Liz Cheney’s Women in White Fighting Donald Trump’s Deceit

Last night’s January 6 Committee hearing had largely been telegraphed already, a minute by minute depiction of Trump’s inaction as his mob attacked the Capitol, seeking out to harm his Vice President. The most effective new material were the outtakes from Trump’s attempt to film a video the following day, where he couldn’t bring himself to say the election was over.

The most striking thing was how Pat Cipollone invoked Executive Privilege not just to protect conversations he had with the President, but to avoid speaking the most important things that could be used as the direct testimony that will be necessary to convict Donald Trump.

Here’s my thread from watching the hearing.

I’d like to talk about how Liz Cheney crafted her closing comments.

After formally thanking the witnesses there in the room, Sarah Matthews and Matthew Pottinger, she then transposed Cassidy Hutchinson’s bravery against the cowardice of the old men hiding, like Cipollone, behind Executive Privilege.

She emphasized the several women witnesses who had set an example of strength for women and girls.

Let me thank our witnesses today. We have seen bravery and honor in these hearings. And Ms. Matthews and Mr. Pottinger, both of you will be remembered for that, as will Cassidy Hutchinson. She sat here alone, took the oath, and testified before millions of Americans. She knew all along that she would be attacked by President Trump and by the 50-, 60-, and 70-year old men who hide themselves behind Executive Privilege. But like our witnesses today, she has courage, and she did it anyway. Cassidy, Sarah, and our other witnesses, including Officer Caroline Edwards, Shaye Moss and her mother Ruby Freeman are an inspiration to American women and to American girls. We owe a debt to all of those who have and will appear here.

And that brings me to another point. This committee has shown you the testimony of dozens of Republican witnesses. Those who served President Trump loyally for years. The case against Donald Trump in these hearings is not made by witnesses who were his political enemies. It is, instead, a series of confessions by Donald Trump’s own appointees, his own friends, his own campaign officials. People who worked for him for years. And his own family. They have come forward and they have told the American people the truth.

And for those of you who seem to think the evidence would be different if Republican Leader McCarthy had not withdrawn his nominees from this committee, let me ask you this. Do you really think Bill Barr is such a delicate flower that he would wilt under cross-examination? Pat Cipollone, Eric Herschmann, Jeff Rosen, Richard Donoghue? Of course they aren’t. None of our witnesses are.

At one point in 2016, when he was first running for office, Donald Trump said this: I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters. That quote came to mind last week when audio from Trump advisor Steve Bannon surfaced, from October 31, 2020, just a few days before the Presidential election.

[describing Bannon predicting that Trump would declare victory]

And of course four days later Trump declared victory when his own campaign advisors told him he had absolutely no basis to do so. What the new Steve Bannon video demonstrates is that Donald Trump’s plan to falsely claim victory in 2020, no matter what the facts actually were, was premeditated. Perhaps worse, Donald Trump believed he could convince his voters to buy it, whether he had any actual evidence of fraud or not. And this same thing continued to occur from election day onward until January 6. Donald Trump was confident that he could convince his supporters the election was stolen, not matter how many lawsuits he lost. And he lost scores of them. He was told over and over again in immense detail that the election was not stolen. There was no evidence of widespread fraud.

Cheney then described how Trump exploited the patriotism of his followers to convince them to attack the country (something we see all the time in court hearings from January 6 defendants).

It didn’t matter. Donald Trump was confident he could persuade his supporters to believe whatever he said, no matter how outlandish. And ultimately, that they could be summoned to Washington to help him remain President for another term. As we showed you last week, even President Trump’s legal team, led by Rudy Giuliani, knew they had no actual evidence to demonstrate the election was stolen. Again, it didn’t matter.

Here’s the worst part. Donald Trump knows that millions of Americans who supported him would stand up and defend our nation, were it threatened. They would put their lives and their freedom at stake to protect her. And he is preying on their patriotism. He is preying on their sense of justice. And on January 6, Donald Trump turned their love of country into a weapon against our Capitol and our Constitution. He has purposely created the false impression that America is threatened by a foreign force controlling voting machines. Or that a wave of tens of millions of false ballots were secretly injected into our election system. Or that ballot workers have secret thumb drives and are stealing the elections with them. All complete nonsense.

The ability to get to the truth, Cheney laid out, is fundamental to remaining a free nation.

We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

In late November of 2020, while President Trump was still pursuing lawsuits, many of us were urging him to put any genuine evidence of fraud forward in the courts and to accept the outcome of those cases. As January 6 approached, I circulated a memo to my Republican colleagues explaining why our congressional proceedings to count electoral votes could not be used to change the outcome of the election. But what I did not know at the time was that President Trump’s own advisors — also Republicans, also conservatives — including his White House Counsel, his Justice Department, his campaign officials, they were all telling him almost exactly the same thing I was telling my colleagues. There was no evidence of fraud or irregularities sufficient to change the election outcome. Our courts had ruled. It was over.

Now we know that it didn’t matter what any of us said, because Donald Trump wasn’t looking for the right answer legally or the right answer factually. He was looking for a way to remain in office. Let’s put that aside for a moment and focus just on what we saw today. In our hearing tonight you saw an American President faced with a stark and unmistakeable choice between right and wrong. There was no ambiguity. No nuance. Donald Trump made a purposeful choice to violate his oath of office. To ignore the ongoing violence against law enforcement. To threaten our Constitutional order. There is no way to excuse that behavior. It was indefensible. And every American must consider this: Can a President who is willing to make the choices Donald Trump made during the violence of January 6 ever be trusted with any position of authority in our great nation again?

Then, minutes after saluting the bravery of women like Cassidy Hutchinson, Cheney pivoted to the historical moment of women’s suffrage.

In this room, in 1918, the committee on women’s suffrage convened, to discuss and debate whether women should be granted the right to vote. This room is full of history and we on this committee know we have a solemn obligation not to idly squander what so many Americans have fought and died for.

Finally, she closed with that great conservative heroine, Margaret Thatcher.

Ronald Reagan’s great ally, Margaret Thatcher, said this: let it never be said that the dedication of those who love freedom is less than the determination of those who would destroy it. Let me assure every one of you this: our committee understands the gravity of this moment, the consequences for our nation. We have much work yet to do, and we will see you all in September.

As I described, her closing comments from the first hearing assumed the mantle of Reagan.

With this speech (and the imagery), Cheney attempted to invoke the mantle of Reagan, her party’s (and our shared generation’s) political icon. In doing so, she attempted to make democracy a religion again, something worth defending.

At the very least, she provided some mythology on which she will rebuild her party.

Last night, along with Sarah Matthews and Cassidy Hutchinson, Liz Cheney assumed that mantle in distinctly feminist form.

