Reason asked DHS if it considers recording or following police to be obstruction of justice. DHS' response: "That sure sounds like obstruction of justice." https://t.co/2VP8imZzfS
In a residential neighborhood in Kenner, Louisiana, two vehicles full of Border Patrol agents speed down the street. Their goal is to work quickly, before the protesters show up and start blowing whistles and honking horns to alert potential targets to hide inside. Border Patrol might spend hours waiting to detain an immigrant, only to be thwarted by a united neighborhood effort. Here in Kenner, a suburb of New Orleans, it looks like the feds might succeed. But as the agents round a corner, a Mercedes-Benz SUV comes out of nowhere, wedging itself between their vehicles, laying on the horn, whistles shrieking.
It’s a scene that has played out across Chicago, Charlotte, and now New Orleans, where the Trump administration launched what it calls “Operation Catahoula Crunch.” When Customs and Border Protection and Commander Gregory Bovino move into town, so does Whistlemania. Activists create and distribute thousands of 3D-printed whistles, and their piercing cries are used to signal that immigration agents are nearby. Caravans of protesters follow agents around, raising the alarm as they drive through the streets.
Hours after the chase in Kenner, Bovino and his team held a photo op for press. As they walked out of a store and back to their vehicles, video journalist Ford Fischer asked Bovino if the whistles and horns had impeded the raids.
“No, it actually helps us,” Bovino claimed. “Oftentimes that helps. We incorporate that into our strategy.”
When asked for clarification, Bovino explained, “Sometimes it alerts them. We’re able to look at a reaction from the horn, and gather info and intel from that.” He quickly walked away.
CBP didn’t answers my follow-up questions about the raid I saw that day. But based on my experience observing Border Patrol and ICE across the country, I found it hard to believe they actually wanted protesters to warn neighbors about their presence. And that certainly wasn’t what I witnessed in Louisiana.
No
This is happening in cities all over the country where the CPB and ICE are invading neighborhoods to detail and abduct people they think look like they might be immigrants. (They don’t accept legal ID much of the time.) Photographers and journalists are following the CPB to each town in which they deploy and documenting what they are doing.
The government doesn’t like this and have taken to calling in obstruction of justice. I’m sure this will end up in court and who knows what will happen when it gets to the Supreme Court? But these people are trying to protect their neighbors and co-workers and it’s inspirational.
Here’s one of the many atrocities I ran across today on social media. There are thousands of them:
ICE agents illegally break into a woman's bathroom in a NY nutrition bar manufacturing plant. "Pull up your pants," says a male agent. The agents only had a warrant to review employer documents. They didn't have a warrant to search for, detain, or arrest anyone there. pic.twitter.com/CnsGwkJzG4
JV Last at the Bulwark points us to what he calls the “focus group from hell” and boy is that an apt description. The Manhattan Institute asked a bunch of Gen Z Republicans and the results are , well… bracing.
I present to you a focus group so vile that if it hadn’t been published approvingly by a Trump-loving publication, you’d have thought it was parody. Here, for instance, is what happened when the moderator asked the group what they think about Hitler:
Ashley: I think he was a great leader, to be honest. I think what he was going for was terrible, but I think he showed very strong leadership values.
Andrew: I’m in favor of a strong executive. I think we should have a stronger executive branch. I don’t think we should be killing people or doing mass genocide, obviously, but I do think we should have a strong executive. I feel like one of the biggest problems Trump is running into right now is all these little courts, they want to throw up little blockages against everything he’s trying to do, whether it be his tariffs or deporting people. So I’m very pro-strong executive, strong leader, strong man. I support national sovereignty, and Hitler was a nationalist. He was like, we have to take Germany back for Germans. And I feel like we should do that in America. We should take America back for our native population. So, I’m not an expert on Hitler by any means, but as far as nationalism is concerned, I’m all that.
Brice: I myself am actually Jewish, ancestrally. I’m Christian by faith, but Jewish by blood. I’ve actually read Mein Kampf. The end conclusions that he came to: absolutely abominable. But I strangely understood where he was coming from as far as wanting to improve the national state of Germany.
And you know what else? He was a hell of a painter.
They seem nice.
