Could This Week’s Developments Change the Race?

As you know, Nicole Sandler and I do a wrap up of the week every Friday. We tape at 12PM ET, 5PM my time, and 9AM Nicole’s time (through daylight savings). It may show, but I usually walk into those recordings with no sense of what happened in the previous week. These weeks have all been so momentous for so long they’ve each felt like a year running into the next one.

This week, though, I think it important to assess the week as a whole, because I think it’s possible that events of the week will have a substantive change on the results of the election. No promises. But it is possible.

Start with the baseline: The race is statistically tied in all seven swing states. The race is close to tied nationally. If nothing happens, the race will be determined by two things: first, which side can get more of its voters to the polls, and second, how much Trump’s expected fuckery can thwart the actual vote from being counted.

At this stage, all we know is that people are voting — Jimmy Carter, a record number of early votes in Georgia, and even people from the hardest hit areas of North Carolina stood in line and voted in strong numbers yesterday. There are promising signs of greater than historic early vote from women (though Trump’s men could come in late). Nevada’s Clark County has still not posted the bulk of votes there, so it’s too early to tell if the Republican narrowing of registration in Las Vegas can swing the election. Early turnout in Arizona has been 44% Republican as compared to 33% Democratic, but the abortion referendum may affect how even Republicans vote.

It’s just too early to tell, yet.

As for fuckery? In Georgia, at least, there’s been some pushback against efforts to disrupt certification, including (again) from Republicans. NBC has done an update of how Trump deliberately stoked tensions at the TCF counting center in Detroit, and how Trump is training vote observers to do so again. Most counties in Michigan, however, will count early votes ahead of time. Meanwhile, Republicans — and one gambler who might be a certain South African billionaire — are using voting markets to create the illusion that Trump is winning, which will stoke distrust if that turns out to be fake, the same way shoddy GOP polls did in 2020.

It’s a tied game, and Trump has tried to systematize the ways he attempted to cheat in 2020.

Before we turn to whether events of the weeks might change that deadlock, consider why it’s tied.

It’s tied because 35 to 40% of likely voters are cult-like followers of Donald Trump. Those people live in a hermetically sealed world of his propaganda. Short of cognitive collapse, none of those people will abandon their Donald (though a surprising number of them are not voters).

It’s tied because 8 to 13% of voters believe a number of things that credit Trump with more success than he had and taint Kamala Harris with things she didn’t do. They blame Biden for global post-COVID inflation. For some justifiable and some unjustifiable reasons, they believe the economy is in worse shape than it is. They often forget how poorly Trump handled COVID. They may not know of Trump’s epic corruption. Because of a number of changes in the media, they don’t regularly access credible descriptions of the truth. Many of these people recognize that Trump is a horrible person, but because they credit him with successes he didn’t earn, they’re willing to vote for him anyway.

A significant chunk of these people can be motivated by the grievance politics that dominates the Trump cult — that’s why this year’s election will significantly pivot on education levels. Trump’s grievance politics are significantly based on his false claims to have been unfairly persecuted and his false claims never to have persecuted others. (This dynamic is a big part of what I’ve been trying to explain in the Ball of Thread podcast I’ve been doing with LOLGOP.)

In short, the reason the US is a knife’s edge away from electing a fascist is significantly a media problem, both the existence of the hermetically sealed world of Trump propaganda and the collapse and/or abdication of credible media for other reasons. The people who would make this election a blowout loss for Trump are often not accessing truthful information.

I read an anecdote on Bluesky that exemplifies this: Someone chatting about voting with two guys who planned to vote for Trump who believed that all of his criminal cases had been dismissed and who had no idea that Trump has been exhibiting signs of mental instability. It’s a media thing. Given that virtually no media outlets correct Trump’s false claims about his criminal exposure, you can’t expect voters to know better. And thus far, the press has sane-washed Trump’s recent decline.

Three things happened this week that may chip away at this dynamic for key voting blocks. Those are:

  • Trump’s meltdown in Oaks, PA, followed by a series of canceled events and poor showings
    • October 7: Trump cancels 60 Minutes interview, leaving Kamala Harris a solo opportunity
    • October 14: Trump sways to music for 39 minutes in Oaks, PA after giving word salad answers to the questions he did take
    • October 15: Bloomberg editor John Micklethwait savages Trump’s economic plans; Trump cancels Squawkbox appearance
    • October 16: Trump misses a few answers in a fluffed up Fox News town hall for women then really blows the Univision town hall
    • October 17: Trump pulls out of an October 22 NRA event in Savannah; Trump “postpones” October 21 NBC. interview
  • Cracks in the curtain of disinformation pulled across Trump’s failures
    • October 10: Harris appears at Univision town hall.
    • October 15: Coverage of Harris’ Charlamagne the God appearance focuses on the label, “fascism”
    • October 16: In Fox interview, Kamala Harris calls out doctored clip of Trump attacking “enemies within” and makes reference to Mark Milley’s attacks on Trump (though without using the word “fascist;” she also references all the Republicans, including former Trump aides, who’ve just appeared with her in Washington Crossing
    • October 17: CNN exposes the editing Fox News did of the women’s town hall and Bret Baier confesses they didn’t show the “enemy within” clip (but takes the blame himself)
  • The likely release, today, of the appendices behind Jack Smith’s immunity brief

To show why I think these developments might matter, I want to go back to Ramiro González, the man at the Univision town hall who asked Trump about January 6. As this person on Xitter noted, González actually asked a question at both Univision town halls. He asked Harris (mostly in Spanish, curiously enough) about rumors that the Biden administration wasn’t serving Republicans in FEMA relief.

In Harris’s response, she first asked if his family was okay. Then she addressed the disinformation about FEMA recovery. She told her story about never asking, as a prosecutor, whether witnesses and victims were a Republican or a Democrat, but instead whether they were okay. “We have seen where … people are playing political games,” she described Trump’s deliberate attempt to suggest that the Biden administration was playing politics. “You have a right to you know that your government and its leaders are putting you first, and not themselves.”

In the same appearance, Harris answered a question about whether she had been installed undemocratically, by describing Trump’s attack on rule of law. She listed the Republicans who were supporting her (including Alberto Gonzales, who is, whatever else you think of him and trust me I do, one of the biggest success stories for a child of migrants in US history), and described the mob on January 6. She stated that January 6 was one reason why Republicans were supporting her.

Those answers were on October 10. Less than a week later, González was back, noting explicitly that he had been a registered Republican, but was no longer registered as such. González pitched his question as a chance for Trump to earn back his vote. I think González sincerely wanted Trump to do so. González asked about January 6, about COVID response, about Pence not supporting him anymore.

Yes, this response was riddled with lies. But even basic ones, like his claim that “we” didn’t have guns, are going unchallenged even when journalists claim to fact check these claims. Still, Trump also didn’t answer the question, and that matters. He was asked about his inaction on January 6, not why people came to DC. He spoke instead about how many people wanted to hear him speak.

Importantly, it’s not just González who seemed to find this answer ridiculous. As the camera panned, several women sat with their arms folded; one looked shocked when Trump claimed no one was killed.

