I don’t know that this is as nonsensical as it seems.
I can imagine scenarios where Trump tries to stay an extra term or makes it ugly to throw him out or something like that. I can’t imagine one of those scenarios where he is successful at that.
I believe Joe Biden will move along and any Democrat would obey term limits.
But I think the complaints against modern liberalism are different than just that rule adherence. It’s at the level of “who are the rules being pointed at and how hard?”
If that only ever happens one way, that’s a huge threat to due process itself and I think that’s where the legitimate complaints come from. I see Trump as a better protector of that simply because there’s no universal direction everyone would agree to pull in with him in office.
One way to look at this is, Trump is so bad in other ways that *even some people who bought in* to Trump-aligned conspiracy bullshit still aren't committed to voting for him.
I listened to a podcast during the last week, which included brief interviews with Trump supporters. Much to my surprise, their consensus was that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, with one person going so far as to scoff 'you don't want to live in a democracy ', as if such a system was an imaginable horror.
My take out was that GOP supporters quite genuinely believe, and are telling each other, that the USA isn't a democracy anyway, ergo, Trump is no threat. Americans fought a war to become a republic, they say. Trump is a republican. See how simple that is, how neat, how self evident at a linguistic level?
I've never been able to get a clear answer on what they think the republic is that a democracy isn't, except for those who think "democracy" only means direct popular majority voting on everything.
It was both fascinating and shocking to me. The media offers up a daily menu for why people support Trump, and why Trump will win. Hearing real thoughts from his supporters was a bucket of ice.
I didn't understand how Trump has continued to get away with asserting that Biden is a danger to democracy. But a little bit of fascism, a little bit of dictatorship? Yep, his supporters have some easy self-talk for that - it's scary and diabolical. It's a whole thought process that is outside the grasp of most of us.
They don't need to justify or understand the difference between the concepts, they only have to believe, they only have to have their argument at the ready. They're 100 percent certain. They live in a republic. Trump has their back. Trump is them.
If you believe an all powerful and all seeing god runs everything then democracy is anathema to your world view. A dictator making all the decisions is much closer to the way the universe works.
I think one thing to consider is that many who participate in answering poll questions answer the questions purely to make their own point. So the question, "Who do you trust to better handle threats to democracy in the U.S.?", really just becomes the question, "Who do you plan to vote for?". Many simply will choose the candidate they support rather than answer the question that was asked.
You could ask a poll question, "Is candidate X really an alien sent from the planet Marduk to torment humanity?", and you will get many people who dislike candidate X answering "yes" - simply to make a point that they think candidate X sucks.
Much like when that one kid in 5th grade filled in bubbles to make the Scantron answer sheet spell out "FARTS", we shouldn't take the results of polling with questions like that indicative of anything meaningful.
Hi Michael... new to your Substack after watching your Scott Adams chat today. Here's my immediate, "shoot from the hip, aim later" response.
First, Russian Collusion. We now know as fact Hillary's campaign funded what we now know as the 'Steele Dossier' that was used by the FBI as the basis for investigating Trump's alleged ties to Putin (#1 below). The 'Steele Dossier' was entirely debunked and in hindsight highly criticized for being the basis of the Mueller investigation. This was categorical election interference, or said differently, a viable threat to democracy.
Second, the Hunter Biden laptop. We now know as fact that the FBI had the laptop in 2019, knew it was authentic, and later privately told Twitter that there was potentially 'Russian misinformation' coming out. When the laptop story broke all social media platforms banned the story, the media went full-stop saying it was Russian misinformation, and 51 senior intelligence leaders all signed a declaration that it 'had the hallmarks of Russian misinformation'. Link #2 below summarizes Mark Zuckerberg confirming the FBI came to them to preemptively warn them about a potential major incoming act of Russian misinformation coming. Link #3 verifies that the FBI confirmed the laptop was real to internal social media teams, but they censored it anyway. Moreover, in the recent Hunter Biden firearm prosecution, an FBI expert testified under oath that the laptop was real and not corrupted... hence validation it was real.
Why I share these two examples? They are evidence that in both 2016 and 2020, there were material cases of election interference perpetrated against the Trump campaign. First by Hillary Clinton in 2016 and then by a well-coordinated censorship effort that involved the FBI and most likely other high-level government officials.
If you can can accept the fact that both of these events happened, then you should be able to see how a large portion of the country feels like the sanctity of their vote, a representation of democracy, has been threatened and compromised.
I actually don't think it's that hard to see.