After the Hitler question, the City Journal moderator asked the young Republicans what they think about Jews:
Atticus: They’ve got Hollywood on lock.
George: Don’t they own, like, a ton of the media, and, like, just kind of everything?
Brice: No different than black people, Asian people, or any other people here today. I don’t really know why there’s a single issue about Jewish people.
Andrew: I would say a force for evil. I don’t see why we support Israel. I think Israel’s a very evil state. The genocide in Gaza, killing all these poor people. And the only reason we really support them is because they are the biggest donors. We have AIPAC, and these are all Jewish-run organizations.
At this point the moderator gets a little shook:
Moderator: Let me clarify that. Andrew, you think the Jewish people are a force for evil?
Andrew: Yes, sir. It doesn’t bother me if it’s true. Those slurs, if you’re racist or whatever, that just rolls off my back… This is my country, my people have been here since the American Revolution, so I say what I want to.
Role model:
Here’s a good one:
Lauren: I hear [pro-Israel content] all the time from certain pastors, and it makes me question them. I used to go to Global Vision Bible Church with Greg Locke, and he’s demonic, and I know a lot of stuff and how much harm he’s done to a lot of people . . . he goes to Israel all the freaking time and takes his stupid money. Israel has a lot of connections to sex and human trafficking, and that doesn’t sit well with me. I don’t feel like this is anti-Semitic because I’m a little bit Jewish myself, so I have all the room to talk, and I’ve been seeing evidence. When you see evidence of a pastor abusing people, or a pastor won’t show you his financial statements, that’s a big freaking problem.
Okay…
Poor little incel:
Andrew: I know a lot of guys who were pretty successful, who are in pretty good shape and successful, and they have a hard time finding a good Christian woman. I’m successful. I do pretty well. I make almost $100,000. I’m only 20 years old, so this isn’t a top-of-mind concern for me, but I don’t see a lot of good Christian women. I see a lot of tattoos, I don’t like that. And I see a lot of promiscuity with women, and I don’t like that, either. I see a lot of feminism, too. A lot of bossy women. I look at my mother, and I see a very traditional, conservative woman, and I don’t see that in other women around.
Who do they look up to?
Ashley: Charlie Kirk. I like the core values he held and put forward, putting God first, above everything. And that Kennedy guy—with the raspy voice.
Lauren: Shawn Ryan. And Charlie Kirk, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Joe Rogan.
George: Tucker Carlson. Especially after his departure from Fox, just seeing kind of how he’s a little more middle ground. Not so brainwashed by the bosses who tell him what to say.
None of them mentioned the anointed one, JD Vance. Or Dear Leader Donald Trump.
I watched a bunch of footage from the TPUSA gathering over the weekend and they interviewed many of the younger folks to attend those events. They all sound pretty much like these kids.
These ideas have been percolating for quite a while on the far right. When Trump was first elected and we were all freaking out about what we called the Alt-Right and are now known as Groypers, you’d hear this stuff. These sad little weirdos just like to be transgressive because they think it’s cool and it’s hard to know how much they actually believe. But the racism and bigotry is likely to stick, especially since it’s going more and more mainstream in the GOP.
Here’s a little taste of where it’s going:
Sein Kampf:
I wish I could say this is just some unusual X rando. But the site is full of this garbage, whether bots or real people, and it’s poisoning people’s minds.
Word to the wise, stay off of social media. It will lead you to some kind of substance abuse problem.
Tom addressed the latest Bari Weiss scandal below but I wanted to bring that excerpt from one of her whines about The NY Times to your attention. She left the paper’s editorial page in a huff screaming that they were inhibiting her free speech, pushing a woke agenda and creating self-censorship.
Here’s what Bari Weiss said on the CBS 9am call, per a source who transcribed it:
“I want to say something about trust: our trust for each other and our trust with the public. The only newsroom I’m interested in running is one in which we are able to have contentious disagreements about the thorniest editorial matters with respect, and, crucially, where we assume the best intent of our colleagues. Anything else is absolutely unacceptable.
I held a 60 Minutes story because it was not ready. While the story presented powerful testimony of torture at CECOT, it did not advance the ball—the Times and other outlets have previously done similar work. The public knows that Venezuelans have been subjected to horrific treatment at this prison. To run a story on this subject two months later, we need to do more. And this is 60 Minutes. We need to be able to get the principals on the record and on camera. Our viewers come first. Not the listing schedule or anything else. That’s my north star and I hope it’s yours, too.”
