@mtracey's Threads
Gadfly comedian Randy Credico, hilariously the key figure in the prosecution's case against Roger Stone, testified yesterday that he was NOT a back channel to WikiLeaks for Stone, and that when he speculated to Stone about forthcoming WL releases, it was not based on inside info
It's funny how these direct under-oath denials from Credico, which undermine the core premise of the investigation into Stone, are just kind of ignored or elided as insignificant details
Then again, Stone isn't even *charged* with illicit coordination with WikiLeaks and/or Russia -- he's charged with process crimes, but if that were made clearer in the coverage, it would make clear that the underlying Russia conspiracy is a complete joke
This article is so pathetic. There's an ongoing lawsuit against the Saudi govt. in which key information is being concealed under a protective order: meaning the lawyers would be prosecuted if they disclosed the information. Calling that a "9/11 conspiracy theory" is just moronic 
"Gabbard’s email does not make clear what precisely she wants to be declassified," says reporter @AkbarSAhmed. She held an entire press conference last week making clear exactly what she wants to be declassified. Can you do basic research?
@AkbarSAhmed It would be news to people like 9/11 first responder John Feal, who partnered with Jon Stewart as the leading advocate for 9/11 victim health benefits, that they have been lured into a "disturbing new gambit" led by Tulsi to attract "fringe supporters" (according to Ahmed)
60 Minutes intro last night: "It's rare that Russian agents come out from the shadows, but tonight you will hear from 30-year-old Maria Butina." Except she was never operating "in the shadows" or in any way clandestine, hence why "agent" is such a ridiculous, misleading misnomer
Lesley Stahl asked Butina if she used her advocacy organization as "a way to infiltrate" American political institutions. Stahl defines "infiltrate" as "meeting people" and potentially "influencing" those people. Wow, very scary stuff, sounds like classic spycraft
Stahl tells Butina the Government alleges she was "making connections" with US political figures "so that you could influence US policy, and you were doing it slowly but deliberately." Butina replies, "If I were not Russian, that would be called social networking." Pretty much.
Multiple executive branch officials have testified in the impeachment "inquiry" notwithstanding Trump's demand of no cooperation. People don't want to accept it for varying reasons (authoritarian takeover narrative is more exciting) but he's been an extremely weak executive
Congress entirely dictated the policy agenda of the first two years, numerous of Trump's orders get overridden or simply ignored. In recent history that makes Trump a weak executive relative to other branches. But you'd never know it given the popular media depiction
Trump partisans won't acknowledge it because it undercuts their conception of Trump as 4D-chess-playing, all-powerful strategic genius. Trump antagonists won't acknowledge it because it undercuts their conception of Trump as an unconstrained dictatorial menace
Maria Butina was a victim of a reckless, overzealous political prosecution that resulted in her getting locked up in solitary confinement, smeared in the media, and deported. The government stretched the relevant statute beyond recognition to railroad her spectator.us/maria-butina-c…
She never would have been prosecuted so aggressively but for the deranged anti-Russia political climate that consumed law enforcement and the media. It's one of the most despicable episodes in recent history and everyone who contributed to this farce should be ashamed
She didn't "infiltrate" anything as her activities were public and copiously documented *by her* on social media. She had no reasonable expectation that networking in Washington, DC -- as common as breathing air -- was going to be criminalized under a new, warped legal theory
Why is it controversial or a "GOP talking point" to advocate that impeachment proceedings, the most dramatic mechanism available in the Constitution, be conducted in public with maximum transparency?
