Apologies if you've answered this before on Instagram live or other Q&As. Wondering what your process has been in intending to leave the curatorial journalism of Trumpism behind post-election and coming back to it on Twitter and in this seemingly more committed and long form format. As a grateful, daily reader who's anxiety was relieved by finding your Twitter feed in January of 2017 (was anyone tracking the criminality of this president?), I recognize the battle to walk away from all this. Please share what you're willing to. Very curious as many of us detox from the Trump presidency. And thank you for continuing the work.
It is complicated. One, I realized that the stepping away would need to be gradual rather than sudden, or else I'd feel I had betrayed both readers and my own personal emotional commitment to the issues I've been writing on. Second, the insurrection made me feel that my work as Trump's presidential historian isn't done—as one can't write about the Trump presidency without writing about what it will be most known for, and so I need to do some work on that front. Third, friends had been encouraging me to start a Substack for a long time, and I finally decided to try it as a way of addressing points 1 and 2, above. I believe this format can give me the space to slowly evolve toward other subjects I am interested in (e.g., media criticism and cultural theory) while retaining a connection to this role I've developed as someone who can help put Trump's presidency in context because he has studied its contours for years. I increasingly think this will be an ongoing dire need in our public discourse, as post-insurrection Trumpism seems emboldened rather than ashamed. I'd also say that Trump leaving office has reduced my level of anxiety sufficiently to make it easier to continue writing about him and his presidency, as it doesn't have the emotional intensity associated with it that it did in 2018 (say), when we had no idea if he would ever be gone. These are just a few thoughts I've been having on this subject.
1st Thank you for being a source of information and analysis since 2016, the piece you wrote at the end of Sanders campaign helped me as I finished the primary season in Ca., I've been following you since June 2016.
Q - Can American democracy survive in a media environment that has such a large percentage getting all their news & information from right-wing media. Do we really have an informed electorate when over 40% of Americans consume a toxic diet of "Alternative Facts" - for over 30 years Fox News has created intentional propaganda and people now are selecting online media that confirms their bias, they live in a different reality then the rest of us.
We survived an era of Yellow Journalism, can we have democracy in this situation?
I think we can have democracy, but not a stable one. We can have one that is always under threat from those who are living daily in an alternate reality. The one hope is that Trump actually goes through with his likely empty threat and starts a third party, which would lead to the collapse of the GOP and supermajorities in both houses of Congress for the Democrats. Under those circumstances, the right would be further radicalized and domestic terrorism would rise, but we could re-stabilize our *institutions* by refreshing the federal bench and returning to certain Congressional procedures and practices that allowed for occasional bipartisanship and occasional fruitful governance in the early 1990s and before (i.e., before Gingrich's "Contract with America" and the end of the Fairness Doctrine, along with the advent of the internet, led to our current—highly cynical—fracturing of [especially political] realities).
Someone should do a documentary with the purpose of deprogramming a portion of the disinformed on the supposed election fraud (The Big Lie). I believe an in depth approach that debunks the main arguments/elements of the falsehoods (e.g. drop boxes, running/counting the same ballots three times, and the unreliability of affidavits, etc.) educating the viewer on law and legal procedures/process culminating with Trump’s own lawyers not legally declaring fraud and why no court would consider allegations and hearsay as evidence would be better than a point for point “we’re right, there’s no evidence, and multiple courts ruled...” approach. I know that just spitting out facts in rapid fashion won’t work but integrated with breakdowns and expert legal opinion might educate and prove that they were used.
I don't think so—at least not with respect to January 6. Even if Don (the only eligible Trump besides his father in this category) were to face an incitement charge, he be done with that case and any potential prison time by the time he'd want to run for president (2028 probably being the earliest, as he'd want to get into the Senate via Florida or a governor's mansion via Montana first). I don't think Eric and Lara have incitement liability, and Ivanka didn't speak at the rally to my knowledge. The bigger question is whether prosecutions relating to the Trump Organization could ensnare Eric, Ivanka, or Don, and there's a non-zero chance of that—indeed they all may put their political careers on hold until they know whether they're in the clear on that score. Don and Ivanka have been investigated for fraud before, and they and their brother are being investigated now. I don't have access to the documents the NYAG or Manhattan DA have, so I can't speak to the strength of the case(s) they're developing. But I think multiple Trumps could end up with some kind of criminal liability for actions relating to the Trump Organization, most likely Donald Trump Sr. and Donald Trump Jr.
Thank you. And thanks also for setting this thing up. We've followed your thinking for many years from sunny Lancashire (UK). It's good to speak to the boss.
Are they really going to allow seditious senators Hawley and Cruz to be jurors in Trump's impeachment trial? I would think their actions post Capitol bldg. riot would be a conflict of interest at the very least?