Principals on the record? They refused to comment which means that if the White House ignores you, you can’t run a story. (Weiss is not a journalist and knows nothing about journalism ethics and practices.)
Ms. Weiss first saw the segment on Thursday and raised numerous concerns to “60 Minutes” producers about Ms. Alfonsi’s segment on Friday and Saturday, and she asked for a significant amount of new material to be added, according to three people familiar with the internal discussions.
One of Ms. Weiss’s suggestions was to include a fresh interview with Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff and the architect of Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown, or a similarly high-ranking Trump administration official, two of the people said. Ms. Weiss provided contact information for Mr. Miller to the “60 Minutes” staff.
No doubt she has him on speed dial. (I actually agree that they should include the reptilian Miller to spew the grotesque, eliminationist swill he spews on Fox News and Twitter to a different audience as long as Weiss allows them to fact check him. I suspect a lot of them don’t know what kind of a monster is in charge of this immigration policy.)
And how about this?
Ms. Weiss also questioned the use of the term “migrants” to describe the Venezuelan men who were deported, noting that they were in the United States illegally, two of the people said.
What should they be called, Bari? Vermin? Parasites? I’m sure your good pal Miller has some ideas about that.
The utter lack of self-awareness in these people is just mind boggling. I know the Republicans and the MAGA cultists don’t understand or care about hypocrisy. But these supposed free speech warriors are something else. Are they just stupid or simply red pilled to the point of delusion?
If you currently subscribe to Paramount, you might want to think about cancelling. Corporations seem to care a little bit about this although now that it’s owned by a fascist multi billionaire maybe not.
And by the way, this isn’t the first time she’s put her thumb on the scale for Dear Leader:
Earlier this month, after Trump blasted "60 Minutes" for interviewing Marjorie Taylor Greene, correspondents noticed a change behind the scenes. "Bari Weiss got personally involved," specifically with stories about politics, a source at the program says. pic.twitter.com/fpb8ie0bwZ
This woman made her name as a proud defender of unfettered free speech and anti-woke ideology. She’s not the only one. (cough** Matt Taibbi ** cough) And now this ridiculously under qualified crank is destroying CBS through censorship and intimidation in favor of the authoritarian president.
You CANNOT make this shit up. If this is an elaborate plot to make us lose our minds, it’s pretty clever.
What happens when a government declares war on a domestic terrorist organization that doesn’t actually exist? It’s a question that completely flummoxed Michael Glasheen, the FBI’s branch and operations director, last week when he was testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., asked him where antifa, the alleged terrorist organization, was headquartered and he could only reply, “we’re building out the infrastructure right now,” an impressive non sequitur that dodged the question.
Glasheen could not give any specifics as to how many people are involved in antifa or where they are, but he said that it was “ongoing for us to understand that…no different than al-Qaida and ISIS.” Thompson pressed him further about just who and what this alleged terrorist threat actually was, and all he could do was shrug and say “it is the most immediate violent threat we’re facing on the domestic side.” It’s not surprising that the FBI cannot give any concrete evidence. Antifa is not an organization, terrorist or otherwise. It’s simply a single concept: anti-fascism.
As the Washington Post reported, Thursday “marked the first deadline for all the federal law enforcement agencies to ‘coordinate delivery’ of their intelligence files” to the FBI, which will be drawing up lists of “leftist networks,” Americans and foreigners to investigate. Attorney General Pam Bondi‘s order defined “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” “opposition to law and immigration enforcement,” “radical gender ideology” and “hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality” as the kind of ideology requiring investigation by federal authorities. Those are elastic enough terms that it could cover at least half the population.
This followed an executive order issued in September in which the Trump administration designated “antifa” as a domestic terrorist organization “that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law.” Any such manifesto or statement of principles doesn’t exist; this was simply an attempt to justify the targeting of left-leaning groups and critics of Donald Trump through extrajudicial powers granted to the government for use against foreign terrorist threats.
