspirator number.
Hasn't TFG turned on Rudy? Thought I read it somewhere. Heck, he didn't even pay poor Rudy.
Could be. 😢
But as Smith said, the investigations are ongoing.
😁
If you subscribe to the WaPo, they hv a piece today about Jeffrey Clark. It’s be funny if it weren’t so alarming. Esp. his autobiography.
Here’s the article. Hopefully the gifting worked.
https://wapo.st/3qj1Gef
If there’s justice, this evil banality Clark will be spending a few decades in prison. I’m an optimist.
I have not looked up the qualifications to be AG, but wouldn't a valid law license be something that should be one? Having a disbarred lawyer as AG is like having a de-frocked priest as the Pope (no offense to Catholics intended, it was for the analogy).
Well, in Trump’s America, who needs qualifications?
According to what I can find, the AG has to be a member of the bar.
How about acting AG?
No idea TBH. I would THINK they would have to be in the bar... but who knows these days.
That would certainly fit Rudi who has been "acting" as a legal advisor for TFG for quite a while. Of course, even an acting AG should be good actor, not a bad one. x😏
The most successful active measure in history is ongoing: DNC hack > Pizzagate > QAnon > "the Steal" > the 2024 GOP Convention?
It goes back even further to the Clinton derangement (yes, Clinton’s did bad things. No they didn’t murder people).
What bad things? "Clinton Cash" is de-bunked.
He did have sex with an intern.
a 23 year old intern, who offered. I agree that it's not a good look for a married man, but... .
Are you implying equivalency with anything that is going on right now? Even Watergate and Nixon's misdeeds pale. Having consensual sex with an intern is not rape either.
Clinton*: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.*
*that woman 23 year old woman girl. *Clinton- POTUS. Hey, I voted for the guy twice. This happened in the before times when lecherous men were given permission to act out sexually and disregard the consequences. But the consequences happened. One of the consequences, to my mind, was 2016, when Hillary lost the election, due in part to his cheating and lying.
And we lost 2000 as well, because a judgement was made that his campaigning for Gore might be a negative.
I’m saying the GOP was crazy before Trump, well before 2000.
I see. You were being facetious. Thanks. Missed it.
Trump did not just get caught cheating, he worked at having it all publicized in the likes of the National Enquirer. His wives' maximum humiliation was not his problem.
On calling Rudy a “boob:” I see what you did there. 😂
Did sarah isgur actually ever practice law? It seems like it’s a maybe but if she did it wasn’t for long and I’m not sure what she did
I think she worked at DOJ for a bit, was Carly Fiorina's campaign manager, worked for Ted Cruz, teaches something at Harvard Law and is pretty ensconced in the Ivy League legal scene generally. I listen to their podcast, and can't remember her ever mentioning actually practicing law, but might have missed it.
She worked at the doj as the doj press secretary I believe.
What she teaches at Harvard is political I believe (intersection of law and politics).
I know she worked as a clerk for a federal judge but I can’t find anything else.
"What she teaches at Harvard..."
That fragment of a sentence coupled with what she shoveled damns at least one of our pinnacles of higher education. I mean, if all she teaches if how to shovel or fling stuff, does one really need an Ivy League degree?
Yep. Access to powerful people.
I just finished David Brooks' piece on keeping out the unwashed.
Lol. Talk about missing the mark. That’s brooks
So true. I know a lot of lawyers and some are pretty stupid.
You funny girl 😀😀
And I really wish you hadn't
I did use the word intentionally but just realized I wrote "find Rudy a boob", which is more on point!
OK , two boobs.
How about 11,780?
Robin Williams once wondered aloud why men always take a woman's boobs and squeeze them together, "like they're trying to make one good one out of them?"
What are we supposed to do, put our hands between them and push them apart? That'd just be weird.
I liked William's thought, "Squeeky toys?"