When do you think we can expect to see movement from the new AG and DOJ on bringing trump to justice for all the obstruction that was in volume II of the Mueller report? What when (if ever) the public will see complete copies of everything without redactions?
I think DOJ is going to let the obstruction go on the theory that the Democrats twice declined to impeach him for it (or three times, if you consider that they could and should have done so immediately after the release of the Mueller Report). While I don't think this DOJ is beholden to Biden in the way that the last one was to Trump, Garland is still part of Biden's Cabinet and a Democrat and subject to Congressional oversight and Biden and Congress have made clear—sadly—that Trump will get a pass on everything in the Mueller Report *and* everything in the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report, which was even worse. I'm sure both members of Congress and the White House would now say it is "too late" to return to those issues, by which they mean (per usual) "politically" too late rather than legally. Alas, in D.C., that controls.
We may, but I feel like that will take a long time. Deutsche Bank knows how to protect secrets, and in this case those secrets could bring the whole operation down. Either we therefore won't ever hear them, we will only hear a piece of them, or we will learn the entire truth when Deutsche Bank implodes. But the bank has so many powerful international allies and people who would be harmed if it failed that it seems like that third possibility is the most remote. That said, over a long period of time drips and drabs of information will surely come out, allowing a full-length expansion of the David Enrich book we already have (Dark Towers).
I have extensively researched the collaboration of Trump and organized crime over the years, and have a lot of information and an extensive bibliography pertaining to this. I don't think this matter has gotten enough attention, and I would like to send what I have to you and to those in charge of the upcoming Senate impeachment trial. How can I get this information to you and to those who need to see it? Thank you. Dr. Tony Nugent (Seattle)
Just want to say thank you for helping me keep my sanity these 4 years and for helping me to understand the complexity of this past administration.
Thanks, Suzie! That's very kind of you.
Same!!
Same!
Apologies if you've answered this before on Instagram live or other Q&As. Wondering what your process has been in intending to leave the curatorial journalism of Trumpism behind post-election and coming back to it on Twitter and in this seemingly more committed and long form format. As a grateful, daily reader who's anxiety was relieved by finding your Twitter feed in January of 2017 (was anyone tracking the criminality of this president?), I recognize the battle to walk away from all this. Please share what you're willing to. Very curious as many of us detox from the Trump presidency. And thank you for continuing the work.
It is complicated. One, I realized that the stepping away would need to be gradual rather than sudden, or else I'd feel I had betrayed both readers and my own personal emotional commitment to the issues I've been writing on. Second, the insurrection made me feel that my work as Trump's presidential historian isn't done—as one can't write about the Trump presidency without writing about what it will be most known for, and so I need to do some work on that front. Third, friends had been encouraging me to start a Substack for a long time, and I finally decided to try it as a way of addressing points 1 and 2, above. I believe this format can give me the space to slowly evolve toward other subjects I am interested in (e.g., media criticism and cultural theory) while retaining a connection to this role I've developed as someone who can help put Trump's presidency in context because he has studied its contours for years. I increasingly think this will be an ongoing dire need in our public discourse, as post-insurrection Trumpism seems emboldened rather than ashamed. I'd also say that Trump leaving office has reduced my level of anxiety sufficiently to make it easier to continue writing about him and his presidency, as it doesn't have the emotional intensity associated with it that it did in 2018 (say), when we had no idea if he would ever be gone. These are just a few thoughts I've been having on this subject.
Thanks for doing this, I am a Twitter newbie and had trouble following those long threads... this format is very helpful!
Excellent. Thank you.
1st Thank you for being a source of information and analysis since 2016, the piece you wrote at the end of Sanders campaign helped me as I finished the primary season in Ca., I've been following you since June 2016.
Q - Can American democracy survive in a media environment that has such a large percentage getting all their news & information from right-wing media. Do we really have an informed electorate when over 40% of Americans consume a toxic diet of "Alternative Facts" - for over 30 years Fox News has created intentional propaganda and people now are selecting online media that confirms their bias, they live in a different reality then the rest of us.
We survived an era of Yellow Journalism, can we have democracy in this situation?
I think we can have democracy, but not a stable one. We can have one that is always under threat from those who are living daily in an alternate reality. The one hope is that Trump actually goes through with his likely empty threat and starts a third party, which would lead to the collapse of the GOP and supermajorities in both houses of Congress for the Democrats. Under those circumstances, the right would be further radicalized and domestic terrorism would rise, but we could re-stabilize our *institutions* by refreshing the federal bench and returning to certain Congressional procedures and practices that allowed for occasional bipartisanship and occasional fruitful governance in the early 1990s and before (i.e., before Gingrich's "Contract with America" and the end of the Fairness Doctrine, along with the advent of the internet, led to our current—highly cynical—fracturing of [especially political] realities).