The administration formalized this order with the issuance of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7) on Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence, which the Brennan Center described as addressing
a mishmash of incidents, some of which are criminal and some of which constitute activity protected by the First Amendment. These include violence directed at public figures such as conservative activist Charlie Kirk, President Trump, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh; the killing of United HealthCare CEO Brian Thompson; a purported 1,000 percent increase in attacks on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers; a shooting at an ICE facility; and anti-police and criminal justice protests.
Those incidents, according to the Trump administration, are part of an organized left-wing campaign to “silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society.” Clearly, what they are attempting to do is give themselves the power to define any political dissent as terrorism or provide material support to terrorism which, if you were to apply the same laws that govern foreign terrorism, would lead to prosecution and imprisonment.
In previous cases when the Supreme Court sanctioned the government’s power to prosecute foreign terrorists, the justices were clear that these mechanisms could not be applied to domestic organizations, because they would clearly violate the First Amendment. But that was the Supreme Court of another era. Who knows what they would say today?
The Trump administration’s campaign against the left is not new to American life. The government has gone after left-wing speech and organizing for more than a century, beginning with the first Red Scare in 1919-1920. Spooked by the Russian Revolution, anarchist bombings and labor unrest, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer ordered a crackdown on anything that looked like it might be radical through illegal searches and seizures, unwarranted arrests and detentions. Naturally, a lot of it was focused on immigrants, hundreds of whom were deported under suspicion of being anarchists.
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover got the country all worked up in April 1920 with a warning that communists were plotting a violent May Day rebellion; his agents conducted massive raids across the nation. After no rebellions took place, the judicial system put on the brakes, the public turned against Palmer and the scare went dormant. The unfortunate consequence was continued anti-immigrant feeling that led to the draconian Immigration Act of 1924.
The years after World War II brought a second red scare, with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and the McCarthy hearings led by the anti-communist crusader Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wisc., who was of course advised by Trump’s future mentor Roy Cohn. The government once more scoured the country for radicals and traitors, trampling all over the First and Fourth Amendments, ruining lives and threatening livelihoods until the fever finally broke.
During that period, Hoover, still running the FBI, created COINTELPRO, a project to surveil and smear individuals and infiltrate political organizations the FBI considered subversive threats. These included anti-war protesters, the Civil Rights Movement, environmentalists, student groups and various racial and ethnic organizations among others. Unsurprisingly, all of them were left-leaning.
By the late 1960s, the FBI was operating as a secret police force. The organization had abandoned any pretense of fealty to the rule of law, all in the name of protecting America from the alleged threat from within. The program continued until it was exposed in the press, with the Senate Church Committee conducting an investigation in 1975.
Now another crackdown is upon us. This time, the government is targeting a phantom organization that is little more than an idea with no central organization or planning. As Reuters reported in October, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller is spearheading a program to defund left leaning organizations such as Democratic donor George Soros’ “Open Society Foundations; ActBlue, the funding arm of the Democratic Party; Indivisible and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights” by claiming they are funding domestic violence. When pressed for examples, the White House “highlighted seven political protests in 2023 and 2025 that included acts of violence directed against law enforcement officials, and two incidents of vandalism at Tesla dealerships this year as well as half a dozen social media posts celebrating the damage.”
In the past, when the government embarked on one of these paranoid campaigns, public pressure managed to put an end to it once the agenda became clear. When you combine this latest plan with the administration’s violent crackdown on immigrants, the nation is about to be overwhelmed by scenes of mayhem and cruelty at the hands of federal agents. Will the people step up to stop this next chapter in domestic political repression? If past is prologue, it will happen. Unfortunately, as always, there will be a whole lot of carnage left in its wake.
David French considered the nature of fundamentalism in the New York Times on Sunday. It is not clear why this and why now, but having lived near Bob Jones University for many years, it caught my attention. It’s not his first swing at fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is dangerous, French believes (gift link):
If you’ve ever encountered true fundamentalists, you know why. When you combine eternal stakes with absolute certainty, it produces the kind of people who are happy to be cruel in the name of God.
I’ve long said that fundamentalism is not about the content of what you believe but how. Thus, it’s not unique to religious faith. Fundamentalists are rigid, dogmatic, judgmental, uncompromising, black-and-white thinkers. You probably know a few.