On a separate note, if you read link #1 again, you will see that Hillary's New York-based 2016 campaign filed the 'Steele Dossier' expenses as 'Legal Expenses' to hide what ended up being verified election interference that she was fined for by the FEC. This is the exact the legal framework of Trump's 34 felony convictions. Remember, Trump wasn't charged for paying hush money. He was charged for concealing payments that were deemed to hide material facts from voters, aka 'election interference'. Ironic, no?
Hi there and welcome to my Substack. Thanks for the respectful note. A few things jump out at me.
First, you said: "We now know as fact Hillary's campaign funded what we now know as the 'Steele Dossier' that was used by the FBI as the basis for investigating Trump's alleged ties to Putin."
The Steele Dossier HAS been largely discredited, but it was not the basis of the FBI inquiry. According to Republican John Ratcliffe "said it was information about a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser that sparked the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the election." Link below
Was the obtainment of the Dossier "election interference" or was it opposition research? Regardless, it was NOT the basis for the Mueller Report, which DID find that Russian interference in the 2016 election was "sweeping and systemic".
The Hunter Biden laptop story is of little interest to me unless David Weiss finds some evidence of criminality on Joe Biden's part. I don't care what Hunter Biden did or didn't do, except as it relates to any potential corruption by his father. If such evidence is found, I want Biden impeached and jailed. Because no such evidence has been brought to light, I can only assume it doesn't exist.
Your third point about Zuckerberg is a little bit in the weeds, but I understand that it relates to what Scott and I discussed yesterday. I'm not sure if there's anything nefarious about the FBI warning social media platforms that Russian disinformation is flooding their sites and to be aware of it.
I understand that you're attempting to draw an equivalence between Trump's NY convictions and the Clinton campaign's use of the Steele Dossier. All I can say is we disagree. There's nothing wrong with either side digging up opposition research. Did the DNC lie about "legal expenses". Yes they did, and they paid a fine. I understand that might seem unfair comparing the Clinton slap on the wrist to the Trump felony convictions. All I can say is, I'm not familiar enough with the law to attempt to explain the distinction. What I can say is that a jury found Trump guilty; was he treated differently than Hilary? Perhaps, but the facts are the facts. Trump was on trial, not Hilary. Trump was found guilty, not Hilary.
As for election interference, I assume you know that many on the left accuse James Comey of election interference in 2016 when he sent a letter to Congress saying the FBI "'learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation' into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended the news cycle and soon halved Clinton’s lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the Electoral College." But he neglected to mention that Trump was being investigated for collusion with the Russians at the same time. Was that election interference?
The point is that these things aren't always cut-and-dry. In Trump's case, jurors found Trump guilty of falsifying business records in the furtherance of another crime. I don't know how to argue that they were doing anything other than their jobs as jurors. Ditto: the Hunter Biden jury. They were presented evidence and they made a determination of guilt in both cases.
So yes, I can understand why some people feel like their vote has been compromised. They feel that, if only the electorate had known about Hunter's laptop or that the Steele Dossier wasn't substantively correct, that they would have changed their votes. Is it possible that either of these stories would have swung the election if we knew everything then that we know now? Perhaps. But the same argument could be made regarding the Comey letter. Remember, he cleared her of wrong-doing other than saying she shouldn't have had a private server. The fact is, history is messy. There are always extenuating circumstances, things that could have been different, reporting that might have been better, information that either could have hurt or helped another candidate.
The larger issue - Trump's issue - is the validity of our entire electoral system. That's the issue I worry about.
Thanks Michael... I appreciate the very quick and well-written response. I concede your point on Comey/Hillary.
I will say, I think you have too easily taken the Trump conviction as 'just' or 'acceptable' simply because a case was filed, evidence was presented, and the jury found him guilty. I agree with you that it's not a jury specific issue. It was with the DA and the judge.
I find it very interesting that a number of democrats, mostly attorneys, have been vocal that the hush money case should never have been filed. These include Chris Cuomo (on Bill Maher), Chris Cuomo (Valuetainment Covid Debate), Alan Dershowitz, and Fareed Zaharia (1:23 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_FfcsHwKGE).
The most salient piece.. "In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge."
I absolutely agree that this was a political case in the sense that Alvin Bragg brought both guns to town in pursuing it, BUT that doesn't negate the charges. The charges were brought even if such cases are unusual. Ditto with Hunter Biden. Hunter is absolutely guilty of lying on his firearm application form. Many lawyers and commentators said they thought THAT case shouldn't have been brought. Nevertheless, both cases were brought. Grand juries found enough evidence to issue an indictment. Both juries found the men guilty. I don't think it's possible to separate politics from either of these cases, but just because they were "political" doesn't also mean they were "just." So yes, I find the Trump verdict "just," the same way I found the Hunter Biden trial "just." The same way I found the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict "just." NOW, do I think the Biden White House interfered with the Bragg prosecution. I do NOT. If evidence were found that they DID, I would support whatever penalties are appropriate.
I'm sure you are aware, but I find it incredibly suspect that Michael Colangelo, the number three at Biden's DOJ (Acting Associate Attorney General ), just happened to resign from such a senior position and and join Bragg's DA office in December 2022 (https://manhattanda.org/district-attorney-bragg-announces-matthew-colangelo-as-new-senior-counsel/) to focus on white collar crimes. He then joined the team that prosecuted Trump.
This would be like leaving Harvard to teach at a 3rd tier university.
BTW... I'm an unexpected fan. It's funny, my most used GIF in texting 'yes' is you standing in front of a giant mound of pudding. 'Awe Yeah!'.
I nearly fell out of my chair (it has rollers) when I saw that headline and article in the Washington Post earlier this week. It was infuriating and I posted this comment:
"WAPO, "Democracy Dies in Darkness" remember? At this point, anyone who thinks Trump is the savior of democracy is hopelessly ill informed or simply bound to their prejudices. And your headline, article and specious poll are suspect and complicit."
Unrelated: Germans trusted the party in power to "protect democracy" more than the people accused of setting fire to the Reichstag. The Social Democrats accused Hitler of stealing power by coup. The national socialists said the SD party were a threat to unity and democracy.
I’m sort of coming to the conclusion that these people are just stupid… I’m sick and tired of all the theories that try to explain why people think and behave the way they do. Why can’t anyone just come out and say that these people are fucking idiots?
I don’t know that this is as nonsensical as it seems.
I can imagine scenarios where Trump tries to stay an extra term or makes it ugly to throw him out or something like that. I can’t imagine one of those scenarios where he is successful at that.
I believe Joe Biden will move along and any Democrat would obey term limits.
But I think the complaints against modern liberalism are different than just that rule adherence. It’s at the level of “who are the rules being pointed at and how hard?”
If that only ever happens one way, that’s a huge threat to due process itself and I think that’s where the legitimate complaints come from. I see Trump as a better protector of that simply because there’s no universal direction everyone would agree to pull in with him in office.
One way to look at this is, Trump is so bad in other ways that *even some people who bought in* to Trump-aligned conspiracy bullshit still aren't committed to voting for him.
I listened to a podcast during the last week, which included brief interviews with Trump supporters. Much to my surprise, their consensus was that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, with one person going so far as to scoff 'you don't want to live in a democracy ', as if such a system was an imaginable horror.
My take out was that GOP supporters quite genuinely believe, and are telling each other, that the USA isn't a democracy anyway, ergo, Trump is no threat. Americans fought a war to become a republic, they say. Trump is a republican. See how simple that is, how neat, how self evident at a linguistic level?
I've never been able to get a clear answer on what they think the republic is that a democracy isn't, except for those who think "democracy" only means direct popular majority voting on everything.
It was both fascinating and shocking to me. The media offers up a daily menu for why people support Trump, and why Trump will win. Hearing real thoughts from his supporters was a bucket of ice.
I didn't understand how Trump has continued to get away with asserting that Biden is a danger to democracy. But a little bit of fascism, a little bit of dictatorship? Yep, his supporters have some easy self-talk for that - it's scary and diabolical. It's a whole thought process that is outside the grasp of most of us.
They don't need to justify or understand the difference between the concepts, they only have to believe, they only have to have their argument at the ready. They're 100 percent certain. They live in a republic. Trump has their back. Trump is them.
If you believe an all powerful and all seeing god runs everything then democracy is anathema to your world view. A dictator making all the decisions is much closer to the way the universe works.
also, I know someone who did the voice for a sock puppet in the 90s
I think one thing to consider is that many who participate in answering poll questions answer the questions purely to make their own point. So the question, "Who do you trust to better handle threats to democracy in the U.S.?", really just becomes the question, "Who do you plan to vote for?". Many simply will choose the candidate they support rather than answer the question that was asked.
You could ask a poll question, "Is candidate X really an alien sent from the planet Marduk to torment humanity?", and you will get many people who dislike candidate X answering "yes" - simply to make a point that they think candidate X sucks.
Much like when that one kid in 5th grade filled in bubbles to make the Scantron answer sheet spell out "FARTS", we shouldn't take the results of polling with questions like that indicative of anything meaningful.