Basic information stemming from this "impeachment inquiry" is being withheld from the public under the auspices of "national security" or whatever cockamamie justification Schiff comes up with on a given day. Instead we have to rely on leaks. It's ridiculous
Shouldn't the people *demanding impeachment* be most furious that it's all happening behind closed doors? If the case against Trump is so strong, put it all out there for public consumption and let us assess, rather than doing this sketchy kabuki theater routine
Is anyone claiming that Katie Hill abused her position and/or engaged in coercive conduct? If not, there's no reason for the whole world to know about her private sexual affairs. And yes, I'd say the same thing about a man
In general, let consenting adults do as they please and STFU
If you're asking me whether I would say the same thing about a GOP member of Congress having consensual relations with a subordinate, the answer is yes. I know this is shocking, but the consenting adults should have the final say on the matter, rather than moralizing school-marms
The premise embedded in AOC's questioning here is that it's Zuck's personal responsibility to fact-check political claims, which is an awesome power he can never fulfill. Idea that Facebook had "catastrophic impacts" on the 2016 election is also overblown
Begging tech titans to be the arbiters of truth in the political arena is a fool's errand, and also dangerous. Because you're implicitly ascribing them with powers they could never wield justly
Facebook's impact on the 2016 election was only "catastrophic" if you regard the outcome of the election as catastrophic, which is an inherently subjective proposition. You're essentially asking Facebook to better incorporate your own personal political views in their policies
Notice that criticizing the previous Dem nominee, who is responsible for perhaps the most humiliating electoral failure in US history, automatically gets denounced as "divisive" -- rather than lauded as a long-overdue reckoning with the legacy of someone who crippled the party
There's still a desperate desire among Dem partisans to deny that Hillary is responsible for her own failures, and instead insist that she was maliciously deprived of her rightful ascent to the presidency. It's a sick mentality that continues to warp intra-party debates
Tulsi's criticisms are harsh, but substantive and accurate. She is pointing out that Hillary's foreign policy record wrought massive death and destruction, and contributed to why many Americans refused to vote for her. Rather than scapegoating Tulsi, come to grips with that fact
I was asked on the radio last night, isn't it awful how some online right-wing personalities have defended Tulsi. My reply: stop sitting on Twitter and go into the real world, where the vast majority of Tulsi supporters, volunteers, and staff are Dems and Dem-leaning independents
Furthermore, why is it surprising that a candidate who aggressively challenges her own party's establishment and rejects many of its failed orthodoxies would draw support from across the spectrum? And do you realize Tulsi has been just as harsh on Trump and the GOP establishment?
Any candidate whose campaign is centered on foreign policy is going to draw an atypical range of support because the issue doesn't cut neatly across partisan lines. This has always been true throughout US history, but her antagonists try to cast it as something sinister
“Joker” is politically ambiguous. An anti-capitalist movement springs up over what are essentially random spree killings committed by a psychotic person. Which doesn’t necessarily reflect well on the movement. But then again, the “capitalists” are also callous and cruel
Would not describe the movie as neatly politically oriented in any direction. Which makes it interesting and open to differing interpretations. Critics denouncing the movie as worthless except for Phoenix’s performance (which, yes, is great) demonstrate their own worthlessness!
Notable...
lol
1) "Man cheers during movie" is only a news story because reporters were told to write stories reinforcing the bizarre, preordained narrative that the movie is somehow dangerous
2) These paranoid, emotionally-disturbed reactions suggest the movie was on to something thematically
2) These paranoid, emotionally-disturbed reactions suggest the movie was on to something thematically
The theater I saw "Joker" in had large signs prohibiting the wearing of "costumes" for safety reasons. It's clearly lame to wear a Joker costume to the movie theater, but the idea that you should feel your physical safety is threatened by this = more manufactured paranoia
The ambiguity of whether “Joker” was driven to homicidal mania by mental illness or political grievances was clever, because neatly distinguishing between those motives is often impossible
“Joker” seemed to only recognize the political dimension in retrospect, after it was *assumed* that he’d acted politically but he’d never expressed that
I’m not going to call it a masterwork but the descent into madness was thought-provoking enough to justify two hours
Having a heart attack in the middle of a presidential campaign at age 78 is really not good. I like Bernie, voted for him in 2016, would probably vote for him again. But... let's acknowledge what just happened here
I'd probably vote for him notwithstanding any health issues. But at least in terms of public perception, it's pretty bad. You can't blame voters for taking this into account. Media coverage of him is often skewed/unfair, but the campaign itself just confirmed the heart attack
This is from a statement put out by the campaign. A "myocardial infarction" is a heart attack
The reason the Ukraine episode spurred such a rapid march toward impeachment is because it has clear narrative continuity with all that preceded it vis-a-vis Russia/Mueller. And so continues the long national embarrassment: realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/…
Democratic party leadership now wants to draw a "bright line" around Ukraine and distinguish it from all the conduct they previously described as impeachable. But that doesn't make any sense. "Ukrainegate" is a direct outgrowth of "Russiagate." They are inseparable
"And by the way, I think Russia has a hand in this" -- Nancy Pelosi today
