The Trump campaign says that it was hacked by what they suspect were foreign agents agents. The hacked emails were sent to Politico and The Washington Post which decided not to publish them.
You read that right. They received hacked documents from suspect origins which have been authenticated by the campaign itself and they are choosing not to publish.
The hot mess that was the political media in 2016 continues to slime America 8 years later
In 2016, there was no reasoned debate about the ethics of publishing Russian-hacked documents. Not that it’s not a tough call, morally — but the debate wasn’t even held. The documents were just published without any thought. Only after the election did anyone wonder so much regard was given to the (mostly inconsequential) leaks and so little to shockingly illegal methods to obtain them. So now..
I’d agree Politico and other news media are technically correct to consider the source and the motive before deciding whether or what to publish.
The problem is this:
The lack of any ethical debate in publishing the Russian hacks greatly benefited one candidate: Donald Trump
Eight years later, the media restraint in not publishing this alleged Iranian hack benefits one candidate: Donald Trump
Public distrust of the media is off the charts in part because many voters suspect, with some good reasons, that the media is in the tank for Donald Trump.
Not publishing the hacks will reinforce that suspicion
If the media hadn’t screwed this up so badly in 2016, they would not be in this bind -30-
He is absolutely right about the double standard being deployed here and it’s maddening that for some reason Trump always seems to be the beneficiary of these things. Why is that?
But that’s the media story which is still unfolding. Marcy Wheeler spots some other aspects of this story which should have the media delving into this a lot further than we’ve seen. Apparently, the Trump campaign didn’t report this to the FBI. And there are reasons …
The question of how to approach this news, if it is further confirmed, goes well beyond the question of whether to publish the documents allegedly stolen by Iran. In significant part because Trump refuses to maintain boundaries between his political life and his criminal life, hacks from Iran could create real damage to the United States beyond what they do to Trump’s campaign.
And that’s because Trump’s operation is sloppy and inept. As usual. I highly recommend you read Marcy’s post.
.@maggieNYT describes the angry phone call she got from Trump as he insisted he has flight records of his helicopter trip with Willie Brown, who says the flight never happened. pic.twitter.com/JHJzjOvyLa
As you have probably heard, Trump mixed up Brown with another Black California politician named Nate Holden who was from LA and had nothing to do with Kamala Harris.
This time next Sunday, I’ll be in Chicago as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. Don’t expect to see much from me in this space for a few days.
At a dinner last night, several people asked if I’m excited. I disappointed them. Not really. I’m more about the business than the hoopla. When returns come in on Election Night and our candidates win, others pump their fists, scream and jump. I go quiet so I can savor the moment and a job well done. To each their own.
For now, savor this. Then get to work.
Wow. This is Las Vegas, Nevada. It’s not a concert. It’s a Kamala Harris & Tim Walz political rally — people are dancing, singing, and happy. Truly magical. https://t.co/4P6tyrPciv
BREAKING: Kamala Harris is about to take the stage at this packed arena in Las Vegas. Kamala Harris has filled up stadiums all across the swing states as Donald Trump has sat at home fuming. Retweet so all Americans see the energy and momentum. pic.twitter.com/ySKfInMrjA
“Some are calling our rally the largest in Arizona political campaign history,” the Harris campaign tweeted.
“At some point media is going to notice that for once a major political party delivered what people really, really wanted and in doing so, ignited a civic renaissance just in time to save American democracy,” added strategist Rachel Bitecofer.
This has got to be ominous for Arizona Republicans, and Republicans elsewhere. But don’t get cocky. Here’s the current voter registration spread in AZ:
Republican: 35.41% Other (independent, non-third-party): 33.95% Democrat: 29.10%
So the whole fake electors and Green Bay Sweep did not work as Trumplandia planned for overturning the will of the voters in 2020. And since the coup plan counted heavily on Republicans holding the vice presidency, and since Congress reformed the 1887 Electoral Count Act in 2022 to prevent a recurrence, the enemies of democracy went back to the drawing board for 2024.
