No Labels' spoiler bid has suddenly entered full meltdown mode. No serious candidates are interested. The group's public justifications are increasingly ludicrous. Time to pull the plug.
We have lots of new reporting and info in this piece. 1/
Joe Manchin's decision not to run was partly the result of intense lobbying. Richard Gephardt made a strong case to him behind closed doors. Manchin said he didn't want to be responsible for electing Trump, which deals a big blow to No Labels' case. 2/
No matter how many times No Labels claims they don't want to function as a spoiler who elects Trump, that's what this candidacy will all-but-certainly do. Here's my effort to engage their argument directly. 3/
Some news: Prominent critics of No Labels just sent them a letter calling on them to agree to a "No-Spoiler Pledge." If by July 1, it's clear their candidate has no chance at doing anything other than serving as a spoiler, they should stand down. 4/
More behind-the-scenes details, per sources: Dick Gephardt took his case directly to some No Labels officials/donors, and got no serious explanation back.
And No Labels seems to have alienated even the Manchin camp, which should be NL's allies. 5/
Stephen Miller, Charlie Kirk and other MAGA personalities served up a convoluted theory in which DOJ successfully prosecuted Hunter Biden to make the Deep State *appear* balanced.
It's almost as if MAGA was secretly hoping Hunter would get acquitted. 2/
Media is being too credulous about Trump's threats to prosecute Ds "for revenge." This implies he's just threatening to do what is being done to him. That's deception. He's vowing evidence-free prosecutions. That's *not* what's happening to him. 1/
Trump's exchanges with Dr. Phil and Hannity showed that even his friendliest interviewers can't disguise his lawless intentions for a second term. But they also showed what a monstrous scam it is when Trump says he'll prosecute in "retaliation." 2/
Media frame is: Will Trump seek “retaliation," or won’t he? But that lets him set the terms of debate. He is expressly vowing prosecutions *solely because* he's been held accountable to the law, meaning he'll prosecute with no evidence of wrongdoing. 3/
Just amazing: House Republicans are advancing a proposal to restrict funds from going to any special counsel to criminally prosecute "a former or current president.”
Dems expect something like this to be attached to a must-pass bill very soon. 1/
Last month, Mike Johnson had a rare moment of consistency, admitting that defunding special counsels is a bad idea. But Trump's conviction changed all that. Now Rs must show absolute fealty to the notion that Trump must be kept above the law. 2/
Jim Jordan recently proposed to restrict funding from prosecution of a "former or current president." It's not clear exactly what Mike Johnson will do with this, but Dems tell me they expect something like it to be a rider on upcoming funding bills. 3/
Here's a big reason Trump's conviction is such a powerful moment: It shatters the myth of his invincibility. Dems need to banish the phrase "his negatives are baked in" forever, and use this against him, ruthlessly and effectively. My take: newrepublic.com/article/182111…
Trump cultivates the aura of invincibility relentlessly. Up until a few hours ago, it was possible to believe he was going to skate yet again.
He was getting away with all of it. Until he didn't.
That's a big inflection point, and Dems should grab it.
The Biden campaign has no plans for paid ads involving the verdict, a source tells me. That cannot set the tone for the whole party. There's a big opening to use this against not just Trump, but also Rs who attacked our system to put him above the law.
Trump posted a video of one of his supporters attacking "blowjob liberals" and raging that if Trump is elected, he will "get rid" of liberals, who will be "gone."
Yes, we often play "what if Biden did it." But here it's appropriate! A battalion of pundits is always ready to pounce on mere hints of demeaning language about conservative voters. Here the GOP nominee promoted vile language about liberals as a class. 3/
People are missing the larger story behind the "unified Reich" video: It's undeniable that on many fronts, Trump and MAGA are experimenting with how far they can go with overtly fascist/authoritarian modes of politics. It's a test. 1/
The people behind the video are part of a group of far right shitposters that have collaborated with the Trump campaign. The bigger story here is this shadow zone where Trump/MAGA allies encourage far right propaganda and seek to harness its energies. 2/
On numerous fronts, Trump and his MAGA allies are aggressively seeding the discourse with fascist language and dramatic authoritarian "solutions." These seem plainly designed to gauge the public's tolerance for authoritarian rule.