This message is not for you or I. We are not the audience for the invocation of Margaret Thatcher.

But as Cheney attempts to convince Republicans that Donald Trump made them betray their patriotism, she is pitching the alternative in distinctly female form.

Just before she goes home to lose her primary, badly, this woman is committing to coming back in September to continue the work of trying to persuade her fellow conservatives to believe in the truth again.

Note: Mr. EW and I are headed out on an Irish-sized road trip. Unless something major happens, posting will be light in days ahead. 

196 replies
  1. massappeal says:

    In all likelihood (barring Cheney’s re-election or continued ill health by Rep. Thompson), last night was the first and only time I’ve been glad to see Liz Cheney wielding a gavel. As she’s done throughout these hearings, she’s provided an example of what’s needed to pull the Republican party back from fascism and towards being a small ‘d’ democratic party: a willingness to accept where the facts lead, a commitment to the rule of law and to accountability for those in high office, and the political courage to forthrightly attack those who would subvert our democracy.

    In some precincts of the conservative movement it’s fashionable to bewail “Weimar America”, blaming all our national ills on the social, cultural, and sexual “decadence” of “elites”. There’s typically little response when someone points out that one of the great political lessons of Weimar Germany is that when pro-democracy conservatives are faced with a choice between allying themselves with pro-democracy centrists and liberals or with anti-democracy conservatives, it’s really important to choose the former.

    Cheney has done that, and done it well throughout these hearings. (As has Kinzinger.) Here’s hoping that a growing number of conservatives rally to the flag they’ve planted.

    (I hope you and Mr. EW enjoy your road trip.)

    • Drew says:

      ” one of the great political lessons of Weimar Germany is that when pro-democracy conservatives are faced with a choice between allying themselves with pro-democracy centrists and liberals or with anti-democracy conservatives, it’s really important to choose the former.”

      That’s a very important point. It was the failure of the conservatives that brought in the Nazis, not the socialists, social democrats or trade unionists. I did some academic research on the famous statement by Martin Niemoeller almost 30 years ago, and that was his primary point. It was NOT that he said nothing about what happened to the Jews, but that he said nothing about what happened to those other groups that resulted in the evaporation of democracy.

      Here’s a post I did summarizing it:

      • Drew says:

        On re-reading this post, I realize I don’t mention that Niemoeller had a meeting with Hitler shortly after he became Chancellor. Niemoeller was never a Nazi, or really a sympathizer, but he was a conservative Christian pastor, who was concerned about forces that he thought might undermine the church or Christian morality. He had this discussion with Hitler & initially came away with the impression that Hitler might be somewhat helpful to the church in this regard, in some limited way. (This would be like those, who in late 2016-early 2017, thought that Trump was going to just focus on infrastructure & be more moderate than the other Republicans–don’t make me research this, there were TONS of articles with that sort of opinion).

        Anyway, Niemoeller’s illusions about Hitler were very short lived. But it was exactly this “moderation” that he was regretting in his statement.

        • Alan Charbonneau says:

          Jeff Tiedrich
          Aug 20, 2020

          first they came for Steve Bannon, and I did not speak out— because seriously, fuck that guy

        • Philip Munger says:

          Wilhelm Reich, in his underrated book, “The Mass Psychology of Fascism,” lists the many hundreds of Christian organizations in Germany who openly supported Hitler, before his ascendancy, during his rise to power, and in the aftermath of the 1933 takeover of all the instruments of incipient totalitarian power.

  2. Tom says:

    I was glad to hear Ms. Cheney emphasize that Trump knew exactly what he was doing every step of the way; none of this talk of Trump being “deluded” or “detached from reality”.

    • Tom says:

      I also liked Ms. Cheney’s message that, what it takes to fight cowardly old men brandishing The Big Lie is courageous young women armed with The Truth.

  3. Riktol says:

    Do you really think Bill Barr is such a delicate flower that he would wilt under cross-examination?

    This line was hilarious, and the delivery perfect.
    On par with “Donald Trump is not an impressionable child” from the previous hearing.

  4. SaltinWound says:

    The Republican Party will be led in the future by brave independent women who fight abortion. They are really threading the needle!

    • timbo says:

      Cheney’s old enough to remember the NOW movement and the ERA—her speech is that of someone who holds an ideal and a goal out that is a higher ideal than anyone else in her (still?) party has advocated in many, many years. Not sure how many of the old guard that supported ERA are still there in the GOP but the GOP used to stand for things that would make the current GOP know-nothings and Twisslerings heads spin. And I bet their heads are spinning after her statements in the hearing from Thursday.

  5. Jenny says:

    Thank you Ms. Cheney. Thanks to the women who came forward. See you in September.

    “It would have been more comfortable to remain silent.” Anita Hill (1991)

  6. Jenny says:

    Thank you Ms. Cheney. Thanks to the women who came forward. See you in September.

    “It would have been more comfortable to remain silent.” Anita Hill (1991)

  7. Nick Caraway says:

    I, too am grateful for Liz’s brilliant leadership. How can one not be? And kudos to EW for laying it out so well in this post.

    At the same time, from everything I have heard (completely willing to listen to correction here) she opposes Democrats on voting rights, on gerrymandering, and continues to favor keeping the Electoral College. She has fiercely and properly fought against the blatant coup and violent political intimidation while seemingly favoring something like a genteel re-imposition of Jim Crow 2.0.

    • massappeal says:

      Thanks for your comment. Yes, Rep. Cheney is a staunch conservative and a Republican whose political positions have typically placed her on the center-right of the party’s coalition. And on this one critical issue of opposition to an attempted coup, she is a key leader. As Saul Alinsky (among others) used to say, “No permanent enemies, no permanent allies. Just permanent interests.”

      Like most small state representatives and senators, Cheney tends to favor institutions like the Electoral College and the Senate that give her state (Wyoming) more power. We can go back to fighting (heck, we can *keep* fighting) Cheney on voting rights, gerrymandering, tax policy, etc., while welcoming her as an important ally in the fight against fascism/authoritarianism.

      • timbo says:

        So well put. And why would we do anything else…unless our faith in the Constitution is also lost?

      • joejim says:

        She also, in 2019, at least twice in tv interviews graphically accused “the Democrat Party” of being in favor of terminating fully born babies, called us socialists (big whup), but also anti Semites because we don’t side with Israel 100%. Pretty recklessly ugly stuff.
        I can appreciate her role here, but I watch her every word, for the advantage she will take.

  8. Chetnolian says:

    On the Electoral College be careful about what you wish for. Speaking from a country nearer to EW than the USA, which has no protections for its smaller parts (yes even when they are profoundly wrong) the Electoral College looks like the glue which keeps the USA together, just as it was always intended to do. Nationhood comes with a price. If Ms Cheney succeeds in keeping it wedded to democracy, not a given, she has to be saluted.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Saluted, but not followed, except when the choice is only another, more competent, Donald Trump.

      The EC helped ensure the primacy of rural agricultural interests and the wealth elite, of which large landowners were the most essential part. It and the Senate mimic the role of the House of Lords. We would be better without them, were the process of reform not so dramatically undermined by the right’s overt rejection of compromise and democratic governance.

      • Frank Anon says:

        As has been thrashed out a lot lately, Los Angeles County and New York City have roughly the same population as the 15 least populated states combined (and 30 senators!). Ditching the electoral college will IMO exacerbate the problems of our country rather than ease them, as the likely result would be a rush to fund and cater to the places where all the votes are. I’d be more comfortable with hearing how Democrats are going to convince, say, West Virginia that Republican positions are folly to them. It wasn’t that long ago that they could, and did forcefully. Something like that and voting reforms like ranked choice (yes problems, but…) to weed out the extreme and motivated minority factions is more reasonable and possible

        • bmaz says:

          How will that happen? Tell us the plan, as John Lennon would say. You are going to modify (amend) the Constitution exactly how?

          • Rugger9 says:

            I think this was tossed around a few months ago, but the 435 members of the House is not set in stone. Article I Section 2 second paragraph, currently second sentence (after striking out the 3/5th clause):

            “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…”

            That means that if we move to a model where the bottom 3 states’ population average (WY, VT, AK, it’s just about 650 k) sets the size of the district we would have a more representative House of about 514 members and 617 EC votes. Biden would have won by 347 – 270 in that scenario. The beauty of this fix is that no amending of the Constitution is necessary since the number of Senators is not affected keeping its ‘small state’ protection theory in place.

            • Rugger9 says:

              Methodology notes: 2021 estimate open-source data, 650 k used as the division factor for population, seats are rounded values (i.e. ratio of 1.499 gets 1 seat, 1.501 gets 2 seats). DC was tacked on (they’d have one House rep).

          • Troutwaxer says:

            I think you misread the poster above. He didn’t even imply that he wanted to change the constitution.

              • nord dakota says:

                I’m confused too. Which is the “it” and which poster proposed “it”?

                “I’d be more comfortable with hearing how Democrats are going to convince, say, West Virginia that Republican positions are folly to them. It wasn’t that long ago that they could, and did forcefully. Something like that and voting reforms like ranked choice (yes problems, but…) to weed out the extreme and motivated minority factions is more reasonable and possible”

                does the constitution not allow ranked choice? And even there, his primary thing was seeing the dems convince the W Virginians.
                So yeah, I am confused.

              • Rugger9 says:

                Getting rid of the EC does, but not the plan I had outlined above. That can be done by statute as long as there are two Senators and one Representative for each state.

              • Ewan says:

                A bit O/T sorry, but after reading this weekend profile article in nytimes about Fani Willis, I understand your reservations. She has been in fact told off by a judge, apparently about her behavior.

                • bmaz says:

                  Hey, you got a link, I haven’t seen that yet!

                  And, yeah, you just do not do what she is doing.

                  • Ewan says:

                    It is here.
                    Quote : While such strategies have failed before in Trump-related cases, Robert C. I. McBurney, the Fulton County Superior Court judge handling the case, criticized Ms. Willis for her frequent TV appearances and for holding a fund-raiser for a Democrat running against Mr. Jones, saying “the optics are horrific” — though the fund-raiser took place during a runoff in the Democratic primary.

                    • bmaz says:

                      Thank you! I read it. The NYT was much more even keeled than I ever could have been. What Willis is doing is disgusting. Because it is against Trump et. al, I understand a lot are cheering it, but what she is doing is very wrong. Too many folks lament the loss of “the rule of law”, and then in the next breath cheer on this borderline, if not over the line, garbage by a new prosecutor trying to make her political bones. It is sickening.

          • Frank Anon says:

            No, that is precisely the point. The only way the constitution gets amended in my lifetime is if enough Republican states elect trifecta governments – enough to have a constitutional convention that would be certainly the end of our democracy, and has been frighteningly close in recent years. My point was that discussing eliminating the Electoral College, even if impossible, is still not the best thing for us either. Those with more energy should try to change ballot laws within their states to something like ranked choice, and not waste time or fundraising appeals for changing the electoral college. And maybe try to convince a West Virginian that Democrats offer their children more than CRT scaremongering and Survivor-like economic policy. Dad voted D, they can too

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Speaking of “fund and cater to,” the states “where all the votes are” tend to send more tax dollars to smaller, redder states than they get back–in the case of Connecticut, where I live, a whole lot more. Why should we not only subsidize but also give unequal political power to such states?

          • HW3 says:

            A lot of the ‘subsidy’ to red states is operating federal lands (BLM, forest service, NPS) on behalf of the rest of the country, which the locals see as colonialism and they would be thrilled to have all that federal land gifted back to them.

            • timbo says:

              Some locals see these Federally managed lands as adding value to their own businesses. In fact, there are many tourist related businesses that are anti-Federal government shutdowns because it hurts tourism when some federal lands have to shut off public access.

              Also, it is not the case that all residents and/or land owners near these Federal lands want to see more and more people owning or privatizing those lands. Privatizing Federal lands could mean no more cattle permits, no more fishing access, no more hunting access. Basically, more “No Trespassing!” signs, more privatization, etc, is not necessarily acknowledged to be a greater good by some significant number of people in these states.

        • Hug h says:

          I think the problem is that the formerly grand old party went from arguing for “positions” to claiming that their opposition is evil incarnate. drumpf drove a truck powered by that hatred.

    • glenn storey says:

      I’m pretty sure all those other functioning democracies without an electoral college, which is, ummm, all of them, don’t see it that way.

  9. Badger Robert says:

    Thia post is extremely well written and insightful. But its not surprising that true insight into Rep Cheney’s intent comes in a written form. Thanks to EW and good luck with the staycation in Ireland.

  10. Marika says:

    I’m no fan of Liz Cheney’s politics, but when she finished last night, I thought, here is the Republicans’ Margaret Thatcher. She projects strength, confidence and leadership without any bravado.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      If we’re to make comparisons, let’s look at the real Margaret Thatcher. She routinely abused her power; used government resources, including her intelligence departments, to destroy unions and the opposition Labour Party; dramatically increased child poverty; underfunded public services, especially the NHS; and vastly increased privatization of public resources, which escalated inequality and enriched the UK’s wealth elite. The list is much longer.

      • emptywheel says:

        Thanks for doing that. I wanted to get the post up but was conscious I was leaving out Thatcher’s horrible legacy. Soon to be repeated in farcical form with Truss.