What I think we can see in these two appearances was what happens when Harris has a chance to break through the disinformation that Trump has been spreading. González and Mario Sigbaum, the guy who asked whether she had been installed undemocratically, came in to the Harris town hall believing bullshit that Trump had fed them. The Biden administration was withholding relief from Republicans. Harris had pushed Biden aside and gotten herself installed undemocratically. I have no idea whether her response worked for Sigbaum, but in answering Sigbaum, Harris said things that González would raise a week later with Trump, including that his former people were no longer supporting him.

This is the task before Kamala Harris, as more low-information voters head to the polls. She has to find a way to crack through the wave of disinformation that Trump has spread. These two clips show, I think, that when she has a chance to do that, either what she says or the references she makes or the empathy and leadership she models can be successful in persuading people not just that she’ll put their interests first, but that they’ve been lied to.

To be fair, they’re still getting lied to on social media. This week, for example, Christopher Rufo has been trying to seed claims that Kamala Harris plagiarized her book by cutting and pasting from a press release that the book cited. Many in the traditional press are still not telling the truth about Donald Trump — not about the guns his supporters brought to the Capitol, not about his obvious meltdowns, not about his criminal exposure.

But Trump’s public meltdown and his string of cancellations has finally titillated the chattering class whose claim that Harris couldn’t handle a tough interview was soundly debunked in the Bret Baier interview. Trump’s own fitness has become an issue again, eight years after the press got bored with that story so instead turned to Hillary’s emails.

And it has become clear, in the last week, that Harris’ events with Republicans have started to serve an additional purpose, in addition to giving Republicans permission to support her (though to be clear: González is the kind of self-identified Republican for whom that permission may be important). Those events, and Harris’ discussion of them, are a way to describe how many Trump Administration veterans, how many Republicans, have found him to be unfit.

Have found him to be a fascist.

They offer a credible way to make Trump’s unfitness a story. It’s the kind of story that may have helped to persuade González.

Again, I make no promises this will work. If it doesn’t, we’re looking at turnout and knowledge that Trump’s planning fuckery, even if we only know the half of what he plans.

But events of the last week may finally have stripped some of the curtain of lies that Trump hides behind.

Share this entry

Hen in the Fox House: Jorge Velázquez and Ramiro González Better Served Democracy than Bret Baier

Fox News has been a toxin in the United States for most of thirty years. Yesterday, Kamala Harris went into the Fox House in an attempt to chisel away at that toxin.

It’ll be days, weeks, years before we learn how it worked, in part, because it was (in my opinion) only the third most important TV yesterday.

The most important TV was probably Trump’s town hall on Univision. Six minutes in, a man named Jorge Velázquez took the mic (after Trump offered a smarmy compliment him on his hair, which is the kind of beautiful thick mane that Trump covets). Velázquez described that he used to pick strawberries and broccoli and asked, if Trump deports everyone he wants, who will do that work and how much will food prices go up. (Given the way he distilled the problem with Trump’s mass deportation plans with one poignant question, I would be unsurprised if he has some tie to the United Farm Workers,)

Trump immediately said he was the best thing to happen to farmers. He seemed to suggest he would bring back the bracero program (since Elon Musk has begun paying Trump’s bills, Trump has been pushing to greatly expand legal immigration). But he ultimately didn’t answer the question. It was an unresponsive answer to a question that every person who imagines themselves a journalist should be asking.

That wasn’t the only challenging question Trump dodged. After 25 minutes, José Saralegui asked Trump why he lied about the Haitians in Springfield. After 33 minutes, Ramiro González, a Republican who has dropped his registration in the party, invited Trump to win back his support by explaining his inaction on January 6. Trump not only offered the platitudes he always does, lied about his supporters bringing guns, and used the first person plural to align himself with the mob (which may end up being useful to Jack Smith), but he did not answer the question. By that point, a number of the viewers in the audience had a hostile body language to Trump. After 40 minutes, Jesús González asked Trump to explain his gun control policy to victims of school shootings. After 43 minutes, Carlos Aguilera asked Trump if he still considered climate change a hoax.

In this forum, average voters asked Trump the kind of questions that journalists no longer do. And they did so on an outlet that sill commands a great deal of trust from its viewers.

The second most important TV yesterday may be the Fox Town Hall for women.

It was everything that Trump voters distrust about the media (though will overlook here): A hand-selected group of Trump sycophants that was edited to take out parts damaging to Fox (including that one participant had already voted for Trump).

The Georgia Federation of Republican Women wrote on its Facebook page Wednesday that the group helped host the event, posting photos from the venue and writing they were “Super excited for the opportunity of hosting this event right here in Georgia!”

Shortly after CNN reached out to the group and Fox News about their role, the post was edited to state they were “excited for the opportunity of attending this event right here in Georgia!”

[snip]

The first question posed to Trump at the town hall came from a woman identified as Lisa, who asked the former president a question about the economy. The network did not disclose that Lisa is also the president of the Fulton County Republican Women group.

Some of the town hall attendees made it clear they were supporters of the former president, either in their questioning or in their attire.

“I want to thank you for coming to a room full of women the current administration would consider domestic terrorists,” a woman named Alicia said to laughter from the audience before a question about foreign policy.

But a portion of Alicia’s question was edited by Fox News to remove her admission that she was voting for Trump.

“I proudly cast my vote for you today. I hope they count it,” she added, according to an audio recording from a CNN reporter in attendance.

While it’s common for a pre-taped event or interview to be edited for time, Alicia’s short remark came in the middle of her question, which remained intact on the broadcast.

During another moment missing from Fox’s broadcast, Trump asked the crowd who they were voting for, leading to a chant of “Trump, Trump” breaking out by the attendees.

And Trump still bolloxed three questions. In response to a visibly distraught woman asking about child care costs, he offered the same babbling pablum about assigning Ivanka to address the issue that he offered at the NY Economic Club. In response to a softball about IVF, Trump first claimed to he the father of IVF before confessing he needed Katie Britt to explain why it was important. And then when a woman asked Trump about making choices for her own body, Trump offered the same canned answer about moving abortion back to the states but him, personally, believing in exceptions that don’t exist in a number of states.

Within the safe space of Harris Faulkner’s set, Trump seemed not to care about offering credible answers. The women in the room will vote for him anyway. But clips of his answers will circulate outside that safe space.

Importantly, Fox also edited a clip from the woman’s town hall, to cut Trump’s most fascistic speech, identifying the Pelosis as the “enemy within.” When Bret Baier questioned Kamala Harris about it during their interview, she called him on the edit, and used it to talk about what “you and I both know” about Trump’s threats to turn the military on Americans. What was meant to be one in a series of gotchas instead became a moment for Harris to point to things that Fox deliberately keeps from its viewers: the threat Trump poses to democracy.

When Baier played a Trump transgender ad, offering little excuse for doing so, Harris noted that Trump had paid $20 million to instill fear about an issue that has little to do with issues that affect people’s lives. Again, she pointed to the spectacle that Fox viewers consume unthinkingly.