To the fundamentalist, disagreement is proof of apostasy. But it can be even worse than that — if you’re wrong, then you might lead other people into error, and that makes you dangerous.
That’s one reason fundamentalists of all stripes are often such zealous censors. A fundamentalist can see every person who’s wrong as a kind of Patient Zero in a potential pandemic of paganism. And don’t think for a moment that fellow believers are spared the fundamentalists’ ire. They’re a chief target. They have no excuse for their errors, and they receive the most vitriol of all.
As fundamentalism is not about what you believe but how, fundamentalists of the secular variety show up on the left as well, as French explains:
Perhaps you’ve met them — the people who define themselves through their individual politics, who show a kind of sneering contempt for dissent, and are very, very concerned with who is platformed and who is not.
French takes his last Sunday column before Christmas (and before the Dec. 25 release of Vol. 2 of “Stranger Things” Season 5?) to consider “the upside-down kingdom of God” and how different Jesus’ life and ministry is from “the will to power that has consumed so many Christians.”
In the upside-down kingdom of God, religion is still dangerous, but the danger has flipped. Fundamentalist faiths make religion dangerous to others, the nonbelievers and heretics who must be made to yield.
But Christianity properly lived is dangerous to Christians. It’s dangerous to people who refuse to hate those they are told to hate, to people who refuse to oppress, to conquer, to exploit — even when they’re told to conquer in the name of God.
I hadn’t thought of Trumpism as a kind of fundamentalism, more of a cult, but that’s what the passage above suggests. Perhaps it’s a distinction without a difference. That’s what makes the fusion of evangelical Christianity, Great Replacement xenophobia, and a kleptocracy “controlled by technology oligarchs through captured media” such a threat.
It’s not just MAGA that’s enduring some schism these days. When that old-time religion meets that old-time xenophobia, something is going to give. People of performative faith (the kind Jesus condemned) and people of authentic faith are at odds.
“At the Southern Baptists’ annual convention in June,” the New York Times reports, delegates “held a vote on dismantling the Southern Baptists’ public policy arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, which has spearheaded action on immigration for the convention.”
The group narrowly survived, but its leader was effectively pushed out, and in September it broke ties with the Evangelical Immigration Table, a coalition of prominent evangelical groups that it helped start 13 years ago to focus on reform efforts, which had rankled the Baptists’ conservative wing. The acting president said the E.R.L.C. had decided to take a “more independent posture on our immigration-related work,” according to Baptist News Global.
The developments suggest a shift from the denomination’s annual meeting two years ago, when delegates approved a resolution imploring government leaders for “robust avenues” to support asylum claimants and “to create legal pathways to permanent status for immigrants who are in our communities by no fault of their own, prioritizing the unity of families.”
“Just because the loudest people are saying that [immigrants] are not welcome doesn’t mean there isn’t a very large contingent of churches out there that care deeply for those that are down and out,” said Dale Huntington, the pastor of City Life Church in San Diego.
But many Baptist leaders French contacted refused comment on the mood shift or did not respond. He observes, “the denomination has also taken a rightward turn in recent years, and some leaders privately worry that speaking out will cause backlash from the more conservative flank.”
There’s a chill in the air that’s more than seasonal. Mary and Joseph couldn’t find room at the inn. Many of their son’s followers can’t find room in their hearts.
Perhaps you saw it. What you wouldn’t see, that is. Three hours before airtime Sunday, this popped up on the hellsite announcing that “60 Minutes” would pull a story regarding El Salvador’s hellhole prison, CECOT.
Media critic Brian Stelter responded, “Inside @60Minutes, where journalistic independence is sacrosanct, ‘people are threatening to quit over this,’ I’m told.”
Stelter later posted the text of a memo about corporate censorship from reporter “60 Minutes” journalist, Sharyn Alfonsi:
News Team,
Thank you for the notes and texts. I apologize for not reaching out earlier.
I learned on Saturday that Bari Weiss spiked our story, INSIDE CECOT, which was supposed to air tonight. We (Ori and I) asked for a call to discuss her decision. She did not afford us that courtesy/opportunity.
Our story was screened five times and cleared by both CBS attorneys and Standards and Practices. It is factually correct. In my view, pulling it now—after every rigorous internal check has been met is not an editorial decision, it is a political one.