Sure, red-state legislators have since erected every new hurdle to voting they could conjure and pass. But what’s a MAGA Republican to do if troublesome citizens still manage to muster enough votes to elect a Democrat and not Donald Trump to the White House in 2024?
As a Rolling Stone investigation explained, “in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania . . . at least 70 pro-Trump election conspiracists currently working as county election officials” stand ready to question “the validity of elections” and to delay or refuse to certify results as mandated by law. At least 22 have done so in the past, injecting themselves as election arbiters into what is an essentially “ministerial” function. Election challenges are the job of state boards, district attorneys and courts.
The slapdash quality of the Green Bay Sweep has been replaced with a more sophisticated effort.
“I think we are going to see mass refusals to certify the election” in 2024, Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias told Rolling Stone. “Everything we are seeing about this election is that the other side is more organized, more ruthless, and more prepared.”
Then there was that creepy moment at an Aug. 3 rally when Trump name-checked three state Georgia Elections Board Republicans (the majority) for “doing a great job” as “pit bulls fighting for honesty, transparency and victory.”
This is election denier-in-chief Donald Trump we’re talking about. Why would he praise election officials?
All three members of the board — Dr. Janice Johnston, Rick Jaffares and Janelle King — have, like Trump, questioned the results of the 2020 election. And the trio came under fire recently from a good government group for quietly holding a meeting without the other two members in an attempt to pass new election rules that would increase the number of partisan poll watchers.
Georgia’s election deniers this month did indeed pass “a raft of new rules that critics say could void valid votes, place onerous burdens on overtaxed election workers and potentially delay the certification of results.”
Elias warns at Democracy Docket that with “fewer than 100 days until the election, Republicans are building an election subversion war machine.”
This is not the white-knuckled volunteer effort to challenge voters’ eligibility that I reported at Crooks & Liars in 2013. This scheme involves election officials challenging the results.
They have sacrificed traditional get out the vote activity to fund and recruit for their massive voter suppression program. They have a constellation of well-funded legal groups supplanting these efforts with unlimited money and grassroots volunteers. They are sending their lawyers into courthouses around the country to lay the groundwork for their anti-democratic plans.
Regarding the new Georgia rule, A.B. Stoddard adds at The Bulwark:
Election experts say the new rule could disrupt the entire process across the state by allowing local partisans to reject results. And Georgia appears to be at the center of Trump’s plans. Casting doubt on Fulton County, which makes up the bulk of Democratic votes in the state, will help him claim he won the Peach State as the rest of the results come in red.
But even without an explicitly permitted “inquiry” like the new Georgia rule provides, Republicans in other swing states still plan on acting at the county level to slow or stop certification. Because questioning the outcome at the very start of the process will create delay. Any doubt and confusion, and perhaps even violence, makes it easier to miss essential deadlines and can threaten the chance that the rightful winner prevails.
Enough confusion and delay ultimately could mean throwing the election to the U.S. House of Representatives. There, where each state gets one vote, the red-state majority could — legally — hand back the Oval Office to the MAGA king, end the republic as we know it, and damn the will of the people.
What’s to stop them?
The North Carolina State Board of Elections in March 2023 removed two Surry County election officials for co-signing a letter declaring “I don’t view election law per NCSBE as legitimate or Constitutional.” One refused to certify the results of a November 2022 municipal election; the other agreed on a technicality, reported ProPublica. Similar efforts to thwart certification have lost in court in other states. But that’s all after the fact. Delay is the pro-autocrat’s friend.
Stoddard offers:
The Washington Postreported in June that “in some states, election administrators have already identified voters in each county who could serve as plaintiffs in emergency lawsuits to force county boards to certify results. In others, state administrators are sending detailed instructions to county officials laying out the limits of their power to block certification.”
It’s crucial that these plans are widely publicized. And they can be. Just like Project 2025, which was virtually unheard of and is now in the forefront of the political debate. Putting a media spotlight on this issue will force Republican officials to address what they are well aware of and are refusing to call out.