The Fox News interview will not win over voters, by itself. But Harris turned Fox into an issue. She called out Baier, repeatedly, for interrupting her. He kept doing it.

She also revealed things that don’t get covered at Fox. Harris mentioned having just been on the stage with Trump’s former staffers twice. She mentioned his former aides saying that he was not fit to be President. She mentioned Trump’s accusations there’s an enemy within. She mentioned that Mark Milley said that Donald Trump was a threat, without raising the word fascism (after which Baier attempted to dismiss it by specifying it was a quote in Bob Woodward’s book, telling viewers where to find more). She described Mike Pence’s criticisms of Trump and joked that Pence’s opposition to Trump is why the job was open to pick JD Vance.

All of these are things that are not permitted on Fox News.

During several of those exchanges, Baier’s face looked pained, as if he was acutely aware of the danger of letting such things be aired on Fox News.

After 25 minutes, as Baier was trying to drown out Harris’ criticism of Trump’s handling of Iran, he said, “We’re talking over each other, I apologize.”

Harris responded,

I would like that we would have a conversation that is grounded in full assessment of the facts which includes — I think this interview is supposed to be about the choices that your viewers should be presented about this election. And the contrast is important.

Baier interrupted again. As Harris told viewers to go check out her site to see her solutions, Baier interrupted again.

It’s the term, “we both know” which Harris used at least four times, that resonates.

Someone commenting after the interview voiced the same impression I have of it: It’s a Google interview. [Update: It was Brian Stelter.] No one will be convinced by it. But a number of people might Google to find out what the hell Harris was talking about — to find out what Milley said, to find out what Republicans supporting her have said to explain why, even to find out her plans to help people buy homes.

And when they discover that it’s actually Fox — and not CBS, as the Fox-fueled conspiracy holds — that is hiding stuff from its viewers, they may grow to question what they’ve been told.

But the Baier interview was, in my opinion, only the third most important TV yesterday. That’s significantly true because there are far more undecided voters among Univision’s viewers than among Fox’s. And Trump showed contempt in that situation. He showed contempt to undecided Latino voters, to their face. And he refused to answer the questions that no one else will ask.

Normally, the whitewashing that Fox does for Trump hides how contemptuous he is of American voters. Yesterday, there were several places where voters might see the cracks in that whitewashing.

Share this entry

325,000 People Vote in First Day of Early Voting in Georgia

I voted 25 days ago; my vote was received 22 days ago.

It has taken the interim three weeks before people living stateside have started getting into the fun — nowhere more so than in Georgia. Over 325,000 people voted in yesterday’s first day of early voting.

You can go here to track early vote in each state. It shows that Georgia’s turnout is promising, but by no means dispositive for Kamala Harris. Almost 30% of people who voted yesterday were Black (about the same percentage as they made up in 2020 exit polls, but still three percent short of eligible Black voters); 54% of people who voted were women (two percent short of their 2020 exit poll rate). According to AJC’s Greg Bluestein, over 45,000 of the people who voted yesterday did not vote in 2020.

68% of the people who’ve voted early in Pennsylvania so far are registered Democrats (though Biden had a much bigger percentage of early voters in 2020 than Trump).

Almost 56% of people who’ve voted in Michigan are women, a few points higher than 2020 exit polls.

But there are cautions for Democrats, too. The Nevada Independent’s Jon Ralston doesn’t have the same same confidence that the Democrat will win Nevada as he has had in recent years.

Plus, almost no one can track this well, because the last two elections — the first Dobbs election and the COVID presidential — are so unusual.

Perhaps the most interesting stat I’ve seen in the last day is this poll, showing (unsurprisingly) that Kamala Harris is picking up a far greater percentage of the AAPI vote than Biden was, particularly among Indian-American voters.

This is a significant (over 4% of the vote) voting block in NV, GA, PA, MI, and NC, but doesn’t always get tracked in cross tabs. It could be that we’ve spent months talking about whether Harris, who would be the first Black woman President, would match normal Democratic support among Black voters (who tend to come home late), while missing that Indian-American voters could put the first Asian-American President over the top.

As of today, Donald Trump has <3% of his campaign left (20 of 721 days).

As of today, Kamala Harris has over 18% of her campaign left (20 of 107 days).

Every one of those days is a chance to get less likely supporters out.

Update: Bluestein also confirms what other people had jumped the gun to report: Jimmy Carter’s vote for Kamala Harris was dropped in the dropbox at the Sumter County Courthouse.

Share this entry

We Are All Don Bacon’s Wife: The Threats Trump Elicits for Personal Gain

I’ve been staring at a screen all morning trying to get my mind around the way that WaPo reported that emergency response personnel in North Carolina had to relocate after threats from an armed militia … without once mentioning lies from Donald Trump or Elon Musk.

Around 1 p.m. Saturday, an official with the U.S. Forest Service, which is supporting recovery efforts after Hurricane Helene along with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, sent an urgent message to numerous federal agencies warning that “FEMA has advised all federal responders Rutherford County, NC, to stand down and evacuate the county immediately. The message stated that National Guard troops ‘had come across x2 trucks of armed militia saying there were out hunting FEMA.’”

“The IMTs [incident management teams] have been notified and are coordinating the evacuation of all assigned personnel in that county,” the email added.

Armed militias didn’t start hunting FEMA personnel in a vacuum. They did so after Trump launched a deliberate campaign of lies about FEMA to serve his own personal needs.

And yet, WaPo simply disappeared Trump’s role in deliberately creating threats so serious they’ve interrupted disaster response.

Donald Trump deliberately made disaster relief harder as part of his campaign. Donald Trump deliberately disrupted the quiet success of Springfield, OH, to serve his campaign. Donald Trump deliberately harmed Aurora, CO, to serve his campaign.

Haitians in Springfield

Meteorologists

FEMA personnel

Public health officials

Former spooks warning about Russia

Disinformation experts

Judges and prosecutors

FBI Agents

Whistleblowers

Anti-corruption ambassadors

Journalists

Blue state governors

Republicans who vote to impeach him or who investigate his riot

Republicans who uphold democracy

Jews

Barack Obama

Ruby Freeman and other election workers

Don Bacon’s wife

His own Vice President

No one is safe from Trump’s threats. Yet a naive belief among Trump supporters can benefit from being part of Trump’s in-group nevertheless makes precisely these threats popular.

Share this entry

JD Vance Asserts that He and Trump Cannot Win Legitimately

There’s a fetish in the traditional media for asking Republicans to disavow crazy things Trump has said or done. This involves Tom Cotton so frequently I’m thinking of naming the phenomenon “Cotton swabs.” Marco Rubio and — since he became Speaker — Mike Johnson are other frequent participants in “Cotton swabbing.”

Perhaps Manu Raju confronts the person in the halls of Congress, perhaps they get invited to a Sunday show. And then the reporter asks them to be outraged about something outrageous that Trump said. Rather than disavowing it, the Republican blurts out some kind of propaganda instead.

Instead of serving as an opportunity to get Republicans to distance themselves from Trump, Republicans exploit the “Cotton swab” to perform obeisance to Trump’s fascism and air propaganda on the mainstream media.