We requested responses to questions and/or interviews with DHS, the White House, and the State Department. Government silence is a statement, not a VETO. Their refusal to be interviewed is a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story.
If the administration’s refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a “kill switch” for any reporting they find inconvenient.
If the standard for airing a story becomes “the government must agree to be interviewed,” then the government effectively gains control over the 60 Minutes broadcast. We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state.
These men risked their lives to speak with us. We have a moral and professional obligation to the sources who entrusted us with their stories. Abandoning them now is a betrayal of the most basic tenet of journalism: giving voice to the voiceless.
CBS spiked the Jeffrey Wigand interview due to legal concerns, nearly destroying the credibility of this broadcast. It took years to recover from that “low point.” By pulling this story to shield an administration, we are repeating that history, but for political optics rather than legal ones.
We have been promoting this story on social media for days. Our viewers are expecting it. When it fails to air without a credible explanation, the public will correctly identify this as corporate censorship. We are trading 50 years of “Gold Standard” reputation for a single week of political quiet.
I care too much about this broadcast to watch it be dismantled without a fight.
Sharyn
Puck correspondent, Dylan Byers, tweeted that a CBS spokesperson told him the story would air at a future date (that’s assuming anyone’s left who hasn’t quit). The spokesperson said, “We determined it needed additional reporting.”
Who’s we?
In a subsequent tweet, Byers reported that the “meticulously fact-checked and lawyered” story would reflect “negatively” on the Trump administration. The official CBS position is that the story needs “additional reporting.”
Despite prior editorial review, after Bari Weiss, the new head of CBS, reviewed the story on Thursday. The MAGA-curious “culture warrior” raised issues on Friday and Saturday, then pulled the plug.
Official CBS statement: “We determined it needed additional reporting.”
Very well-placed source: “It did not need additional reporting. It went through every layer of fact-checking and was reviewed by all the lawyers.” https://t.co/VdITRpnwRT
One of Ms. Weiss’s suggestions was to include a fresh interview with Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff and the architect of Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown, or a similarly high-ranking Trump administration official, two of the people said. Ms. Weiss provided contact information for Mr. Miller to the “60 Minutes” staff.
Ms. Weiss also questioned the use of the term “migrants” to describe the Venezuelan men who were deported, noting that they were in the United States illegally, two of the people said.
Weiss replied to the Times account saying, “My job is to make sure that all stories we publish are the best they can be. Holding stories that aren’t ready for whatever reason—that they lack sufficient context, say, or that they are missing critical voices—happens every day in every newsroom. I look forward to airing this important piece when it’s ready.”
Like, never?
As Alfonsi suggests, this move by Weiss sets a precedent. A refusal to comment by “critical voices” in an administration under scrutiny becomes “a tactical maneuver designed to kill” stories that cast it in a bad light. Weiss just handed an authoritarian government an effective veto on its news stories. This threat to press freedom comes atop Trump’s multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against outlets that run stories he dislikes and oligarchs’ accelerating efforts to silence press critics by owning the press.
It is perhaps no coincidence that Weiss spiked the CECOT story less than a week after Vanity Fair blindsided the Trump White House with Chris Whipple’s explosive, two-part Susie Wiles interview. The White House expected a puff piece for which Trump’s inner circle posed for glam shots. They got something else entirely, including Christopher Anderson’s too-close-ups that exposed Karoline Leavitt’s recent lip-filler injection marks.
So the Trump administration was in no mood for a “double tap” within one week of that embarrassment. Weiss either heard from them directly or obeyed in advance.
UPDATE:
Earlier this month, after Trump blasted "60 Minutes" for interviewing Marjorie Taylor Greene, correspondents noticed a change behind the scenes. "Bari Weiss got personally involved," specifically with stories about politics, a source at the program says. pic.twitter.com/fpb8ie0bwZ
Former US Attorney Joyce Vance has a great piece about the Epstein files that you should read to catch up on the latest. Riddled with redactions and unsurprisingly protective of Trump, the document release on Friday made absolutely no one happy. There was virtually nothing about Trump but they did manage to get a lot of pictures of Bill Clinton out there, most of them out of context and which seem obviously designed to make it appear that he is a pedophile:
Great catch by @MeidasTouch “The administration inserted a photo of Bill Clinton, Michael Jackson, and Diana Ross into the Epstein files & falsely implied it showed them with victims.