Thanks for all you do!
Cheers!
I would like to know why more hasn't been made of the 8 GOPers that went to Russia on July 4th the why and what they did should be covered
Someone should do a documentary with the purpose of deprogramming a portion of the disinformed on the supposed election fraud (The Big Lie). I believe an in depth approach that debunks the main arguments/elements of the falsehoods (e.g. drop boxes, running/counting the same ballots three times, and the unreliability of affidavits, etc.) educating the viewer on law and legal procedures/process culminating with Trump’s own lawyers not legally declaring fraud and why no court would consider allegations and hearsay as evidence would be better than a point for point “we’re right, there’s no evidence, and multiple courts ruled...” approach. I know that just spitting out facts in rapid fashion won’t work but integrated with breakdowns and expert legal opinion might educate and prove that they were used.
Is there sufficient evidence and recognition to prevent other members of thee Trump clan from making a future presidential claim
I don't think so—at least not with respect to January 6. Even if Don (the only eligible Trump besides his father in this category) were to face an incitement charge, he be done with that case and any potential prison time by the time he'd want to run for president (2028 probably being the earliest, as he'd want to get into the Senate via Florida or a governor's mansion via Montana first). I don't think Eric and Lara have incitement liability, and Ivanka didn't speak at the rally to my knowledge. The bigger question is whether prosecutions relating to the Trump Organization could ensnare Eric, Ivanka, or Don, and there's a non-zero chance of that—indeed they all may put their political careers on hold until they know whether they're in the clear on that score. Don and Ivanka have been investigated for fraud before, and they and their brother are being investigated now. I don't have access to the documents the NYAG or Manhattan DA have, so I can't speak to the strength of the case(s) they're developing. But I think multiple Trumps could end up with some kind of criminal liability for actions relating to the Trump Organization, most likely Donald Trump Sr. and Donald Trump Jr.
Thank you. And thanks also for setting this thing up. We've followed your thinking for many years from sunny Lancashire (UK). It's good to speak to the boss.
I'm late to the party but everyone asked my questions. Thank you for your time Seth.
Are they really going to allow seditious senators Hawley and Cruz to be jurors in Trump's impeachment trial? I would think their actions post Capitol bldg. riot would be a conflict of interest at the very least?
What would prevent Trump and his kids from getting on a private jet and absconding to Cyprus or someplace they’d be safe from extradition?
No question. Just thanks for what you are doing.
When do you think we can expect to see movement from the new AG and DOJ on bringing trump to justice for all the obstruction that was in volume II of the Mueller report? What when (if ever) the public will see complete copies of everything without redactions?
I think DOJ is going to let the obstruction go on the theory that the Democrats twice declined to impeach him for it (or three times, if you consider that they could and should have done so immediately after the release of the Mueller Report). While I don't think this DOJ is beholden to Biden in the way that the last one was to Trump, Garland is still part of Biden's Cabinet and a Democrat and subject to Congressional oversight and Biden and Congress have made clear—sadly—that Trump will get a pass on everything in the Mueller Report *and* everything in the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report, which was even worse. I'm sure both members of Congress and the White House would now say it is "too late" to return to those issues, by which they mean (per usual) "politically" too late rather than legally. Alas, in D.C., that controls.
Do you think we will finally find out what Deutsche Bank know about the Trump finances and family dealings?
We may, but I feel like that will take a long time. Deutsche Bank knows how to protect secrets, and in this case those secrets could bring the whole operation down. Either we therefore won't ever hear them, we will only hear a piece of them, or we will learn the entire truth when Deutsche Bank implodes. But the bank has so many powerful international allies and people who would be harmed if it failed that it seems like that third possibility is the most remote. That said, over a long period of time drips and drabs of information will surely come out, allowing a full-length expansion of the David Enrich book we already have (Dark Towers).
Currently listening to David Enrich talk to Michael Cohen about this whole topic and looking forward to hearing more about it.
I have extensively researched the collaboration of Trump and organized crime over the years, and have a lot of information and an extensive bibliography pertaining to this. I don't think this matter has gotten enough attention, and I would like to send what I have to you and to those in charge of the upcoming Senate impeachment trial. How can I get this information to you and to those who need to see it? Thank you. Dr. Tony Nugent (Seattle)
Will we learn what transpired in Helsinki? Will we learn why he was rushed to the hospital? Finally did he really have COVID or was that another lie?
I've really enjoyed all the great songs you share (via YouTube videos) and was wondering why you never put the songs into a playlist on YouTube.