It works every single time.

Yet journalists keep trying it, never varying their method.

Because he’s a smooth and shameless liar, JD Vance is especially adept at exploiting “Cotton swabs.”

In the past week, JD’s “Cotton swabs” have involved questions about whether JD would have certified Joe Biden’s victory. It started when NYT’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro asked JD the question five times.

Last few questions. In the debate, you were asked to clarify if you believe Trump lost the 2020 election. Do you believe he lost the 2020 election? I think that Donald Trump and I have both raised a number of issues with the 2020 election, but we’re focused on the future. I think there’s an obsession here with focusing on 2020. I’m much more worried about what happened after 2020, which is a wide-open border, groceries that are unaffordable. And look, Lulu —

Senator, yes or no. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? Let me ask you a question. Is it OK that big technology companies censored the Hunter Biden laptop story, which independent analysis have said cost Donald Trump millions of votes?

Senator Vance, I’m going to ask you again. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? Did big technology companies censor a story that independent studies have suggested would have cost Trump millions of votes? I think that’s the question.

Senator Vance, I’m going to ask you again. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? And I’ve answered your question with another question. You answer my question and I’ll answer yours.

I have asked this question repeatedly. It is something that is very important for the American people to know. There is no proof, legal or otherwise, that Donald Trump did not lose the 2020 election. But you’re repeating a slogan rather than engaging with what I’m saying, which is that when our own technology firms engage in industrial-scale censorship — by the way, backed up by the federal government — in a way that independent studies suggest affect the votes. I’m worried about Americans who feel like there were problems in 2020. I’m not worried about this slogan that people throw: Well, every court case went this way. I’m talking about something very discrete, a problem of censorship in this country that I do think affected things in 2020. And more importantly, that led to Kamala Harris’s governance, which has screwed this country up in a big way.

Senator, would you have certified the election in 2020? Yes or no? I’ve said that I would have voted against certification because of the concern that I just raised. I think that when you have technology companies —

The answer is no. When you have technology companies censoring Americans at a mass scale in a way that, again, independent studies have suggested affect the vote. I think that it’s right to protest against that, to criticize that, and that’s a totally reasonable thing.

Two other journalists imagined they could do better. After letting JD claim that Trump’s lies about Aurora have some truth to them and insisting that he knows better about disparate assistance in North Carolina, for example, Martha Raddatz again gave JD a chance to claim that the two-day delay of letting people see Hunter Biden’s dick pics swung the 2020 election, and utterly predictably, he took the opportunity to falsely claim that “big tech” had “censored” Hunter Biden’s dick pics and that that was cause enough to declare the 2020 election invalid.

RADDATZ: Senator, we’re just about out of time here. We’re just about out of time here. And I want to end with this — in interview after interview, question after question, and in the debate, you refused to say that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.

So I’m just going to assume that if I ask you 50 times whether he lost the election, you would not acknowledge that he did. Is that correct?

VANCE: Martha, you’ve — you asked this question, I’ve been asked this question 10 times in the past couple of weeks. Of course, Donald Trump and I believe there were problems in 2020. You haven’t asked about inflation, the —

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: No, I’m sorry, let’s stick to this. I know — I know —

VANCE: The American people want us to talk about how to make their lives better. They don’t want us to —

RADDATZ: Why won’t you say that? Why won’t you say that?

VANCE: Because — because, Martha, I believe that in 2020, when big tech firms were censoring American citizens, that created very serious problems. And by the way, Martha, you’re — you’re a journalist. You represent the American media.

Look at the polling on this. A lot of Americans feel like they were silenced in the run-up to the 2020 election. That is such a bigger issue. That fundamental problem —

(CROSSTALK)

RADDATZ: If you — I just want to —

VANCE: — that me and Donald Trump talking about it, and unfortunately, Martha —

RADDATZ: But I don’t understand why you want to say that you believe it?

(CROSSTALK)

VANCE: She’s — well, won’t just say what, that I think the 2020 election had some problems? I’ve said that repeatedly.

RADDATZ: Did Donald Trump lose? That’s the question, and you know that’s the question.

VANCE: Martha, I’ve said repeatedly I think the election had problems. You want to say rigged. You want to say he won. Use whatever vocabulary term you want — I want to focus on the fact that we had big technology firms censoring our fellow citizens in a way that violated our fundamental rights.

Thankfully, Phil Bump laid out the absurdity behind JD’s answer so I don’t have to. What JD claims was a question about censorship was, in fact, a question about whether, if the hard drive that right wingers claim is a laptop yielded information about China that Congress never managed to find in two years of trying, would it have changed their vote.

It is not the case that tech companies censoring a story — specifically, a New York Post story about an email attributed to a laptop owned by Joe Biden’s son Hunter — cost Trump the election.

This, too, has been explored at length in the past, but it should immediately fail the smell test anyway. The 2020 election was a referendum on Trump, on his presidency and particularly on his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would have changed had Twitter (as it was then known) not briefly limited the sharing of a New York Post story about how one of Hunter Biden’s business partners sent him an email thanking him for getting him in the room with his father.

The “independent studies” which Vance mentioned presumably refer to one poll conducted on behalf of the right-wing Media Research Center after the election. It presented respondents with a sweeping claim linking Biden to foreign business interests, asking whether awareness of that purported link would have led people to reconsider their votes. A chunk of self-reported Biden voters said they would have.

Setting aside the vast inaccuracies inherent in having people assess what they would have done had the conditions of their decision-making been slightly different, the question didn’t even center on the New York Post story! It was about purported Chinese investors and used the same “Biden family” framing on which the failed Republican impeachment probe depended.

Even ignoring all the other false premises — that the hard drive he claims was a laptop was “censored,” that the right wing poll is accurate — not even the laptop itself, in federal hands, has substantiated illegal conduct beyond a known crack addiction and a gun purchase.

I would add that, in his answer to NYT, JD justifies a claim about what he would have done in 2021 with a partisan poll not taken until two years later. His answer is based on false premiise after false premise and a time machine.

But, as Bump also lays out, this answer is especially ridiculous given the confirmation that Trump’s campaign has done what JD falsely insinuates the Biden campaign did in 2020: Ask a tech company (probably all tech companies) to censor data.

As Ken Klippenstein described when declaring victory, Elon Musk personally made the decision to reverse his permanent suspension when NYT exposed the Trump campaign’s involvement.

Late last night, X (née Twitter) reinstated my account after banning me on September 26 for publishing the J.D. Vance dossier. Elon Musk personally intervened, in the name of “free speech principles,” according to correspondence I’ve seen. Musk had previously declared me “evil” before X suspended me in a move we now know was coordinated with the Trump campaign.

“I’ve asked X Safety to unsuspend him, even though I think he is an awful human being,” Musk told political commentator Brian Krassenstein (and frequent doppelgänger of mine) on October 11. “Important to stay true to free speech principles.”

The reinstatement of my account later that day reversed what X had previously informed me was a “permanent” suspension. The only explanation I’ve received from X came in an email from Twitter Support last night. The email reiterated my alleged violation of X’s policy on posting private information, but also said that the incident may have been a mistake on my part, for which reason I was being un-suspended.