In reality, it’s a publicly available fundraiser photo featuring Jackson & Ross’s own children pic.twitter.com/zHFCeutmi2
Obviously, they were trying to make it look like he was consorting with Michael Jackson and young victims.
But Vance points out something important in all this which should inform the press as the DOJ tries to claim that they have to redact all this stuff because of “ongoing investigations”
Attorney General Pam Bondi told Trump in May that his name showed up in the Epstein Files. That’s unsurprising. The two men’s friendship is public and well known. Nonetheless, Trump campaigned on releasing the files, as though he had nothing to hide. But that changed after Bondi’s revelation. Back in September, CNN reported on the timeline of what followed: “The efforts to downplay Epstein conspiracy theories and previous promises for disclosure really kicked off on May 18, when top FBI officials Kash Patel and Dan Bongino appeared together on Fox News and suddenly said Epstein had indeed died by suicide.” They also point out that, “Elon Musk’s later-deleted claim that Trump wasn’t releasing the Epstein files because he was in them was lodged June 5, after the May briefing,” and “Trump’s recently launched, baseless claims that powerful Democrats ‘made up’ the Epstein files would fit with his tendency to deflect and distract when there’s something he doesn’t want out there.” Suffice it to say, whether it incriminates the president or not, the materials Bondi was referring to remain undisclosed to the public for the most part. On the campaign trail in 2024, when asked about releasing the Epstein Files, Trump responded, “I’d have no problem with it.”
The Epstein Files Transparency Act required the administration to turn over the files, but allowed it to withhold or redact records that could identify victims, including images of child sexual abuse, or documents that are otherwise classified. DOJ routinely declines to release records that could compromise an active federal investigation, and the new law permits that exception as well, although Trump’s social media post/order to Bondi to open a case into Democrats named in the files casts a serious pall over the legitimacy of any claims of that nature.
New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush noted that it took Bondi a mere 217 minutes following Trump’s directive to report that she had opened an investigation into Clinton and other Democrats. But since Trump is not under investigation, records that mention him should be fair game for release. There would be no reason to withhold them. Instead, the Justice Department focused on materials regarding Bill Clinton, who is explicitly part of the investigation Trump demanded that his Attorney General open. Any claim materials are being withheld because of the new investigation are highly suspect.
She is too well-mannered to say that it’s bullshit but it is.
Does this look like it’s protecting survivors? The message says “I have a female for him.”
And get a load of this on Meet the Press today:
Q: “Why was Ghislaine Maxwell moved [to a different prison] just days after you interviewed her?”
Deputy AG Todd Blanche: “That’s a Bureau of Prisons security issue that I will not talk about.”
Q: “Did you have anything to do with it?”
Blanche: “I am responsible for the Bureau of Prisons, so every decision that they make lands on my desk — to the extent it needs to…At the institution she was in, she was suffering numerous, numerous threats.”
So he moved her to a less secure prison? Does that make any sense at all?
Vance quotes a survivor advocate saying:
“The law is clear, the mandate is clear, and the Department of Justice’s failure to comply sends a message that the impunity of powerful individuals who benefited from Epstein’s criminal enterprise is still being prioritized over the pursuit of justice for survivors. To comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Department of Justice must provide their full reasoning for the redactions. Any meaningful effort toward transparency for survivors demands a far more thorough explanation. We further urge an independent review of redactions to ensure individuals who caused harm and violated the law are not afforded the same protections as those who suffered harm.
How about this?
WELKER: Why was this photo of a desk with a drawer open containing photos of Trump taken down?
BLANCHE: You can see in that photo there are photographs of women. We learned after released it that there were concerns about those women.
WELKER: Are you saying that one or more of those women is a victim of Epstein?
BLANCHE: No, that’s not what I’m saying.
And this:
🚨 The DOJ appears to have redacted Donald Trump’s name from the allegations made in this exhibit in the Epstein files.
Trump’s name was in the original release. Now, it’s blacked out.
Pretty gross. I don’t think that redaction was done to protect the girl either.
