I see this as largely comic relief in contrast to the weighty issues currently coming down the pike. But it’s remarkable that these pieces still get written. The Times Peter Baker has a new piece out which makes clear that, according to Jared Kushner, Kushner washed his hands of all of the post-election Big Lie politicking and had nothing to do with any of that bad stuff. “[H]e chose at that pivotal moment to focus instead on his personal project of Middle East diplomacy.” In fact, not only did he have nothing to do with it and not do any bad things, but his lack of presence as a moderating influence meant that the post-election conspiracy leading up to the January 6th insurrection was even crazier and more dangerous than it otherwise would have been. In fact, the whole Trump presidency would have been much worse if not for Kushner’s steadying presence. This may sound like a hyperbolic summary of the article. It’s not. Read it and see for yourself. It’s based on a forthcoming book by Baker and his wife Susan Glasser of The New Yorker. I would be remiss if I didn’t note that in fact Kushner did no bad things, according to the account of Mr. Kushner provided to Mr. Baker.

You learn a lot of things when you hear from TPM Readers talking to the offices of their congressional representatives. One thing is straightforward answers to constituent questions: I oppose the filibuster; I support the filibuster. But just as interesting in some ways is the culture of different offices. Some are very solicitous of constituent feedback and questions — some even perhaps overeager to tell constituents’ what they want to hear. But others take a very different approach. So for instance, when TPM Reader DM contacted Robert Menendez’s office, a staffer simply told her they didn’t want to answer the question. Well, okay. Meanwhile a staffer in Angus King’s office walked TPM Reader PL through King’s conflicted feelings and thoughts about the filibuster.