Note, Klippenstein’s account is back. The links to the JD dossier are not. Xitter is still doing what Elon Musk claims is an affront to free speech, suppressing true information.

It is a testament to the voluntary impotence of the press that they don’t make JD pay a price for these ridiculous claims.

After all, if he believes his premise — that the throttling of content based on stolen information is such a severe abuse that it makes the entire election illegitimate — then he has already conceded that he and Trump cannot score a legitimate victory. If it is the case that “big tech” “censorship” can delegitimize an entire election — even ignoring that Trump’s campaign made demands and Biden’s campaign only asked for non-consensual dick pics to be taken down — then he has conceded all legitimacy.

To be sure, I’m not saying this. I think Vance and Trump might still win this, fair and square.

But Vance, based on his comments, has already stated that if Trump wins, Trump’s victory will be illegitimate based on his success at censoring the JD Vance dossier.

Share this entry

Machine for Fascism: The Two Stephens

When I saw the news that Trump is planning a rally at Madison Square Garden — as the Nazis did in 1939 — I checked the date to see whether that was before or after Steve Bannon gets out of prison.

Bannon is due to get out on October 29; the rally is two days earlier, on October 27. On the current schedule, Bannon will be released nine days before the election, but not soon enough to attend what will undoubtedly be a larger version of the Nazi rant that Trump put on in Aurora the other day. Unless something disrupts it, Bannon will start trial for defrauding Trump supporters on December 9, days before the states certify the electoral vote.

This is the kind of timing I can’t get out of my head. According to FiveThirtyEight, Kamala Harris currently has a 53% chance of winning the electoral college. That’s bleak enough. But based on everything I know about January 6, I’d say that if Trump loses, there’s at least a 10% chance Trump’s fuckery in response will have a major impact on the transfer of power.

Experts on right wing extremism are suggesting the same thing. Here’s an interview Rick Perlstein did with David Neiwert back in August on the political violence he expects. Here’s a report from someone who infiltrated the 3 Percenters, predicting they would engage in vigilanteism.

Will Jack Smith unveil charges about inciting violence amid election violence?

As I wrote in this post, I suspect that Jack Smith considered, but did not, add charges when he decided to supersede Trump’s January 6 indictment. As I wrote, there is negative space in Smith’s immunity filing where charges on Trump’s funding for January 6 (and subsequent suspected misuse of those funds) might otherwise be.

More tellingly, there are four things that indicate Jack Smith envisioned — but did not yet include — charges relating to ginning up violence. As Smith did in a 404(b) filing submitted in December, he treated Mike Roman as a co-conspirator when he exhorted a colleague, “Make them riot” and “Do it!!!” Newly in the immunity filing, he treated Bannon as a co-conspirator, providing a way to introduce Steve Bannon’s prediction, “All Hell is going to break loose tomorrow!” shortly after speaking with Trump on January 5.  But Smith didn’t revise the indictment to describe Roman and Bannon as CC7 and CC8; that is, he did not formally include these efforts to gin up violence in this indictment. What appears to be the same source for the Mike Roman detail (which could be Roman’s phone, which was seized in September 2022; in several cases it has taken a year to exploit phones seized in the January 6 investigation) also described that Trump adopted the same tactic in Philadelphia.

The defendant’s Campaign operatives and supporters used similar tactics at other tabulation centers, including in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,21 and the defendant sometimes used the resulting confrontations to falsely claim that his election observers were being denied proper access, thus serving as a predicate to the defendant’s claim that fraud must have occurred in the observers’ absence.22

Even more notably, after saying (in that same December 404(b) filing) that he wanted to include Trump’s endorsement and later ratification of the Proud Boys’ attack on the country to “demonstrate[] the defendant’s encouragement of violence,” Smith didn’t include them in the immunity filing whatsoever — not even in the section where the immunity filing described Trump’s endorsement of men who assaulted cops. If I’m right that Smith held stuff back because SCOTUS delayed his work so long it butted into the election season, it would mean he believes he has the ability to prove that Trump deliberately stoked violence targeting efforts to count the vote at both the state and federal level, but could not lay that out until after November 5, after which Trump may be in a position to dismiss the case entirely.

And the two Stephens — Bannon, whose War Room podcast would serve to show that Trump intended to loose all Hell on January 6, and Miller, who added the finishing touches to Trump’s speech making Mike Pence a target for that violence — appear to have a plan to do just that, working in concert with Elon Musk.

The two Stephens say Trump must be able to stoke violence with false claims as part of his campaign

As I laid out in June, just as Bannon was reporting to prison, both Stephens were arguing that they had a right to make false claims that had the effect of fostering violence.

Bannon filed an emergency appeal aiming to stay out of prison arguing he had to remain out so he could “speak[] on important issues.”

There is also a strong public interest in Mr. Bannon remaining free during the run-up to the 2024 presidential election. The government seeks to imprison him for the four-month period immediately preceding the November election—giving an appearance that the government is trying to prevent Mr. Bannon from fully assisting with the campaign and speaking out on important issues, and also ensuring the government exacts its pound of flesh before the possible end of the Biden Administration.

No one can dispute that Mr. Bannon remains a significant figure. He is a top advisor to the President Trump campaign, and millions of Americans look to him for information on matters important to the ongoing presidential campaign. Yet from prison, Mr. Bannon’s ability to participate in the campaign and comment on important matters of policy would be drastically curtailed, if not eliminated. There is no reason to force that outcome in a case that presents substantial legal issues.

That claim came just after he had given a “Victory or Death” speech at a Turning Point conference.

In the same period, Stephen Miller attempted to intervene in Jack Smith’s efforts to prevent Trump from making false claims that the FBI tried to assassinate him when they did a search of his home governed by a standard use-of-force policy, knowing full well he was gone. (Aileen Cannon rejected Miller’s effort before she dismissed the case entirely.)

Miller argued that the type of speech that Smith wanted to limit — false claims that have already inspired a violent attack on the FBI — as speech central to Trump’s campaign for President.

The Supreme Court has accordingly treated political speech—discussion on the topics of government and civil life—as a foundational area of protection. This principle, above all else, is the “fixed star in our constitutional constellation[:] that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics[ or] nationalism . . . or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943) (Jackson, J.). Therefore, “[d]iscussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates” are considered “integral” to the functioning of our way of government and are afforded the “broadest protection.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 14.

Because “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate enables “the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office,” “the constitutional guarantee has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.” Id. at 14-15 (citations omitted). Within this core protection for political discourse, the candidates’ own speech—undoubtedly the purest source of information for the voter about that candidate—must take even further primacy. Cf. Eu v. S.F. Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 222-24 (1989) (explaining that political speech by political parties is especially favored). This must be especially true when, as here, the candidate engages in a “pure form of expression involving free speech alone rather than expression mixed with particular conduct.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 17 (cleaned up) (contrasting picketing and parading with newspaper comments or telegrams). These principles layer together to strongly shield candidates for national office from restrictions on their speech.