They are insuring that this thing just keeps going. I guess they figure they can divert attention to Clinton or others but nobody buys that. Epstein and Trump were best buddies and their relationship was based on competing for women (and girls), not money or casual contacts.
This whole thing is an absolute dumpster fire. And the flames are just getting higher.
People are pessimistic about everything and for good reason. The economy is just a part of it, and because American discourse is so economically deterministic it’s the way they express their overall negative assessment of our day to day life.
When you ask people how they’re personally doing they mostly say they’re hanging in there with a growing number saying it’s getting much tougher to afford the cost of living. That’s because important items like housing, health care, electricity are all going up and wages have stagnated. And the job market is looking grimmer as well.
But I think there’s a lot more to this. The culture at large just feels sick. People are disturbed by what they’re seeing in their leadership, which now behaves as if it’s on a 6th grade playground (when it isn’t indulging in aberrant, criminal behavior and corruption.) While street crime has gone down significantly we now see images every single day of masked secret police brutalizing people, often women and children, on normal residential streets of America. The president is insane, slapping his name and gold filigree all over everything as if he’s the reincarnation of the King George the Mad King even as we “celebrate” the 250th birthday of the Declaration of Independence. The mainstream media is disintegrating, our social media is a toxic wasteland and rank bigotry is making a major comeback.
America has been through bad times before, and we will probably pull through in the long run. There are still massive reserves of strength, resources, good will and decency. And there’s a fair chance that we’re going through the worst of it right now and will come out the other side sooner rather than later. (By sooner, I mean at the end of this presidential term from hell.)
You are not alone if your reaction to what’s happening feels something like airsickness, a nausea-inducing conflict between what we know and what we see. The effect is both vertiginous and crazy-making. This isn’t “Trump Derangement Syndrome”. It’s a desperate effort to hang onto reality.¹
I think that describes it well. The daily news seems almost hallucinogenic and you have to constantly ask yourself, “Is this really happening? Am I losing my mind?”
It is really happening. And it’s so outrageous that I honestly wonder how it can get any worse. Are they really going to push this envelope, because if they do we will be going into a darker territory than I think even those of us who always knew it could be bad ever contemplated.
But I’m finding hope in certain places. Obviously, there are the protests and elections which have been huge and decisive. I wrote earlier about James Fallows’ interesting piece about how the non-profit foundations are fighting back. And I think art is finally starting to catch up. In repressive times, it’s often when it flourishes, telling stories and providing images that speak to our reality in ways that reach past the politics and hit a kind of emotional chord that can actually enlighten and change minds.
I started thinking about this when Rob and Michelle Reiner were tragically murdered. The outpouring of grief transcended our divisions (well, except for the monster in the White House) and made people revisit his work, which was nothing if not rooted in all-American values we used to take for granted. It showed that we have something in common, a rare thing these days. (No wonder Trump was so mad.)
Then last night I watched “One Battle After Another”, now streaming on HBO, which I’d seen a few months ago on the big screen. This is the kind of subversive art that truly speaks to our moment, as a surreal take in the mode of Dr. Strangelove. It captures the zeitgeist and the aesthetic of our time in a way I haven’t seen before and I’m hopeful it isn’t the last film or series to capture it.
It’s a dark film but it isn’t depressing and I think it’s because it expresses what Walter Chaw at FCC says in this great review of the film. (Sorry if this is a spoiler for you but I don’t think it is.)
One Battle After Another is a celebration of the power we derive from our diversity, the indomitability of our spirit, and our essential rejection of authoritarianism, which was the driving force behind our revolution against a colonial monarchy and its mad king. It’s not a hagiography for Americans–who can, after all, be messy and violent–but for the idea of a country that used to do things besides try to turn a quick buck. The picture’s ending, like Vineland‘s, is upbeat. Even more upbeat than the book’s, arguably, because it ties a few additional threads and allows for a reunion that’s emotionally resonant. More than upbeat, it’s inspirational: a call to action, an invitation to the dance. Anderson says fighting fascism isn’t civil disobedience, it’s American. There is, in fact, nothing more American, so let’s go.
That’s right. The story of our country is one battle after another.
Let’s go.
If you have the means and the desire to help us keep this one little corner of the resistance going, I’d be most grateful for your support. This next year is going to be a doozy.
