Beating the Bad Guys Again

I think that most people at this point have watched enough episodes of Law & Order to know the expression that a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. After all, there's no defense attorney allowed at the hearing, only a prosecutor to present what they say are the facts.

So, it leaps out that yesterday Trump's DOJ failed to get a Grand Jury to indict Cassidy Hutchinson on charges of...well, whatever gobbledygook Attorney General Todd Blanche had his minions try to cobble up from the trash bin they hadn't thrown out yet. Ostensibly, it was "lying to Congress." In reality, it was "Trump is a malignant narcissist and needs to reek vindictive retribution on anyone who ever does anything against him." In this case, it was trying to destroy Cassidy Hutchinson's life, a young woman who was assistant to Trump's Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and had just turned 26 when she bravely volunteered to testify under oath about what she saw and said others told her about events on January 6.

(Fun Fact: Instead of "gobbledygook," I thought of using a synonym for "tripe. When looking it up, one of the synonyms listed was..."trumpery." Don't tell me there isn't a God.)

It's not shocking that a Grand Jury was able to see that no crime was even remotely committed by Cassidy Hutchinson. However when the prosecution isn't a bumbling local country lawyer but the United States Department of Justice, what's shocking is that they brought a case that stood almost no chance on getting an indictment.

But then, even though many career prosecutors have said that they have gone decades without seeing a prosecutor fail to get a Grand Jury indictment, this has been happening regularly (by comparison) under Trump's DOJ. Andrew Weisman said that in 21 years with the DOJ, he had never seen a single Grand Jury refuse to the return a "true bill of indictment" for the Justice Department! The highest profile example of this DOJ's inability to get an indictment was against New York Attorney General Letitia James. But perhaps the most famous and hilarious is that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro failed three times to get an indictment against the the protester who threw a chicken sandwich at a federal agent in Washington, D.C. Perhaps if he'd thrown a ham sandwich, she might have had more success... (Eventually, she failed so often that she lowered the felony charge to a misdemeanor -- and he was acquitted!)

Not surprisingly, there was a great deal of commentary online about this latest cruel, but incompetent effort by Trump's DOJ. But I thought the one that expressed it best came from Gregg Nunziata, not just for what he said, but also for who he is, a former DOJ lawyer and currently Executive Director of the Society for the Rule of Law -- who The Economist described as "a prominent right-wing lawyer," and served as the Judiciary and Homeland Security Policy Counsel for the Senate Republican Policy Committee, working directly under committee chairman John Thune, now the party's Majority Leader. Mr. Nuziata wrote --"As I said in a speech recently, the DOJ lawyers involved in these abusive prosecutions 'have betrayed their oaths of office and violated their professional obligations... Perhaps they tell themselves that guilt or innocence is a question for the jury. Maybe they felt relief when grand juries refused to indict, or when courts dismissed charges, but charge by charge, case by case, these lawyers injured the rule of law. They made America a country where every citizen must worry a bit more about speaking his or her mind, a bit more reluctant to engage in our politics."

The thing is, though, it's more than just this. And "this" is huge and plenty enough. But all of it is how Trump wants to go into the Mid-Term election with his final message, on the heels of his approval as low as 30%. Only a couple days before, a judge ruled that Trump's DOJ firing of Maureen Comey from the department was illegal, and she was ordered reinstated with backpay. And the very next day, his DOJ filed a third charge in yet another attempt to indict former FBI Director James Comey -- Maureen's father. And last week the Trump DOJ filed a lawsuit against Alaska to throw out the results of the Mid-Term election before the election -- but only if the Democrat wins! And two days ago, a federal judge blocked a DOJ demand that California not count the votes of 20,000 registered voters on the mere possibility that they might be non-citizens, without providing any evidence. (The state did a quick check of 200 names on the list and found that a high percentage of the "suspected non-citizens" were not only legal citizens...but actually born in the United States.)

And this, all this -- with corruption, high gas prices, Trump's war of choice in Iran, the economy, brutal immigration enforcement, the Epstein files and more being the top issues of voter concerns -- is what Trump and the MAGOPs want to go into the Mid-Terms with. With Trump's DOJ unable (rightly) to get a Grand Jury to indict Cassidy Hutchinson as the cherry on top as their final message.