Miller called Trump’s false attack on the FBI peaceful political discourse.

Importantly, Miller dodged an argument Smith made — that Trump intended that his false claims would go viral. He intended for people like Bannon to repeat his false claims. In disclaiming any intent to incite imminent action, Miller ignored the exhibit showing Bannon parroting Trump’s false claim on his War Room podcast.

It cannot be said that by merely criticizing—or, even as some may argue, mischaracterizing—the government’s actions and intentions in executing a search warrant at his residence, President Trump is advocating for violence or lawlessness, let alone inciting imminent action. The government’s own exhibits prove the point. See generally ECF Nos. 592-1, 592-2. 592-3, 592-5.

Note, Bannon did this with Mike Davis, a leading candidate for a senior DOJ position under Trump, possibly even Attorney General, who has vowed to instill a reign of terror in that position.

But that was the point — Jack Smith argued — of including an exhibit showing Bannon doing just that.

Predictably and as he certainly intended, others have amplified Trump’s misleading statements, falsely characterizing the inclusion of the entirely standard use-of-force policy as an effort to “assassinate” Trump. See Exhibit 4.

Back in June, Bannon said he had to remain out of prison because he played a key role in Trump’s campaign. And Miller said that even if Bannon deliberately parroted Trump’s false incendiary claims, that was protected political speech as part of Trump’s campaign.

Miller helps eliminate checks on disinformation and Nazis on Xitter

But this effort has been going on for years.

A report that American Sunlight released this week describing how systematically the right wing turned to dismantling the moderation processes set up in the wake of the 2016 election points to Miller’s America First Legal’s role in spinning moderation by private actors as censorship. Miller started fundraising for his effort in 2021.

[F]ormer Trump Senior Advisor Stephen Miller[] founded America First Legal (AFL). 6 An unflinchingly partisan organization, the home page of AFL’s website claims its mission is to “[fight] back against lawless executive actions and the Radical Left,” 7 which it accomplishes through litigation. AFL has, to date, engaged in dozens of efforts to silence disinformation research through frivolous lawsuits and collaboration with Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee’s harassment of researchers. In a digital age where social media is more prevalent than ever and social media platforms have more power than ever, AFL’s efforts to politicize legitimate efforts to combat disinformation – by social media platforms and independent private-citizen researchers – have significantly damaged the information environment. To fully realize these efforts and their impacts, we explore the founding and operations of AFL.

[snip]

After its launch in early 2022, AFL began its line of litigation with a series of FOIA requests relating to the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). These requests marked a noticeable uptick in conservative claims about censorship. AFL’s FOIA requests alleged these government agencies improperly partnered with social media platforms and asked for content around Hunter Biden’s laptop to be removed. 22 In its FOIA request to CISA, AFL writes 23 :

On March 17, 2022, the New York Times revealed that “[Hunter] Biden’s laptop was indeed authentic, more than a year after … much of the media dismissed the New York Post’s reporting as Russian disinformation.” When the story was first accused of being disinformation, X/Twitter suspended the New York Post’s account for seven days, and Facebook “’reduc[ed]’ the story’s distribution on its platform while waiting for third-party fact checkers to verify it.” This was just one of many instances where social media companies censored politically controversial information under the pretext of combatting MDM even when the information later became verified.

Then, as now, AFL offered no evidence to support its claim that any federal agency coerced, pressured, or mandated that social media platforms remove any such laptop-related content. As this report will cover in depth, social media platforms have their own, robust content moderation policies in regards to false and misleading content; as private companies, they implement these policies as they see fit.

The American Sunlight report describes how some of the key donations to AFL were laundered so as to hide the original donors (and other of its donations came from entities that had received the funds Trump raised in advance of January 6).

But as WSJ recently reported, Musk started dumping tens of millions into Miller’s racist and transphobic ads no later than June 2022.

In the fall of 2022, more than $50 million of Musk’s money funded a series of advertising campaigns by a group called Citizens for Sanity, according to people familiar with his involvement and tax filings for the group. The bulk of the ads ran in battleground states days before the midterm elections and attacked Democrats on controversial issues such as medical care for transgender children and illegal immigration.

Citizens for Sanity was incorporated in Delaware in June 2022, with salaried employees from Miller’s nonprofit legal group listed as its directors and officers.

There are questions of whether Miller grew close to Musk even before that.

In the lead-up to Musk’s purchase of Xitter, someone — there’s reason to believe it might be Stephen Miller — texted Musk personally to raise the sensitivities of restoring Trump, whom the person called, “the boss,” to Xitter.

And one of Musk’s phone contacts appears to bring Trump up. However, unlike others in the filings, this individual’s information is redacted.

“It will be a delicate game of letting right wingers back on Twitter and how to navigate that (especially the boss himself, if you’re up for that),” the sender texted to Musk, referencing conservative personalities who have been banned for violating Twitter’s rules.

Whoever this was — and people were guessing it was Miller in real time — someone close enough to Elon to influence his purchase of Xitter was thinking of the purchase in terms of bringing back “right wingers,” including Trump.

Yesterday, the NYT reported on how the far right accounts that Musk brought back from bannings have enjoyed expanded reach since being reinstated. Some of the most popular accounts have laid the groundwork for attacking the election.

As the election nears, some of the high-profile reinstated accounts have begun to pre-emptively cast doubt on the results. Much of the commentary is reminiscent of the conspiracy theories that swirled after the 2020 election and in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 riot.

Since being welcomed back to the platform, roughly 80 percent of the accounts have discussed the idea of stolen elections, with most making some variation of the claim that Democrats were engaged in questionable voting schemes. Across at least 1,800 posts on the subject, the users drew more than 13 million likes, shares and other reactions.

Some prominent accounts shared a misleading video linked to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, that used shaky evidence to claim widespread voter registration of noncitizens. One of the posts received more than 750,000 views; Mr. Musk later circulated the video himself.

But it’s more than just disinformation. Xitter has played a key role in stoking anti-migrant violence across the world. In Ireland, for example, Alex Jones’ magnification of Tommy Robinson’s tweets helped stoke an attack on a shelter for migrants.

As with mentions of Newtownmountkennedy, users outside of Ireland authored the most posts on X mentioning this hashtag, according to the data obtained by Sky News. 57% were posted by accounts based in the United States, 24.7% by Irish users. A further 8.8% were attributed to users based in the United Kingdom.

While four of the top five accounts attracting the most engagement on posts mentioning this hashtag were based in Ireland, the fifth belongs to Alex Jones, an American media personality and conspiracy theorist. Jones’s posts using this hashtag were engaged with 10,700 times.

Jones continued to platform Robinson as he stoked riots in the UK.

Several high-profile characters known for their far-right views have provided vocal commentary on social media in recent days and have been condemned by the government for aggravating tensions via their posts.

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who operates under the alias Tommy Robinson, has long been one of Britain’s most foremost far-right and anti-Muslim activists and founded the now-defunct English Defence League (EDL) in 2009.

