Mediaboss Marketing

Nearly a decade ago, former Sen. Rick Santorum ran a surprisingly competitive presidential campaign, before ultimately coming up short against former Gov. Mitt Romney. As the 2016 cycle approached, the Pennsylvania Republican saw himself as a national frontrunner since he was the next in line, which in GOP politics, often has real meaning.

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is apparently thinking along the same lines. Politico reported:

Sen. Ted Cruz on Wednesday argued he is particularly well-positioned to win the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, citing his second-place finish behind then-candidate Donald Trump in the party's 2016 primary. The remarks from Cruz (R-Texas) came in an interview with The Truth Gazette, a conservative news service operated by 15-year-old Brilyn Hollyhand.

"You know, I ran in 2016," the senator said. "It was the most fun I've ever had in my life. We had a very crowded field. We had 17 candidates in the race a very strong field. And I ended up placing second.... There's a reason historically that the runner-up is almost always the next nominee."

Asked whether he'd consider another White House bid, Cruz replied, "Absolutely. In a heartbeat."

So, is he right? Is the most recent runner-up "almost always" the party's next presidential nominee? In Democratic politics, no. In fact, in recent decades, it's only happened once (Hillary Clinton came in second in 2008, before winning the nomination in 2016).

But in Republican politics, it's a very different story. Ronald Reagan won the GOP nomination in 1980 after finishing second in 1976; George H.W. Bush won the nomination in 1988 after finishing second in 1980; Bob Dole won the nomination in 1996 after finishing second in 1988; John McCain won the nomination in 2008 after finishing second in 2000; and Mitt Romney won the nomination in 2012 after finishing second in 2008. As patterns go, that's quite a few data points.

So, does Cruz have a point? If Donald Trump doesn't run, should the Texas senator be seen as the likely 2024 nominee?

He probably shouldn't start writing his acceptance speech just yet.

The pattern is interesting, but there are exceptions. For example, Pat Buchanan came in second in 1996, but he was crushed by George W. Bush in 2000 and ended up running on the Reform Party's ticket. Santorum came in second in 2012, but when he tried again four years later, the former senator finished in 11th place in Iowa and promptly quit.

The runner-up is "almost always the next nominee"? Not exactly. The next-in-line thesis works, except when it doesn't.

I won't pretend to know what the GOP's 2024 field will look like, or who the top contenders will be. But I think it's safe to say historical patterns like these should be seen more as fun trivia than reliable predictors of future events.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

Original post:
Ted Cruz and the Republican Party's next-in-line problem - MSNBC

A fellow resident questioned the letter of concern that I wrote about the 68% of Republicans believing Trump had not lost the election. He noted that in 2017 there were 68% of Democrats doubting Trump's validity of office.

Thanks for the recall; I hadn't realized that. I suspect that Democrats didn't doubt the election validity, only that he wasn't presidential material.

Well, back in 2016 when Trump won the election, with 3 million votes fewer than his opponent, even if I had read that poll reporting 68% of folks thinking he won unfairly, I don't think I would have expressed the same concern, as you have accurately pointed out.

Probably the reason I wasn't concerned with the matter is that Hillary Clinton conceded the election immediately, didn't file lawsuits over the voting, didn't call up governors or secretaries of state in several states, and incite a few hundred or thousand cult members to attack the Capitol building and keep for several months rallying supporters to maintain his BIG LIE. If Hillary would have done that, and/or would have continued rallying, ranting, speech-making, insisting that President (Trump) was unfairly seated, I think maybe I would have expressed the questions with at least 68% motivation to do so.

RON BOOTHE

Kingston

See the rest here:
LETTER: Concerning the 68% - Shoshone News Press

Nils Melzer, the UNspecial rapporteur on torture, is one of the very few establishment figuresto denouncethe judicial lynching of Julian Assange. Melzer's integrity and courage, for which he has been mercilessly attacked, stand in stark contrast to the widespread complicity of many human rights and press organizations, including PEN America, which has become a de facto subsidiary of the Democratic National Committee.

Those in power, as Noam Chomsky points out, divide the world into "worthy" and "unworthy" victims. They weep crocodile tears over the plight of Uyghur Muslims persecuted in China while demonizing and slaughtering Muslims in the Middle East. They decry press censorship in hostile states and collude with the press censorship and algorithms emanating from Silicon Valley in the United States. It is an old and insidious game, one practiced not to promote human rights or press freedom but to envelop these courtiers to power in a sanctimonious and cloying self-righteousness. PEN America can't say the words "Belarus," "Myanmar" orthe Chinese tennis star "Peng Shuai"fast enough, while all but ignoring the most egregious assault on press freedom in our lifetime.

PEN Americaonly stopped accepting funding from the Israeli government which routinely censors and jails Palestinian journalists and writers in Israel and the occupied West Bank for the literary group's annualWorld Voicesfestival in New York in 2017 when more than 250 writers, poets and publishers, many members of PEN, signed an appeal calling on the CEO of PEN America, Suzanne Nossel, to end the organization's partnership with the Israeli government. The signatories includedWallace Shawn,Alice Walker,Eileen Myles, Louise Erdrich, Russell Banks,Cornel West,Junot Dazand Viet Thanh Nguyen. To stand up for Assange comes with a cost, as all moral imperatives do. And this is a cost the careerists and Democratic Party apparatchiks, who leverage corporate money and corporate backing to seize and deform these organizations into appendages of the ruling class, do not intend to pay.