Indeed, that is one reason I’m writing this today. An alarmed friend called Thursday to insist such a preemptive publicity campaign is what’s necessary. Prophylactic publicity. Threats of lawsuits against election officials who obstruct certification. Threats, even frivolous ones, are Trump’s preferred strategy, aren’t they? Because they often work. We know.
Work the refs. (They do.) Show up in numbers to public meetings of your local elections board and direct questions to Republican members about certification. Make them sweat enough to think twice about throwing the process into chaos.
I thought I’d catch you up on a few recent and notable Blu-ray reissues. All aboard!
Peeping Tom(Criterion) – Michael Powell’s 1960 thriller profiles an insular, socially awkward member of a film crew (Carl Boehm) who works as a technician at a movie studio by day, and moonlights as a soft-core pin-up photographer. He’s also surreptitiously working on his own independent film, which goes hand-in-glove with another hobby: he’s a serial killer who gets his jollies capturing POV footage of his victim’s final agonizing moments. The film is truly creepy, a Freudian nightmare. The solid supporting cast includes Moira Shearer, Anna Massey, and Maxine Audley.
Powell, one-half of the revered British film making team known as The Archers (The Red Shoes, Black Narcissus, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp) nearly destroyed his career with this one, which, due to its “shocking” nature, was largely shunned by audiences and critics at the time (thanks to Martin Scorsese, the film enjoyed a revival decades later and is now considered a genre classic on a par with Psycho). Leo Marks scripted (he also wrote the screenplays for the 1951 noir Cloudburst and the unsettling 1968 thriller Twisted Nerve).
Several subsequent films can be viewed as descendants of Peeping Tom; most notably Manhunter (1986), Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986), and (more tangentially) Man Bites Dog (1992).
Criteron’s new 4K digital restoration is top-flight, a substantial upgrade over the 2010 Studio Canal (Region B) Blu-ray. Extras include two commentary tracks (one with film historian Ian Christie and another with film scholar Laura Mulvey), a documentary about the history of the film, and more.
The President’s Analyst (KL Studio Classics) Beware the Phone Company! Unlike the empty-headed 60’s spy spoofs James Coburn’s name usually evokes, writer-director Theodore J. Flicker’s 1967 film is one with substance. Coburn plays a psychoanalyst recruited to be the President’s personal shrink by one of his patients (Godfrey Cambridge, in a wonderful performance). Cambridge is an operative for the “C.I.E.” The ensuing intrigue and conspiracy paranoia plays like Three Days of the Condor on acid (literally, in one memorable sequence).
Granted, it’s a tad silly and “slapstick-y” at times, but the socio-political satire is consistently on point (at times recalling Dr. Strangelove, particularly in one scene where a character is desperately trying to reach the White House on a pay phone). “Summer of Love” trappings aside, the film is quite prescient and bold for its time (e.g. consider Cambridge’s stark monologue recalling his first encounter with racism, played directly to the camera; nothing “ha-ha” funny going on there.)
Also with Joan Delaney, Severn Darden, Pat Harrington, Jr., Walter Burke (stealing all his scenes as an officious “F.B.R.” agent), Will Geer, William Daniels, and Arte Johnson. Look for Barry Maguire (who sang the 60s classic “Eve of Destruction”) as the leader of a band of hippies Coburn hooks up with while he’s on the run from an assortment of nefarious parties.
Kino’s Blu-ray is light on extras (just two commentary tracks), but the 4K scan is a definite step up from the previous Paramount DVD. A must-have for “Conspiracy a Go-go” fans!
To Die For (Criterion) – Gus Van Sant’s 1995 mockumentary centers on an ambitious young woman (Nicole Kidman, in one of her best performances) who aspires to elevate herself from “weather girl” at a small market TV station to star news anchor, posthaste. A calculating sociopath from the word go, she marries into a wealthy family, but decides to discard her husband (Matt Dillon) the nanosecond he asks her to consider putting her career on hold so they can start a family (discard…with extreme prejudice).
Buck Henry based his screenplay on Joyce Maynard’s true crime book about the Pamela Smart case (the obvious difference being that Smart was a teacher and not an aspiring media star, although it could be argued that during her high-profile murder trial, she did in fact become one).
The outstanding supporting cast includes Joaquin Phoenix, Casey Affleck, Illeana Douglas, Alison Foland, Dan Hedaya, and Wayne Knight, with brief appearances by Buck Henry, George Segal (uncredited) and a cameo by director David Cronenberg.
Criterion’s new 4K digital restoration is sparkling. Extras include a commentary track with Van Sant, DP Eric Alan Edwards, and editor Curtiss Clayton, an essay by film critic Jessica Klang, and deleted scenes.
Once Upon a Time in the West (Paramount) – Although it is chockablock with classic “western” tropes, director Sergio Leone somehow manages to honor, parody, and transcend the genre all at once with this 1968 masterpiece. This is a textbook example of pure cinema, distilled to a crystalline perfection of mood, atmosphere and narrative.
At its heart, it’s a simple revenge tale, involving a headstrong widow (Claudia Cardinale) and an enigmatic “harmonica man” (Charles Bronson) who both have a bone to pick with a vicious gun for hire (Henry Fonda, cast against type as one of the most execrable villains in screen history). But there are bigger doings afoot-like building a railroad and winning the (mythic) American West. Also on board: Jason Robards, Jack Elam, Woody Strode and Keenan Wynn.
Dario Argento and Bernardo Bertolucci helped develop the story, and it wouldn’t be classic Leone without a rousing soundtrack by his longtime musical collaborator, Ennio Morricone (be advised you won’t be able to get the “Harmonica Man Theme” out of your head).
There have been several Blu-ray reissues over the years (this latest release makes it a quadruple-dip for me, counting the original DVD edition), but this 4K restoration is by far the best transfer I’ve seen to date (full disclosure: I don’t have 4K playback/monitoring capabilities, so I am judging by the Blu-ray included with this multi-format 2024 reissue). Extras include multiple commentary tracks, a new look back by film critic Leonard Maltin, and a number of other featurettes (some recycled from previous editions and some new ones).
Nine witnesses in the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have received significant financial benefits, including large raises from his campaign, severance packages, new jobs, and a grant of shares and cash from Trump’s media company.
The benefits have flowed from Trump’s businesses and campaign committees, according to a ProPublica analysis of public disclosures, court records and securities filings. One campaign aide had his average monthly pay double, from $26,000 to $53,500. Another employee got a $2 million severance package barring him from voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement. And one of the campaign’s top officials had her daughter hired onto the campaign staff, where she is now the fourth-highest-paid employee.
These pay increases and other benefits often came at delicate moments in the legal proceedings against Trump. One aide who was given a plum position on the board of Trump’s social media company, for example, got the seat after he was subpoenaed but before he testified.
Significant changes to a staffer’s work situation, such as bonuses, pay raises, firings or promotions, can be evidence of a crime if they come outside the normal course of business. To prove witness tampering, prosecutors would need to show that perks or punishments were intended to influence testimony.
White-collar defense lawyers say the situation Trump finds himself in — in the dual role of defendant and boss of many of the people who are the primary witnesses to his alleged crimes — is not uncommon. Their standard advice is not to provide any unusual benefits or penalties to such employees. Ideally, decisions about employees slated to give evidence should be made by an independent body such as a board, not the boss who is under investigation.
That wouldn’t be the Trump way. He doesn’t have a board. He has himself and his criminal spawn.
Until now, no presidential candidate could get away with this. But, as we know, Trump is special. He does what he wants.
On Tuesday, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris tapped Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate. By Wednesday, the opposition had mobilized with lightning speed for its one of its first political attacks, dubbing Walz “Tampon Tim” in reference to a new state law providing free menstrual products to school students.
The nickname was trending nationally this week on Twitter, an indicator of its political currency. Chaya Raichik, whose scurrilous “Libs of TikTok” account on X (formerly Twitter) has more than 3 million followers, was one of the first to amplify it. Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly added to the momentum, endorsing the nickname via tweet. Former First Lady Hillary Clinton weighed in from a different angle, with a tweet supporting the Minnesota measure.
Social-media users swiftly took sides as well, and as usual, facts and context were missing, especially from those who see the new law as evidence of a radical Minnesota under Walz’s leadership. But a closer, more informed look at the issue should yield a different conclusion. This is good and necessary policy. Providing free menstrual products is a practical, compassionate remedy to address an under-the-radar reason for student absenteeism. Some families can’t afford menstrual products, and when that happens students stay home instead of going to class, falling behind as they do.
There’s a lot of talk about closing educational achievement gaps in Minnesota and elsewhere, particularly for low-income students. The new state law, which has a price tag of about $2 million a year, is an actual solution to help address this, one that’s relatively low-cost. And there’s real-world data to back it up. New York City schools reported a 2.4% increase in attendance after a state law went into effect requiring free period products for students, according to the advocacy group Alliance for Period Supplies.
Minnesota is far from alone in providing this type of assistance. More than half of the nation’s 50 states have taken steps to help students who struggle to afford tampons and pads. Ohio, led by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, now requires period products in schools and has provided $5 million in funding for this, the Alliance for Period Supplies reports. Alabama and Georgia provide grants for schools to make free products available.
Other states, such as Washington, Nevada, Illinois and Utah, require schools to provide these products, though they didn’t fund them. To Minnesota’s legislators’ credit, the new law provides dollars to schools and is not an unfunded mandate.
Other background information is also useful as the dubious online debate continues.
The new law went into effect in January and applies to students in grades four through 12. The legislation itself was passed during the 2023 session as part of a broader educational bill, which Walz then signed. Rep. Sandra Feist, DFL-New Brighton, was the bill’s chief author in the Minnesota House. Sen. Steve Cwodzinski, a retired teacher and DFLer from Eden Prairie, championed the measure in Minnesota Senate.
But the most powerful advocates for it came from outside the State Capitol. Young Minnesotans reached out to Feist about this issue. After Feist introduced it, these students testified on its behalf as the legislation made its way through various committees. Among them was Elif Ozturk of Golden Valley, who is now 18 and will attend Columbia University this fall.
In an interview, Ozturk told an editorial writer she got involved after seeing other students struggle to afford these products in junior high. She spoke to counselors and was told that some students had to leave class or couldn’t attend because they lacked pads or tampons. Ozturk dug into the issue and discovered that other states had taken steps to help students’ access these products. She thought Minnesota should do the same.
“If we don’t talk about it, it’ll never be fixed. These people who are in power, predominantly old men, have no clue what young girls go through every single day,“ Ozturk said.
Other advocates for the law’s passage: school nurses, who testified movingly about how students struggle to afford these products and the educational and emotional consequences when they can’t.
A specific but ill-informed attack on the new Minnesota law is in dire need of a reality check. Critics contend, wrongly, that it mandates menstrual products in boys’ bathrooms. This has unfortunately been used to stoke ongoing culture wars over transgender individuals.
That might mean making these products available for free in various locations for all who need them, such as unisex bathrooms, girls’ bathrooms, the school nurse or the front office, but not necessarily in boys’ bathrooms. Henton, in an interview, lauded the “local control” the law provides for implementation, and said she’s fielded no concerns about its rollout.
At Anoka-Hennepin, the state’s largest school district, the free products are not found in traditional male-only bathrooms, a spokesman said. But they are provided for free to all in “nongendered bathrooms,” girls’ bathrooms or from health staffers.
There’s nothing radical about Minnesota’s new law. Instead it’s a smart, low-cost measure to address educational achievement gaps, one that many states are embracing. Weaponizing this measure is laughably out of touch and likely to backfire
These wingnuts are determined to make women loathe them even more than they already do. This policy was nothing more than simple decency to help students deal with a situation they experience but which until fairly recently was considered shameful to even think about. That’s apparently what these crude throwbacks still believe that and want to take us back to. Also, they are liars. But you knew that.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump called Kamala Harris a “b—-” in private, according to a report by The New York Times, as the former president’s polling numbers plunge, and his campaign struggles to stick to an attack strategy against the sitting vice president.
In a statement to NYT, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said “that is not language President Trump has used to describe Kamala, and it’s not how the campaign would characterize her.”
However, sources close to Trump told NYTthat he has called Harris out of her name on multiple occasions—frustrated by her campaign’s control of the news cycle over the last three weeks.
On July 25,Trump sent angry texts to Miriam Adelson, widow of right-wing magnate Sheldon Andelson, complaining that the people running the super PAC, Preserve America, weren’t real Republicans, reported NYT. Sources said Trump called them “RINOS” or Republicans In Name Only.
“The texts were particularly jarring because Mrs. Adelson and Mr. Trump had a friendly meeting just a week earlier at the Republican National Convention,” NYT reported, which added that Adelson’s PAC was spending around $18 million a week on ads for Trump at the time.
[…]
As the main obstacle standing in the way of Trump’s re-election chances, Harris has proved that she is no President Joe Biden. She is younger, has more stamina—and how this has reflected in her polling has kept Trump’s campaign team on their toes, reported NYT.
Harris “has gotten the equivalent of the largest in-kind contribution of free media I think I have ever seen in all the years I’ve been doing presidential campaigns,” Trump campaign’s chief pollster Tony Fabrizio told NYT.
On Saturday, NYTreported that Harris currently has a lead over Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
“Two private polls conducted in Ohio recently by Republican pollsters—which Mr. Trump carried in 2020 with 53 percent of the vote—showed him receiving less than 50 percent of the vote against Ms. Harris in the state, according to a person with direct knowledge of the data,” NYT reported.
Overall, despite Trump’s attempts to denigrate Harris with names, such as “Laffin’ Kamala” and “Crazy Kamala,” as well as mocking her laugh and calling her “crooked,” and questioning her Blackness, sources told NYT that Trump seemed to be struggling with how quickly things have changed for him, his campaign and his safety.
“Mr. Trump has also been whipsawed by a seven-week roller-coaster-ride of events: an attempt on his life, the selection of a running mate, a nominating convention, his opponent’s withdrawal from the race,” reported NYT.
Adding to Trump’s challenges are “a potential Iranian assassination threat against him and new layers of security that have brought a bunker-like feel to his properties, more than at any time since he was in the White House,” reported NYT.
When Trump was asked by real estate scion Harrison LeFrak about how he planned to take back the narrative from Democrats and paint himself as a positive option for America’s future, NYT reported that Trump said: “I am who I am.”
He’s scared. That assassination attempt plus the prospect of going to jail has him waking up in a cold sweat every night. He could lose and he knows it.
Is he experiencing narcissistic collapse?
A narcissistic collapse happens when a narcissist believes that someone (or something) is threatening their ability to maintain their superficial inflated ego. People with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) often look down on others to maintain the positive images they hold about themselves. If their behavior is called out or challenged, their fragile self-esteem is damaged, resulting in intense reactions and abuse toward others.
Narcissistic collapse isn’t an official psychiatric term and hasn’t been extensively studied. However, some researchers and psychologists argue that collapse essentially disarms the false self associated with narcissism. Because narcissists are so insecure, they often feel empty and hollow–they need admiration from others to feel validated.
For example, if a spouse leaves them or a boss fires them, it disrupts the narcissist’s entire status quo. Instead of reflecting on what happened or trying to address the conflict appropriately, they can become hysterical, volatile, or rageful toward themselves or those around them.
Overt Vs. Covert Narcissistic Collapse
Overt narcissists, or grandiose narcissists, tend to be extroverted and present with high self-esteem. They typically come across as overly confident and self-important. Conversely, covert narcissists, or vulnerable narcissists, are more insecure and will often avoid confrontation.
…An overt narcissist may explode in a narcissistic rage outburst and engage in a more outward expression of collapse.
What Causes Narcissistic Collapse?
Research suggests that people with NPD rely on narcissistic supply to ensure their needs are met and their superior image is upheld. This supply consists of any source of validation, attention, or admiration. When the supply is jeopardized, the narcissist can become unhinged.
White supremacist, Hitler fan, and far-right political pundit Nick Fuentes shockingly revoked his support from Donald Trump’s campaign early Friday, announcing on social media that he and his allies believed that the presidential bid is headed for a “catastrophic loss.”
“Tonight I declared a new Groyper War against the Trump campaign,” Fuentes wrote on X (formerly Twitter) shortly after midnight, referring to a group of far-right activists known as groypers.
Fuentes explained that he and his far-right squad of online trolls “support Trump” but that they view his 2024 campaign as being “hijacked” by lobbyists, consultants, and donors that had aided Trump’s 2016 Republican opponents. All in all, Fuentes believed they were “blowing it.”
“Without serious changes we are headed for a catastrophic loss,” Fuentes wrote.
“This is NOT a purity spiral, this is about living up to the AMERICA FIRST credo put forth by Trump in 2016 which will ensure VICTORY in 2024,” Fuentes continued. “On Monday I will present a detailed statement of the facts, a mission statement, and a plan of action on my Rumble channel. STAY TUNED.”
They are going after Trump’s campaign managers LaCivita and Wiles demanding Trump fire them. When the base speaks …
Jesse Watters, the unapologetically unfunny “funny guy” on Fox News, is at it again with weird commentary concerning Kamala Harris’ pick for vice president, Tim Walz.
Watters trained his well-known obsession with masculinity onto the Minnesota governor following Tuesday’s rally in Philadelphia rolling out the Dems’ new Harris-Walz ticket.
“The ‘Great Walz of China’ has a lot of red flags, but one is glaring. His body language,” Watters intoned.
“Here’s twitchy Tim on stage, waving profusely in a very unsettling matter, very unsettling. Men should not move this way. It’s not the way we move,” Watters said of all self-loathing men like himself (who’ve had exactly one job since they graduated from college: working at Fox News).
“And the handshake, probably the most telling. This is Walz and his wife shaking hands like business associates, followed by a weird hug,” Watters continued with more video “evidence” in search of an accusation.
With Walz’s supposed lack of testosterone teed up, Watters swooped in with the ultimate knock on the former Army sergeant-major’s unmasculinity: He’s gay for the second gentleman, Doug Emhoff.
“Now, let’s compare that to Walz’s interaction with Kamala’s husband Doug,” leered Watters. “Interesting.”
“What’s going on here? And the hug is not the way you hug your wife. You hug your wife from the body. You don’t hug like this. Different than he hugged Doug.”
Watters’ claim that Walz might be gay follows the former Bill O’Reilly intern’s assertion that men who vote for women are “transitioning.”
After calling the “White Dudes for Harris” Zoom fundraiser last week a “struggle session” for “pale, hairy, flabby California artists,” Watters invoked the longtime Republican canard that Democrats are “weak.”
“I don’t see why any man would vote Democrat. It’s not the party of virtue, security, it’s not the party of strength. It’s definitely not the party of family. And to be a man and then vote for a woman just because she’s a woman is either childish, that person has mommy issues, or they’re just trying to be accepted by other women,” Watters blurted to his self-loathing female co-hosts on The Five.
“And I heard the scientists say the other day that when a man votes for a woman, he actually transitions into a woman,” he added.
The sad stand-up attempt earned eyerolls all around.
Even Trump stan and MAGA whack-job “Judge” Jeanine Pirro pushed back.
“I want to say one thing. The men who voted for me didn’t turn into women. Okay?”
The wannabe Man Show host has also accused President Joe Biden of not being masculine enough for his job, targeting his love of ice cream.
“A grown man – especially the president – should not be licking ice cream in public,” he added.
Like eating soup, Watters lectured on his show, “I don’t think it’s manly.”
But this fellow, who wears more make-up than his Ru Paul, and spends more time on his hair than Dolly Parton, is the picture of masculinity. What kind of body language is this?
