As Erickson would prefer DeSantis over Trump – never mind his comment about irrational Trump hatred a few years back – but he has to be careful not to antagonize the MAGA crowd, or he’ll lose his position in radio, which he appears to love. Incidentally (?), pictures of Erickson on his blog suggest he’s not doing so well of late. One wonders if his playing with truth and fact is wearing on him.
With Title 42 migrant restrictions ending the next day, one would think Trump might have opened with an attack on Biden’s disastrous border policies. But no, he was more than happy to spend the first half of the night talking about himself and his grievances. Granted, this is what Collins asked him about. But Trump could have said: I know you want to talk about the 2020 election and Jan. 6, but I’m here to talk about the 2024 election and the disasters Joe Biden has unleashed on our country.
He didn’t. And don’t think for a moment that Trump mistakenly took the bait. No, he wanted to focus on Jan. 6. He even brought props, pulling a sheet of paper out of his jacket pocket with his Jan. 6 tweets so he could read them aloud. He had prepared this as his opening. …
The whole thing was a three-alarm dumpster fire for the GOP.
My bold, and my surprise. Not that I agree or disagree, having not seen the townhall. But it appears there’s some disarray on the right.
And now comes the Durham report, an investigation into the Mueller investigation by John Durham, a Federal prosecutor selected by former AG William Barr for what appeared to be a purely political task, a task that made Durham look like a Trump ally, rather than a disinterested party. Pundit reaction to the delivery of the report? Here’s Erickson:
The Durham report shows there was no basis even to begin an investigation into Donald Trump for collaborating with the Russians, but to this day, most Democrats think the Russians handed Trump the election. There is no evidence for that, and the evidence on which the lie is based appears to be exaggerated or fabricated.
And here’s Benen, helpfully including information from two other sources:
I realize, of course, that Trump isn’t much of a reader, and the idea that the former president would sit down and go through all 316 pages of the Durham report is obviously laughable. But like all of the other reports that Trump pretended were good news for him, the fact remains that the special counsel’s findings were actually an embarrassing dud. As the Associated Press reported:
The report Monday from special counsel John Durham represents the long-awaited culmination of an investigation that Trump and allies had claimed would expose massive wrongdoing by law enforcement and intelligence officials. Instead, Durham’s investigation delivered underwhelming results.
A New York Times report added that the report’s findings “revealed little substantial new information about the inquiry” and “failed to produce the kinds of blockbuster revelations” that Trump and his allies hoped Durham would uncover.
As a working dude who has neither the time, expertise, nor enthusiasm to investigate these issues further, what am I, and my readers, to do?
First rule is to find third party analysts, a notoriously difficult matter for political disputes such as this. However, Lawfare has a good reputation for expertise and disinterest, although many of their opinion writers have admitted to a dislike of Trump. Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant AG, etc etc, provides a factual recitation and analysis. Here’s what I’d call the executive summary:
The fruits of the Durham investigation will reportedly be disclosed later this summer, or in the fall. This post does a deep dive into what has been publicly reported about the Durham investigation, and then offers analysis. We include Barr’s commentary on the investigation, but not the president’s. The bottom line is that (1) the probe as it developed is not one that should have been conducted by a federal prosecutor conducting a criminal investigation, and (2) Barr’s tendentious running commentary on the investigation violates Justice Department rules, politicized the investigation and damaged the credibility of whatever Durham uncovers.
I’d call that strike 1 for Durham. Further, Benen notes
After an extended period of apparent inactivity, [Durham] eventually indicted cybersecurity attorney Michael Sussmann for allegedly having lied to the FBI. The case proved to be baseless; Sussmann was acquitted; and one of the jurors publicly mocked Durham’s team for having taken the case to trial.
Other prosecutorial attempts also failed, leading to a rather brutal tale of the tape for the special counsel:
By any fair measure, this is the most inconsequential special counsel investigation in the modern history of American law enforcement.
Strike 2. If you can’t make charges stick, there’s a serious problem with what you’re doing.
Finally, as I understand it, regardless of how scathing the language might be, there are no recommendations for changes to how the organizations investigated operate. That’s the real core of matters, isn’t it? You can scream curses and insults, but if you’re not willing to step into the ring with the adversary, you’re not worth jackshit.
Strike 3.
My reader may recall that Oversight and Accountability Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) ran a presentation that he claimed would be the end of President Biden’s career. Erickson, and presumably the other conservative voices, talked about it in hushed voices, but everyone else appears to have analyzed it, chuckled, and ignored it. The latest I’ve heard is that an unnamed whistleblower has “gone missing”. All they have to do is find him and Biden is condemned, or so Rep Greene (R-GA) believes.
But what about us, the voters who lack expertise, even interest? For all of the desperate earnestness of Comer, Greene, etc, it’s hard, at least for me, not to see this as them repeating the performances that got them elected. They hop up and down about abortion, guns, taxes, regulation, spending, whathaveyou, and get the votes in their safe districts, because experience and competence are discredited commodities in the GOP. Then they come to Washington and, not knowing any better, just repeat what they did to win their districts. But they don’t know how to conduct an investigation, and there may be nothing to find – but that’s not going to stop them from being successful. So they end up looking ridiculous, and I end up wondering who might be paying them off to waste their time like this.
It’s a sick little collection of dramas, isn’t it?
