Interesting (read: appalling) tidbit from @MichaelCBender's new book, which I've just started to read: Former guy told people he launched the Soleimani airstrike because of his upcoming impeachment trial (no. 1): He wanted to placate GOP senators who urged the strike. (p. 41)
Cipollone and Barr and their staffs had a suicide pact under which, in essence, they'd all resign if Trump ever fired one of them for refusing to do something too insane, or unethical. (p. 49)
Book officially comes out this week, but I came across copies already on display at a bookstore. amazon.com/Frankly-Did-Wi…
Ok, here's one: Because [cough] fg thought Rudy was so good on TV, he wanted Rudy to be trial counsel in impeachment no. 1 (which would have been a huge conflict, because Rudy was a co-conspirator). They managed to talk fg out of this by bringing in ... Dersh. (p. 50)
(and Sekulow and Starr and others)
This is going to be the story of fg's post presidency: endless revelations of how everyone around him knew he was an incompetent nutjob and struggled to keep him from doing incompetent and nutty things while pretending publicly he wasn't incompetent and nutty.
Well, actually not everyone. Some people around him did urge him to do incompetent and nutty things, either because they were themselves incompetent and nutty, or because they were trying to curry his favor.
That'll be part of the story that goes into the history books too. A sick ecosystem of pathology, sycophancy, denial, and grift.
Oh, so classy. Page 109:
"'We gotta be hitting the mick,' Brad [Parscale] said about Biden, using a derogatory term to refer to the Democrat's Irish heritage."
P. 113
"[Ronna Romney McDaniels's] mom's side of the family was largely supportive of Trump, and the Romney side less so. ... Mitt Romney ... said he hadn't voted for Trump in 2016 and wouldn't again in 2020, either."
Former guy's reaction to the NYT's report that he spent part of a night in the WH bunker:
"'Whoever [leaked] that, they should be charged with treason! They should be executed!'"
(p. 157)
Oh, totally fine; nothing to see here. Reaction at the White House after protesters were attacked at Lafayette Park before the FG's photo op there:
"Inside the outer Oval, aides erupted in high-fives."
(p. 169)
fg takes Gen. Milley to task for apologizing for Lafayette Park: "That's weak."
GM: "Not where I come from.... It had to do with ... the uniform and the apolitical tradition of the US military."
fg: "I don't understand ...."
GM: "I don't expect you to understand."
(pp. 177-8)
So fg was mad at Jared for supposedly causing him not to respond more strongly to the Floyd protests: "I've done all this stuff for the Blacks—it's always Jared telling me to do this. And they all fucking hate me, and none of them are going to vote for me."
(pp. 206-07)
fg potentially exposing a whole bunch of people to covid all day on 10/1 after receiving a + rapid test.
(pp. 276-77)
Just skimming through this and obviously barely scratching the surface. There's no index! At some point I'm going to have to sit down and actually read this before another one of these books comes out
which probably will be tomorrow
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Absolutely agree with @Delavegalaw, @MichaelCohen212, and @meiselasb. I was in the courtroom that day, and I found that moment to be a good one for the defense, but felt it was only a small one and essentially the only good moment during a rather long, meandering, and ineffective cross-examination.
I was astonished—shocked, in fact—when I learned that television viewers, particularly on @CNN, had been misled into believing that the defense had dealt some kind of death blow to the prosecution’s case.
Some of the mainstream media coverage of the case has been downright bizarre, and remains so. 🤷🏻♂️
Here’s what I said about that day right after court, at 5:04 pm EDT on May 16, 2024. I’m not patting myself on the back for being right; I’m just expressing mystification about how many others could have been so wrong.
I think it may have the herd instinct we all have. If just one legal analyst sitting in a studio vigorously pronounces a misguided, albeit well-meaning, take (let’s leave aside the Trump shills the networks absurdly decided to air), that can influence how others (particularly the nonlegal journalists) how they perceive or express things (because they want to appear to play things down the middle). And the public gets misled.
Chris defends the Goldwater rule in his “deep dive.” It has been the subject of severe criticism among many mental health professionals. Their informed criticisms are far more persuasive than Chris’s cursory defense. I attach a (small) sampling of their articles:
Yep. Even if Cohen had advanced the money in October 2016 on his own without any expectation of repayment by Trump—a ludicrous lie—Cohen would have committed a campaign finance violation (which is why he pleaded guilty to one).
Hicks’s testimony establishes beyond any question that Trump knew about that illegal and undisclosed contribution, and knew that his reimbursement of Cohen was not a payment for legal services.
And that means, beyond any reasonable doubt, that means that Donald Trump intentionally created false business records—including the checks that he himself signed—to cover up the underlying campaign finance violations.