This paragraph reads as Trump asking Zelensky to provide information related to the origins of Russia/Mueller, in the context of AG Barr's ongoing probe. So at least here, he's asking for assistance related to a US investigation -- not a Ukrainian investigation
If you believe an investigation into the origins of Russia/Mueller is legitimate (which it is, there are still plenty of outstanding issues) then asking for a "favor" in the context of that specific investigation is not unto itself untoward
Zelensky then brings up Giuliani, and Trump does one of his typical semi-intelligible riffs about how Biden maybe did something horrible, and Zelensky should talk to Giuliani. Bad form to even bring up Biden? Sure, but it's a lot vaguer than initially presented
Set aside the Ukraine phone call. Articles of impeachment will inevitably include aspects of the Mueller saga, and therefore Dems will be impeaching (at least in part) on the basis of a ridiculous militaristic conspiracy theory. Nothing "progressive" or even logical about that
The phone call was just the "spark" that Dem leadership needed to justify going the distance. Impeachment was set in motion by Mueller, and will encompass the entire Mueller ordeal. Nadler is not going to suddenly discard all his prior work and focus exclusively on one phone call
The whole reason the Ukraine phone call spurred this latest flareup is because it has vague narrative continuity with the Mueller Report (many Democrats have been explicit about that in their rationale for why they now support impeachment)
Trump may or may not have corruptly "promised" something to coerce Ukraine into taking action: we don't have the details. But, subjective assessments from anonymous "intelligence officials" have a horrible recent track record, and Dems obliterated their credibility via Russiagate
Also, whether you like it or not (I don't), the president has hugely broad latitude in the conduct of foreign affairs. So even if Trump did "promise" something, it's far from established that it would be within the purview of the Intelligence Community to "whistleblow" about
The mechanism for imposing accountability in the event of untoward (but not necessarily illegal) presidential diplomatic conduct would be through the electoral process -- not through opaque machinations of the security state, which has been the trend since Trump took office
"She's probably the frontrunner at this point, folks." -- Nate Silver on Kamala Harris, January 29, 2019
👇
The early hype around Kamala was a product of the media projecting onto her, because she was in line with their sensibilities for who the Democratic nominee should be. But of course, none of them would admit that was a factor in their baseless prognosticating
It needs to be emphasized that Biden is continuing to distort his Iraq War record *today.* For a lot of people, 2002 is receding from memory. How can anyone trust that he "learned his lesson" from that period if he won't tell the truth now, in 2019?
He's claiming, as Hillary did, that the 2002 war authorization vote wasn't actually to sign off on an invasion but give Bush "leverage" to pursue WMD inspections. That's such BS and it's amazing we still have to re-litigate this history
Days before the Oct. 2002 vote, Bush delivered the infamous speech in Cincinnati where he proclaimed that the evidence on Saddam possessing nuclear weapons was essentially settled: with or without further inspections. And he warned that Saddam would give the WMD to terrorists
Bolton aside, Trump hasn't started any new wars (yet). He's come close, and he's escalated wars begun by his predecessors, but he hasn't started any new ones. That's a low bar, but still notable because the same cannot be said for most recent presidents
His foreign policy has been a mess numerous other respects, and we're in a sad state when "credit" must be allocated to a president for doing the bare minimum of not starting new wars. But again, still notable -- whether you want to acknowledge it or not
By this point in his presidency Obama had already started the Libya war and surged massively in Afghanistan, both of which were disasters. He later started the Syria regime change op, the Yemen catastrophe, and Iraq War 3.0 (which, by the way, is still illegal)
Referring to Iraq, Joe Biden told me: "Yes, I did oppose the war before it began." Which is 100% demonstrably false, and a further extension of his gross revisionism on the subject realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/…
Biden previously claimed that he opposed the Iraq War "the moment it started." Now he's claiming he opposed the war *before* it started. So his tall tale keeps extending to bigger and bigger versions of falsity. It wasn't that long ago -- we have the transcripts
Please do not under any circumstances try to tell me that Biden's continued misrepresentations and distortions of his record on this issue are "gaffes" 🙄
Tulsi went on Dave Rubin yesterday and made the case for abortion rights, gun control, higher taxes, government regulation of industry, and why he's wrong about various subjects, but her mere appearance on the show will of course provoke shrieks that she's a stealth right-winger
I don't particularly like Rubin -- find his shtick extremely tedious at this point -- but to immediately play the "guilt by association" game where it's denounced as inherently evil to even appear on his show is ridiculous and destructive
People such as Rubin who create an entire identity around how "I didn't leave [insert ideology], [insert ideology] left me" are usually extremely shallow despite the veneer of deep intellectual curiosity. This is a cross-ideological phenomenon: see also, Never Trumpers
Seems counter-intuitive, but Iowa eliminating the "virtual caucus" could conceivably hurt Biden. His base is old people, many of whom do not want to go out at night in the dead of winter: especially if they have to stay for over an hour. How many elderly will physically caucus?
On that note: Selzer poll from June (seen as the gold standard in Iowa) showed Biden benefitting the most from the "virtual caucus" option. Maybe it ultimately won't matter, but something to consider
If the option for a 90-something voter is not participating in the caucus at all, or potentially figuring out how to "virtually caucus" (probably with help) -- then it seems reasonable to infer the elimination of this option could in fact potentially hurt Biden