      • Rugger9 says:

        Don’t forget the union beatdowns. The only thing that saved Thatcher in politics was that General Galtieri in Argentina needed to save his skin even more and took a run at the Falklands.

    • Mulder says:

      Give a listen to “Tramp the dirt down”, by Elvis Costello (1988). He vows to dance on Margaret Thatcher’s grave. It is a quiet tour de force of a song. Google will bring up a YouTube performance.

      When he played Liverpool Philharmonic Hall in 2013 after Thatcher’s death following dementia, he responded with a preface by mentioning his own father’s death, having also suffered dementia – a fate he reflected, “I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy, which I suppose Margaret Thatcher was.”

  11. Elizabeth Hanson says:

    I have been wondering whether Liz Cheney or someone else is writing her statements. Whoever they are this English professor wants to give them an A+. I am impressed by their complete avoidance of banality, concision, and deft moral frankness. The implicit indictment of Pat Cipollone was exquisite, but to entwine that with a feminist appeal to Republican women was brilliant. I do not share most of Liz Cheney’s values, except the recognition that honour really is a “thing.” She would not get my vote but man, does she get my respect.

    • emptywheel says:

      This committee is so effective for a lot of reasons, but among others it has exceptionally well-qualified staff.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        “This message is not for you or I.”

        Should be ” … for you or me.”

        Have a fantastic vacation!

          • Richieboy says:

            She’s an English professor! She WANTS to know.

            So while we’re at it, “I am impressed by their complete avoidance of banality, (as well as their) concision and deft moral frankness.

          • Giorgino says:

            Well bmaz, some do care about the proper use of the English Language, and with no criticism of the Dr intended, the putative lead dissector of these difficult topics. Scold, why are you so critical of simple observations?

            • bmaz says:

              And why do you think the best contribution you can make here is common grammar scolding? You got anything else, or is your “proper use of the English Language” all you have? My mother had a doctorate in English, taught it for thirty years, and would never dream of doing this chippy garbage. I know every contributor here, extremely well, and we can all use “the English Language” just fine, thanks.

              This is a blog, not the AP Style Guide.

              People sometimes type faster than they are thinking. Spell check screws up some of us regularly. We do not have paid editors. Do you think it is your job to correct every little thing? That is kind of sad if so. Sorry if it offends your first time commenter sensibilities if there is an occasional mistake. Again, you have anything else of import?

              • Giorgino says:

                A priest, a rabbit and an imam go into a bar. The bartender says to the rabbit, “what will it be?” The rabbit says, “I don’t know, I’m just here because of auto-correct.”

  12. DAT says:

    Dear Community,
    I also am glad Rep. Chaney has her shiv out for TFG, but before we get all warm and fuzzy about her, lets recall (thanks Don Winslow, and thanks Driftglass) that she said “…today’s Democrat (sic) party… would enable the killing of babies… the face of pure evil..” “make sure that we don’t see our maternity wards turned into killing fields, which is what the Democrats would do, if we don’t stop this.” “They’ve embraced socialism,… They are enabeling antisemitism,…. They won’t let us protect babies that are born alive after an abortion attempt… it’s dangerous for the Nation…” She may well hate TFG, but she really, really, dosen’t like you either.

    • Marinela says:

      “They’ve embraced socialism…”

      I don’t see how democrats embrace socialism by allowing legal abortion.

      Typically, in communist countries, the abortion is illegal. So by that logic GOP embraces communism which is way worse than socialism.

      Anyway, don’t expect GOP narratives to make sense…

      • DAT says:

        I’ve put multiple statements from several interviews she gave over the last few years all in one comment. She is not arguing (here) that abortion leads to socialism. By doing that I’ve opened myself up to a charge that I am ignoring “context.” However, I am confident that if you look up her interviews (h/t Don Winslow and Driftglass) you will conclude that that charge against me is a dog that won’t hunt.

      • Belyn says:

        Can you support your claim that “Typically, in communist countries, the abortion is illegal.” In the Soviet Union (at least in Russia) abortion was the primary method of birth control. And China has employed forced abortions to limit the number of children. I don’t know how things are now in Russia or China, but your claim did raise questions in my mind.

      • Adam Selene says:

        Republicans often use socialism and communism interchangeably in their argle-bargle Newspeak. It’s a feature, not a bug, like QAnon’s word salad of conspiracies. All aboard the Mothership with Princess Di and JFK Jr! I have to stop and wonder — who dresses these people before they go to a rally?

  13. Desider says:

    Brilliant move, Liz. In 2018 the election was largely dominated by angry left-leaning women. Republican women quite frequently take the cue from their menfolk. In this case Liz is telling GOP women “make your own decisions, find your own voice – these women who testified did, the Iron Lady did, the women who fought for your right to vote 100 years ago did”. No more “women as wallflowers” – and no more women who bravely testify left alone to be beaten up by politicians and media (or spouses abandoned by spineless Ted Cruzes). If her speech & attitude goes viral, GOP men are going to have hell to pay in the Fall. Kind of ironic, cuz her father became VP thru Roger Stone’s similarly undemocratic (but much smaller) mob rule “Brooks Brothers rebellion”. Is she getting this tainted inheritance off her chest, “the fathers have eaten of bitter fruit and the children’s teeth are set on edge”?

    • DAT says:

      I put this in Rayne’s post just before this one. I’m repeating it anyway. Every age cohort of white women cast more votes for Trump than for Biden.

      • Rayne says:

        American white women are problematic. There are far too many who suffer from internalized oppression including racism, and that goes for many who consider themselves liberal.

        Until more of them realize they have no power in Gilead relegated to being either a handmaid or a wife, and that their liberation is linked with the liberation of oppressed others, they’ll continue to fuck themselves over along with everyone else.

          • Rayne says:

            I mean this with the greatest respect but fuck no. I am so goddamned tired of hand holding cis-het white women who want everything delivered GMO-free organic and stevia coated with a pretty pink bow on it.

            Let’s go back and revisit what Black American activist Kimberly Jones said after the murder of George Floyd, remembering that she is a Black woman whose many rights have been constantly attacked and often with violence. All the warfare on her Black community has now expanded to ALL women, and white women want this explained to them with Powerpoint presentations in scheduled Zoom meetings with soft lighting and moderated voices? They need to have the destruction of their own civil rights marketed back to them, selling them on the premise ‘you’re a great opportunity!’?

            No, fuck no. We are now deep into an expanded Christofascist war on ALL women, when right the fuck now we are not assured the right to move from state to state freely, when we are not assured health care even if we are in extremis, bleeding out.

            The social contract is and has been broken. It’s being shredded even further and white women are no longer assured any part of it. How many dead white women is it going to take before they clue in? Those bodies aren’t going to be wrapped up with a pretty pink positive spin.

            The BIPOC women who’ve died being denied their rights certainly didn’t get that. I owe it to them not to fucking sugar coat this.