But then, that's what happens when your party's leader is a malignant narcissist with dementia, that is degenerative, and your party representatives have chosen to enable all his wishes and worst and fevered instincts. And you not only can't get an indictment a young woman who was a loyal member of your high staff, but you face losing control of the House of Representatives in a blowout, and maybe even the Senate in what was considered an advantageous year for your party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyp3u_OQ7YM

The Daily Stewart Last Night

If you didn't see Jon Stewart's Monday hosting of The Daily Show last night, his Main Story was about Trump and the MAGOP's final argument before the Mid-Term election. All I'll say is that it is extremely funny. And especially hits a peak when he introduces the "Cartoonishly Evil Generator."

Nothing else is needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nIS10ia0fs

What I will add is a bonus video from the episode, his interview with author Matthew Cole, who wrote the new book, "Princes and Thieves," a detailed look at Jared Kushner.

I wasn't planning to watch, but it was so fascinating I watched the whole interview, all 26 minutes.

But it wasn't fascinating for the reason you'd likely assume.  It was fascinating for two particular reasons --

One, Mr. Cole was completely humorless, which was obvious from the moment he sat down. I don't say that pejoratively, but descriptively.  The book and subject were clearly profoundly important to him, and so he was deeply serious and meticulous about everything.  And what made that all the more fascinating is that Stewart would periodically toss in quips throughout -- and he never a single laugh back.  At most he got maybe two half-smiles.  I'm not exaggerating.  And again, I don't say this pejoratively.  And the interview was never awkward or uncomfortable for it.  It came across like Stewart understood -- but that wasn't going to stop him from being himself on a comedy show.  (Though I suspect, as a comedian, he also took it as a challenge.  "Man, I am getting nothing.  But I am going to get him to laugh.  Once.”  He didn’t.  As I said, it was fascinating.)

And second, Stewart's interviewing was absolutely brilliant, at a depth of knowledge and questioning you don't see by professional journalists.  And what made this so fascinating is that while he loved the book, he was very open about wanting to believe it all, but wanting there to be more "direct evidence" and not just "This is what I was told by completely trusted sources."  And so he asked great, hard, polite questions.  To the author's credit, he never took any offense, and in fact would always say, "Fair enough" and "I understand your point."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ImRP3pNgbM

Back to Vicuña

A decade ago, I wrote an article about the strangest, most eerie experience I'd ever had and have had since and expect to ever have seeing a play live in the theater. It was notable at the time, but in the 10 years that have passed, it not only has taken on even greater resonance, but the play (which was a world premiere production) was far more prescient. I had seen the play the night before, on November 9, 2016.

I will note that the 2016 presidential election with Hillary Clinton and Trump was on November 8. And the play, Vicuña, by Jon Robin Baitz, was described at the time on the Center Theatre Group's website as a satire about "a blustering real estate tycoon and reality TV star who — to everyone’s surprise —becomes a major party’s nominee for President." Imagine the hilarity in the West Los Angeles theater, the audience still raw and recovering from the election results one day before.

But it was even more eerie and prescient than what you might be imagining. (Just for the sake of theatrical perspective, you may have read that Julia Louis-Dreyfus made her Broadway debut last week in a revival of the dramatic comedy Other Desert Cities, which had received a Tony nomination as Best Play and won the Outer Circle Critics Award in 2011.  The play was written by the same Jon Robin Baitz who wrote Vicuña. He also created the TV series Brothers & Sisters.)

I thought today was a good time to repeat that article about the unearthly theater experience, not only because the perspective a decade later gives it even more meaning -- something I wouldn't have thought likely at the time -- but also for a brief update on the play.

---

Vicuña

November 10, 2016

Well, that was an odd experience.

I had tickets a couple weeks ago to see a world premiere production of the play Vicuña by Jon Robin Baitz, which is running at the Kirk Douglas Theatre in Culver City.  However, when I had bought the tickets a few months earlier, it had never occurred to me -- given a lifetime of experience as a Chicago Cubs fan -- to check to see if there'd be any conflict with the beloved Cubs playing in the World Series.  As it happened, this year there was.  Who'd a thought?  So, I blew off the show. However, I'm very slightly acquainted with the play's author Robbie Baitz (only through email.  We exchanged a lot of them during the last Writers Guild strike several years back), so I did want to see it.  Plus, the story sounded interesting, and I'd have wanted to see it regardless.  Happily, I was able to exchange seats for another evening, with a service charge.  And so instead, I ended up going last night. The very night after the presidential election.