PEN America is typical of the establishment hijacking of an organization that was founded and once run by writers, some of whom, including Susan Sontag and Norman Mailer, I knew. Nossel is a former corporate lawyer,listed as a "contributor"to the Federalist Society, who worked for McKinsey & Company and as vice president of U.S. business development for Bertelsmann.Nossel, who has had herself elevated to the position ofCEO of PEN America, also worked under Hillary Clinton in the State Department, including on the task force assigned to respond to the WikiLeaks revelations. I withdrew from a scheduled speaking event at the 2013 World Voices Festival in New Yorkandresignedfrom the organization, which that same year had given me itsFirst Amendment Award, to protest Nossel's appointment. PEN Canada offered me membership, which I accepted.

Nossel and PEN America have stated that the prosecution of Assange raises "grave concerns" about press freedom and lauded the decision by a British court in January 2012not to extradite Assange. Should Nossel and PEN America have not taken this stance on Assange, it would have left them in opposition to most PEN organizations around the world. PEN Centre Germany, for example,made Assange an honorary member. PEN International has called for all charges to be dropped against Assange.

RELATED:The execution of Julian Assange: He exposed the crimes of empire and that can't be tolerated

But Nossel, at the same time, repeats every slanderous trope and lie used to discredit the WikiLeaks publisher who now facesextradition to the United States to potentially serve a 175-year sentence under the Espionage Act. She refuses to acknowledge that Assange is being persecuted because he carried out the most basic and important role of any publisher, making public documents that expose the multitudinous crimes and lies of empire. And I have not seen any direct appeals to the Biden administration on Assange's behalf from PEN America.

"Whether Assange is a journalist or WikiLeaks qualifies as a press outlet is immaterial to the counts set out here," Nossel hassaid. Butas a lawyer who was a member of the State Department task force that responded to the WikiLeaks revelations, she understands it is not immaterial. The core argument behind the U.S. effort to extradite Assange revolves around denying him the status of a publisher or a journalist and denying WikiLeaks the status of a press publication. Nossel parrots the litany of false charges leveled against Assange, including that he endangered lives by not redacting documents, hacked into a government computer and meddled in the 2016 elections, all key points in the government's case against Assange. PEN America, under her direction, has sent out news briefswith headlines such as: "Security Reports Reveal How Assange Turned an Embassy into a Command Post for Election Meddling." The end result is that PEN America is helping to uncoil the rope to string up the WikiLeaks publisher, a gross betrayal of the core mission of PEN.

"There are some things Assange did in this case, or is alleged to have done, that go beyond what a mainstream news outlet would do, in particular the first indictment that was brought about five weeks ago focused specifically on this charge of computer hacking, hacking into a password to get beyond the government national security infrastructure and penetrate and allow Chelsea Manning to pass through all of these documents. That, I think you can say, is not what a mainstream news outlet or a journalist would do," Nosselsaid on the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC on May 28, 2019.

But Nossel did not stop there, going on to defend the legitimacy of the U.S. campaign to extradite Assange, although Assange is not a U.S. citizen and WikiLeaks is not a U.S.-based publication. Most important, and left unmentioned by Nossel, is that Assange has not committed any crimes.

RELATED:Julian Assange and the future of democracy: Is this a turning point in World War IV?

"The reason that this indictment is coming down now is because Assange has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for years trying to escape his extradition request," she said on the program. "He faces an extradition request to Sweden where he has been charged with sexual assault and now this huge indictment here in the U.S., and that proceeding will play out over a long period. He will make all sorts of arguments about why he faces a form of legal jeopardy that should immunize him from being extradited. But there are extradition treaties, there are legal assistance treaties where countries are able to prosecute nationals of other countries and bring them back to face charges when they have committed a crime. This is happening pursuant to that. There are U.S. nationals who are charged and convicted in foreign courts."

WikiLeaks releasedU.S. military war logsfrom Afghanistan and Iraq, a cache of 250,000 diplomatic cables and 800 Guantnamo Bay detainee assessment briefs along with the 2007 "Collateral Murder" video, in which U.S. helicopter pilots banter as they gun down civilians, including children and two Reuters journalists, in a Baghdad street. The material was given to WikiLeaks in 2010 by Chelsea Manning, then known as Pfc. Bradley Manning. Assange has been accused by an enraged U.S. intelligence community of causing "one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States." Mike Pompeo, who headed the CIA (and then the State Department) under Donald Trump, called WikiLeaks a "hostile intelligence service" aided by Russia, rhetoric embraced by Democratic Party leaders.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Assange also published 70,000 hacked emails copied from the accounts of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, and earned the eternal hatred of the Democratic Party establishment. The Podesta emails exposed the sleazy and corrupt world of the Clintons, including the donation of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, andidentified both nations as major funders of the Islamic State. They exposed the $657,000 that Goldman Sachs paid to Hillary Clinton to give talks, a sum so large it can only be considered a bribe. They exposed Clinton's repeated dishonesty. She was caught telling the financial elites that she wanted "open trade and open borders" and believed Wall Street executives were best positioned to manage the economy, while publicly promising financial regulation and reform. The cache showed that the Clinton campaign interfered in the Republican primaries to ensure that Donald Trump was the Republican nominee, assuming he would be the easiest candidate to defeat. They exposed Clinton's advance knowledge of questions in a primary debate and her role as the principal architect of the war in Libya, a war she believed would burnish her credentials as a presidential candidate.