              • Rayne says:

                If you’re in the testosteroned testicled-model class, shut up unless you are actually doing something to ensure all humans have the same rights you have in this patriarchal society because nature threw the dice and gave you nuts instead of a uterus.

    • Peterr says:

      This is Liz going after the guy that ruined her and her father’s GOP. She has nothing but admiration for her father, and calling her J6 stuff some kind of effort to repudiate him and rehabilitate the family name is nowhere near accurate.

      • Fran of the North says:


        I thought Papa Dick was going to leverage his network and rain holy hand grenades down on Team Trump. Given the dearth of evidence, my impression is that network has slowly faded into aged obsolescence, and thus Liz has to do the heavy lifting.

        That said, there are plenty of Republican power players who know that the family shouldn’t, can’t, won’t be trusted. The most curious question is why do they kowtow rather than assert their beliefs.

        Perhaps as the myth weakens, others will rise up and join Liz.

  14. Doctor My Eyes says:

    Wasn’t it Thatcher who said there is no society, just individuals and families? Not a very feminine perspective nor, more to the point, an ideology leading to policy friendly to the interests of women. I say this as an intro to saying it’s making me crazy seeing the J6C pretend Trump is an anomaly who inexplicably arose within an otherwise legitimate party. How did Liz feel about her father’s lies–did she see them as a threat to democracy? How long ago was it the the US government attempted a legal justification of torture? Our government is a mess and nailing Trump is not going to fix many of the problems. Desantis is not exactly Mr. Democracy. Trump’s foreign policy triumphs? Give me a break. It’s as though the hearings are an attempt to return to a fictional view of our country in which honest differences of opinion are settled fairly and with integrity at the ballot box. Sorry, but last night was quite discouraging to me. My outlook on the future does not depend that heavily on whether Trump is allowed to run for president again. I feel pretty damn pessimistic this morning about the state of “truth” as relates to US politics. Liz is no champion of democracy or the constitution–she’s protecting personal interests. Perhaps last night was about bringing back some of the women who seemed to be deserting the GOP in significant numbers. Last night, for the first time, I felt Bmaz may be right about the bs grandstanding that are these hearing.

    • Savage Librarian says:

      Thought you might appreciate this article. I think it does well at extrapolating on how you and I (and others) felt after that hearing:

      “Liz Cheney’s smug, self-satisfied con job: Don’t fall for it” – Lucian Truscott,
      Salon, 7/23/22

      …”So they’re serving up a few schmucks with smug grins on their faces to tell us what a bad guy they suddenly discovered he is, after his usefulness to them came to an end. “

      “It’s a con job. Don’t believe a word of it. They’re just ridding themselves of a cancer they accidentally found growing on one of their legs so they can continue stomping on poor people and women and gay people and anybody they don’t like and ensuring we stay in our place. They’re Republicans. It’s what they do.”

      • fm says:

        Great article. Complete description of the duplicity of the entire Republican Party. Why the rubes are so easily fooled… They love the uneducated.

      • Doctor My Eyes says:

        Thanks for the link. Good article. It’s satisfying to at least see that point of view in print.

      • Jonf says:

        Great article. Thanks. Con job seems about right. But I will sign on if he gets the Orange jump suit.

  15. FeralMisanthrope says:

    While watching Cipollone’s testimony, I was under the impression that he was invoking attorney-client privilege, not executive privilege (as mentioned in the post and in Cheney’s remarks). Am I wrong about this? Didn’t Biden waive executive privilege for the events surrounding 1/6?

    • John Paul Jones says:

      I not sure such a privilege really exists. Trump was not Cipollone’s client; the White House as an institution was his “client.” I know he claims his communication with the President are privileged, but he was only allowed to do so because the Committee wanted his testimony rather than a protracted legal battle over the privilege; and the frequent video clips of his long silences when faced with direct questions “spoke volumes.”

    • Rayne says:

      Trump was not ever Cipollone’s client. The White House as the head of the executive branch was Cipollone’s client, and executive privilege belongs to the current executive. Biden has repeatedly waived executive privilege in the interest of justice.

      The fuzziness during testimony about Cipollone’s invocation of privilege suggests he knows he’s on thin ice — see United States v. Nixon (1974) — though if forced it would end up in front of the judiciary, potentially this SCOTUS. And gods know what the hell this particular SCOTUS would do if it has trashed so much precedent. But the invocation is intended as a stall tactic which will work to a limited degree.

      • Peterr says:

        Can’t recall who it was, but one of the former US Attorneys on MSNBC said that this sounded like Cipollone was begging for a subpoena so he could tell them some nice stories.

        • Rayne says:

          That’s not a particular bright statement on the part of the former USA because the video clips we watched were from testimony Cipollone provided after being subpoenaed by the committee.

          Jan. 6 committee subpoenas former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, June 29, 2022

          Ex-Trump White House counsel Cipollone ‘cooperative’ with Jan. 6 committee during lengthy interview, July 8, 2022

          Did they mean it appeared the Committee needed to press harder and contest the privilege claim? I wonder that it’s needed or that should be addressed by DOJ if DOJ indicts the orange shit gibbon.

          • Peterr says:

            Yes. It was a “let me take this to court and then have a judge force me to talk” kind of thing.

            • Drew says:

              I wonder whether he’s isn’t trying to wait for a DOJ/Grand Jury subpoena for the direct stuff with Trump. a) Cip is part of the GOP right & would suffer more than most if he dished too much dirt on Trump and b) it’s better for him to only have his official testimony on the most critical parts recorded once, so there’s less room to impeach with his own inconsistencies.

              • bmaz says:

                Then subpoena the prick. The Cipollone is playing 11 dimensional chess bullshit is ridiculous.

                • timbo says:

                  11th dimensional would certainly not be required to see what we’ve seen demonstrated already. As bmaz implies, the DP could do a better job by working harder on not playing themselves so much.

  16. PeterS says:

    I found it just a little odd that having saluted the bravery and strength of the many women who testified, Cheney’s list of named witnesses who wouldn’t wilt under cross examination was all men – five of them.

    I guess the list was meant to be more about age and experience than gender, but then it would have been good to have included Ruby Freeman amongst the named witnesses.

    (I also recognise that in that parallel universe the GOP examiners would have bullied the female witnesses in a way the male ones wouldn’t have faced.)

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      I think she was targeting the MAGA audience with that list of witnesses (Barr et. al.). They would sneer, or worse, at Moss and Freeman, as we’ve seen.

  17. cmarlowe says:

    “The most striking thing was how Pat Cipollone invoked Executive Privilege not just to protect conversations he had with the President, but to avoid speaking the most important things that could be used as the direct testimony that will be necessary to convict Donald Trump.”

