“There’s no doubt that McCarthy is a material witness to a possible crime by the former president. His conversation with Trump during the height of the riot could provide direct evidence of Trump’s mindset and scheme.”
@rgoodlaw Did Trump indicate to McCarthy that calling off the rioters was in some way contingent on Republicans doing more to subvert the electoral count?
That is only marginally different from what Trump did reportedly say.
@rgoodlaw “If this were a criminal investigation, McCarthy would surely be a material witness and would not be able to resist a Justice Department subpoena to tell what he knows."
@rgoodlaw, to me. McCarthy can evade the 1/6 committee. But not DOJ.
On Springfield, don't lose sight of the larger context: Again and again and again, Trump has refused to back off this sort of hate speech even *after* it has incited threats of violence.
This is hair-raising stuff. I talked to numerous people who are prepping for what might happen if Trump wins. They are bracing for years of legal harassment and the deep corruption of govt info into rank propaganda.
We keep hearing about scary second-term horrors like troops in cities: But in this piece, I argue for another, more insidious scenario: A slow-burn authoritarianism of grinding legal harassment of Trump critics and profound corruption of the bureaucracy.
It's a big deal that veteran journalist Mike Barnicle has now called out his media colleagues for failing to adequately cover Trump's visibly worsening mental state. It should spur a real discussion about how to do this, before it's too late. 1/
“We have a damaged, delusional, old man who might get reelected to the presidency," Mike Barnicle said on @Morning_Joe. He said the media doesn't really cover Trump's daily insanity as a window into his mental fitness for the presidency. This is right. 2/
Some in the media will reject this, claiming they do cover Trump's crazier claims. But this misses the point. His mental unfitness for the presidency is *itself* the big story. It merits sustained scrutiny as a topic with its own intrinsic importance. 3/
News --> Dems are pushing the Army to clarify why they think Trump's Arlington fiasco broke the law, and demanding a clearer account of what his campaign aides did to that woman. One source says Dems are frustrated at the lack of detail.
At his Michigan rally, Trump offered a highly distorted account of the Arlington mess. He omits that his own aides recorded a campaign video there and that officials told his campaign in advance that political activity was banned.
Many Qs remain unanswered about the Arlington fiasco. If the woman considered charges, that likely means there was violence or at least highly inappropriate manhandling. How violent was the encounter? Why did cemetery officials conclude laws were broken?
James Carville also says a hidden dynamic is educated white males backing Kamala because of the impact that Dobbs is having on their wives and daughters.
"Attitudes on a lot of things are vastly different among white males, based on education," he says: newrepublic.com/article/185316…
Carville reiterates criticism of wokeness but says Tim Walz is succeeding in speaking about social liberalism in human terms.
Carville also says right wing culture warring is the bigger loser:
I think something big is happening here: Kamala Harris appears to be running precisely the kind of inspired, aggressive campaign that combatting the forces of rising authoritarianism requires.
She's running on the promise of a post-MAGA future. 1/
There's been lots of talk about Harris reaching out to groups beyond the core Dem coalition, including GOP and Trump voters. But note what she is *not* doing: She is not making any serious concessions to Trumpism or the MAGA worldview of any kind. 2/
In her speech, Harris did reach out to independents, moderates, noncollege whites, rural voters. Yet she also treated Trumpism and the MAGA movement as forces that must be decisively repudiated and left behind. This is critical.