The Democratic Party, which blames Russian interference for its election loss to Trump, charges that the Podesta emails were obtained by Russian government hackers. Hillary Clinton calls WikiLeaks a Russian front.James Comey, the former FBI director, however, conceded that the emails were probably delivered to WikiLeaks by an intermediary, and Assange has said the emails were not provided by "state actors."

"A zealous prosecutor is going to look at someone like Assange and recognize that he's a very unpopular figure for a hundred different reasons, whether it's his meddling in the 2016 elections, his political motivations for that, or the blunderbuss nature of these disclosures," Nossel said on Lehrer's program. "This is not a leak that was designed to expose one particular policy or effectuate a specific change in how the U.S. government was going about its business. It was massive and indiscriminate, while in the beginning they worked with journalists to be careful about redacting names of individuals. I was actually working at the State Department during the WikiLeaks disclosure period, and I was briefly on a task force to respond to the WikiLeaks disclosures and there was really a sense of alarm about individuals whose lives would be in danger, people who had worked with the U.S., provided information, human rights defenders who had spoken to embassy personnel on a confidential basis. There is a problem of over-classification, but there is also good reason to classify a lot of this stuff and they made no distinction between that [which] was legitimately classified and not."

RELATED:Why the Julian Assange case is the most important battle for press freedom of our time

Any group of artists or writers overseen by a CEO from corporate America inevitably become members of an updated version of the Union of Soviet Writers, where the human rights violations by our enemies are heinous crimes and our own violations and those of our allies are ignored or whitewashed. As Julian Benda reminded us in "The Treason of the Intellectuals," we can serve privilege and power or we can serve justice and truth. Those, Benda warns, who become apologists for those with privilege and power destroy their capacity to defend justice and truth.

Where is the outrage from an organization founded by writers to protect writers about the prolonged abuse, stress and repeated death threats, including from Nossel's former boss, Hillary Clinton, who allegedly quipped at a staff meeting, "Can't we just drone this guy?" (anddidn't deny it later) or from the CIA, whichdiscussed kidnapping and assassinatingAssange? Where is the demand that the trial of Assange be thrown out becausethe CIA, through UC Global, the security firm at the Ecuadorian embassy, secretly taped the meetings, and all other encounters, between Assange and his lawyers, obliterating attorney-client privilege? Where is the public denunciation of the extreme isolation that has left Assange, who suffered a stroke during court video proceedings on Oct. 27, in precarious physical and psychological health? Where is the outcry over his descent into hallucinations and deep depression, leaving him dependent on antidepressant medication and the antipsychotic quetiapine? Where are the thunderous condemnations about the 10 years he has been detained, seven in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and nearly three in the high-security Belmarsh prison, where he has had to live without access to sunlight, exercise and proper medical care? "His eyes were out of sync, his right eyelid would not close, his memory was blurry," his fiance Stella Morris said of the stroke. Where are the demands for intervention and humane treatment, including an end to his isolation, once it was revealed Assange was pacing his cell until he collapsed, punching himself in the face and banging his head against the wall? Where is the fear for his life, especially after "half of a razor blade" was discovered under his socks and it was revealed that he called the suicide hotline run by the Samaritans because he thought about killing himself "hundreds of times a day"? Where is the call to prosecute those who committed the war crimes, carried out the torture and engaged in the corruption WikiLeaks exposed? Not from PEN America.

Melzer,in his book"The Trial of Julian Assange," the most methodical and detailed recounting of the long persecution by the United States and the British government of Assange, blasts those like Nossel who blithely peddle the lies used to tar Assange and cater to the powerful.

When Assange was first charged, he was not charged with espionage by the United States. Rather, he was charged with a single count of "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion." This charge alleged that he conspired with Manning to decrypt a password hash for the Department of Defense computer system. But as Melzer points out:

Manning already had full "top secret"access privileges to the system and all the documents she leaked to Assange. So, even according to the U.S. government, the point of the alleged attempt to decode the password hash was not to gain unauthorized access to classified information ("hacking"), but to help Manning to cover her tracks inside the system by logging in with a different identity ("source protection"). In any case, the alleged attempt undisputedly remained unsuccessful and did not result in any harm whatsoever.

Nossel's repetition of the lie that Assange endangered lives by not redacting documents was obliterated during the trial of Manning, several sessions of which I attended at Fort Meade in Maryland with Cornel West. During the court proceedings in July 2013, Brig.Gen.Robert Carr, a senior counterintelligence officer who headed the Information Review Task Force that investigated the impact of WikiLeaks disclosures on behalf of the Department of Defense, told the court that the task force did not uncover a single case of someone who lost their lives due to the publication of the classified documents by WikiLeaks. As for Nossel's claim that "in the beginning they worked with journalists to be careful about redacting names of individuals," she should be aware that the decryption key to the unredacted State Department documents was not released by Assange, but Luke Harding and David Leigh of the Guardian in their book "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy."

RELATED:Former congressman offered Trump pardon to Julian Assange in exchange for discrediting Russia probe

When the ruling class peddles lies, there is no cost for parroting them back to the public. The cost is paid by those who tell the truth.

On Nov.27, 2019, Melzer gave a talk at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlinto dedicate a sculptureby the Italian artist Davide Dormino. Figures of Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, cast in bronze, stood on three chairs. A fourth chair, empty, was next to them, inviting others to take a stand with them. The sculpture is called "Anything to Say?" Melzer stepped up onto the fourth chair, the hulking edifice of the U.S. embassy off to his right. He uttered the words that should have come from organizations like PEN America:

For decades, political dissidents have been welcomed by the West with open arms, because in their fight for human rights they were persecuted by dictatorial regimes.