Hi Michael... new to your Substack after watching your Scott Adams chat today. Here's my immediate, "shoot from the hip, aim later" response.
First, Russian Collusion. We now know as fact Hillary's campaign funded what we now know as the 'Steele Dossier' that was used by the FBI as the basis for investigating Trump's alleged ties to Putin (#1 below). The 'Steele Dossier' was entirely debunked and in hindsight highly criticized for being the basis of the Mueller investigation. This was categorical election interference, or said differently, a viable threat to democracy.
Second, the Hunter Biden laptop. We now know as fact that the FBI had the laptop in 2019, knew it was authentic, and later privately told Twitter that there was potentially 'Russian misinformation' coming out. When the laptop story broke all social media platforms banned the story, the media went full-stop saying it was Russian misinformation, and 51 senior intelligence leaders all signed a declaration that it 'had the hallmarks of Russian misinformation'. Link #2 below summarizes Mark Zuckerberg confirming the FBI came to them to preemptively warn them about a potential major incoming act of Russian misinformation coming. Link #3 verifies that the FBI confirmed the laptop was real to internal social media teams, but they censored it anyway. Moreover, in the recent Hunter Biden firearm prosecution, an FBI expert testified under oath that the laptop was real and not corrupted... hence validation it was real.
Why I share these two examples? They are evidence that in both 2016 and 2020, there were material cases of election interference perpetrated against the Trump campaign. First by Hillary Clinton in 2016 and then by a well-coordinated censorship effort that involved the FBI and most likely other high-level government officials.
If you can can accept the fact that both of these events happened, then you should be able to see how a large portion of the country feels like the sanctity of their vote, a representation of democracy, has been threatened and compromised.
I actually don't think it's that hard to see.
On a separate note, if you read link #1 again, you will see that Hillary's New York-based 2016 campaign filed the 'Steele Dossier' expenses as 'Legal Expenses' to hide what ended up being verified election interference that she was fined for by the FEC. This is the exact the legal framework of Trump's 34 felony convictions. Remember, Trump wasn't charged for paying hush money. He was charged for concealing payments that were deemed to hide material facts from voters, aka 'election interference'. Ironic, no?
1: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93
2: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532
3: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fbi-told-twitter-hunter-biden-laptop-was-real-on-day-it-was-censored/
Hi there and welcome to my Substack. Thanks for the respectful note. A few things jump out at me.
First, you said: "We now know as fact Hillary's campaign funded what we now know as the 'Steele Dossier' that was used by the FBI as the basis for investigating Trump's alleged ties to Putin."
The Steele Dossier HAS been largely discredited, but it was not the basis of the FBI inquiry. According to Republican John Ratcliffe "said it was information about a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser that sparked the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the election." Link below
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/dossier-not-what-started-all-of-this/
Was the obtainment of the Dossier "election interference" or was it opposition research? Regardless, it was NOT the basis for the Mueller Report, which DID find that Russian interference in the 2016 election was "sweeping and systemic".
https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/
The Hunter Biden laptop story is of little interest to me unless David Weiss finds some evidence of criminality on Joe Biden's part. I don't care what Hunter Biden did or didn't do, except as it relates to any potential corruption by his father. If such evidence is found, I want Biden impeached and jailed. Because no such evidence has been brought to light, I can only assume it doesn't exist.
Your third point about Zuckerberg is a little bit in the weeds, but I understand that it relates to what Scott and I discussed yesterday. I'm not sure if there's anything nefarious about the FBI warning social media platforms that Russian disinformation is flooding their sites and to be aware of it.
I understand that you're attempting to draw an equivalence between Trump's NY convictions and the Clinton campaign's use of the Steele Dossier. All I can say is we disagree. There's nothing wrong with either side digging up opposition research. Did the DNC lie about "legal expenses". Yes they did, and they paid a fine. I understand that might seem unfair comparing the Clinton slap on the wrist to the Trump felony convictions. All I can say is, I'm not familiar enough with the law to attempt to explain the distinction. What I can say is that a jury found Trump guilty; was he treated differently than Hilary? Perhaps, but the facts are the facts. Trump was on trial, not Hilary. Trump was found guilty, not Hilary.
As for election interference, I assume you know that many on the left accuse James Comey of election interference in 2016 when he sent a letter to Congress saying the FBI "'learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation' into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended the news cycle and soon halved Clinton’s lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the Electoral College." But he neglected to mention that Trump was being investigated for collusion with the Russians at the same time. Was that election interference?