Why is that an odd experience?  Here's the premise of the show, described as a satire on the Center Theatre Group's website --

"A tailor to the wealthy, powerful, and famous struggles to serve a very unusual client: a blustering real estate tycoon and reality TV star who—to everyone’s surprise—becomes a major party’s nominee for President. As the election spins out of control, the tailor and his apprentice are forced to examine their roles as confidants and image-makers for the candidate…and whether the right suit has the power to clinch the presidency."

I have absolutely no doubt that people who went to the play two weeks ago, before the election, had an UTTERLY and TOTALLY different reality from watching it one day after the actual, real-life election. Knowing the results and who was elected president.

Honestly, I really wasn't sure I was even up for going to see a satire about this, just two days after votes were in, and I considered blowing it off again.  But a month ago I'd sent a note Robbie to say that I'd be going, and even though I don't even know if he remembered, I felt a certain obligation.

And the truth is that it was indeed a tough play now to sit through.  To be clear, when I say "now," I mean literally that.  Now, seeing it the day after the election.  I don't think it will be as much the case in three months, when the reality is less a body jolt, and likely (hopefully) not at all in a year, having time to add perspective.  But right now?  Yes, it was extremely difficult.  There are a lot of very funny lines in the first act, ridiculing the buffoonish character -- though I think I only laughed twice, and both times had nothing to do with politics.  But it was certainly very well-written.

What's good to note though is that, although described as a satire, that doesn't mean the whole play is funny -- in fact, the second act takes a turn from the jokes and becomes dramatic.  And then ratchets things up even more and even gets a bit dark. And it's really quite strong, building surprisingly to an unexpected, impactful conclusion.  Make no mistake, good as the show is, it was still very raw and difficult to watch only one day after the election -- the audience was very responsive throughout, although clearly muted, which was equally clear watching faces and body language at intermission -- but the show nonetheless works very well even under such conditions because ultimately it's not a joke-fest making fun of the character and situation (as it seemed would be in the first act) but turns out to have a deeply meaningful, and harsh subtext that bubbles to the surface and takes over.

Jon Robin Baitz is a terrific writer, with a great many plays to his credit, perhaps most notably Other Desert Cities which got a Tony nomination as Best Play and won the Outer Circle Critics Award in 2011.  He also created the TV series Brothers & Sisters.

Harry Groener (who most people would like recognize from his many genial appearances on TV and films, as well as Broadway) stars at the candidate.  And the other recognizable actor in the show is Brian George, who plays the tailor, and who has a very long acting career, too, though most-certainly is best known as "Babu" on Seinfeld.  I noticed a bunch of stumbles in the first scene (it's possible that, being a first production and so timely, there are some line changes being tweaked), perhaps too the rawness of the reality affects the cast, as well.  In any event they were gone by the end of the first act.  More to the point, the whole cast was very good -- Ramiz Monsef plays the outspoken apprentice tailor whose parents have a questionable immigration status.  And Samantha Sloyan is the candidate's daughter and campaign manger, who begins to see the quandary she's involved in as her father's dark side slowly surfaces.  Also, in a small role, but with a great monologue is Linda Gehringer who plays the party's chairwoman sent on a mission to buy the candidate off so that he will drop out of the race before destroying the party, and possibly the country.

I'm extremely glad I saw the show.  I just wish it wasn't last night and under these circumstances.  But it certainly made it unique, an experience most people won't have...

[UPDATE: Needless-to-say, the dark sub-plot of the play about immigration took on a great deal more meaning and prescience in subsequent years. And though the reality of the election put a screeching halt to the play's immediate plans, it did finally get a new staging -- in fact, as I postulated above, a year later, in December, 2017. And, in of all places, in Washington, D.C. The production had a good run and strong reviews. The opening line of the Washington Post review called the play "scaldingly funny" and referred to it as a "penetrating comedy." Also, there was a new addendum now included. As the Post writes --

["The newly written 'American Epilogue' Baitz has appended is of a wholly divergent tone from what has come before on this invigorating evening. It’s mournful, even solemn, but not righteous or resigned. If anything, it’s a consoling finale, suiting you up for whatever struggle you may believe lies ahead.]