According to the Daily Mail, Robinson is currently in a hotel in Cyprus, from where he has been posting a flurry of videos to social media. Each post has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times, and shared by right-wing figures across the world including United States InfoWars founder Alex Jones.

And Elon Musk himself famously helped stoke the violence, not just declaring civil war to be “inevitable,” but also adopting Nigel Farage’s attacks on Keir Starmer.

On Monday, a spokesperson for UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer addressed Musk’s comment, telling reporters “there’s no justification for that.”

But Musk is digging his heels in. On Tuesday, he labeled Starmer #TwoTierKier in an apparent reference to a debunked claim spread by conspiracy theorists and populist politicians such as Nigel Farage that “two-tier policing” means right-wing protests are dealt with more forcefully than those organized by the left. He also likened Britain to the Soviet Union for attempting to restrict offensive speech on social media.

In the UK, such incitement is illegal. But it is virtually impossible to prosecute in the United States. So if Elon ever deliberately stoked political violence in the US, it would be extremely difficult to stop him, even ignoring the years of propaganda about censorship and the critical role some of Musk’s companies play in US national security.

Bannon’s international fascist network

The ties to Nigel Farage go further than Xitter networks.

In a pre-prison interview with David Brooks (in which Brooks didn’t mention how Bannon stands accused of defrauding Trump’s supporters in his New York case), Bannon bragged about turning international fascists into rocks stars.

STEVE BANNON: Well, I think it’s very simple: that the ruling elites of the West lost confidence in themselves. The elites have lost their faith in their countries. They’ve lost faith in the Westphalian system, the nation-state. They are more and more detached from the lived experience of their people.

On our show “War Room,” I probably spend at least 20 percent of our time talking about international elements in our movement. So we’ve made Nigel a rock star, Giorgia Meloni a rock star. Marine Le Pen is a rock star. Geert is a rock star. We talk about these people all the time.

And in August, Bannon’s top aide, Alexandra Preate, registered as a foreign agent for Nigel Farage. She cited arranging his participation in:

  • A March 2023 CPAC speech
  • Discussions, as early as August 2023, about a Farage speech at RNC
  • A January 2024 pitch for Farage to speak at a Liberty University CEO Summit that was held last month
  • Talks at “Sovereignty Summits” in April through July
  • April arrangements for a May 1 talk at Stovall House in Tampa, Florida
  • Discussions in May about addressing CPAC in September
  • May 2024 media appearances on the Charlie Kirk Show, Fox Business Larry Kudlow show, Bannon’s War Room, Seb Gorka Show, Newsmax, WABC radio
  • More discussions about Farage’s attendance at the RNC
  • Early August discussions about an upcoming trip to the US

That is, Preate retroactively registered as Farage’s agent after a period (July to August) when he was spreading false claims that stoked riots in his own country.

Preate also updated her registration for the authoritarian Salvadoran President, Nayib Bukele (which makes you wonder whether she had a role in this fawning profile of Bukele).

Miller serves as opening act for Trump’s Operation Aurora

Before Trump’s speech in Aurora, CO the other day — at which he spoke of using the Alien and Sedition Act against what he deemed to be migrants — Stephen Miller served as his opening act, using the mug shots of three undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crimes against American women to rile up the crowd, part of a years-long campaign to falsely suggest that migrants are even as corrupt as violent as white supremacists.

Stephen Miller started laying the infrastructure to improve on January 6 from shortly after the failed coup attempt (and he did so, according to the American Sunlight report, with funds that Trump may have raised with his Big Lie). In recent weeks, Trump — with Miller’s help — has undermined the success of towns in Ohio and Colorado with racial division and has led his own supporters hard hit by hurricanes to forgo aid to which they’re entitled with false claims that Democrats are withholding that aid.

By targeting people like North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper and Kamala Harris, Trump is targeting not just Democrats, but also people who play a key role in certifying the election.

If Cooper and Harris were incapacitated before they played their role in certifying the election, they would be replaced by Mark Robinson and whatever president pro tempore a Senate that is expected to have a GOP majority after January 4 chooses, if such a choice could be negotiated in a close Senate in a few days.

And all the while, the richest man in the world, who claims that he, like Steve Bannon and Donald Trump, might face prison if Vice President Harris wins the election, keeps joking about assassination attempts targeting Harris.

We have just over three weeks to try to affect the outcome on November 5 — to try to make it clear that Trump will do for America what he has done in Springfield, Aurora, and Western North Carolina, deliberately made things worse for his own personal benefit. But at the same time, we need to be aware of how those efforts to make things worse are about creating a problem that Trump can demand emergency powers to solve.

Share this entry

NYT “Censors” Elon Musk’s Jokes about Assassinating the Vice President and His “Censorship” of JD Vance Dossier

As journalists who focus on social media-enabled disinformation grow overwhelmed by the extent to which broad swathes of Americans have become detached from reality…

The truth is, it’s getting harder to describe the extent to which a meaningful percentage of Americans have dissociated from reality. As Hurricane Milton churned across the Gulf of Mexico last night, I saw an onslaught of outright conspiracy theorizing and utter nonsense racking up millions of views across the internet. The posts would be laughable if they weren’t taken by many people as gospel. Among them: Infowars’ Alex Jones, who claimed that Hurricanes Milton and Helene were “weather weapons” unleashed on the East Coast by the U.S. government, and “truth seeker” accounts on X that posted photos of condensation trails in the sky to baselessly allege that the government was “spraying Florida ahead of Hurricane Milton” in order to ensure maximum rainfall, “just like they did over Asheville!”

As Milton made landfall, causing a series of tornados, a verified account on X reposted a TikTok video of a massive funnel cloud with the caption “WHAT IS HAPPENING TO FLORIDA?!” The clip, which was eventually removed but had been viewed 662,000 times as of yesterday evening, turned out to be from a video of a CGI tornado that was originally published months ago. Scrolling through these platforms, watching them fill with false information, harebrained theories, and doctored images—all while panicked residents boarded up their houses, struggled to evacuate, and prayed that their worldly possessions wouldn’t be obliterated overnight—offered a portrait of American discourse almost too bleak to reckon with head-on.

… NYT decided to do a puff piece on Elon Musk’s support for Trump.

Done as anything else than a corruption (which the piece largely ignores) or GOTV story, such a piece is in exceedingly bad taste.

All the more so given the way the NYT buries some of the most scandalous parts of the story.

In paragraph 23, for example, NYT cites two sources confirming that the Trump campaign intervened to get Xitter to take down links to the JD Vance dossier that Ken Klippenstein posted; it neither explains what was in the dossier nor names Klippenstein (indeed, aside from a photo caption, the article as a whole ignores JD Vance’s role in the Musk-Trump bromance).

The relationship has proved significant in other ways. After a reporter’s publication of hacked Trump campaign information last month, the campaign connected with X to prevent the circulation of links to the material on the platform, according to two people with knowledge of the events. X eventually blocked links to the material and suspended the reporter’s account.