Today, however, Western dissidents themselves are forced to seek asylum elsewhere, such as Edward Snowden in Russia or, until recently, Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

For the West itself has begun to persecute its own dissidents, to subject them to draconian punishments in political show trials, and to imprison them as dangerous terrorists in high-security prisons under conditions that can only be described as inhuman and degrading.

Our governments feel threatened by Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowdenand Julian Assange, because they are whistleblowers, journalistsand human rights activists who have provided solid evidence for the abuse, corruptionand war crimes of the powerful, for which they are now being systematically defamed and persecuted.

They are the political dissidents of the West, and their persecution is today's witch hunt, because they threaten the privileges of unsupervised state power that has gone out of control.

The cases of Manning, Snowden, Assange and others are the most important test of our time for the credibility of Western rule of law and democracy and our commitment to human rights.

In all these cases, it is not about the person, the character or possible misconduct of these dissidents, but about how our governments deal with revelations abouttheir own misconduct.

How many soldiers have been held accountable for the massacre of civilians shown in the video "Collateral Murder"? How many agents for the systematic torture of terror suspects? How many politicians and CEOs for the corrupt and inhumane machinations that have been brought to light by our dissidents?

That's what this is about. It is about the integrity of the rule of law, the credibility of our democracies and, ultimately, about our own human dignity and the future of our children.

Let us never forget that!

The tenuous return to power of the Democratic Party under Joe Biden, and the specter of a Republican rout of the Democrats in the midterm elections next year, along with the very real possibility of the election in 2024 of Donald Trump, or a Trump-like figure, to the presidency, has blinded human rights and press groups to the danger of the egregious assaults on freedom of expression perpetrated by the Biden administration.

The steady march towards heavy-handed state censorship was accelerated by the Obama administration, whichcharged 10 government employees and contractors, eight under the Espionage Act, for disclosing classified information to the press. The Obama administration in 2013 also seized the phone records of 20 Associated Press reporters to uncover who leaked the information about a foiled al-Qaida terrorist plot. This ongoing assault by the Democratic Party has been accompanied by the disappearing on social media platforms of several luminaries on the far right, including Donald Trump and Alex Jones, who were removed from Facebook, Apple, YouTube. Content that is true but damaging to the Democratic Party, including the revelations from Hunter Biden's laptop, have been blocked by digital platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Algorithms have, since at least 2017, marginalized left-wing content, including my own.

The legal precedent set in this atmosphere by the sentencing of Assange means that anyone who possesses classified material, or anyone who leaks it, will be guilty of a criminal offense. The sentencing of Assange will signal the end of all investigative inquiries into the inner workings of power. The pandering by press and human rights organizations, tasked with being sentinels of freedom, to the Democratic Partyonly contributes to the steady tightening of the vise of press censorship. There is no lesser evil in this fight. It is all evil. Left unchecked, it will result in an American species of China's totalitarian capitalism.

See the article here:
PEN America, the "human rights" careerists and the betrayal of Julian Assange - Salon

Call it the scandal that will not die. Or, more accurately, the scandalmongering that will not die. In the last few weeks, there has been a spate of new assertions that presidential candidate Donald Trump and the Trump campaign did, in fact, collude with Russia to fix the 2016 election. No matter that special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutors, an aggressive bunch with a big budget and all the powers of U.S. law enforcement, investigated the collusion allegation for years and failed to establish that it ever happened.

Now, there are more and more references to something called the "Russia hoax hoax." Anti-Trump types are unhappy that Trump, and some Trump defenders, and even some who aren't Trump defenders, now talk about the Russia investigation as a "hoax." Calling the Trump-Russia investigation a hoax, they argue, is a hoax in itself thus the "Russia hoax hoax."

"The Real Hoax" is the title of a web piece by the Brookings Institution's Jonathan Rauch. "It Wasn't a Hoax" is the title of an article by the Atlantic's David Frum. "The End of the Great Russia Hoax Hoax" is the title of a Deep State Radio podcast featuring prominent Trump-Russia promoters Natasha Bertrand of Politico, Michael Weiss of the Daily Beast, Josh Campbell of CNN, and Susan Hennessey of the Brookings Institution's Lawfare website. Lawfare also produced a podcast featuring Rauch and Frum, as well as disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok, moderated by Brookings's Benjamin Wittes.

Why all the new activity? The Trump-Russia true believers are deeply concerned about the fallout from special counsel John Durham's investigation of the investigation. In particular, Durham's indictments have demolished any possibility of believing in the Steele dossier, which played a big role in the Trump-Russia investigation.

It really did, no matter who tries to deny it. Remember, top FBI officials hired former British spy Christopher Steele to investigate Trump for the bureau. (It didn't work out because Steele couldn't stop talking to the press.) FBI leaders also wanted to include Steele's unverified allegations, later shown to be ridiculously thinly sourced, in the Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election. In January 2017, the nation's top intelligence chiefs briefed outgoing President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump on Steele's tales. Then, when that briefing was leaked, the dossier became huge news when CNN reported it. Hours later, BuzzFeed published the whole thing. Ever since, it has been a near-sacred document for the truest of the true collusion believers.

But now, Durham has shown that some of the dossier's allegations, which we already knew were financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, were not only laughably sourced but also the work of a Clinton-connected politico who fed gossip to Steele's hired dirt-gatherer. The Steele dossier looks more and more like an elaborate and sadly effective political dirty trick.

It's not that the Russia hoax hoax crowd wants to defend the dossier. Rather, they are concerned that some will look at Durham's dismantling of the dossier and conclude that the entire Russia investigation was a hoax. Indeed, in that Brookings podcast, Rauch said he was concerned that some writers he respects Jesse Singal, Andrew Sullivan, Eli Lake, and Peter Berkowitz among them have dismissed the entire investigation. So, the anti-Trumpers have invented the Russia hoax hoax, the idea that anyone who, relying on Durham's findings, pronounces the whole Russia investigation a hoax is himself perpetrating a hoax. And doing Donald Trump's bidding, too. And that must be stopped.

The basic argument of the anti-Trump writers is that there really was Trump-Russia collusion. They didn't make it up! They go through the known events of the Trump-Russia timeline Trump's famous "Russia, if you're listening" statement, the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting, the "contacts" between Trump campaign figures and various Russians, the polling that then-Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort provided to a Russian who was a longtime business associate and also, perhaps, an intelligence agent, and the various actions of Michael Cohen and Roger Stone and argue that it all adds up to an indisputable case of collusion, no matter what special counsel Mueller could or could not find.

This is not the place to answer each of the points in detail. Suffice it to say some of them are just plain wrong, while others are just plain weak. For example, when discussing the "Russia, if you're listening" line on the Brookings podcast, Rauch said that "Trump publicly ... asked the Russians to illegally ... steal and dump Clinton campaign documents." But in his July 27, 2016, news conference, Trump was not referring to Clinton campaign documents. When he mentioned "30,000 emails that are missing," he was clearly referring to emails from a personal account that Clinton, when secretary of state, deleted on her own, allowing her lawyers to stonewall a House investigating committee. Trump said so specifically: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." No one would expect Rauch to have done reporting deep inside the Trump campaign, but if he had, he would have known that the 30,000 missing Clinton emails, emails from her secretary of state days, had long been a topic of extensive discussion and speculation at senior levels of the campaign.

On the other end of the scale, the Trump Tower meeting is the best single exhibit for the collusion theory. But even it falls short. Promising negative information on Hillary Clinton, some Russians teased top Trump officials into a meeting. Then, they bored the Trump team with an adoption-based pitch to repeal the Magnitsky Act. The meeting ended pretty quickly with the Trumpers hurrying for the door. Nothing ever happened.

Other instances of alleged "collusion," such as the random set of contacts between Trump figures and Russians any Russians qualified, apparently don't tell us anything. The Manafort polling matter boiled down to a classic Manafort operation the polling, according to close associate Richard Gates, was not secret, and Manafort was using it to show that he was a big deal in hopes of getting money to pay for his profligate personal spending, which is what Manafort was always trying to do. (For a deeper look at each of the collusion charges, please see my 2020 book OBSESSION.)

Perhaps Rauch's strongest point is his claim that the Russia investigation could not have been a hoax because the Justice Department inspector general found that the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane was sufficiently predicated, although the inspector general, Michael Horowitz, noted that the FBI had to meet a "low standard" to start the investigation. But here's the problem: What if an investigation is sufficiently predicated and then cannot establish that a crime has been committed, much less who might have committed it? And what if investigators knew that early on yet kept the investigation going and going and going?

That's what happened in the Trump-Russia investigation. Mueller was appointed in May 2017. By Christmas, after a period of extraordinary cooperation from the Trump defense team, the Mueller prosecutors knew they could not establish that conspiracy or coordination, the terms they employed in the investigation, ever took place. (See OBSESSION again.) And they didn't play word games; Mueller wrote that "even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute." So, whatever you want to call it conspiracy, coordination, or collusion Mueller did not find it.

The bottom line is, the Russia hoax hoax effort is pretty weak tea. Plus, the part coming from the Brookings Institution group looks a little strange, given that a number of figures at the liberal think tank had a part in handling the dossier as it made its way, unknown to the public, through the Obama administration and the media.

But there is another angle to the Russia hoax hoax story that is more interesting than the conventional analysis from Rauch, et al. Going through court papers in the Capitol riot prosecutions, the writer Marcy Wheeler, who posts as emptywheel, has noticed that not only do the riot defendants believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, many also believe that Democrats, through the "Russia hoax," tried to steal the 2016 election from Trump. When they are accused of spreading the "Big Lie" their 2020 stop-the-steal narrative they counter by saying, in effect: "You call stop-the-steal the Big Lie? What about your claim that Russia rigged the 2016 election for Trump? That's the real Big Lie, and it was everywhere in the media for years after the election."

Wheeler noted the recent MSNBC appearance of Jan. 6 rally organizers Dustin Stockton and Jennifer Lynn Lawrence. (The two are not accused of any crimes.) Host Chris Hayes went through some of the wildest 2020 stolen-election theories and said, "You do get that it wasn't stolen, right? ... that all of those claims were not true, right?" In response, Stockton turned the question around on Hayes, pointing to the media's yearslong Russia frenzy. "Do you now admit," Stockton said to Hayes, "that the Russia memes that you guys ran 24 hours a day in the early days of Trump ... [were] undermining democracy? ... There were dozens of ridiculous claims. ... There were tons of ridiculous clips."