    So can a DOJ grand jury compel a more forceful answer to that final question to which Cipollone only responded “you know”?

  18. Cosmo Le Cat says:

    The debate rages as to whether the DoJ is aiming at the peak of the pyramid and whether they are moving fast enough. An objective measure is whether they are taking steps that are obvious and necessary precursors to making charging decisions against Trump. One such step is to push for judicial resolution of the executive privilege issue raised by Pat Cipollone. It’s clear that Cipollone will not be a target, but he does have crucial testimony that he is holding back on EP grounds. Court review can be lengthy, especially if Cipollone or a likely intervenor appeals the matter to the Supreme Court.

    Therefore, the DoJ should bring Cipollone before a grand jury expeditiously so that it can begin the judicial process of obtaining testimony that he is withholding. Based on the current holder’s (Biden’s) waiver of EP, the crime/fraud exception and prior court rulings, the DoJ should prevail. Clearing this obstacle is essential to a determination of whether to indict Trump. I fail to see any down side to proceeding forthwith. The precedent should ensure that others can’t rely on EP to shield their testimony. The court filings would reveal the DoJ intends to back up its contention that no person is above the law.

    • Belyn says:

      Perhaps he would welcome a DOJ subpoena. He seemed to come close to giving up the ghost in that recorded snippet last night.

    • rip says:

      I don’t think Cipollone is using Executive Privilege (EP). That is reserved for the active President. It is probably attorney-client privilege, but even that seems to be called into question if the attorney is representing the “office” rather than the person.

      • Rayne says:

        No. Cipollone knows goddamned well attorney-client privilege is not applicable. He knows how damned weak sauce his efforts are, too, that they’re transparent as hell.

        • AgainBrain says:

          Telegraphing a punch gives your adversary time to react. For this punch, I suspect he’s going to great lengths to ensure it hits, and hurts. The last thing he wants to do is give Trump & co. advance notice.

          He’s saving his testimony for a DOJ grand jury.

  19. Belyn says:

    Liz may loose her primary, but I don’t think she will loose it badly. I have never believed it, and still do not. Wyomingites are tuning into J-6 and are impressed with her, as they should be.

  20. Molly Pitcher says:

    I wouldn’t trust Liz any further than I could throw Papa Dick, but I am really enjoying her taking shots at the hyper-masculine hubris of the GOP. It has to really gall all the “50, 60 & 70 year old men” that have a strangle hold on the party, to hear her call them out and laud the women who have stepped up to the plate to defend democracy.

    And the Hawleying-ass video was the cherry on top of that poison sundae. Touche’ madam.

  21. Doctor My Eyes says:

    i’m sincerely puzzled by any appeal of a politics of gender devoid of policy details. That Thatcher was a woman seems a curiosity of demographics and nothing more. I would think politically empowered women would be interested in certain kinds of policies and styles of politics; things like, for example, women’s health, the gender gap in pay, the culture of rape. Is it something to celebrate when women manage to be as insensitive and unconcerned about the health of society and culture as women? When women become politically powerful enough to create as much childhood poverty as the average Republican male politician, is that a victory for feminism? If anything, such thinking seems to me to be damaging to a feminism which hopes for societal change in the direction of improving the actual lives of average women.

    • MB says:

      Agree. And cf. related reasonings:

      Clarence Thomas: first black SC justice

      Alberto Gonzalez: first Hispanic AG

      Elaine Chao: first Asian-American cabinet member

      Mark Foley: first (closeted) gay member of congress who was outed

      Ed Koch: first (closeted) gay member of congress (and later mayor of NYC) who was never outed

      Kyrsten Sinema: first openly bisexual woman in Congress.

      And a big “so what” to all of the above!

      The politics of superficial identification with some kind of minority group or another without considering policy or character or humanity remains…a thing.

      • DrAwkward says:

        A nitpick: Thomas is the second African-American SC justice. Thurgood Marshall was the first.

        • MB says:

          I stand corrected! Hillary could’ve been the first female president (based on popular vote), but anyway…

        • grennan says:

          That’s NOT nitpicking. Thurgood Marshall was a giant — the attorney who argued Brown v Board of Education.

      • Doctor My Eyes says:

        I can’t even explain why it riles me so that Condoleeza Rice was one of the first two women allowed membership in Augusta National Golf Club. Having no original ideas themselves, the right is excellent at coopting causes and hollowing out their meaning.

      • Peterr says:

        Foley wasn’t the first gay congressman to be outed. Outed ahead of him were Robert Bauman (1980), John Hinson (1981), Gerry Studds (1983), and Steve Gunderson (1994, outed on the floor of the House during the debate on DOMA by California GOP wingnut Bob Dornan).

        • MB says:

          Thanks, the only one I ever heard of before was Stubbs, but he didn’t come to mind when I wrote the post.

          Dornan used to have his own TV show with such notable guests as John Mitchell and Spiro Agnew. He competed with other cranky conservatives for airwave time back then with such local notables as George Putnam, Joe Pyne and Wally George. And he was one of the originators of publicly blaming “illegal immigrant voters” when he lost a close election to Loretta Sanchez. Back in the day when wingnuts truly were in the wings…

        • bidrec says:

          Fred Richmond, 1978.
          “In April 1978, Mr. Richmond was arrested in Washington for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy and an undercover cop.”

          • timbo says:

            I was thinking that there had been a Republican Congressman before the 1980s who was outed but could not for the life of me remember who it might have been. Richmond was a Democrat AFAIK.

    • RMD says:

      Is it something to celebrate when women manage to be as insensitive and unconcerned about the health of society and culture as women?

      I’m guessing you meant to write men at the end of that sentence, yes?

  22. Doctor My Eyes says:

    Liz Cheney claimed, with respect to witnesses stepping forward, that the dam has burst. I hope that there is some reality behind that statement.

  23. punaise says:

    OTish: Steve Bannon, a former top Trump adviser, was convicted of two counts of contempt of Congress for ignoring a subpoena from the Jan. 6 panel.

    • Rugger9 says:

      Damn, you beat me on the scoop. I would suspect that this will raise the flow / stampede of witnesses but some of that will depend on how the RWNM does in their spin and the sentence to come.

    • MB says:

      So: after the appeals process is exhausted, then: 30-day mandatory minimum prison sentence, coming right up.

      • grennan says:

        Sentence would apparently be served in jail, DC’s metropolitan one, according to Post and NYT.

  24. Rugger9 says:

    OT: Bannon convicted, the jury was out only 3 hours. The lawyers here can tell us if that is a slam dunk. This was after 4 sustained objections during the defense closing argument.

    It should be noted that the defense strategy had been disemboweled by pre-trial rulings by a Trump appointed judge. While that last fact should blunt the effect of claims of bias, the RWNM will scream that anyway. We’ll see what the sentence is.

