A few weeks ago, Rachel Maddow began a seven-part podcast called Bag Man.  It's extremely well-done and wonderfully produced -- and even has uncovered some new material that has surprised the investigators involved in the original event.

That original is the story behind the resignation of former Nixon Vice-President Spiro Agnew.  It provides much more depth to the public story that is know and, as I said, has come up with some new material.  They also have been able to draw some fascinating similarities to the Mueller investigation of Trump, including (but not limited to) the ways the White House attempted to discredit the judiciary and press).

I figured I'd post the series here, over the next seven weeks in case any folks here were interested but it's fallen through the cracks.  Each episode runs about 30 minutes.

Here's Maddow production's description of what's to come --

Episode 1: An Unsettling Secret

He was brash. Politically incorrect. An “outsider” political candidate who rose to the White House, out of nowhere, with a reputation as a “counter-puncher.” But Vice President Spiro Agnew was also something else… an active criminal whose secrets were about to be exposed. What happens when a “counter-puncher” in the White House suddenly sees his political future directly threatened by investigators inside his own Justice Department?

A friend wrote me this morning, asking what my thoughts were about stories of Democratic challenges to her for Speaker of the House.  What I said is that my thoughts on Nancy Pelosi is that until there is someone else actually running against her, I pay the subject very little attention.

He replied that he specifically asked because of a Washington Post article today on Rep. Marcia Fudge of Ohio who is said is running against Pelosi.

Actually, no, there isn’t a challenge yet.  The sub-headline notes “as she weighs bid” and the article says, “as she mulls a speaker run” and refers to her “possible entry.”  And says that she told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that she "is considering a speaker bid."
 
She may run.  It sounds like she will run.  But until she determines that she has more than “30 people” who the article says support her privately, which can change once they decide whether they want to make that public, or if more supporters join in – or if she loses support because someone else announces -- she isn’t a challenger yet.
 
I’m very aware that there are several people who are considering running.  And I expect that some of them, or at least one of them, will.  But right now, it’s just a talking game.  And until people actually announce that they really are running, it’s one-person race.  And until others publicly say they are actually challenging her, and why, and how they’ll be better, it’s nothing I pay much attention to before then.  It's like deciding who I’m going to vote for in the Democratic primary before there any candidates.  

Right now, Nancy Peloosi is the only person in contention, so I can’t spend any time analyzing the situation until there’s actually a situation.  I’m fine with her if she’s kept at the head of House Democrats.  I like her.  And admire her.  And I think in many ways she's done a terrific job, and stood strong against Trump.  But I don’t think she’s without flaws.  I sense she’s at her best at the inside politics of the job, which is not only critical, but probably the most critical part of the job – getting people in line, forming coalitions, vote counting and such.  And I think she's excellent at that.  But I don’t think she’s great in public and find her a bit unfocused in getting her points across. As the face of the party in the House, that's sometimes a detriment.  I find her at her best in short, pointed spurts, and she can be vibrant on those occasions.  And while, as I said, I think she's terrific at the politics of the "big picture," I question some of her public agenda strategies.  But I think she’s very smart and very tough, and does a solid and at times excellent.  But honestly, if someone wonderful decided to challenge her, who knows?, maybe that person would be even better.  It’s not that I think she’s bad – I don’t, not even remotely – I think she’s very good.  But if Democrats can find someone even better, great. 
 
(There are other people I think could do an excellent job, I just don’t think they have any plans of challenging her, so it’s moot.  People like Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Elijah Cummings.  And who knows, maybe Marcia Fudge when I know more about her.)

Further, I think that challenge within a party is a good thing, if it's handled properly and not out-of-control rancor.  Having challenges allows other voices to be heard and allows a party to determine what is most important.  And in the best of circumstances can make a party stronger.  Keep in mind, too, that this isn't the first time Ms. Pelosi has been challenged for leadership, so it isn't inherently a case of going against her on the heels of the party's success.  There are some representatives who prefer other leadership.  And it's worth adding that those challenges not only failed, but didn't come close to succeeding.  If others do challenge her again this time, perhaps conditions will be different.  Or not.  
 
What I do NOT want is to see Democrats appear to be caving to right-wing demonizing of Pelosi.  That said, I don’t get the sense that that’s even remotely behind the chatter about new leadership.  I think it’s more a case of some wanting a change in direction.  (I’m not defending that, just describing it.)  But for all the defenders who say that it's bizarre to change leadership after the great Democratic victories in Congress, I don’t have the sense of Democrats having taken back the House because of Ms. Pelosi.  While I know Democratic leadership worked on campaign strategy, the wins seem largely a rejection of Trump, aversion of the enabling Republicans, recognition that the "tax cuts" mostly benefitted the wealthy, and a desire to protect Obamacare.  And local candidates running good, local campaigns.  The only reason Democrats didn’t do better in the Senate is because that’s how the at-risk races broke down this year, heavily favoring Republicans.  Yet Democrats may end up doing better in the Senate than expected.
 
What I’d personally like is for Nancy Pelosi to keep the job by a wide margin (let alone by unanimity if she runs unopposed), and then a year or so in, step down and let a new breed take over.  (I’ve heard that mentioned as a possibility, though I have no idea if there’s any reality to it.)  That would allow her to go out on top, a winner AND give a sense of new direction and “business as usual.”
 
Again, though, I’m fine with her staying Speaker.  And staying for the next two years.  What I don’t like is all the press attention on the game playing because…right now…there’s no game.  There’s only her.  And until that changes, it borders on a non-story to me.

I should have posted this earlier, but the mid-term elections and other folderol got in the way.  But it's still exceeding thoughtful, interesting and moving.  It's a short, 9-minute conversation on Real Time with Bill Maher with New York Times Op-ed editor Bari Weis who had been bat mitvah'ed at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh where the massacre occurred.  She had written a column "When a Terrorist Comes to Your Hometown," and her talk with Maher spun off from that.

We haven't had one of those Comedy Against Trumpism videos for a while, so I thought today was a really good day for another.  (If you're new to these pages, these are the videos that comedy shows from around the world have produced to make the case that if it's "America First," perhaps their country can be second.)  And this one is from, of all countries...Iran!  And it's actually and surprisingly pretty fun.  In particular, there's an extremely funny section about engineering in Iran.  The narrator even seems to be trying to do a Trump impersonation like all the other videos, but it's not his forte, but he has the cadence okay.  

I was going to write an article this morning about how the election results for Democrats were far, far closer to a Blue Wave than I think most people originally perceived.  That's because the evening started slowly, and because several Democratic favorites went down to disappointing defeat.  But as the results kept coming in later in the evening -- very late on the East Coast after many had gone to sleep -- and the vote counting is continuing to go on with even more Democratic victories, and even a couple of those losses by Democratic favorite have turned out not be be sure defeats yet after all, the extent of how well Democrats did is a very different story than initially perceived.

But rather than me going into all the details, I thought instead I'd turn the floor over to Chris Hayes, who began his All In show on MSNBC yesterday with a bravura explanation of all the specifics.  Unfortunately, when I went to post this piece this morning, the video from YouTube has been taken down, and although his All In website has numerous videos posted from his show, this one isn't available, at least not yet.
 
And at this point, alas I'm hard-pressed to remember all the details, especially since I was relying on the video and not taking notes.  I'll do the best I can, from what he said, as well, as others, though I'm forgetting some of the specifics which are a little fuzzier than I'd otherwise prefer.

Whereas the normal House pick-up during a mid-term election for the party out of power in the White House is 20-25 seats, it looks now like Democrats might flip up to 35 seats, and maybe even more, one of the biggest turnarounds in years.  And while it looked like Democrats might lose three Senate seats, with Jon Tester in Montana losing his re-election and Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona being defeated, that's no longer the case.  It turns out that Tester ended up winning his race, and Sinema has pulled ahead in hers.  And this is in a Senate year that heavily favored Republicans who had a third as many candidates up for re-election as did Democrats.

Further, on a national scale, there were 317 districts where voting for Democrats shifted blue over two years ago.  And the average increase for Democrats across the country was between 8-10 points.

Democrats also picked up seven governorships, including in three red states, and only lost one.  (And the race in Georgia is currently undecided.)  That will give Democrats 22 governorships after holding a paltry 16 previously.  Three states now will have full Democratic control in their upper and lower houses and governor's office.  And a majority of states will have Democratic attorneys general.

There is more, but that's the best I can do at the moment.  It will have to suffice.  Given the results, I think that it does...

As you may have read -- or seen on the news -- today was the day the folks were once again mobilized to gather across the country to show support for protecting Robert Mueller and his investigation, and protest Trump's action of firing Jeff Sessions.  (That latter phrase is still one I have a difficult time typing without being amazed at the turns life takes.)  At five o'clock local time in whatever city one lived in, organizations sprouted up to get people together.

I decided to go, because what the heck it seemed like a proper deal.  Driving there I was trying to remember the ones of these I'd gone to, and I think we're up to five.  I'm not a sign carrier, but I do want to lend my support. 

I'd seen some footage in New York of their protest, and it looked like a pretty good turnout in Times Square.  The one here in West L.A., at the Federal building in Westwood wasn't as impressive.  I heard someone say 200-300 people, but I think that upper end was his heart speaking.  It looked closer to 150-200 to me, 

In fairness, there were still some people arriving when I left.  I stayed for about half an hour, though because there were no speakers, and no marching, and it was just standing around holding signs and trying to get cars to honk, and I didn't have a sign (which as I said is my thing...), and the signs that were there were pretty thin and uninteresting -- I'm guessing the most-creative folks stayed home, and were saving their gems for the next major event -- I didn't feel like staying around any longer.  I did get one chuckle:  when I arrived, I passed a van in the parking lot, and the couple looked like they were preparing their signs.  As I was leaving, a half hour later, they were still there, preparing their signs.  Though the signs looked well-prepared.  In fact, they sort of looking pretty prepared when I had arrived.

In additional fairness, this may not have been the only protest in Los Angeles.  I may have gotten my text message alert because I had long-ago signed up for the West L.A. area.  It's possible -- and I suspect likely, as I think about it -- that there not only were other similar protest groups around the city, but a big one in downtown L.A.

Although this song isn't directly appropriate for the occasion, it overlaps enough so I figure I'd toss in a bit of entertainment.  This is Tom Lehrer from his great album, That Was the Year That Was, with his song about protests, "Folk Song Army."

What kind of a day was it in Trump Land?  A day like any other -- except You Are There...

So, on a day when Democrats receive the votes to take control of the House of Representatives, there is Trump firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a first step to obstruct the Mueller investigation.  (And what a bizarre we live in where it's disturbing that Jeff Sessions is fired from...well, anything.)  

And then Trump breaks all standards and not only doesn't hire the next in line to temporarily replace Sessions, but takes instead someone not even in the line of succession, and instead has almost no qualifications to be the top law official in the United States.  

And further, the replacement is not only wildly unqualified but has his own conflict-of-interest issues, beyond just his public statements pre-determining his position, but worse, it turns out that he was the former executive director of an organization designed "to level ethics complaints against the Democratic Party," the so-called Foundation of Accountability and Public Trust.

Before getting to even more from the day, I'm going to stay here for just a moment.  The actions by Trump are clearly disturbing for not only their intent but also what they accomplish.  However, as problematic as they are (and they are deeply problematic), I learned a few things that added at least a level of relief. 

One is that for all the real concern of the temporary AG Matthew Whitaker blocking Robert Mueller's report, the reality is that when the new Democratic majority comes into power in January, they can request any material that Mueller turned over to his superiors.  Another is that if the Mr. Whitaker directs Mueller behind the scenes to stop investigating areas, the House Judicial Committee which will be chaired by Rep. Jerry Nadler in January will be able to do do oversight on the investigation (hey, remember all those requests by Republicans that Rod Rosenstein and the FBI turn over documents to them in the name of "transparency"?...) and call the Special Prosecutor in to regularly question him about any interference or changed conditions being forced upon him.  And also, for all the concerns that the new temporary Attorney General can cut back funding from the investigation -- he can, BUT funding for Mueller's team for the coming year was made in October, so the money is there until October, 2019.

This is not to say, "All is Well."  All is not well, and far from it.  But it's good to know there are safety valves in place.

Okay, moving along in our normal Day in Trump Land, then there was that press conference.

Oh, my.

For all the details that came out of that event, I think the most notable is how stressed and concerned it showed Trump to be.  For all his words about how Republicans did great (despite losing control of the House) and how all the GOP candidates who won were all because of him him him, the angry, petulant, pitiful meltdown was the result of someone under great nervous strain, lashing out in protective paranoia because he knows what's coming.

It wasn't just his actions towards CNN reporter Jim Acosta.  There was him telling reporter Yamiche Alcindor, who is black, that her question about racism was racist.  There was him telling reporter April Ryan, who is black, to sit down.  There was him interrupting questions with snide remarks.  And I loved that when reporter Pete Alexander got up to ask his question, he defended Acosta.  And then of course, Trump went after him.  (For that matter, what I also loved is that right before Acosta was called on, Trump cut off the previous reporter who had a follow-up – but then when the frustrated reporter saw that the person being called on next was Acosta, the guy said, “Oh!  Because it’s Jim, I’ll let it go.”)
 
But of course, this being just another normal Trump Day, even all that at the press conference got worse.  After all, in light of the so recent pipe bombs and Pittsburgh synagogue massacre committed by those clearly influenced by Trump's hate-filled words, the fact that Trump was so visceral about Acosta and other “fake news” reporters being the “enemy of the people” wasn’t just sick and a meltdown, but pathetically dangerous.

And then, of course, the Trump White House was even able to top that, but doctoring a video to falsely accuse Acosta of putting his hands on a female intern and therefore temporarily revoking his press credentials.  The video -- especially when slowed down -- makes abundantly nothing of the sort happened (and that it was, in fact, Acosta who was grabbed and he was trying to block her from doing so.  But for all that, there is something almost whimsical (in a galling way) for this White House to feign horror at someone touching a woman who's trying to grab his microphone while they dismiss and ignore the 16 charges by woman against Trump of actual sexual assault.

If you didn't see the exchange at the press conference, it is galvanizing.

​What kind of a day was it in Trump Land?  A day like any other -- except You Are There...

I was talking on the phone with a friend last night.  He was analyzing the election -- no, not last night's election but what all this meant for 2020 -- and going on about how Trump would respond to things and how it would affect what Republicans in Congress do, and he was pissed off that the vote wasn't the overwhelming tsunami he was hoping for that washed over everything and cleansed the entire political landscape, and got angry that certain people he hated had gotten re-elected, and was upset that Democrats didn't win enough Senate elections that they'd have enough votes to convict Trump for impeachment, and was beside himself that Trump and Republicans will still get to talk about their base because it wasn't totally discredited and now they'll be able to pursue issues to appeal to their base, and... --

"Stop it!!" I interrupted.  "I don't want hear about analyzing 2020.  Or how about 2024?  I don't want get all upset that everything I hoped for in a perfect dream didn't come true.  I wish some of these Republicans didn't get elected, too.  I wish Democrats had flipped 100 sets.  But...that wasn't going to happen.  Not one analyst beforehand said that it would.  No one reasonable I heard anywhere thought that it would.  Point me to ONE person who said otherwise.  Everyone I saw said that Democrats would probably take back the House with a solid majority and not win the Senate, and maybe even lose a seat or two.  And that's exactly what the result was.  And Democrats now control the House, Republicans won't be able to push the Trump agenda.  Democrats will head every House committee and will now get to decide what issues are on the table, and Democrats in the House now not only have oversight but importantly have subpoena power to investigate everything that was ignored for the past two years -- Russian involvement in trying to manipulate our elections, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, foreign emoluments, taxes and more. "

But, he asked, didn't you want all that to happen, don't you wish Democrats had won so much more, didn't you want that the...???  YES, I interrupted again (because I didn't want him to once more drag himself down into the rabbit hole, and drag me with it).  That's exactly what I wished for -- but I didn't expect it!  In fact, I told him, the day before I wrote an article that explained precisely what I thought would happen in the election...and I was pretty close.  I said that I thought Democrats would win the House, and explained why, and that Republicans would keep the Senate and might even gain some seats.  That's what I thought would happen.  And more to the point -- it's not just that I thought it would happen, and pretty much did, but I am absolutely thrilled that Democrats won back the House because THAT is the one and only thing that mattered in the election.

And so it was.  And it was huge.

Yes, I wish Democrats had won more seats in the House.  I wish Andrew Gillum had won, and Beto O'Rourke, Stacey Abrams (though there may be a recount), Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Amy McGrath and more.  I'm seriously disappointed that they didn't.  And I'm deeply annoyed that Devon Nunes won, and the indicted-Duncan Hunter, the indicted-Chris Collins, Martha McSally, Marsha Blackburn and Ted Cruz, and more.  But then, I'm extremely glad that Jacky Rosen beat Dean Heller in Arizona, and that Tony Evers beat Scott Walker in Wisconsin, and that Laura Kelley beat Kris Kobach in Kansas (really happy about that!), and that Jay Pritzker beat Bruce Rauner in Illinois, and Harley Rouda beat Dana Rohrbacher (the Congressman from Moscow) in California, and more.

But mostly -- mainly, indeed almost exclusively -- I'm thrilled that Democrats won back control of the House of Representatives.  With 22 races still undecided, Democrats have already picked up 27 new seats.  Experts are saying it could be as high as 37 flipped seats, and that would mean having a very solid majority of 230-205.  And they did this in a landscape where Republicans controlled enough state houses after the 2010 census to gerrymander their states and make them Democrat-proof.  And yet Democrats still were able to climb over that near-insurmountable hurdle.  As of last night, Democrats received four million more votes in House races than Republicans.

That is huge, massive, profoundly important.

As I said, taking control of the House means Republicans can't push through the Trump fascist agenda.  It means they can't make more attempts to repeal health care (despite their despicable, lying cries that they were all for protecting pre-existing conditions) which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said they would in fact consider doing if the election results worked out; they can't push through yet another tax cut for the wealthy (which Trump said he'd try to do) and further increase the crushing deficit; they can't ignore Russian efforts to hack our elections and manipulate our government through the White House; they can't keep getting away with White House, cabinet and congressional scandals without them being investigated.  Democrats can put their agenda on the table -- it won't likely pass, since Republicans still control the Senate and White House, but it will be there fore public view of what Democrats want and show the Republican Party as the obstructionists to it all.  And Democrats now can issue subpoenas.  And get people to testify before the House who Republican leadership had let slide.  That's major.  Utterly major.

And one other thing.  I'm paraphrasing, but last night Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, who will now be taking over chairmanship of the Justice Committee, issued a statement that if Trump makes any effort to fire Robert Mueller or hinder Mueller's investigation, then it will be met with all options available -- meaning the House will impeach you for obstruction with justice.

As analysts were saying, this means Robert Mueller is now safe.  Personally, I wouldn't go that far -- this is Trump we're talking about, after all, so who knows what on earth he'll do.  But it does mean, at the very least, that Robert Mueller and his investigation are now heavily protected.

One other statement particularly pleased me last night.  It was the speech from Nancy Pelosi, who will likely return as Speaker of the House.  Her speech wasn't about subpoenas and oversight -- their existence is obvious, Republicans don't need to be told, they've been fretting about it for the past months -- it was about issues.  Far more to the point, it focused on issues that not only are important to Democrats but which the national electorate said were important.  Most specifically strengthening healthcare again, after Trump and Republicans have tried to dismantle it.  I was thrilled to hear this.  Before she gave her speech, I had thought the smartest thing Democrats could do was to push healthcare.  Since the public said so clearly they wanted it strengthened that Democrats doing so would send a clarion message of their continued support.  And it would put Republicans in a bind -- they would either have to block it once again, as they did in 60 previous votes, and show loudly who they really are, not the liars who tried to claim they were for protecting safeguards for pre-existting conditions, or -- they would have to vote for it, and join Democrats in strengthening health care.  Which would be fine by me, indeed even better.  Great!  Especially since it's likely Trump would veto it. 

(By the way, if I had to bet -- and, in fact, did bet with my friend -- it would be that Republicans vote against any health care bill.  My friend was sure that Republicans would vote for it, since they saw what the public said they wanted as their top issue.  I replied that GOP candidates only lied about how they were supposedly all for protections of pre-existing conditions, which they actually aren't, they never once said that they were for expanding health care.  They and their base hate health care, since it's supposedly socialistic and because it hurts insurance companies.  Republicans do not want to vote for health care.  They only -- only -- wanted to lie about one small, solitary part of it, pre-existing conditions.  So, my penny bet -- yes, it was just for a penny, hey, I don't like gambling, what can I say? -- is that Republicans will be painted in a corner and vote no because expanding "health care" overall is an issue they and their far-right base actually hate.  My friend said, "But that would be suicidal with the rest of the public.  Is that what you're saying???!"  I said, yes, it would be suicidal with most Americans.  And yes, I am saying that.  But honestly, I hope I'm wrong, and lose the bet.)

Which brings us back to the beginning.  Yes, I wish the results of the election were stronger.  I wish Democrats won even more votes in the House, took control of the Senate and some terrific candidates had won.  But only one thing really, truly mattered for the nation.  And that was Democrats winning control of the House of the Representatives.

Many news stories today have written about how we have a divided country, and all that Democrats can do is block Republicans efforts.  I would suggest that that is precisely what the solid majority of the country -- four million more Democrats than Republicans -- wanted and very clearly voted for.  And we were a divided nation before the election.  And are a bit less divided today.

In honor of election day, we have another song parody from Randy Rainibow -- "Voting," which is based on the song "What is This Feeling?" -- in which they sing about "loathing" -- from the musical Wicked.  It's not my favorite of his songs, but his fake-interview with Trump beforehand is fun.

​In case you don't know the original song it's based -- I didn't -- here it is from the Los Angeles production of Wicked when it appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.  The performers here are Eden Espinosa (as the green Elphaba) and Megan Hilty (as Galinda, later changing her name to Glinda).