Wheeler wrote: "A key purveyor of the Big Lie [Stockton] excuses his actions because MSNBC reported on a Russia investigation that was based off real facts." She continued: "This is just one example where Trumpsters excuse their own participation in the Big Lie by turning a bunch of different prongs of reporting on Russia in 2017 some undoubtedly overblown but much based on real facts about real actions that Trump and his aides really took into the equivalent of wild hoaxes about efforts to steal the 2020 election."

What is going on here? First of all, the Russia hoax hoax arguments are coming from writers and commentators who believed deeply in collusion, so deeply that even when an extensive investigation failed to establish that collusion took place, some of them faulted the investigator and kept on believing. Now, in Trump's refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election, the stop-the-steal movement, and the Capitol riot, they see election-denial efforts that uncomfortably echo their own but turned up to 11 and, ultimately, into a riot and physical violence.

What if Trump had handled the post-election period differently? What if he had accepted the verdict of the election and had not accused Democrats of cheating, not launched court challenges, and not called for protests? What if, instead, Trump had followed the 2016 model and surreptitiously used the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and a willing media, to slander and undermine Biden and his administration in hopes of driving them from office? That would have been following a now-established Democratic/media precedent.

But Trump did what he did. And the Trump-Russia believers did what they did. And now, those believers see Trump followers such as Stockton, defending his denial of the 2020 election results, throwing their old, unproven Russia allegations back at them. So now, they have come up with the idea of a "Russia hoax hoax" a new way to claim that it is the other guy who is making up false charges.

Originally posted here:
Never say die: Trump-Russia collusion theorists strike again - Washington Examiner

Nearly six months in, "The View" has yet to settle on a permanent replacement for Meghan McCain. And now, the longtime co-hosts are upping the pressure to pick a successor. | Todd Anderson/Disney Resorts via Getty Images

Before taking off for the holidays, the four long-standing hosts of The View had a message for executive producer BRIAN TETA: Were tired of the rotating cast of Republican guest hosts.

When MEGHAN MCCAIN departed in August, Teta initially told the Wrap that he was taking a little time to find a replacement. Since then, ABC has tried out a variety of conservative fill-ins, including S.E. CUPP, ALYSSA FARAH, MORGAN ORTAGUS, CONDOLEEZZA RICE, CARLY FIORINA, and GRETCHEN CARLSON.

Nearly six months in, the show has yet to settle on a permanent replacement. And now, the longtime co-hosts JOY BEHAR, WHOOPI GOLDBERG and SUNNY HOSTIN are upping the pressure to pick a successor, and voicing their displeasure at having to introduce new guest hosts week after week in a seemingly endless process that they find disruptive to the flow of the show.

Right now, we still do need a really conservative voice, Hostin told New York Magazine in November. And we need someone thats not duplicative of anyone else on the panel.

According to a spokesperson for The View, the program will continue to audition potential hosts in the new year, bringing some women back for a second turn. Farah will return in January, and the show will bring in other big names, like BARI WEISS and LISA LING neither of whom exactly fit the conservative label while the network continues to conduct focus groups on the audiences reaction.

Sources close to the show said that the search has stalled as executives struggle to find a conservative cast-member who checks all the right boxes. They will not consider a Republican who is a denier of the 2020 election results, embraced the January 6 riots, or is seen as flirting too heavily with fringe conspiracy theories or the MAGA wing of the GOP. But at the same time, the host must have credibility with mainstream Republicans, many of whom still support DONALD TRUMP.

The problem is that they bring people on under the mantle that this woman is a conservative, when theyre Never Trump, so they dont represent the country, said one of the rotating guest hosts.

At the same time, the anti-Trump conservative cant be seen as too chummy with the other co-hosts, as the networks market-research shows that the audience wants to see the women spar. Sources said that this has hurt the chances of ANA NAVARRO, a regular fill-in on the conservative chair who worked as a surrogate for JOE BIDEN in 2020: She is perceived by the producers as too friendly with the other hosts and not a traditional Republican.

They are really looking for a unicorn, said a former show staffer. They want someone who is going to fight but not too hard, because they dont want it to be ugly and bickering.

It doesnt help that theres a perception that whoever sits in the conservative host slot is on borrowed time, with prominent Republican former co-hosts like NICOLLE WALLACE, ELIZABETH HASSELBECK, ABBY HUNTSMAN and McCain leaving the show with claims of being bullied by their co-hosts and ABC executives on-set and off, while veterans like Goldberg and Behar have thrived.

Sources said that the show was eager to recruit young libertarian KAT TIMPF, but she turned them down because of the shows reputation for treating conservatives poorly and her contract with Fox. Timpf declined to comment to Playbook. Others have said that the show has a responsibility to fill the conservative chair with a strong Republican co-host ahead of the midterms if they are going to be a credible political talk show.

Our plans are on track as we continue to look for the right person to join our panel of smart, dynamic women, said a View spokesperson. We look forward to welcoming guest co-hosts for return appearances and introducing new names into the mix in the new year.

Good Monday morning. Thanks for reading Playbook. Drop us a line: Rachael Bade, Eugene Daniels, Ryan Lizza, Tara Palmeri.

A message from Google:

In September 2021, searches for job interview spiked in the U.S. As the world started to open back up, people were searching for their next thing. Search interest for job interview in the U.S. surpassed pre-pandemic levels in September 2021. Explore Google Year in Search 2021.

