I swear this is true.  You will either love this or spend the rest of the day banging your head against the wall.  I just came across this tweet a couple minutes ago, and it is serious and on the level.  I

This is from a guy who identifies himself as a “legal and political analyst for the Fox News Channel.”  Really.  His name is even familiar to me.  For those who watch "Fox News" periodically or regularly, you probably know him.

​This is how he actually thinks technology works.  That it's "probably" just a coincidence.  Probably!!!  And he’s a legal and political analyst for “Fox News”!!!!  Boy, does this explain a lot.
 
It’s one thing for idiots to have idiot conspiracy theories.  But as biased as they are at “Fox News,” you still hope that their “legal and political analysts” are just biased and not brain-dead.  Alas…
 ​

It's not just the tweet alone, it's the 8-minute video attached.  Unfortunately, for reasons that aren't clear, there is no embed code, so I can't embed the full things, but I can at least take a screen shot to get things started.  

​And happily, I was able to find the full video on YouTube.

At any other time, so many other stories would be the five-bell headline -- from the Breonna Taylor decision to charge no one in her killing, despite having settled a civil suit with the family for $12 million...to reports of former Secretary of Agriculture Rick Perry in an apparently-corrupt deal with a Ukrainian oil company to sit on its board... to the story of how the current nominee to lead the Department of Homeland Security (after having lead it illegally for months as "acting head") oversaw a $6 million contract to a firm where his wife worked.  And more.

But they pale to Trump's comments not guaranteeing a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the election, and suggesting ballots be ignored -- on  the heels of a hair-raising article in The Atlantic that described Trump plans to subvert the Electoral College by having Republican legislatures in battleground states take back the power to appoint Electors.

As much as I was repulsed by Trump’s response at the press conference, I loved that he was asked – and that the reporter followed up.  So, perhaps we'll start to get journalists challenging him more, not in "debate," but to get his words on serious, uncommon matters like this on the record.  And in that regard, I also think that answers like he gave will repulse most voters, including some Republicans who aren’t cultists, but most-importantly undecided Independents.  I say that because I don’t think almost any American voter wants a contested election or wants a president to not commit to peaceful transfer of power.  Cultists may be okay with their beloved Trump refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, but as a principle of Constitutional American life, I don’t think a president not committing to a peaceful transfer of power is something that comes across well to Americans.  And it will hurt him even more in the polls, for which yesterday there were two new ones that show him 10 points behind.
 
And ultimately, that will be the biggest protection against Trump's attempt to manipulate and challenge the results  – having, hopefully as big a landslide victory as possible.  It may not be that, it may not even be a victory at all.  But as all major polls show in the popular vote and by Electoral vote, it appears headed in that direction.  There was a major election analyst this week (I forget who, sorry), who said there is a much greater chance of Biden getting 350 Electoral votes (40%) than of Trump just winning (25%).  And I think every public action like this on Wednesday that Trump makes hurts him with those in the middle all the more.  And it's not that it changes people's minds on a wide, massive scale, but just stripping away 1% is significant.
 
And no, I don’t know.  But that’s what I think.

I also think there's a big hurdle in Trump trying to challenge the validity vote-by-mail and taking it to court.  And that hurdle is that voting-by-mail is not only legal in every state, and in operation in every state, but has been for many generations, so the precedent is very long established.

All that aside, there are two other issues related to this, in particular to the article in The Atlantic, that I believe offset some of the hair-on-fire horror that the author reported on Trump and GOP plans. 

The first is when I heard Barton Gellman, the author of The Atlantic article, state as legal fact something that supports the foundation of his article, which was a plan by Team Trump to challenge Electors being decided by popular vote, so that the Republican state legislatures can pick their own Electors, which was long-time past how things were handled before tradition changed all that.  What Mr. Gellman said was that Bush v. Gore set down the principle that states can take back the power of votes to determine Electoral votes.  The thing is...my understanding of Bush v. Gore is that it very clearly said that its ruling should not be taken as precedent, and that it solely pertained to this one specific election in Florida in 2000.
 
Now, maybe there’s another argument that supports states taking back the power.  Or maybe the Supreme Court could rule that way on its own.  But using Bush v. Gore as the precedent to substantiate your article is (as far as I can tell) without any foundation.  At the very least, I’m surprised that I didn't hear any analysts bring this up.

And there was one other thing The Atlantic article seems to ignore as a critical hurdle to its Worst Case Scenario -- a major thing.
 
Even if everything ends up happening exactly like article says Team Trump is in the early stages of tenatively maneuvering, the Electoral College doesn’t work like that.  It doesn't just meet, tabulate in their votes, and it’s all done.  Those votes actually have to be certified by the House and the Senate!  And…it’s not the current House and the Senate, but the Congress which meets in January, after the results of this election have taken place.  The new Congress.  Which means very possibly a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.
 
I think that if Trump and Republicans actually pull off this outlandish plan, it is near impossible for me to imagine a Democratic House, let alone also a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate (if they take control) certifying such an unprecedented power-grab end run around the popular vote. 

Yes, if it all transpired this way and came down to that, it would certainly be a political mess.  But the point is that it's not the simplistic matter of just manipulating state legislatures and counting the Electoral votes.  There is another layer of protection built in.

But for all of this -- for all the hideous ghastliness of Trump's statement and The Atlantic reporting of GOP plans, the one statement that stands out just as loudly, if not more so now, that all the times before.  And the mantra can be repeated by everyone here in their sleep --

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 in it all.  This only happens if the Republican members of Congress support and allow it.  And they do support it.  And do allow it.  And at its core it is pure, book-definition fascism. Attempting to undermine trust in government institutions, and undermining what the truth and reality are, so that those in power are free to define it.

​This isn't about Trump.  It's about today's Republican Party which has gone full fascist. 

The other day, to augment his clueless quote about Winston Churchill, Trump told the story of Churchill going outside to stand on the roof of a building during the Blitz and broadcast a speech to the British people.  I think the fake point he was trying to make was showing how the Prime Minister tried to calm the public by showing there was no reason to panic and just stay calm and carry on.  There's just one problem with his story -- and you're probably way ahead of me here -- it's not true.  Need I say, "of course"?

It was legendary CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow who would periodically go on the rooftop of the building CBS would broadcast from, and he would do his news report back to the United States (his famous "This...is London" broadcasts), as bombs could be heard exploding in the background.  And it wasn't done to calm anyone, but to keep people fully informed and and honest as possible.

Murrow is one of my few "heroes" in broadcasting, and I've read three biographies on him.  So, when I heard Trump telling the story about Winston Churchill, I could only cringe and shake my head.

Which is a long way to explain why I thought it would be a good time to have this clip of Edward R. Murrow as the 'Mystery Guest' segment of What's My Line?

Murrow had one of the most recognizable voices in radio and TV (in large part because of those London broadcasts), and so he works hard to disguise it.  This video comes from December, 1952 – that's notable because while Bennett Cerf is on panel, this is so early in the show's run that he's not yet in his traditional seat on far right. 

If you want to jump right to Murrow's appearance, it starts around the 16:30 mark.  Nice, too, is that after the game, he sticks around to make a nice, moving presentation afterwards

Daniel Dale was a reporter for the Toronto Sun when he began fact-checking Trump and was wonderful at it.  That's when I began following him on Twitter.  He eventually got hired by CNN and has kept it up, on a much bigger platform.

Last night, after Trump's speech at the Republican Convention, Dale delivered what up to this point might be his magnum opus.  This is a breathtaking (almost literally…) three-minute, non-stop recitation of just a partial list of Trump lies in his speech that is brilliant -- delivered seemingly without notes.  (He may have had a TelePrompter, but it seems unlikely.  But that's moot, since what the information of what he was saying is the point.)
 
Making it even fun is watching anchor Anderson Cooper's reaction through it all, fine just sitting back and watching Dale on a roll.

​Buckle up...

Here's a slightly different song parody from Randy Rainbow, a birthday greeting to his very favorite TV news anchor.  Low-key, but fun.

Oh, this is a pretty good one, even by Daily News standards -- though I get the sense that they weren't alone in coming out with this.
​

Today, we're not going to be about Trump directly.  It would have been easy, there's SO much to choose from -- indeed I came close to choosing how yesterday during a pandemic when another 1,000 Americans died, he praised himself about dishwasher regulations -- but instead thought it best to address all such things in a roundabout way.

Two days ago , I posted the following comment on Facebook --

It turns out, I wasn't alone in that thought.  Yesterday, Bill Sternberg took USA Today to task for the editorial.  And who is Bill Sternberg, I hear you ask?  He's the political editor of...USA Today!!

Among the many things he wrote were, "Several of Navarro’s criticisms of Fauci — on the China travel restrictions, the risk from the coronavirus and falling mortality rates — were misleading or lacked context. As such, Navarro’s op-ed did not meet USA Today’s fact-checking standards.”

My immediate reaction was, "Hey, ya think???!!"

My second reaction was that Mr. Sternberg was being polite, but didn't go nearly far enough.  I do understand that as USA Today's own political editor there are probably limits about how far he could go in his criticism, but the larger point to me isn't that Peter Navarro's op-ed did not meet  the paper's "fact-checking standards," but rather that Peter Navarro has a terrible record for honesty, so he shouldn't have been given a platform in the first place.

Yes, good for USA Today for following up later with such an acknowledgement.  It's rarely done, and it's deserving of some credit.  But "some credit" only covers a very small part of the whole.  Think of it somewhat like if a circus let a lion wander loose among the crowd and it goes on a rampage, and they post a notice the next day explaining all the reasons it was a bad idea.  It's not a perfect analogy, but it's close enough.  Sometimes, you should know better and not put yourself in a position where you'll likely have to apologize after.

Same too with the recent disaster at the New York Times with their op-ed from Sen. Tom Cotton.  Yes, they did a mea culpa after, but these aren't one-person gaffes, but go through multi-level approvals, and they should all know better.  And they do know better.

I'm well-aware that it's important to get the views of the current administration.  But the credibility of this administration disappeared long ago, and I'm sure that USA Today is well-aware of that, so vigilance is critical, especially with an election just months away.

And that's the larger point here.  This administration has been in office for 3-1/2 years.  Their list of deceptions and lies during that time are well-documented.  The Washington Post has collected a list of now over 20,000 lies by Trump during his time in office alone.  Their spokespeople go out on TV shows and repeatedly lie to the point that real-time fact-checking has become a new journalism requirement.  We are in the middle of a pandemic in which 141,118 Americans have died, and the White House seems oblivious..  Just yesterday, the White House press secretary said, :Science should not stand in the way" of schools reopening.  (The comment denigrating science at any time, but especially during a pandemic and most-especially about the health of children is bad enough -- but when you realize her disparagement of science was in the very same sentence as talking about the importance of school makes it ethereally galling in a ghastly way -- and makes you wonder what on earth she thinks they should be teaching.  Perhaps alternative facts, like the airports Trumps said existed during the Revolutionary War.)  About 48 million Americans have applied for unemployment.  Russia has put bounties on the lives of American soldiers, and the White House has not acted.  National movements to change social justice have broken out across the country, and the White House.defends the Confederate Flag and the statues of Confederate generals.  Trump sends out the National Guard, helicopters and chemical spray against American citizens at peaceful rallies.

And the best USA Today can do is -- after-the-fact -- say that they should have fact-checked better.  Yes, they should have.  And good of them to realize that and say so.  But it doesn't let them off the hook for not realizing they shouldn't have given a national platform to the Peter Navarros of the world in the first place.

And that's the point.  This isn't about USA Today.  It's about all news media accepting that Trump is Trump and that he's not "finally becoming presidential" at this point.  And by "at this point," I define that as -- ever.  Ever.  We know who he is.  He tells us every time he opens his mouth or types a tweet.  This is about recognizing the realities of the world when your job is the news.  The job is to be fair and honest and objective and detailed.  It is not to be a red carpet for those spewing fascist, deceptive PR propaganda and think that makes you balanced and fair.  It makes you a dupe.  It makes you complicit, even if unintentionally.

And for those in journalism who haven't figured out the subtleties of all this yet, here's a hint that might help: Trump and his administration call the media "the enemy of the people."  They are not going for fair and honest and objective and detailed.  So, it's up to you.

No, really.  Honest.

Still, at least we did learn from the White House yesterday that the country has less-restrictive water regulations for dishwashers.  Which is a good thing! 

Unless you're in one of those many states with a drought.  Which Trump thinks is a hoax.  And which he made the United States the only country in the entire world that is literally not in the Paris Accord on Climate Change.

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
-- Thomas Jefferson

And Jefferson hadn't even hear of Trump.

Oh, dear God – it wasn't just a lunatic "threat," but Trump actually, really, truly did have his re-election campaign lawyers send a cease-and-desist letter to CNN for having published their poll results.  And apparently they did have an outside firm, the not-especially well-regarded McLaughlin Associates, analyze the results.
 
What a whiny little petulant child Trump is.  It's almost a miracle he hasn't threatened to sue every pollster, since after all every one of them have him behind Joe Biden -- by a lot.  Maybe he thinks this was a good idea for his base, but it was a brain-dead idea.  What a shock Trump is lost with the pandemic & Black Lives Matter.
 
But best of all is the response from CNN.  At first I thought maybe it was from The Onion.  But it was tweeted on the CNN account, and I found it on the CNN website.
 
And you have to love the CNN lawyer’s name – David Vigilante.  And no, again, this is not The Onion.

I have almost nothing to add to this.  Some things are just right and say all that needs to be said.  I do feel compelled to note a couple of thoughts about why the Trump cease-and-decease letter is so idiotic, beyond the obvious.  First is that there are two other polls with almost the same results -- showing Trump behind by 10/11 points, which is within the margin of error -- and there was no cease-and-desist letter sent to them.  This not only shows the letter to be childish and empty, but if the threat ever wet to court is probably all the evidence CNN would need to get it thrown out.  And second, since CNN was never going to retract its poll, and since a lawsuit could never go anywhere for the reason stated and more, the only reasonable outcome from sending the letter is ridicule and humiliation, pretty much the exact opposite of looking tough to anybody.

I can only keep repeating -- no, this is not The Onion.  

​I've embedded the text at the end in case the graphic of the original letter isn't sharp enough, though I think it should be.

If you have a hard time reading the graphic of the original letter, here's the text below --

​Dear Ms. Ellis,
 
This responds to your letter dated lune 9, 2020.
 
To my knowledge, this is the first time in is 40 year history that CNN
had been threatened with legal action because an American politician or
campaign did not like CNN's polling results.
 
To the extent we have received legal threat from political leaders in
the past, they have typically come from countries like Venezuela or other
regimes where there is little or no respect for a free and independent
media.
 
CNN is well aware of the reputation John McLaughlin and McLaughlin
Associates. In 2014 his firm famously reported that Eric Cantor was
leading his primary challenger Dave Brat by 34 points only to lose by 11
points -- a 45 point swing. The firm currently has a rating from
FiveThirtyEight.
 
In any event, McLaughlin was able to evaluate and criticize CNN's most
recent poll because CNN is transparent and publishes its methodology
along with its polling results. Because of this, McLaughlin was free to
publish his own critique of CNN's analysis and share his criticisms
across the U.S. media landscape. That's how free speech works. It's the
American way.
 
Your letter is factually and legally baseless. It is yet another bad
faith attempt by the campaign to threaten litigation to muzzle speech it
does not want voters to read or hear. Your allegations and demands are
rejected in their entirety.
 
 
Very Truly Yours,
 
David C. Vigilante