Gaston de Foix

CNN International is much better (or was when I last watched it). Anyway, I threatened to inflict a long post about Licht/CNN on y'all but I don't think there's anything much particularly original I have to add. I will just say that as a private enterprise driven by profit CNN has an absolute right under the First Amendment to de-platform Trump. Their decision to give him a platform for ratings is unfortunate, short-sighted, and will blow up in their face, but whatever at least the profit motive is understandable (still wrong though). What I object to is the cant of dressing it up as a journalistic obligation by suggesting that the *real* lesson of 2015-6 is that CNN failed to understand why Trump was popular because it gave him insufficient airtime.

Yeah, fair point. I suppose the easy response is that I should rephrase to emphasize that we don't need to hear Trump's lies about Jan 6 from the horse's mouth, live, accompanied by enthusiastic applause even if accompanied by periodic correction. There are better, more controlled and responsible ways to remind the American public. I think the basic problem is when Trump says a thing, and an anchor fact-checks him live, that's not going to change the mind of anyone who is predisposed to believe him or is indifferent to the truth. Maybe I'm thinking too much like a lawyer, but that's the bare minimum necessary to shield a news channel from a defamation lawsuit. Painfully exposing his lies and successfully confronting him takes much more time and effort. You are absolutely correct. When I referred to the 200,000 Americans who died I was traveling back in time to Jul-Sep 2020 when he did a couple of interviews with Jonathan Swan and Chris Wallace who asked tough questions with good follow-ups.

Sure - you should speculate away. I had a similar speculation when the verdict came out because rumors about this juror were rampant on twitter. My point was only that the dots from Juror 77 to the rape acquittal don't quite connect up. I'm passionately interested in the answer myself, and hopefully some jurors will speak out in an anonymized form to a reputable news outlet.

Zorral, about the absence of a rape conviction, I should point out - the jurors have not talked publicly yet, and we don't know whether Juror 77 (the Tim Poole fan) played any particular role in that decision. I understand the logic, but the fact the jury decided so quickly would suggest to my mind it was more than just one right-wing hold out. But we don't know, and to his or her credit they did vote to find Trump liable.

Inexperience, as I said. I refused to watch anything other than clips posted online so you could be right that more time was devoted to town hall, but from what I saw, a significant chunk was an interview with follow-up questions.

Idk what it means either, but can I offer this thought? One of the reasons I won't write the fantasy novel bumping around my head (apart from laziness, apathy, and parenting responsibilities) is that I'm scared to death of people fact-checking me. As a reader, I don't care about fantasy maps because it's fantasy and I'm happy to accept authorial decree that you can get from point A to point B through the Gap of Rohan in 6 days continuous running or what have you. I don't care about fantasy physics because it's fantasy. I don't care about the rules of magic because I kind of believe with GRRM that magic should always be mysterious and somewhat unknowable, and also because, it's fantasy. I get the suspension of disbelief works very differently for different people. I also get that introducing real world physics and logic can be a potent story telling tool to build verisimilitude. But I think we have to take these things with a pinch of salt no?

I'll try to get my (spoiler-free) reviews out this week to whet your appetite .

So I have a few thoughts about Kaitlan Collins/CNN and the narrative being pushed in some corners that (1) she did her job fact-checking Trump; (ii) it's management's fault; (iii) she did her best/it's impossible etc. etc. To their credit, these are people who aren't denying that the town hall was a dumpster fire.* 1. She's 31 years old, which is absurdly young. Good for her, but she just doesn't have the decades experience interviewing people that Jake Tapper or a whole bunch of other people at CNN have. I get that Trump would have/probably did veto Tapper, but that was an excellent reason NOT to do the town hall rather than do it on Trump's terms. 2. I don't know about this Daily Caller business, but IIRC she had difficulty standing up to Don Lemon about his abysmal "women in prime" comment. Did she even say anything in response? I'm sorry but if you don't have the cojones to stand up to Don Lemon, you ain't ready for Don Trump. 3. This was not the toughest interview that Donald Trump has done. He's done MANY of them with the best in the business when in office with folks like Chris Wallace, Jonathan Swan, etc etc. They were MUCH better than her, he was mismanaging a pandemic that killed 200,000 US citizens, and he still came out ahead because even the most rigorous interviewer is still giving him a platform and still allowing him to shape the world, and flood the zone with shit. 4. By contrast, when the major channels and apps deplatformed him after Jan 6, he withered. He became a political pariah, and he would have remained one if Kevin McCarthy had not bent for him. 5. She took this gig willingly, making herself a interlocutor in DJT's comeback for the ratings. He used her and CNN to play games with Fox, and they willingly complied. Fuck her, and fuck CNN. 6. I'm sick and tired of this "oh, he's the front-runner for the republican nomination, we have to cover him" bullshit. No you don't. It's not news that he defends Jan 6. It's not news that he defamed E Jean Carroll. It's not news that he has supporters in the Republican party. None of this is news or newsworthy. Even though half or more of the audience was sitting silent yesterday in his most provocative statements, CNN has given the entire country the misleading impression that (a) he could say anything and enjoy raucous support; (b) those people clapping are representative of New Hampshire or USA. They are not. *Unlike Chris Licht's morning after narrative, which we should also talk about:

The law was studying him? Ivanhoe is a hell of a read. In the last week I finished "The Traitor" by Anthony Ryan, "Storming Heaven" by Miles Cameron, and "the Final Architect" series by Adrian Tchaikovsky. I've been procrastinating about reviewing them, but I enjoyed them all thoroughly. One (of many) pet peeves of mine is that fantasy novels are like buses - you wait for about a year, and as soon as one is about to be published, two or three appear (h/t Wendy Cope :https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~tf/cope.html). Having finished these books, I'm not eagerly awaiting any new novels till Sep/Oct at the earliest.