IN MEMORIAM Our illustrious colleagues at POLITICO Magazine have put together a package of obituaries and remembrances of the political players, agitators, chroniclers and pioneers who died this year and why they mattered. Among those profiled: COLIN POWELL, BOB DOLE, BOB MOSES, RICHARD TRUMKA, bell hooks, RUTH ANN MINNER, DONALD RUMSFELD, SHELDON ADELSON, RUSH LIMBAUGH, LEE HART, VERNON JORDAN, G. GORDON LIDDY, ROSE OCHI and CARL LEVIN.

Clockwise from top left: Vernon Jordan, Sheldon Adelson, Ruth Ann Minner, and Walter Mondale. | Todd Heisler/The New York Times/Redux Pictures; Ethan Miller/Getty Images; Dee Marvin/AP Photo; Stephen Voss/Redux Pictures

Click here for all 33 profiles, written by the likes of CONDOLEEZZA RICE, Reps. TOM MALINOWSKI (D-N.J.) and JUDY CHU (D-Calif.), former Rep. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R-Fla.) and more.

BIDENS YEAR IN REVIEW WATCH: Biden got by with little help from his friends: A Beatles remix

During the first year of the Biden presidency, the nation just seemed to want to double down on divisiveness. Biden thought his first year was going to be like a happy Beatles song. The country needed help. It was time to get back and come together over him. We could get by with a little help from our friends! Please enjoy a very Beatles parody of Bidens hard days night and year, 2021.

A message from Google:

As the year comes to a close, see the people, stories, and events the world was searching for. Watch Google Year in Search 2021.

BIDENS MONDAY:

10:05 a.m.: The president will receive the Presidents Daily Brief.

11:30 a.m.: Biden will join the White House Covid-19 response teams regular call with the National Governors Association to discuss the pandemic.

12:15 p.m.: Biden will depart the White House en route to Rehoboth Beach, Del., where he is scheduled to arrive at 1:15 p.m.

2:30 p.m.: The president will virtually receive his weekly economic briefing.

THE HOUSE and THE SENATE are out.

PHOTOS OF THE YEAR

Supporters of President Donald Trump climb the west wall of the the U.S. Capitol in Washington as they try to storm the building on Jan. 6. | Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo

Police with guns drawn face off against rioters trying to break into the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

A rioter hangs from the balcony in the Senate Chamber on Jan. 6. | Win McNamee/Getty Images

THE PANDEMIC

THE OMI-CHRONICLES

Coronavirus cases are being reported at record levels across the world surpassing even last winters devastating peak in some places, write WaPos Bryan Pietsch and Annabelle Timsit. The UK, Italy, Ireland and France are among those nations that broke their previous records over the weekend. Here in the U.S., health officials warn that the country could soon see more than 1 million new cases per day, far beyond last winters peak of 248,000.

Sunday travel plans got totally derailed. As of Sunday evening, more than 1,300 flights with at least one stop in the United States, and over two times as many around the world, had been canceled, NYTs Marc Tracy writes.

Health experts are urging city and state officials to do more to ensure that the most vulnerable particularly nursing home residents get boosters quickly, NYTs Sharon Otterman and Joseph Goldstein write. New York, like much of the country, was slow to push boosters before the new variant arrived a few weeks ago, and has largely left administering third doses to the long-term care facilities themselves, some of which are struggling with the task.

Business leaders are asking Congress for another dip into the national piggy bank. The question Congress will face when it returns in January is whether the latest Covid-19 wave justifies a new rescue beyond the $1 trillion of emergency small business assistance lawmakers have approved since March 2020. Most of the programs have been tapped out or are winding down, Zachary Warmbrodt writes.

Meanwhile, Bidens plan to use USAID to help vaccinate the world in 2022 is running out of money, Erin Banco reports. Over the past year, the agency has largely relied on more than $1.6 billion allocated through the American Rescue Plan to help facilitate the shipment and administration of Covid-19 vaccine doses internationally. The agency has either used that money or already earmarked it for several months into the new year to help countries prepare to receive and distribute the doses, the officials said.

THE WHITE HOUSE

BEHIND-THE-SCENES BACKBITING Daniel Lippman has the scoop on an explosive whisper campaign that tried to sink STEVEN BONDYs appointment as U.S. ambassador to Bahrain. This is one such story youve not read before. It features a decorated diplomat with an unblemished record, about to claim a career-defining prize: an ambassadorial posting to a key Middle East ally. It involves serious accusations and counter-accusations of racism, none of which were made publicly. Hidden not far beneath the surface are personal histories and policy disagreements in this case between appointees of former President Donald Trump and the Deep State bureaucracy that havent been put to bed with the advent of a new administration. To tell the tale properly, we need to go back three years and start in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.

THE ECONOMY

HOLIDAY SHOPPING UP BIG Despite many worries that the new surge coupled with headache-inducing supply chain woes would stunt holiday sales this year, data says that doesnt seem to be the case. American consumers spent at a brisk pace over the shopping season, as an early rush to stores amid worries about supply and delivery problems muted the effects of a Covid-19 surge that disrupted some businesses and crimped spending before Christmas, WSJs Suzanne Kapner and Paul Ziobro report.

A message from Google:

This year, U.S.-based searches for asian owned were 2X higher than in 2020.