    • Rugger9 says:

      The RWNM response seems…muted. Perhaps I missed something but if that observation rings true (combined with Murdoch’s tacit go-ahead through the NY Post op-ed page) the committee will have a lot to look at in September prepared in August by their staffers.

      It does seem to me that at least two GQP senate seats might flip, in PA and OH where JD Vance has been phoning it in since the primary. +2 eliminates Sinemanchin as a factor. Mastriano has been scrubbing his web site of ‘inconvenient’ videos as well. We’ll see, the election is over 3 months away.

  25. punaise says:

    The English Beat had some choice words for Maggie Thatcher:

    I sometimes wonder
    If I’ll ever get the chance
    Just to sit with my children
    In a holiday jam
    Our lives seem petty in your cold grey hands
    Would you give a second thought
    Would you ever give a damn, I doubt it
    Stand down Margaret
    Everybody shout it
    Stand down Margaret!

  26. Savage Librarian says:

    Ares vs. Themis

    Got a shotgun on my shoulder,
    Got a pistol in my pocket,
    and if you turn it over,
    on the back is, “Never hock it.”

    Wished on all the stars above me,
    while at the Donald’s Big Lie show,
    But a lawyer says “thereof” she
    can’t condone as apropos.

    We lost a lot of coin in his wishing well,
    Hoping that the fortune a con could sell
    brought a horn of plenty, but in its stead
    it left behind the maimed and the dead.

    Themis counts on all her fingers,
    She knows the charges thru & thru,
    History has a way that lingers,
    Some say rule of law is that way, too,
    Some say rule of law will do.

    “Original versions of Angel on My Shoulder by Shelby Flint | SecondHandSongs”

  27. obsessed says:

    Great post. As much as I despise Reagan and Thatcher, I can’t help but admire Liz Cheney.

    On another topic, now that Bannon’s been convicted, how do the sentencing guidelines apply to his 60 day to 2 year, maximum $200k fine range of outcomes? I assume the pardon wipes his “priors” clean and he gets a break for that?

  28. Badger Robert says:

    What are Bannon’s odds for a stay of sentence on appeal? The experts here could explain his chances.

    • rosalind says:

      marcy tweeted, pre-verdict: “Reminder: IF Bannon is found guilty, he’ll appeal. That’s what he has been playing for this week. Nichols will let him stay out on appeal bc Nichols thinks the precedent stinks.” and “He’s not likely to go to jail anytime before January and July is more likely.”

  29. Alan Charbonneau says:

    Millennial females are showing the courage my fellow Boomers lack. Bravo to them!

    • skua says:

      “I built a f***ing machine at Breitbart. And now I’m about to go back, knowing what I know, and we’re about to rev that machine up.”
      “I’m leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents, on Capitol Hill, in the media and in corporate America.” – S.B. 18 August 2017
      Bannon is widely reported to have also called Breibart a “killing machine”, but I can’t find the source of that statement.

  30. pH unbalanced says:

    You bring up Margaret Thatcher, I immediately think of the Sinead O’Connor song:

    Margareth Thatcher on TV
    Shocked by the deaths that took place in Beijing
    It seems strange that she should be offended
    The same orders are given by her
    I’ve said this before now
    You said I was childish and you’ll say it now
    Remember what I told you
    If they hated me they will hate you
    England’s not the mythical land of Madame George and roses
    It’s the home of police who kill black boys on mopeds
    And I love my boy and that’s why I’m leaving
    I don’t want him to be aware that there’s
    Any such thing as grieving
    Young mother down at Smithfield
    Five a.m., looking for food for her kids
    In her arms she holds three cold babies
    And the first word that they learned was please
    These are dangerous days
    To say what you feel is to dig your own grave
    Remember what I told you
    If you were of the world they would love you
    England’s not the mythical land of Madame George and roses
    It’s the home of police who kill blacks boys on mopeds
    And I love my boy and that’s why I’m leaving
    I don’t want him to be aware that there’s
    Any such thing as grieving

  31. skua says:

    “I built a f***ing machine at Breitbart. And now I’m about to go back, knowing what I know, and we’re about to rev that machine up.”
    “I’m leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents, on Capitol Hill, in the media and in corporate America.” – S.B. 18 August 2017
    Bannon is widely reported to have also called Breibart a “killing machine”, but I can’t find the source of that statement.

  32. grennan says:

    You know what represents progress for women? Not one of the hundreds of stories I’ve read about Ms. Cheney and Jan. 6 (from screaming at Kevin McCarthy at the height of the attack that she didn’t want his fucking help evacuating because it was his fucking guy who caused it to the GOP caucus to the committee) has mentioned that she is the mother of five.

    Speaker Pelosi still gets so tagged occasionally, and Pat Cippolone has also gotten referenced as “father of eight”.

    • J R in WV says:

      Mr Cippolone’s name is no more “Pat” that Rafael Eduardo Cruz’s name is really Ted.

      Cippolone’s name is Pasquale Anthony — why he didn’t go with Tony I’ll never know, but Pat is a clumsy fiction. Tho Pasquale is a perfectly good name …

      • grennan says:

        Hey, let’s not be like Republicans who deride people’s names…notably Beto O’Rourke (who’s had the nickname since infancy and is among a surprisng number of Irish-Americans named Robert, Norbert, etc. known as ‘Beto’).

        We should always have more important points to make than ridiculing the names people have chosen for themselves.

        When those familiar names are Anglicized names from other languages (Pat for Pasquale, Ted for Eduardo, Barry for Barrack, etc.) making fun of them is a snarky form of bigotry. It also suggests entitlement to determine what someone else should call themselves.

  33. Maureen A Donnelly says:

    enjoy your travels. ireland is such a pretty place to travel in too. i’m envious of your move there!

  34. Doctor My Eyes says:

    Well, since EW has set us adrift to idle away the summer hours, I’ll give my read on Cippolone. He seems like the typical legalistic sleaze ball with no internal compass of right and wrong. When asked a question, he seems to first consider whether there is any answer he can give that would make him and Trump and all the scumbags look just great. Failing that, which to be fair is a tall task in this context, he next takes time to create an answer that divulges as little information as possible using wording with maximum hedge value. From what I see on the teevee, this man does not come from a place of integrity.

    • bmaz says:

      That is exactly what any good lawyer does, and exactly how we teach clients to comport themselves when being examined at a deposition or trial. There is absolutely noting wrong with his conduct under examination.

        • bmaz says:

          I’ve had complete internet and land phone outage since very early last Thursday. Got a cell phone. Can tether to it, but that’s expensive! And, yeah, the French was….Not good.