Link: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
The point is that these things aren't always cut-and-dry. In Trump's case, jurors found Trump guilty of falsifying business records in the furtherance of another crime. I don't know how to argue that they were doing anything other than their jobs as jurors. Ditto: the Hunter Biden jury. They were presented evidence and they made a determination of guilt in both cases.
So yes, I can understand why some people feel like their vote has been compromised. They feel that, if only the electorate had known about Hunter's laptop or that the Steele Dossier wasn't substantively correct, that they would have changed their votes. Is it possible that either of these stories would have swung the election if we knew everything then that we know now? Perhaps. But the same argument could be made regarding the Comey letter. Remember, he cleared her of wrong-doing other than saying she shouldn't have had a private server. The fact is, history is messy. There are always extenuating circumstances, things that could have been different, reporting that might have been better, information that either could have hurt or helped another candidate.
The larger issue - Trump's issue - is the validity of our entire electoral system. That's the issue I worry about.
Thanks Michael... I appreciate the very quick and well-written response. I concede your point on Comey/Hillary.
I will say, I think you have too easily taken the Trump conviction as 'just' or 'acceptable' simply because a case was filed, evidence was presented, and the jury found him guilty. I agree with you that it's not a jury specific issue. It was with the DA and the judge.
I find it very interesting that a number of democrats, mostly attorneys, have been vocal that the hush money case should never have been filed. These include Chris Cuomo (on Bill Maher), Chris Cuomo (Valuetainment Covid Debate), Alan Dershowitz, and Fareed Zaharia (1:23 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_FfcsHwKGE).
If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend reading the below article from CNN's legal analyst Elie Honig: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html
The most salient piece.. "In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge."
I absolutely agree that this was a political case in the sense that Alvin Bragg brought both guns to town in pursuing it, BUT that doesn't negate the charges. The charges were brought even if such cases are unusual. Ditto with Hunter Biden. Hunter is absolutely guilty of lying on his firearm application form. Many lawyers and commentators said they thought THAT case shouldn't have been brought. Nevertheless, both cases were brought. Grand juries found enough evidence to issue an indictment. Both juries found the men guilty. I don't think it's possible to separate politics from either of these cases, but just because they were "political" doesn't also mean they were "just." So yes, I find the Trump verdict "just," the same way I found the Hunter Biden trial "just." The same way I found the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict "just." NOW, do I think the Biden White House interfered with the Bragg prosecution. I do NOT. If evidence were found that they DID, I would support whatever penalties are appropriate.
Appreciate the response.
I'm sure you are aware, but I find it incredibly suspect that Michael Colangelo, the number three at Biden's DOJ (Acting Associate Attorney General ), just happened to resign from such a senior position and and join Bragg's DA office in December 2022 (https://manhattanda.org/district-attorney-bragg-announces-matthew-colangelo-as-new-senior-counsel/) to focus on white collar crimes. He then joined the team that prosecuted Trump.
This would be like leaving Harvard to teach at a 3rd tier university.
BTW... I'm an unexpected fan. It's funny, my most used GIF in texting 'yes' is you standing in front of a giant mound of pudding. 'Awe Yeah!'.
I nearly fell out of my chair (it has rollers) when I saw that headline and article in the Washington Post earlier this week. It was infuriating and I posted this comment:
"WAPO, "Democracy Dies in Darkness" remember? At this point, anyone who thinks Trump is the savior of democracy is hopelessly ill informed or simply bound to their prejudices. And your headline, article and specious poll are suspect and complicit."
Unrelated: Germans trusted the party in power to "protect democracy" more than the people accused of setting fire to the Reichstag. The Social Democrats accused Hitler of stealing power by coup. The national socialists said the SD party were a threat to unity and democracy.
Like you, I don't get it at all. Who got a mob together to stop transfer of power???? Who called states to find votes??? etc..... eeegawd....
dear michael,
isn't it obvious? to PREVENT a threat to democracy, you've got to THINK like a threat to democracy!
thanks for sharing as always!
love
myq
I’m sort of coming to the conclusion that these people are just stupid… I’m sick and tired of all the theories that try to explain why people think and behave the way they do. Why can’t anyone just come out and say that these people are fucking idiots?
The state of things are not good.
You are parroting a Democrat talking point? How about protect our Republic?
Which Democratic talking point am I parroting?
I think he means this one:
“but all y’all be fucking craaaaazy”.
Most of the Democrats I know, myself included, talk about this point all the time.
yes, looks like 38% of the country (or more) are just completely fucking crazy.
If you tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth.