Rising Newsletter: Brexit Lessons, Why We Cover Andrew Yang

Are Pete's High High Hopes Over?

Hello #Risers! Welcome to our newsletter. If you haven’t already, tell your friends to sign up by sharing the link to this post!

As promised every Friday we’ll tell you what our favorite segments of the week are, give you a written and expanded version of #RisingQs, and give you our weekly takeaways. If there’s anything you love, like, dislike, or hate don’t hesitate to reply to this email with your thoughts!

Share

Favorite Segments Of The Week

1) Matt Taibbi:

WHY: The IG report revealed FISA court abuses, but it also revealed how the media completely bought the lies and spin of the national security blob and has zero self-reflection on the many ways their reporting misled the American public. Don’t expect any mea culpas any time soon.

2) Nathan Robinson:

Current Affairs Editor Nathan Robinson was in studio to discuss his latest piece on Pelosi’s failed brand of neoliberalism and contempt for working class policy priorities. In a week that saw Pete Buttigieg forced into releasing his McKinsey clients, Robinson also did a deep dive on exactly why Pete is so problematic.

3) The Afghanistan Papers:

WHY: While much of the media fixated exclusively on impeachment, we thought it was really important to speak out about the outrageous new report on how multiple administrations lied to the American people about the “progress” we were making in Afghanistan. This report should have triggered wall to wall coverage but because the villains are on both sides, it will be buried instead.

Expanded #RisingQs

1)

Answer from both: It’s unlikely he’ll get a specific question on his fake black endorsements, but broadly the media has begun to turn on Pete. As the race enters it’s final phase, the time for fresh faced flirtations is over, the media is coming home to Joe as they realize that their liberal flavor of the months don’t have a real shot at becoming the nominee or defeating Trump.

Warren is unlikely to face critical questions from the media about abandoning Medicare for All. The media loves that she did that. But she may well get critical questions about how her fall in the polls relates to her health care positions which is more scrutiny then she’s really faced so far. They will also certainly pit Warren and Pete against each other in the coming debate to try to spark some fireworks.

2)

Answer from both: We find Yang’s candidacy both fascinating and important because he has completely shifted the paradigm of American politics. From this point forward, both parties will have to deal with the forces that gave rise to his candidacy which includes job destruction and online virality. He has also inserted a policy concept into mainstream conversation that hasn’t been seriously discussed or considered in decades.

3)

Answer from Krystal: What will cause the left, or any party, to lose faster than anything, is having condescension and contempt for the voting public. If we want to have a true cross-racial working class movement we are going to have to win back some people who are opposed to us now. That means not calling Trump supporters racist or questioning their motives but rather fighting for them and treating them with respect whether that is reciprocated today or not. When it comes to those in power I am relentless, when it comes to ordinary citizens, I do my best to approach with a mindset of understanding and solidarity.

Weekly Takeaways

From Krystal:

This week brought new signs that the Pete media lovefest and associated polling surge is coming to an end. It actually started with him facing some hostile questioning from the press and handling it very very poorly. 

Then under pressure, he capitulated and announced both his McKinsey client list and also that he would disclose the high dollar event hosts and bundlers for his campaign. I believe they call him his “Investment Circle” or something obnoxious like that. 

But the bigger picture is that as the race enters the home stretch, with the holidays upon us and an impeachment trial looming, the media is wrapping up its various flirtations for the boring but reliable Joe Biden. Pete has largely been a media creation so the turn in coverage could really be damaging to him. He rose initially after a CNN town hall that earned him praise from Hillary world and Obama land. His latest surge was sparked by a debate performance where the pundits decided they liked the cut of his jib and by that I mean his right-wing anti-M4A talking points. Last debate I thought for sure they would ask him something challenging, especially given that Ryan Grim had just published a bombshell report on his faked black endorsements, but of course, they gave him lots of speaking time and kid gloves questions. That period of uncritical adulation seems to have ended and I wouldn’t doubt if his surge recedes to put him back in his “strong 4th place” positioning.

You can already see the way the new scrutiny is reverberating online. Both #refundPete and #wallstreet Pete trended online after Pete held a high dollar Wall Street fundraiser. A new poll that had him at 2% among voters under 35 also underscored the fact that young progressives had long seen through this guy. He’s not appealing to the young because he’s embracing the same old big money neoliberal politics. The last thing we need is a young face on the same terrible old ideas. 

So Peter’s high high hopes may well be over but don’t worry, I’m sure he’ll make a great MSNBC contributor. 

Saagar’s Takeaway:

The British Labor party lost BIG under Jeremy Corbyn delivering probably the biggest electoral defeat to democratic socialism as it has been tried on the ballot in the Western democracy up and until this point. There are very interesting lessons to be learned from this election for left and right populists despite the fact that the election came as close to a single issue as one does these days in a developed democracy. 

Brexit aside, Jeremy Corbyn and Labor’s marriage of progressive economics with far left social values is what ultimately doomed the party’s electoral chances. As a labor representative from the traditional northern stronghold told ITV News, the party has become one that only represents the values of the city and not of the rural working class

As journalist Zaid Jilani noted after Labor’s disastrous defeat: 

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would do well to heed the lesson from Corbyn’s loss. If people feel condescended too on values that they hold dear then they are not going to be receptive to economic policies which may very well be better for their financial situation. To think otherwise is a profound misunderstanding of how people actually vote

The American right should also learn the lesson of the Conservative party in the UK. Johnson’s party promised to use more funds that were going to the European Union to fund their healthcare system, wanted to exit the single European market to the benefit of British workers, and adopted a much more worker friendly politics to win one of the biggest victories in modern UK history. 

The UK may not be the same as the US but it’s as close of a cousin as we have to see what may come to pass in November 2020. 

Rising Newsletter: Which Neoliberal Is Next?

Kamala Drops Out, France Erupts, Bloomberg Lets Cat Out Of The Bag

Hello #Risers! Welcome to our newsletter. If you haven’t already, tell your friends to sign up by sharing the link to this post!

As promised every Friday we’ll tell you what our favorite segments of the week are, give you a written and expanded version of #RisingQs, and give you our weekly takeaways. If there’s anything you love, like, dislike, or hate don’t hesitate to reply to this email with your thoughts!

Share

Favorite Segments Of The Week

1) Professor Richard Wolff

Why: France faced it’s largest protests in decades with 800,000 in the streets over threatened pension cuts by their neoliberal technocrat President Emmanuel Macron. Professor Wolff helped put the massive French in global context, connecting it to a wave of working class uprisings and sound the alarm for a what could happen under a neoliberal administration here in the US.

2) Nina Turner

Why: We always get excited when Sanders National Campaign Co-Chair Senator Nina Turner stops by Rising. She never holds back. In part 1 of our interview with her, she eviscerates Democrats for taking the black community for granted and challenges Biden to not take their support for granted. Nina is frequently in South Carolina on behalf of the Sanders campaign so she sees up close the efforts (or lack thereof) that campaigns are making to win black voters.

3) Trita Parsi

Why: Iraq’s Prime Minister just stepped down and Iran just brutally cracked down on their own protesters, killing hundreds (that we know of). No one knows what’s going on in the region better than Trita Parsi who warned that the Trump Administration’s economic sanctions could well end up pushing into power a hardline regime that is likely to be more belligerent and never negotiate.

Expanded #RisingQs

1)

Answer (from both): Bloomberg or Pete may take a few points from Biden but without someone attacking him directly, I think we will see a coalescing behind Biden over the coming weeks. As Krystal writes in her takeaway below, the establishment is starting to line up behind him and for the first time ever, the professional left types on Twitter are actually starting to have his back. Meanwhile, media scrutiny is coming to Pete for the first time ever and when you are one of these candidates who counts on affluent white support, you live and die by the New York Times editorial board.

2)

Answer (from Krystal): There are so many to choose from, I think I’ll go with this New York Times article about Tulsi’s white pantsuit. When Hillary wore a white pantsuit they wrote about how incredible and powerful and trailblazing it was or whatever. When Tulsi wore it they said it “left a chill” (because calling a woman frosty or chilly isn’t remotely sexist). “Her white suits are not the white suits of Ms. Clinton, nor even the white of Ms. Williamson, whose early appearances in the shade often seemed tied to her wellness gospel and ideas of renewal and rebirth. Rather, they are the white of avenging angels and flaming swords, of somewhat combative righteousness (also cult leaders).” When you don’t want to criticize the substance, find something, anything to use to smear.

Answer: (from Saagar): The most infuriating article I read this year was from The New York Times when they were celebrating the increasing number of jobs for women in distressed areas that saw huge losses of coal mining jobs for men.

The women featured in the article were mostly working lower wage jobs in the healthcare sector and attempting to care for their male family members who remained unemployed. The jobs they secured did not have the same level of benefits and the sheer desperation of the families involved came through despite the disingenuous framing.

It really showed me how destructive and heartless identitarian politics can be.

3)

Answer (from both): It’s hilarious all the people crying about the debate stage will be absolutely silent whenever Andrew Yang or Tulsi Gabbard eventually qualify. It just goes to show how empty so much of their identity politics ideology is really a mask for neoliberalism.

They only want candidates of color who fit into their box.

Weekly Takeaways

Krystal’s Takeaway: The Establishment is lining up behind Joe

John Kerry endorsed Joe Biden this week. Now on one hand, who cares? They share a neoliberal world view and hawkish foreign policy and are mutually complicit in architecting the current Democratic Party morass. On the other hand, Kerry’s endorsement is part of a broader trend that may signal the Establishment is finally taking Dr. Jill Biden’s advice. They may not love Joe Biden, but they need to “swallow a little bit” and back Joe. 

After all, they see some of the same flaws and weaknesses we do in Joe in terms of his verbal incontinence and failing mental acuity. I’m sure this week’s meltdown where he called a voter “fat” (the campaign claims he was saying: “Look facts” LMAO) is probably not giving them a lot of confidence. Not to mention, the Obama people certainly don’t love the idea of a blundering old white guy carrying on the legacy of their shining brilliant multicultural hero. But none of the final Hail Mary candidates are catching on. Deval was humiliated when only 1 person showed up for his Morehouse College speech. 

And Bloomberg’s millions don’t seem to be impressing voters much. Warren was fun for establishment Dems to flirt with. A sort of teenage rebellion “there’s no way I could take you home to mom” candidate. Pete was fun to date when actual commitment felt a ways away, but now that we are well into the holiday season with a January impeachment trial set to suck up all the oxygen right up until the Iowa caucuses, now is the time for the establishment to get serious. In Jill’s words, time to “swallow a little bit” and go all in for Joe. 

Saagar’s Takeaway:

Saagar’s Takeaway: 

Monday was a day of reckoning for corporate media when the Trump campaign announced that it would no longer credential reporters from Bloomberg News after the outlet openly admitted it would not investigate Mike Bloomberg while he ran for President along with any of his rivals in the Democratic race.

The move predictably was met with outrage from the media class who painted it as an attack on them all when what it really did was reveal the alliance between our current corporate media giants and those who are in power. It is absolutely laughable to think that a news organization which bears a Democratic presidential candidate’s name can fairly cover the sitting President of the United States. 

This goes far beyond the moment of the primary. It highlights the danger of a media class who insists on a day to day basis that it is nothing but fair and objective while it has immense interest in preserving the status quo and the power of its oligarch owners like Jeff Bezos and Michael Bloomberg. The future of media is pretty bleak and its more likely to look like the Bloomberg, Bezos owners will be needed to sustain it so how do we go forward? 

Media companies need to be honest with their readers and tell them exactly what they’re all about. They should acknowledge their owners, the interests of their business, and more. This will actually help the legitimacy of their coverage! When they present all of their reporting as *objective* it allows people to rightly point out all of their conflicts of interest to delegitimize their reporting. Telling the truth can take them a long way and it can grant more cross-party legitimacy to their investigations. 

In the meantime, we’re doomed to the status quo. The Washington Post, CNN, Bloomberg and others will continue to tell us that it is a conspiracy theory to think that their ownership and control is in anyway tied to their coverage.

As even Bernie Sanders says in this clip from 13 years ago, its important to understand who owns what!

Rising Newsletter: Thanksgiving Edition

Billionaires, Identity Politics, and Obama Election Meddling

Hello #Risers! Welcome to our newsletter. If you haven’t already, tell your friends to sign up by sharing the link to this post!

As promised every Friday we’ll tell you what our favorite segments of the week are, give you a written and expanded version of #RisingQs, and give you our weekly takeaways. If there’s anything you love, like, dislike, or hate don’t hesitate to reply to this email with your thoughts!

Share

Favorite Segments Of The Week

1) Zaid Jilani:

Why: Zaid lays out a personal story of how a critical story he wrote about Michael Bloomberg was met with hostility from the Center for American Progress (CAP) because of the billionaire’s financial influence. Zaid also responds to alleged comments from former President Barack Obama that he may intervene to stop Bernie Sanders if he becomes the Democratic nominee.

2) Ryan Grim:

Why: Ryan responds here to progressive criticism of his latest piece on Elizabeth Warren which touts her rhetorical embrace of the labor movement. Critics argue that while she may invoke that legacy of militant unionism, she herself has not engaged in that struggle. Ryan explains how he views Warren, her priorities, and her theory of change based on years of covering her.

3) Harvard

Why: Young activists are leading a movement to force Harvard and Yale to divest from fossil fuels going so far as to storm the field of a major football game, delaying the event for over an hour. One of the organizers joined us to explain why and what they are planning for their next action.

Expanded #RisingQs

1)

Answer (from both): It is certainly possible! We discussed this on show Wednesday after the release of a Quinnipiac poll which showed her loss of nearly 14 points over a single month nationally with major losses in fields such as most electable, tells the truth, and other important barometers.

Warren’s M4A roll out was reminiscent of a typical politician who goes to great lengths to gaslight on the very basics, such as not including a payroll tax or saying she would pass full M4A in the third year of her presidency. The plan signaled that healthcare is simply not a priority for the Warren campaign and that she is always trying to get the right answer rather than say what she actually thinks. To voters it all just stinks of typical Washington BS.

2)

Answer (from Saagar): Ha, yes. Lamenting class struggle isn’t something that belongs only to Democrats and liberals. I think what throws you for a loop is that I’m one of the few (but growing number) of people on the right that shares the same view of progressives that concentrated corporate power is the biggest threat to American democracy and prosperity.

Where we differ is what to do about it and what priorities we must have once we take power. I place an emphasis on trade policy, restrictive immigration, and reorientation towards geopolitical competition with China. Progressives in my view seem instead to look to healthcare, expansive immigration, and de-militarization.

3)

Answer (from Krystal): My definition of “progressive” is pretty simple, it’s anyone who believes in the fundamental dignity and economic rights of every human. Anyone who believes that all are worthy of care, community, and the essential basics of life to include health care, education, clean water, clean air and a living wage. That’s what FDR was talking about when he proposed his 4 Freedoms. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear.  Sadly so many in the Democratic Party spend their time thinking of excuses for why these basic essentials are impossible to provide for all our people rather than fighting to realize FDR’s vision.  

Weekly Takeaways

Krystal’s Takeaway: Obama’s “Stop Bernie” plan

Another week brings fresh indicators that Bernie’s surge is real and durable. A new Emerson poll has him climbing to the top of the pack in New Hampshire and a new Morning Consult early state tracker has him rising 9 points in just the past month. 

So it’s no surprise that establishment Democrats are beginning to sound the alarm about the dangers of his candidacy. In particular, we learned this week in a Politico Magazine profile of President Obama written by Ryan Lizza, that the former President and his aides feel they will simply *have* to intervene were Sanders to look like he was running away with the nomination. You’ve got to love the classic passive aggressive way they issue this warning shot too. According to Lizza: “He said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him.” And don’t worry, Obamaland advisors are also on board with the #neverbernie plan. Here’s Lizza again: “I asked one close adviser whether Obama would really lay himself on the line to prevent a Sanders nomination. ‘I can’t really confirm that,’ the adviser said. ‘He hasn’t said that directly to me. The only reason I'm hesitating at all is because, yeah, if Bernie were running away with it, I think maybe we would all have to say something. But I don't think that's likely. It's not happening.’ Another close Obama friend said, ‘Bernie's not a Democrat.’”

The “Bernie’s not a Democrat” argument is always hilarious to me. These people have never for one second reflected on what it says about their Democratic Party that the most popular person in it isn’t even a Democrat. These comments though were I’m sure made very intentionally to Lizza and should be a real wakeup call for supporters of Sanders and all other anti-establishment candidates. The powers that be do not plan to go down without a fight. Their methods may look like the type of shenanigans they pulled in 2016, or it might look like trying to steal the nomination in event of a brokered convention. Already their media allies ignore, smear and dismiss anyone and everything that challenges establishment power.

Remember, Obama still holds quite a lot of power in the Democratic party. Just look at how a withered and diminished Biden still manages to hold a grip on the top spot thanks exclusively to his Obama association even WITHOUT an official endorsement. So, to those of you dedicated to upending business as usual, in case you had any illusions, Obama’s comments prove that you better be prepared for the fight of your lives.

Saagar’s Takeaway: Republicans Play Identity Politics

Earlier this week I lamented the rise of identity politics on the left and how satisfying it is to watch black voters in the Democratic primary defy elite’s obsession with race.

The problem however is just as pervasive on the Republican side. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp is reportedly opting to choose a female financial executive with a history of donating to Democratic causes to replace retiring Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson. Kemp’s reported rationale is that it will be easier to win back female voters in the suburbs if he elevates a woman to the office and runs alongside her in 2022 when the term runs out.

It is the height of idiocy to think that simply picking a woman for Senate is enough for female voters to vote Republican again in 2022. As evidenced by black voters in the Democratic primary, women (like all *people*) vote for candidates that best fight for their class interests. A female financial executive with no political experience is almost certainly likely to espouse Mitt Romeny-esque positions with some verbal fire thrown in that she supports President Trump on issues like impeachment.

Republicans continue to unlearn the lesson of the 2016 presidential election by doubling down on free market libertarian adjacent economic policy and wondering why they lose. They don’t understand that Trump’s explicit bucking of this ideology coupled with cultural right positions is what delivered him the White House.

If you made it this far, you must like what you see! Please share using the button below!

Share

Rising Newsletter: The Worst Debate So Far

Let Yang Speak!

Hello #Risers! Welcome to the sixth edition of our newsletter. If you haven’t already, tell your friends to sign up by sharing the link to this post!

As promised every Friday we’ll tell you what our favorite segments of the week are, give you a written and expanded version of #RisingQs, and give you our weekly takeaways. If there’s anything you love, like, dislike, or hate don’t hesitate to reply to this email with your thoughts!

Share

Favorite Segments Of The Week

1) Rising Post Debate Coverage:

Why: Because we were awesome and so were our guests obviously. We love doing these things and have been blown away by the response. We got instant reaction from Sanders Senior Advisor Chuck Rocha who gave us some real insight into how the Sanders campaign views Pete’s surge. Got some great reactions on our panel also to Tulsi’s brutal attack on Pete and the moderator’s utter failure.

2) Glenn Greenwald:

Why: Glenn consistently has some of the best context from the left on the impeachment hearings, and why this particular issue is what led to impeachment. Loved the point he makes here in particular about how Republicans will rightly fall back to the same line Democrats used effectively regarding impeachment in the 90s, “Yeah Trump’s conduct was bad, but it wasn’t impeachable.”

3) Kyle Kulinski

Why: Kyle gives some really good advice here for Bernie and Tulsi on how to effectively hit the establishment candidates on corruption. He also rightfully drags the MSNBC debate moderators. That was a big theme for us this week.

Expanded #RisingQs

1)

Answer (from both): They don’t like Andrew, they don’t understand Andrew, and they can’t fit him into any of their pre-conceived serious candidate boxes. UBI is not supposed to be a policy prescription that is on the menu of acceptable choices so that’s an issue for them. Asian Americans are supposed to be quietly writing code not galvanizing mass movements. And treating him fairly doesn’t earn them any chits with the establishment figures they need access and chummy relationships with. Weird how the MSM which loves to celebrate the diversity of corporate leaders and establishment candidates can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the historic nature of Andrew’s candidacy.

2)

Answer (from both) At this point, everyone not named Joe, Bernie or Elizabeth. I know Pete thinks he can actually win but Iowa ain’t the nation. Cory and Kamala have got to be honestly thinking that’s the best they can hope for at this point. That’s probably why Kamala has dialed back the attacks on other candidates. Amy may be hoping to parlay her Midwestern electability narrative into a VP slot but I’m extremely doubtful anyone would actually choose her. I have a hard time imagining Tulsi playing that strategic calculus though. There was nothing strategic politically about resigning from the DNC and endorsing Bernie after it was already clear Hillary would be the nominee. From what I can tell, she really does act on her principles even when it is incredibly counter to her personal professional interests.

3)

Krystal: It’s so hard to answer this because honestly the Democratic Party is such a mess I couldn’t even say what policies they really stand for. To me the biggest disappointment from the Democratic Party is how they have let unions whither on the vine. Just look right now at Virginia where Democrats hold the Governor’s mansion and have just won control of both chambers. They have a chance to overturn the odious Right to Work legislation that makes it nearly impossible to organize. Do I think they’ll actually do it? I’m extremely doubtful. They’ve just revealed their top legislative priorities and RTW repeal isn’t on the list. Never underestimate Democratic leadership’s continued fealty to corporate interests.

Saagar Enjeti: The policy I like the most from the progressive wing of the Democratic party at least is anti-trust. Matt Stoller’s work has increasingly convinced me that corporate consolidation in vital sectors of our economy are squeezing out healthy competition and empowering a professional managerial class’s ability to take advantage of workers. The policy I dislike the most from the Democratic party is the increasing openness to legalizing or decriminalizing all drugs. I believe it is possible to solve criminal justice concerns and racial disparities while continuing to combat the scourge of drug use in our society. 

Weekly Takeaways

Krystal’s Takeaway:

MSNBC Hosts the Worst Debate of all Time (Also I miss Marianne)

Ok maybe it wasn’t the worst of all time but it was certainly the worst I can remember. It sucked in every important way. First, they started off with the predictable impeachment question, a subject on which every candidate agrees and a general waste of time. Bernie Sanders had the best response here when he basically said, can we please not spend all our time fixated on impeachment and Donald Trump because if we do Democrats are doomed. Then on the healthcare segment, they failed to ask Elizabeth Warren one question about her stunning shift away from Medicare for All. Healthcare is the number one issue for Democratic voters. Warren has spent the entire campaign saying “I’m with Bernie” only to reveal that she really wasn’t with Bernie. Seems like kind of a big deal but not to these moderators who preferred instead to tee her up for a folksy anecdote about her Daddy converting their garage to a bedroom or whatever. Meanwhile, Pete is being feted by all the elite press as a new frontrunner and the next Obama and they certainly treated him as such by giving him and Warren the most speaking time. I thought for sure, they couldn’t possibly fail to ask him about new reporting from Ryan Grim that his Douglass Plan for Black America had faked black endorsements, used a stock photo from Kenya and represented that all endorsers were black when at least half were actually white. 

But nope. Didn’t make the cut. As I said on the show this week, can you imagine if Bernie had done something similar? The entire media would have cut into impeachment hearings to lose their minds over it! Every candidate on the stage would have been given their chance to trash him. But Pete didn’t face even one question. Insane. 

Instead they preferred to spend time asking Bernie once again to take responsibility for his supporters, this time they demanded answers for a rally chant that offended their delicate sensibilities. Andrew Yang didn’t get a single question until we were more than 30 minutes into the debate and when they did come to him it was to ask really important and not at all deranged questions like what will you say on your first phone call to Putin. He got a whopping 6 minutes of air time the entire debate. Warren didn’t get asked about her Medicare for All flip-flop or her weak statement on Bolivia but she did get asked some weird question about whether she would dismantle any sections of the border wall. In the end, it was the lowest rated debate of the cycle and no one really learned anything new unless you count witnessing the sheer desperation of witnessing Cory Booker beg viewers to help him get to the next debate stage. In summation, I miss Marianne. 

Saagar’s Takeaway:

It’s bad, but not impeachable

I’m willing to say it. What Trump did was pretty bad. You should never ask a foreign leader to investigate your political opponents. That being said, impeachment is an extreme political action to be undertaken only in the gravest of circumstances and frankly this particular case does not rise to the occasion. 

Furthermore, this particular case of impeachment against Trump is an obvious move by the national security state to lash out at him because he threatened precious military aid to Ukraine. Military aid to Ukraine is a policy decision at the sole discretion of the President of the United States. The idea that there are “never partisan” bureaucrats within the national security state is a laughable canard. Their very existence is predicated on keeping underlying policies that Donald Trump ran against in the 2016 presidential election. 

As a refresher, this is what Glenn Greenwald stopped by the show to discuss:

Will Hurd, who is no friend of Trump and has nothing to lose summed up what I predict will be the GOP Senate’s position when they acquit Trump in a few months. Yes the conduct was bad, but it’s not impeachable. If Democrats really believe that what Trump did was so singularly terrible then they should prosecute their case before the American people in a Democratic election. 

The problem of course is that they can’t do that because nobody really cares. Polling we’ve covered on the show indicates that independents are moving away from impeachment in a major way. In the swing state of Wisconsin, Trump actually went up in the head to head matchups despite an overwhelming amount of voters agreeing that Trump did use military aid as leverage against Ukraine. 

The Democrats laid out the case against impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1992. It’s bad, but it’s not impeachable. That’s where I, and I suspect most of the country will eventually fall on this matter. 

The Media's Coverup For Epstein Continues

'Not A Single Morning Show'

Before you read, please consider sharing or subscribing to Krystal and my newsletter

Share

By: Saagar Enjeti

The ABC News coverup for Jeffery Epstein should garner every bit of attention from the media as NBC News Weinstein coverage did. Instead the major networks and others in the media have all but ignored the story.

The latest example of this abdication of responsibility came today when no major network morning show noted that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is demanding answers from ABC News as to how and why the Epstein story that Amy Robach had developed was quashed.

The media should be all over this, given the historic level of public interest and the interplay of members of the British royal family as well as a former President of the United States.

I mean, as I write this investigative podcasts into Epstein’s past remain some of the most popular in the United States on Apple’s ITunes. Clearly there is a desire for more information. Yet people’s whose job it is to inform the public are seemingly nowhere to be found.

Just the very way that the story of McCarthy’s letter was broken is itself a testament to the media’s coverup. The letter was revealed not by a major news organization but by independent journalist Megyn Kelly on her instagram account.

The original tape of anchor Amy Robach revealing the network’s coverup wasn’t in the Wasington Post, it was broken by James O’Keefe of Project Vertias. The internal deliberations of the network aren’t being broken by CNN, they’re being tweeted out by independent journalist Yashar Ali.

Media reporters at established institutions who can tell you how and when Fox News anchors take their breakfast seem unable to pick up the phones to their friends at ABC News and ask what the hell is going on over there.

ABC has responded accordingly. All available public information (thanks to Yashar) currently indicates that the only steps taken so far are to identify and fire the leaker of the Robach video.

No plans whatsoever by the network to address the scandal, punish anyone involved, have an internal review or do anything else. With the complicity of established media, they look like they’ll get away with it…for now.

Loading more posts…