As I wrote yesterday, I’m expecting more surprises in the Republican questioning than in the questions from the Democrats. We shall see.
8:50 AM: Only real news so far. We didn’t address collusion. And Mueller will abide by the restrictions outlined in the DOJ letter from earlier this week.
It does sound kind of funny to say you really liked an interview of yourself. But it’s really more a testament to the interviewer, someone who keeps you on track to tell a particular story, to dig into the interesting parts, not tarry in the culs de sac and dead ends. A few weeks ago I sat down with Brian McCullough of the Internet History Podcast to talk about TPM, how it came to be and its history over the last 20 years. (Yes, 20 years!) If you’re a fan of TPM or interested in its history I think you’ll enjoy this interview. Even if you’re not and just interested in the history of digital news and the economics of digital journalism I think you’ll find a lot to interest you too. Here it is in Episode 73 of The Josh Marshall Podcast.
This is worth noting. President Trump: “I have Article Two where I have the right to do what I want as president but I don’t even talk about that because they did a report and there was no obstruction.”
Trump: "I have article two where I have the right to do what I want as president but I don't even talk about that because they did a report and there was no obstruction." pic.twitter.com/5yzVZOPFJ2
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) July 23, 2019
Ousted Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) is now a lobbyist. You’ll never guess who his first client is.
I’m very curious what Bill Barr is up to with this letter to Robert Mueller insisting he not testify to anything beyond the four corners of the his report, and then only the unredacted points. You can see the letter here. This whole exercise has the Department of Justice acting like the White House Counsel’s Office. Indeed, in some respects it seems to have the DOJ operating more like the President’s own personal attorneys.
The letter begins by noting that Mueller has already said he doesn’t want to testify beyond what is contained in his report and then says it expects him to keep to that. Obviously, what he said was his preference has no binding power. There’s various stuff of that nature. But the letter really gets down to brass tacks in the penultimate paragraph where it says Mueller cannot testify to anything beyond what is stated in the report because the entire investigation is covered by executive privilege.
The Nixon reelection campaign was in the news last week because of this article this article by Never Trump Republican Charlie Sykes. He offers a warning to Democrats that in 1971 Democrats thought they had Nixon on the ropes only to see George McGovern lose to him in a devastating electoral landslide in 1972. As it happens, the history is off. Nixon was doing reasonably well in 1971 and was actually pretty popular in 1972. But the story of the Nixon presidency has notable parallels and contrasts to today that are worth revisiting.
It’s good to be back. I was away the second half of last week on a family trip, picking up my older son from camp. So sorry for the lack of posts. I always notice that some fallow time, some time away from the news and from posting, lets me return to it with some freshness and rejuvenated perspective.
In case you missed it, we published two remembrances of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens at TPM Cafe this week, both by prominent law professors who clerked for Stevens.
Deborah Pearlstein writes on how Stevens might respond to the Trump administration’s census shenanigans. Amanda Cohen Leiter reflects on Stevens’ propensity for writing his own opinions, even when arriving at the same conclusions as other justices, in order to preserve his thinking for posterity.
I keep seeing comparisons between Trump’s racial appeals and George Wallace’s 1968 campaign. Here’s the AP’s Steve Peoples and Zeke Miller: “Not since George Wallace’s campaign in 1968 has a presidential candidate — and certainly not an incumbent president — put racial polarization at the center of his call to voters.” Someone here can correct me if my memory is failing me, but in 1968, Wallace did not make explicit racial appeals.
Read More
Crowd at North Carolina rally breaks into “send her back!” chant after President Trump attacks Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN):