5) But if Trump/Meadows build their entire defense around the idea that the coup attempt was defensible or even just, and we don’t need to respond to it at all, it becomes even less likely that even a few GOP senators will support any reforms at all.
6) And so, after this effort to overturn our political order through extensive corrupt pressure on many government actors, and then through lethal mob violence, we’ll likely do nothing.
7) The idea that the entire GOP would coalesce around this as their overarching goal after all we've lived through, while rolling out the carpet for Trump to run *again,* is pretty extraordinary.
Media coverage of Republicans stampeding to NYC to attack Trump's trial as illegitimate is marred by euphemism. This isn't just "currying favor" with Trump or "expressing loyalty" or auditioning to be his veep. It's placing Trump over the rule of law. 1/
Rs are attacking the judge, witnesses, prosecutors and trial as illegitimate. This isn't just helping Trump evade the gag order. The point is also to display in spectacle form that their fealty is to him over the rules that make the system function. 2/
It's a larger pattern: Rs are declaring this higher fealty to Trump over our institutions on many fronts. Now that Trump has in effect declared the 2024 election will not be legitimate unless he wins, many Rs are using similar language. 3/
News --> Clarence Thomas still won't clarify whether he repaid the principal on a $260,000 loan from a rich friend that he used to buy his RV, Sens Wyden and Whitehouse say. If loan was forgiven, they argue, it should have been reported as taxable income: newrepublic.com/article/181627…
Clarence Thomas' lawyer sent a letter to Sens Wyden and Whitehouse saying the loan agreement between Thomas and Anthony Welters (valued at $80 million) has been "satisfied."
That's not good enough. As Wyden says: "Did he ever repay the principal?"
“Your client’s refusal to clarify how the loan was resolved raises serious concerns regarding violations of federal tax laws,” Wyden/Whitehouse write to Thomas' lawyer.
If loan was forgiven, they say, it should have been noted on financial disclosure.
On today's pod, a top Biden campaign pollster, Jef Pollock, talks to me at length about NYT poll/other data showing Trump ahead. He acknowledges Trump's lead among young/nonwhites but argues it's inherently soft support.
In our interview, Biden pollster Jef Pollock acknowledges "all the data consistently shows our campaign needs to do better with younger voters, with black voters, with Hispanic voters," and says Biden camp can/will put in the work needed to win them back: newrepublic.com/article/181532…
Key from Biden pollster Jef Pollock: NYT poll/other data shows Biden camp getting support of white voters that they "need to get," so much of Trump's support is concentrated among black/Latino/young. That's easier to reverse BUT will take tons of work: newrepublic.com/article/181532…
NEWS --> Sen Sheldon Whitehouse tells me Dems are likely to investigate revelations about Trump soliciting $1 billion from Big Oil execs while corruptly vowing to fulfill their biggest policy demands.
“The phrase that instantly came to mind as I was reading the story was ‘quid pro quo,’” Sen Sheldon Whitehouse tells me about WaPo report on Trump's $1 billion Big Oil shakedown.
This would be extension of Budget Committee hearings into oil industry. 2/
In this response to NYT/Joe Kahn fiasco, I try to pinpoint five conventions of political reporting that obscure the Trump threat and work against Kahn's own stated goal of informing voters.
First, the "two different realities on democracy" fallacy:
Second, the failure to clearly describe Trump's plan to cancel prosecutions of himself and other elements of his legal strategy as threats to the system itself, that is, as efforts to put himself above the law:
As an example of number 2, look how @nytpolitics today describes Trump's plan to end prosecutions of himself. NYT editors: Do you really think casual readers will grasp how abnormal/threatening to the system this is? Tell them what the stakes truly are.
Dems could also use the hearings to voice core principles: It's possible to call out antisemitism while also insisting it's not antisemitic to criticize Israel's war conduct. Or that one can call out violence while also condemning police overreaction.