POLICY CORNER

THE NEW RULES OF MONOPOLY A new breed of antitrust activists say its time to rewrite the rules that have long protected competition in the American economy, reports Leah Nylen. And unlike many of the hottest issues embroiling Washington, the antitrust debate doesnt break down along neat partisan or ideological lines. Supporters of sweeping change include progressive Democrats like Massachusetts Sen. ELIZABETH WARREN and Federal Trade Commission Chair LINA KHAN, as well as conservative Republicans like Missouri Sen. JOSH HAWLEY and Colorado Rep. KEN BUCK, all of them facing resistance within their own parties.

ALL POLITICS

MAGA MOVES Trumps staunchest allies in Congress are aiming to grow their ranks in the midterms by primarying establishment Republicans. The goal, organizers of the effort say, is to supersize the MAGA group in the House from its current loose membership of about a half-dozen and give it the heft that, combined with its close alliance with Trump, would put it in a position to wield significant influence should Republicans win the House majority, WaPos Colby Itkowitz writes. A number that jumped out at us: In 2020, Trump won 45 [House] districts by more than 15 percentage points. Under new maps already finalized in more than a dozen states, he would have won 78 districts by that margin.

THE NEW GOP WINSOME SEARS road to becoming Virginias lieutenant governor and the first Black woman elected to statewide office in the commonwealth was unlikely. Now, she wants to change the conversation among Black Republican voters. This is the question that Ms. Sears embodies: whether she is a singular figure who won a surprise victory or the vanguard of a major political realignment, dissolving longtime realities of race and partisan identification, NYTs Campbell Robertson writes in Richmond, Va. Democrats say there is little evidence for the latter, and that Ms. Sears won with typical Republican voters in an especially Republican year. But Ms. Sears insists that many Black and immigrant voters naturally side with Republicans on a variety of issues and that some are starting to realize that. The only way to change things is to win elections, she said. And who better to help make that change but me? I look like the strategy.

AMERICA AND THE WORLD

FIRST IN PLAYBOOK PBS In Their Own Words series will debut a new episode on former German Chancellor ANGELA MERKEL on Tuesday, Dec. 28. The special will feature interviews with HILLARY CLINTON, GEORGE W. BUSH and others to explore how Merkel overcame fierce opposition, a vicious press and rampant sexism to lead Germany and Europe with a steady focus on peace and freedom. In an exclusive clip shared with Playbook, Clinton and Bush talk about Merkels dealings with world leaders like Russian President VLADIMIR PUTIN. Bush even tells a story about when he introduced his dog, Barney, to Putin. The 2:49 clip

ON THE GROUND In Ukraine, the military is training civilians as a precaution if Russia takes the extraordinary step to attack the country, drawing on a lesson from the United States wars in Iraq and Afghanistan of the past two decades, when guerrillas provided enduring resistance in the face of vastly superior American firepower, NYTs Andrew Kramer writes in Kyiv.

JUDICIARY SQUARE

LAW OF THE LAND Federal prosecutors are increasingly using racketeering statutes to go after a broader array of criminal activity, applying them in ways that deviate from the laws original goal of dismantling organized crime, WSJs Deanna Paul reports.

Alexander Vindman portrayed himself on Sunday nights season finale of Curb Your Enthusiasm. While on book tour in the episode, Vindman overhears Larry David on the phone asking a Santa Monica city councilwoman for a favor while dangling a large donation in front of her.

IN MEMORIAM via APs Jake Bleiberg: Sarah Weddington, a Texas lawyer who as a 26-year-old successfully argued the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade before the U.S. Supreme Court, died Sunday. She was 76.

via NYTs Vimal Patel and Azi Paybarah: Richard Marcinko, the hard-charging founding commander of Navy SEAL Team 6, the storied and feared unit within an elite commando force that later carried out the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, died Saturday at his home in Fauquier County, Va. He was 81.

TRANSITION Jon Selib will be managing director and global external affairs leader at Clayton, Dubilier & Rice. He previously was SVP of global policy and public affairs at Pfizer, and is a Max Baucus alum.

WELCOME TO THE WORLD Michael Ly, director of public policy at the American Kidney Fund, and Katie Leesman, an associate at Ballard Spahr, welcomed Vinh Michael Ly last Monday. Pic

HAPPY BIRTHDAY: Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) Laura Lott of the American Alliance of Museums Shhrazade Semsar Emily Murphy Julie Benkoske NBCs Savannah Guthrie Mercedes Schlapp Kurt Volker Andi Lipstein Fristedt Gray Televisions Jacqueline Policastro Osaremen Okolo Jessica McCreight Brown Marc Smrikarov of Chatham Strategies James Burnham Andi Pringle Emily Hytha Googles Jeff Murray Kamau Marshall Tierney Sneed Joe Harris Josh Litten BCW Globals Karen Hughes POLITICO Europes Tim Ball and Nick Vinocur Arthur Kent Benji Backer of the American Conservation Coalition Hemanshu Nigam Mike Thomas Barclay Palmer Joseph Collins Andrew Chesley Catherine Marx former Reps. Abby Finkenauer (D-Iowa) and Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) (6-0) James King

Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.

Send Playbookers tips to [emailprotected]. Playbook couldnt happen without our editor Mike Zapler, deputy editor Zack Stanton and producers Allie Bice, Eli Okun and Garrett Ross.

A message from Google:

In 2021, mental health was top of mind. As the pandemic entered its second year, people around the world looked for ways to prioritize their mental health. This year, the world searched for how to maintain mental health more than ever before. Explore Google Year in Search 2021.

Read more from the original source:
POLITICO Playbook: 'The View' struggles to find a Republican - Politico