Donald Trump and top Republicans have spent years complaining that Twitter throttled, for two days, a NY Post story on the hard drive of Hunter Biden’s personal data that Trump’s personal attorney was disseminating. Elon Musk allowed propagandists to sort through Xitter’s internal discussions, and when Matty Taibbi misrepresented a reference to the takedown of dick pics, some of which Guo Wengui had altered, Musk outraged, “If this isn’t a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment, what is?”

Congress has held hearings! Trump still whines about the throttling of the NY Post story in his campaign rallies. That’s the excuse he uses for dodging the 60 Minutes interview.

This has been a central theme of right wing grievance for years. The Hunter Biden “laptop” is the founding myth in a far right reconceptualization of “free speech.” And when NYT catches Trump and Musk doing what they complain about, NYT buried that in paragraph 23.

More dangerous still is the way NYT misrepresents Elon Musk’s dangerous disinformation.

In the very last section of the 2,200 word story, starting around paragraph 33, NYT purports to describe Musk’s “misinformation,” suggesting he’s dumb, not deliberate.

If America PAC is the most ambitious and costly manifestation of Mr. Musk’s support for Mr. Trump, nowhere has his cheerleading been more evident than on X.

Since publicly endorsing the former president in July, he has posted at least 109 times about Mr. Trump and the election. And while he has said in the past that the platform should be “politically neutral,” he has used it to advance election misinformation and the baseless claim that Democrats are engaging in “deliberate voter importation” and “fast-tracking” immigrants to citizenship to gain control over the electorate.

One post with that claim this month has garnered nearly 34 million views, according to X’s own metrics, underscoring the scale of attention that Mr. Musk, owner of the platform’s most followed account, can command.

“Unless Trump wins and we get rid of the mountain of smothering regulations (that have nothing to do with safety!), humanity will never reach Mars,” Mr. Musk wrote this month in a post that has gained nearly 18 million views. “This is existential.”

Online, Mr. Musk has painted a dark picture of what would happen if Mr. Trump lost, a circumstance that could hurt Mr. Musk personally. In an interview with the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, he acknowledged “trashing Kamala nonstop” and being all in for Mr. Trump.

If Mr. Trump loses, he joked, “how long do you think my prison sentence is going to be?”

This passage ignores Musk’s most important disinformation — things like his misrepresentation of hurricane response and his magnification of the most dehumanizing propaganda about migrants (including Haitians in Springfield, OH). NYT stupidly parroted Trump’s claim that they would replace normal turnout by sowing disinformation about this stuff, yet now they soft pedal how Musk is doing things that might get people killed.

Crazier still, NYT chooses not to mention Musk’s personal role in stoking far right anti-migrant violence in the UK, including his Tweet asserting that Civil War is inevitable. (NYT also doesn’t mention Musk’s attempt — with a legal fight all the way to the Supreme Court — to thwart Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump and his intransigence in the face of Brazilian legal requests as part of its response to a coup attempt.)

Musk has become a transnational vector for far right political violence.

NYT doesn’t mention that.

And finally, most insane of all, NYT doesn’t mention that Elon Musk has, more than once, joked about assassination and Kamala Harris.

After the Secret Service reached out to him the first time, Musk repeated the claim in the last week, joking with Tucker Carlson.

NYT calls this — repeated “jokes” about assassinating Kamala Harris — “insult[ing the Democratic Party’s] candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris.”

Elon Musk isn’t helping Trump get elected, NYT’s excuse for posting this puff piece. He’s helping Trump stoke fascism.

And rather than explaining the risk, NYT simply buries it.

Share this entry

Trump Demands Emergency Appendix Surgery

Today was the deadline Judge Chutkan set for Trump to object to any of the specific redactions Jack Smith had proposed in the appendix to his motion on immunity.

MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The Clerk of the Court is directed to file on the public docket the Government’s “Motion for Leave to File Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on Public Docket,” ECF No. 245. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file under seal any objections to the proposed redactions in the Government’s Motion for Immunity Determinations by 12:00 PM on October 1, 2024, and shall file under seal any objections to the proposed redactions in the Appendix to that Motion by 5:00 PM on October 10, 2024. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2024. (zcll)

Rather than object, Trump filed another whining complaint about the election. Predictably, he cited the ill-informed rants of Elie Honig and Jack Goldsmith.

There should be no further disclosures at this time of the so-called “evidence” that the Special Counsel’s Office has unlawfully cherry-picked and mischaracterized—during early voting in the 2024 Presidential election—in connection with an improper Presidential immunity filing that has no basis in criminal procedure or judicial precedent. President Trump maintains his objections, see ECF No. 248, based on overt and inappropriate election interference, violations of longstanding DOJ policy, the Office’s previous safety-related representations in this District and the Southern District of Florida, grand jury secrecy, and the influence on potential witnesses and jurors of prejudicial pretrial publicity—which predictably followed from the filing of the redacted “Motion for Immunity Determinations.”2

2 See, e.g., Ellie Honig, Jack Smith’s October Cheap Shot, N.Y. Magazine (Oct. 3, 2024), https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jack-smith-october-surprise-donald-trump.html; see also Jack Goldsmith, Jack Smith Owes Us an Explanation, N.Y. Times (Oct. 9, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/09/opinion/jack-smith-trump-biden.html.

Given that she again got no specific objections to the redactions Jack Smith opposed, Judge Chutkan approved the posting of the appendix (which must be about 1500 pages).

Defendant has now filed an opposition objecting to unsealing any part of the Appendix. ECF No. 259. As in his previous filing, he identifies no specific substantive objections to particular proposed redactions. Instead, Defendant “maintains his objections” to any “further disclosures at this time” for the same reasons he opposed unsealing the Motion, and he requests that “[i]f the Court decides to release additional information relating to the Office’s filing, in the Appendix or otherwise, . . . that the Court stay that determination for a reasonable period of time so that [he] can evaluate litigation options relating to the decision.” Id. at 1–2. For the same reasons set forth in its decision with respect to the Motion, ECF No. 251, the court determines that the Government’s proposed redactions to the Appendix are appropriate, and that Defendant’s blanket objections to further unsealing are without merit. As the court has stated previously, “Defendant’s concern with the political consequences of these proceedings” is not a cognizable legal prejudice. Id. at 4–5.

Accordingly, the Government’s Motion for Leave to File to Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on Public Docket, ECF No. 246, is GRANTED with respect to the Government’s proposed redacted version of the Appendix to the Government’s Motion for Immunity Determinations.

But she gave Trump a week to — as he described — “evaluate litigation options.”

The court will grant Defendant’s request for a stay so that he can “evaluate litigation options,” ECF No. 259 at 2, and hereby STAYS this decision for seven days.

I await the opinion of smart lawyers. But Judge Chutkan seems to be engaged in a bit of judicial rope-a-dope. The most obvious legal option Trump has is an Emergency Temporary Restraining Order against posting the appendix, but he has just foregone two opportunities to make specific objections. He would face an even bigger problem if he tried to get a writ of mandamus against Judge Chutkan, partly because he did have alternative recourse (specific objections) and partly because she’s literally doing what SCOTUS told her to do.

We shall see. For the moment, though, Trump seems poised to draw more attention to what was largely a restatement of what we already knew.

Share this entry