One interesting Santos-related question is which lawyer he selects, and what legal strategy. A plea deal would be his best option, but that would require resigning sooner. Going to trial would allow him to serve out his term, which I'm sure "my Kevin" would prefer. I'm not a criminal lawyer, but I strongly suspect a favorable plea deal would be his best bet as a "first time offender" in minimizing jail time.

I want to read the indictment just to know what name they will be charging him under. Anthony Devolder, George Santos, or Anthony Zabrovksy?

He's not and you can't. I suspect you could call him a "sex offender" without fear of a defamation lawsuit since a jury of his peers has found that he committed a sexual assault according to a civil standard and you might be entitled to a reasonable opinion defense. But the same standard would not apply to media publications, I don't think. Scot?

Let's be real here. She's not the first woman he sexually assaulted/raped, nor was Ivana. The vast majority were and have remained silent out of fear of his retribution. And I have to say, I don't blame them. What justice did Christine Blasey Ford get? Or Debbie Ramirez?

IMO, the real benefit of this verdict is that it frames the conversation around a topic about which he is personally and politically vulnerable, and steps on the "Trump is running away with the Republican nomination" narrative that been building a head of steam. It hurts him politically, now and all summer long. Maybe hurting him politically now doesn't matter by the time the Iowa caucus rolls around, or by Nov. 2024. But any effort in that direction is valuable. I should also say, I'm sure that Trump's attorneys offered $5 million or considerably more to E. Jean to drop the case. She didn't do it for the money, which is more than one can say about Dominion, or the Trump University folks etc.

Anyway, the verdict is illogical, but psychologically understandable. One juror was unwilling to go as far as finding rape for whatever reason. Maybe political leanings, maybe risk-aversion, maybe contrariness, maybe for the reasons Ty gives above. This wasn't an open and shut case simply by virtue of it being a stale claim. They tend to be viewed with skepticism, and have unique evidentiary difficulties.

The jury has begun deliberations in the E.Jean Carroll v. Trump trial. Unanimity is required for a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, although the jury has wide latitude to determine what happened (i.e., rape, sexual assault, battery) and what the damages should be. I don't expect any immediate verdict, although you never know with juries.

Will Saletan brings the receipts on Lindsey Graham's career: https://specialto.thebulwark.com/p/the-corruption-of-lindsey-graham.

No, I think they are thinking carefully of how to pilot to a (narrow) win, studying both the lessons of history (Major's come from behind win against Kinnock) and the polls. A lot of their current government policies is based on energizing the base and polarizing the electorate. Politics is unpredictable. Changing leaders is not a good option because (a) it's already been tried a number of times and the chaos has pissed everyone off; (b) after Rishi, whom? BoJo is a huge gamble. Penny doesn't have a clear political identity (personal popularity aside). I genuinely can't remember any others who ran or are considered eligible. This being the Tory party every junior minister sees themselves as a future PM in waiting, no doubt.

I finished it and am going to write a (spoilerific) review. Let's compare notes when you are done.

It was less about the "conservative cause" or "Team Conservative" and more about the personal political fortune of Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson. He (rightly) calculated that fighting for Brexit would endear him to the vast pro-Brexit majority of the Tory party membership and (to a lesser extent) MPs and make him a cinch for the leadership in the next contest. If he had lost the referendum, he would have had the best of both worlds.

I said she had a good sense of what not to do. The PR disasters that befell her were the result of inaction when action was necessary. But yes, in the course of a long reign she made mistakes. Monarchy is usually a bad idea, and even the best examples are less than perfect. King Bhumibol comes to mind. He became heir and then monarch in sketchy circumstances (a supposedly accidental shooting of his elder brother). But his reign was a golden age compared to his son's current reign. It can always get worse.

I think the Queen had superb negative judgment, i.e., she knew what not to do. Charles makes decisions that seem petty and self-defeating and will come back to bite him after the honeymoon of the Coronation. For example, evicting the Queen's dresser Angela Kelly, sends a nasty message that Charles does not value loyalty, and severs bonds with someone who could tell a few tales if she chose (and the financial incentives are all there, sadly). Similarly, if Harry and Megan wanted to leave, Charles could have offered them a financial settlement of $20-30 million with an NDA that would avoided the damage to William's reputation. No Netflix show, no memoir, no orgy of recrimination and anger and constant drama. What's really striking is that the royal family (and the Crown) should be able to take the long view. But they behave like politicians, just trying to get a few good tabloid headlines and get through the week.

Has the Dominic Raab report actually been released, or has his resignation meant that it will be conveniently buried?

Pippa Crerar is currently the best political journalist in Britain having scooped this in 2021. Just yet another of a million indicators that Johnson, like the mayor in Jaws he so idolizes, was unfit to be dogcatcher of a small Welsh village.

I really enjoyed it, but I didn't get the reference in the title (my complete ignorance of Irish history was sadly cruelly exposed when I read the afterword and then wikipedia). Elaborate please? Anyway, I'm starting the Final Architecture series now that the trilogy is nearly complete. I should read the books right?