I had a different episode of Al Franken's podcast planned, but given the news this week of Trump's firing of the Director of National Intelligence over him doing his job and telling the truth about Russian efforts to impact the 2020 election, I thought this interview is more apt. So, this week’s podcast is with counter-terrorism expert Malcom Nance, and it's one of the most fascinating Franken has done, keeping your interest for over an hour with detailed stories backing up Nance’s extensive books. As Franken notes, “Career Intel Officer Malcolm Nance, who first disclosed that Russia hacked the 2016 election [publishing his book about this before the election], makes the case that Donald Trump has been a Russian asset for decades. Scary, but fun!
“With a cast of characters that include such lowlifes as Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, Nance tells us how Putin, Russian Intelligence, and Billionaire Oligarchs captured Donald Trump and warns that this may be our nation’s last election.” The bulk of the conversation is about Russian hacking the 2016 election, filled – as I said – with Nance giving meticulously details based on his Naval intelligence background to support his assertions. And then, when you think it’s all covered, Franken asks a question about 50 minutes in about what Russia has on Trump, and it sets off Nance to explain the background. And much of it confirms (in detail) an assumption I’ve made and written about here. Not that there’s “One Thing” Russia has on him, but that Trump has been going to Russia for over 40 years, and they’ve been gathering information on him since then – starting with the fact that his first wife Ivana was a Czech citizen when the country was under Russian domination, and so the Russians began recording all the communications between Trump, Ivana and her family in Czechoslovakia…for which we have records of that (starting in 1977) which were discovered a few years ago. Not supposition, but actual records. Including word of Trump saying back then that he’d like to be president. And so he was on the radar of Russia and specifically Putin, who was a case officer at that point, profiling him, gathering Kompromat and figuring out ways to make him an asset, knowing or otherwise. A great episode. Almost six years ago, I wrote on my website here about a little-known, limited British “fake documentary” comedy series on BBC America, Almost Royal, that starred a young guy, Ed Gamble, and young woman, Amy Hoggart. Both were hilarious and excellent, but Ms. Hoggart most-especially blew me away. (The premise of Almost Royal was that these two -- Poppy and Georgie Carlton -- were supposedly very, very distant members of the royal family who were a bit spoiled and touring America, and the show was about their interaction with real Americans. It didn’t all work – they fine-tuned things for a second season, but made it worse – but when it was good, it was drop-on-the-floor hilarious. And the two leads were brilliant. Most everything they did was ad-libbed) I particularly wrote about the diminutive Amy Hoggart and tracked down some of her comedy work online. She’s absolutely beautiful – if anyone ever makes a project with Isla Fisher, they should hire Amy as her younger sister. But also whip-smart, wildly funny and willing to go out on a limb and make herself as rude, obnoxious and offensive to audiences as possible, though with a sort of innocence and sweetness. Sort of like in the spirit of Andy Kauffman. And not something you expect from a beautiful woman, often putting herself in the worst light possible. In her comedy work she has several character, one of whom is 'Pattie Brewster,' who has written a book on happiness, but admits to "straddling the line between small and creepy." My favorite ad-lib of hers was during an episode of Almost Royal in Washington, D.C. where a political consultant is giving her "brother" tips on running for the town council back in England. He tells the Georgie that “You have to make it about the people you’re talking to. This is about you, it isn’t about me. It’s about you. It’s all about you. It’s about you.” Amy (as Poppy) interrupts and in her snooty, serious, but utterly dry, matter-of-fact way says, “Yes, that’s what I tell all my ex-boyfriends whenever I break up with them. It isn’t about me. It’s about you.” My second favorite line of hers comes when they’re with a fast-talking wrestling promoter. He’s talking himself up, and explaining all his hard work. And in sort of a snarky, self-righteous way says to these effetes, “You know about hard work, don’t you??” The “brother” Georgie says, “Yes” – but Hoggart jumps in and instead says, “No.” The young promoter is stunned, and scathingly and pointedly snarls, “Well, then, how do you earn a living??!” She looks at him and in as drippingly mundane and snobby way possible answers, “We’re very rich.” The funniest episode was probably one where they hear about a “tea party” and being British love the idea of tea and get invited as royal guests to give a talk. But it turns out to be a meeting of “the Tea Party.” Obviously, the show and leads know that, but they act as if they’re clueless in their dealings with everyone and with the speech that Georgie has been invited to give -- which goes on endlessly about his school pals and playing cricket -- that are gut-wrenchingly funny and annoying the bejeepers out of the Tea Party people there. Anyway, I wrote about the show social media, as well, and heard back very appreciatively -- and hilariously-- from both Hoggart and Gamble. (I'd tweeted that the leads were both smart and funny. She wrote back that it was the first time she'd been called smart. He wrote back that it was the first time he'd been called funny.) I even exchanged a few private Direct Messages with Hoggart, and noted she should be on The Daily Show, which she said would be a dream. (I don't think she had any idea that I worked in Hollywood and seriously meant it.). But I did seriously mean it. Someone this funny and this talented and this beautiful should succeed. But having an unexpectedly edgy personna can be a hurdle. A couple years passed, but then I had an idea. I have a friend who had been a writer on The Daily Show for a long time, and then amicably parted ways to work with Conan O’Brien. I wanted to give him time between the two shows before broaching the subject, which is why I didn't press the matter, but eventually got together with him for lunch. I knew he still had friends with The Daily Show and pitched him the idea of Amy Hoggart as a correspondent, since she would have been perfect with her sardonic humor and skill ad-libbing. He was intrigued and thought he’d be willing to do that. But then a thought occurred to him – didn’t he just see her as a correspondent on Samantha Bee’s show Full Frontal a few weeks back? Yes, I said, she was on it periodically, maybe once every six weeks or so, not much. But because she was on at all, and because Samantha Bee came from The Daily Show, too, and they were all part of the “family,” my friend thought it would be too awkward pitching her. I understood completely – but it was a shame, since that would have been daily. Ah, well. Time passed. That was about two years ago. Which finally brings us to today and the point. The other day, I just saw an ad for a new show starting next week, It's Personal with Amy Hoggart, which is produced by Samantha Bee. So – Huzzah!! (I have this odd skill of recommending relatively unknown performers to friends for projects they're casting, who often later become really big stars, or at the very least successful. The list is bizarrely long.) The show seems perfect for her, though we’ll have to see if audience’s like it. Apparently, she helps people with issues “despite having no qualifications at all.” And the trailer shows her putting herself in the most annoying and stupid light. Audiences will either love that and find it totally endearing -- or think she's...well, small and creepy. Here is the 90-second trailer, so you’ll get to see her and see what I mean. (By the way, she tells a knock-knock joke in it that at first I had absolutely no idea of the joke – which, being Amy, Hoggart is sort of her point -- telling a joke that makes her look idiotic. But as I thought and thought, I finally figured it out, and it’s hilarious – as a joke and for its stupidity.) So many things to choose from for today. Indeed, to show how overloaded it was, we're going to skip over long-time Trump associate Roger Stone getting sentenced to almost 3-1/2 years in prison, with Judge Amy Berman Jackson issues a scathing rebuke of both Stone and an unnamed Trump in her ruling. And we're going to pass by Trump naming his ally Richard Grenell to be the Acting Director of National Intelligence, despite having zero experience in the field -- one of the literal requirements in the law written for the job. Though as merely an "acting" director, the requirement can be avoided.
Instead, for me, the biggest story was the New York Times article about the reason Grenell was able to be hired in the first place. And that's because -- according to the article -- the previous acting Director of National Intelligence Admiral Joseph had sent an aide to brief the House Intelligence Committee about numerous reports that Russia would be trying to involve itself in the 2020 election on behalf of Trump, and Trump found out about the briefing, went through the roof furious, and fired Admiral Maguire for doing his job and honestly briefing the House Intelligence Committee with serious intelligence on national security That is not a good thing. (A quick side note: That we continually keep having "acting" Directors of National Intelligence and not a full-time professional in the job is another matter that is -- not a good thing.) Almost worse in the story is that apparently intelligence officials were considering watering down the report so that Trump wouldn't be upset about it, if word got to him, as they suspected it would. As intelligence experts said, the fact that the DNI was even considering softening the briefing is a major problem because the whole point of intelligence is that is delivered honestly and openly, in full. By the way, jumping back a moment to the whole "if Trump found out" thing. The briefing was specifically and solely to the House Intelligence Committee. Trump was not informed about it. The way he did find out about it is -- and I know this won't shock you -- Republican ranking member of the committee Devin Nunes told him. Of course he did. To be clear, there is nothing illegal about this. While Intelligence Committee members are not to talk about what goes on in their private meetings, they can discuss it with other authorized personnel. And Trump obviously has security clearance and is authorized. But as committee member Jim Himes added, it's one thing to not be a legal matter, it's another to be a Constitutional matter -- since Congress is set up in the Constitution to be a check on the Presidency. And passing along information from secret House committee meeting to the president -- especially over an issue concerning the president -- is problematic. But there's another matter about the briefing that is perhaps as troubling as Trump's crazed reaction to it. And that's what came in a report from The Daily Best on the meeting. You would think -- and most-especially want -- all of Congress to be concerned about a intelligence reports that Russia was going to be trying to involve itself in the U.S. presidential elections, on behalf of one of the candidates. Instead, according to the article, Republicans on the committee "went nuts" on the intelligence aide, Shelby Pierson, giving the briefing. “‘The Republicans [on the committee] went nuts,’ over Pierson’s presentation, the member told The Daily Beast. A second source familiar with the briefing said that Republicans didn’t understand why the Kremlin would try to boost Trump, since he had been so tough on Russia, in their view. Reps. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) and Chris Stewart (R-UT) — who according to The Times, has been a Trump favorite to replace Maguire — were particularly vocal in their skepticism, the member said.” You can read the full article here. And it goes further. Overlapping with Devin Nunes (R-CA) -- of course. The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee was on "Fox News" last night. And he publicly dismissed the intelligence services reports Russia was going to try to involve itself in the 2020 election -- something I suspect most Americans have expected for the past three years. But not Mr. Nunes, despite zero evidence on his part. “I don’t think anyone is buying it," he said, "I just left a big — a huge Republican dinner here in the San Joaquin Valley of California, President Trump was out yesterday, it was actually a joke tonight, Nobody is going to believe this garbage.” My sense is that his definition of "nobody" is a unique one. And this is the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. And those were the Republicans going "nuts" on the House Intelligence Committee. And here they are, "going nuts," disavowing without any evidence in the slightest that intelligence services say Russia is going to do -- again -- what we know they've already done!!! All of which brings us around to the point you know. And it's that although this here started with Trump and his firing of his acting Director of National Intelligence for doing his job and telling the truth -- this is not about Trump, we know who he is. This is about the elected members of the Republican Party who enable him and are complicit. And literally put us all at risk. Let's jump back and head into the shrubbery again for some another episode of Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis. His guest today is the wary and reticent Sean Penn. Yesterday afternoon, I was with my cousin and his wife. Near the end of the day they asked if I wanted to stay and watch the Democratic debate. I said no, that I wasn't watching the full debates lately, since they're largely going over the same material they done in previous debate after debate after debate. The only reason to watch, I thought, was to see how Mike Bloomberg does, and that I expected the others to go after him hard. Basically, I've watched about 30-45 minutes of debates to get a general sense of things and then would watch the post-debate analyses to see what highlights they show.
I got home after the debate began. Did some work. Prepared dinner, and eventually turned on the debate. And for five minutes saw all the candidates having a shouting match meltdown. I was tempted to call my cousin and say, "This is why I wasn't planning to watch." I don't have a strong reaction to the debate since I didn't watch all that much. As before, I watched about a half hour. And came away with a somewhat general response. I saw two debates. When the candidates spoke on the issues without interruption, I thought everyone did reasonably well and thought they handled themselves in a way that would be effective in a general election if they were the party nominee. I'm not saying that I agreed with everything they each were saying, just that they clearly felt strongly about their issues and presented them respectably. The other debate was when they were having their shouting and meltdowns. It was ridiculous. Overall, I had the same overall takeaway that I've had to all the debates -- they should make clear that they aren't running against each other, but that they are running against Trump. Their individual positions do differ from one another, but only in degrees. What they should do is show how their positions wildly differ from Trump and that they offer a strong positive direction for the country. And in discussing that, the viewers would see how they differ from one another. This year, more than most any other presidential election, they have to make clear that Trump is their opponent, not one another. One last comment. I can't react in detail to how analysts each discussed who they felt did well and poorly in the debate. But even seeing as little as I did, I greatly disagree with those (including one of my favorite analysts, Jason Johnson on MSNBC) who said this was a disaster for Mike Bloomberg and could mark the end of his campaign. I thought that was ridiculous -- even if their comments about how lackluster he was and how badly he was hurt by attacks were 100% accurate. (They may be accurate -- or not. What I saw showed some of those problems, but I also saw some strengths. But for the sake of argument, let's say they were completely right in how badly they thought he did.) First, I doubt all that many people watched, especially comparatively. The initial debate got 15 million viewers. The last few have had about 7 million each. Perhaps more watched because of Bloomberg's involvement, but after eight previous debates it's no long Must-Watch TV. [UPDATE: I was incredibly wrong about this point. It was a massively-watched debate. The other points below hold.] Second, Mike Bloomberg isn't even on the ballot in Nevada. So, when the caucus results are announced, he won't be in them. We won't see (for that aforementioned sake of argument) that he finished far below expectations. Third, his campaign has been centered around Super Tuesday. Unlike most of the other candidates, he can compete in all those states, because to do so requires a strong ad campaign. After all, you can't physically show up in all the Super Tuesday states with enough regularity to make a difference, there are far too many -- 14 of them! -- and further, many are simply much too big. California alone is almost prohibitive to run an in-person race in, especially in such a short period of time. So, you have to rely on ads to cover the fool landscape. Bloomberg can do that. And is. Fourth, however Bloomberg did in the debate yesterday, he can address his shortcomings and build on his strengths in a new set of TV ads, and hit the airwaves with them almost immediately. The point is, no matter how poorly one might think Mike Bloomberg did last night (whether that's true or not), I believe that it is utterly foolish to think it marks the end of his campaign. As for the rest that went on during the debate, I liked enough to appreciate the jobs the candidates are doing. And enough was just foolishness, and I hope they start focusing on who the real opponent is. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|