            • bmaz says:

              Extra added bonus! Our gas water heater is suddenly leaking and producing no hot water. It is Phoenix, so you can still take a shower, as all the water is hot this time of year, but still yet another problem. Oh well, whatcanyoudo?

              • xy xy says:

                Fill garden hose with water.
                Leave nozzle open at end.
                Stretch out hose in the sun.
                After a bit, turn water on yourself and voila, really hot shower till it isn’t.
                Of course the longer the hose the more hot water..

  35. Cosmo Le Cat says:

    Doctor My Eyes is right that Cipollone was evasive. Bmaz is correct that that’s how attorneys (and criminals and politicians) talk. However, America needed Cip to speak as a patriot.

    • bmaz says:

      I did not see him being evasive at all, just extremely careful. His duty was to act professionally, NOT as whatever kind of “patriot” people on the internet blithely fetish. If you were knee deep into anything like this, I would advise you to do the same. And if you refused, I would withdraw immediately, because that would mean you are a dope. This attack of Cipollone is complete bullshit. He is not your savior, and that Committee never will be either. But, hey, thanks for blithely lumping attorneys in with criminals and politicians. I hope to hell “you” never need one.

      • Rayne says:

        Co-sign. If anything I though Cipollone was rather generous; that “you know” remark was more than I expected him to say. As an attorney representing a private individual rather than the office of the president, I don’t believe he’d have made such a veiled allusion.

        • bmaz says:

          We have only seen snippets of his full testimony, but fairly important ones. Honestly, he was more forthcoming than I probably would have been. Extremely measured, but he should have been just that.

          • timbo says:

            What’s your take on the “privileged” claims though that he was somewhat frequently conversing off mic with counsel about? To me it seemed he was perilously close to possibly obstructing Congress’ need for information. To beg the question—is there such a fine knife edge between what information is needed for potential legislative purposes and what, arguably, might not be?

            (I’m guessing PC personally would already have boned up on this and other topics past where most of us would ever manage…)

            • bmaz says:

              Meh, J6 cannot give him any protection, if DOJ wants to, then they can. He did fine from what I can tell. J6 clearly thought it more critical to get what they could, and they seem to have been correct in that.

      • Badger Robert says:

        Mr. Cipollone has a career and a family that he has to protect. And the time to litigate the issue of executive privilege and attorney/client privilege with respect to Mr. Cipollone lies in the future when the center of attempted coup is indicted, if that ever happens.

      • xy xy says:

        I agree with what you write if he was representing an “individual”.
        But he is not representing an “individual”, he is the “office of the presidency”‘s lawyer.
        Should it not be different in that case?

  36. grennan says:

    To add to Ginevra di Benci’s great comments abouit misogyny a couple of weeks ago…

    Why do people who should know better use first names to refer to women when comparable men get last names?
    Pence v Kamala
    Cipollone v Cassidy
    Nancy v Ryan or McCarthy
    Christine v Kavanaugh

    Even when people think they’re distinguishing between several members of the same family (Ivanka, Ginni) in most contexts it’s not necessary.

    At the least it’s patronizing.

    • Doctor My Eyes says:

      Thanks for this comment. It is quite annoying and practiced by men and women alike. The first time I noticed it was in tennis coverage, where it is nearly universal. The women have to be more personable, approachable, and softer.

  37. Alberto The Magnificent says:

    It’s a symptom of just how far we have fallen as a nation that we find ourselves hailing Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and Brad Raffensperger for refusing to participate in a coup. One would hope that in a decent, functioning democracy we could expect that behavior at a minimum. They should all be ashamed of themselves for being Republicans in the first place.

  38. Eureka says:

    Get thee to yt, Joni Mitchell just did a full set at the Newport Folk Festival.

    This channel has most, maybe all, of the songs.

    Summertime was great — she did best w/deep bassy oldies not her own. (For others, perhaps she was tired — she is post-polio (syndrome) and -“brain aneurysm” — it was like she was disembodied from or dually-bodied to her own songs, straying from attempts to shift down and stay on pitch.)

    Look for her new(ly-performed) guitar solo, too.

    • Eureka says:

      Very much a nice energy balance to the (latest) antics of her (literary) contemporary, Joyce Carol Oates.

      ^^ to be clear, this was amplifying/escalating Pamela Paul’s (NYT Books) piece [Bret Stephens’ ex, which figures into Paul’s gatekeeping at NYT Books according to literary twitter…]

      • Savage Librarian says:

        Thanks, Eureka. IIRC, you once said you enjoy biographies. Here are some excerpts from a lengthy interview Joni Mitchell did with Readers Digest in 2006. Lots of gems in it. But I just wanted to note her comment about Shelby Flint (whose song I parodied above.)

        “RD: Who were your early female singing influences?

        Mitchell: When I first started out, I imitated a girl named Shelby Flint, as a novice singer. She had no vibrato, it was a very girly, breathy voice, easy to mimic. And then a little Joan Baez influence, but I don’t care for Joan Baez. She’s got a cold tone. She’s chilly. She’s not a soulful singer. I tend to like black singers. As a singer, I learned more from Miles Davis than I learned from anybody.

        RD: I read somewhere that you consider your song “Both Sides Now” a failure and “California” and “A Case of You” as just ditties.

        Mitchell: I was so dismissive; those are what I [call] boss’s choices. There was a certain amount of pressure on me to create hits, because that is where the money was. So, facetiously I created the song “You Turn Me On, I’m a Radio”. The tongue was firmly planted in the cheek. It was my idea of a hit. I loved the hit parade when I was a teenager, but by the time I was in my 20s, I had kind of out-grown it. We’re in this prolonged adolescence. There are no more adults. We just don’t come to maturity, and I blame rock and roll for feeding this prolonged adolescence.
        RD: Is there someone in this world, alive, that you wholeheartedly admire?

        Mitchell: Mandela, Bishop Tutu, the Dalai Lama…

        RD: Anyone from history you would like to have met?

        Mitchell: I would like to have met Nietzsche. I would have liked to have met Picasso. I think I would have been a good friend to van Gogh, who needed a friend desperately. No one in the later generations. I don’t think mine was a very interesting generation, in general. Jimi Hendrix I loved, you know. I got to know him a little bit. No, we weren’t a great generation, and our children are a less great generation. I don’t see any greatness in my generation.”

    • skua says:

      Been a bit tense here, what with +85y.o. mum ill with COVID and the Australian PMs having decided to let it (COVID) rip – though they used marketing terms like “have a normal Christmas” and “mask mandates are controversial” – allowing 9K COVID deaths since Christmas 2021 vs 1K Covid deaths prior. (Almost nothing compared to US figures I know.)

      A big change in headspace was much needed.
      Thanks so much Eureka.
      Remembering listening to Miles of Aisles LPs.
      Much psycho-acoustics going on here.

Comments are closed.