REPUBLICANS WANT TO MAKE AMERICA NORTH CAROLINA

The referendum giveth and the courts taketh away:

The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down a measure allowing state Democrats to redraw congressional districts, dealing a significant blow to the party’s efforts to keep pace with Republicans in a nationwide redistricting battle.

The ruling wipes out four Democratic-leaning U.S. House seats in Virginia....

Republicans threw a lot of arguments at the courts, and this is the one that stuck:

One of the most critical questions concerned the sequence of events in Virginia’s complex amendment process. Before voters weigh in on an amendment to the State Constitution, the General Assembly must approve it twice, with an election for the state House of Delegates taking place between the two votes. The first vote for this amendment was on Oct. 31, just days before the state election. With hundreds of thousands of Virginians having already voted, Republicans argued that the legislative action had come too late.

The court sided with that argument.

Of course, it's much easier to gerrymander in red states, because the power tends to be in the hands of pre-gerrymandered state legislatures:

The defeat at the court also reveals the limits of years of reforms pushed by Democrats in the current hyperpartisan era. While some Democratic-controlled states like Virginia installed independent commissions to oversee their map-drawing process in an effort to insulate it from politics, Republicans kept the power in state legislatures, allowing states like Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Missouri to enact partisan maps with few logistical hurdles.

And now, of course, the Supreme Court has made it possible for every red state to gerrymander its way to an all-white, all-Republican congressional delegation.

I think Democrats will win the House this year despite all this -- President Trump is widely reviled and there's a massive enthusiasm gap between fired-up Democratic voters and not-at-all-fired-up Republican voters. I expect many 2024 Trump voters, especially young men, to simply stay home in November.

But 2026 or 2028 will probably be a high-water mark for Democrats in Congress. Long term, I think it's possible that America could have a near-permanent GOP Congress, regardless of how popular Republicans are in the future.

In that scenario, America will be North Carolina.

Democrats have won the last three gubernatorial races in North Carolina. They've won every attorney general election since 1974. They appear on the verge of electing a man who's held both offices, Roy Cooper, to the U.S. Senate. And while Republicans have won the state in the last four presidential elections, Democrats have cleared 48% each time. North Carolina, in short, is a purple state.

But its legislature is deep red. It's been in the hands of Republicans since the 2010 election. Currently, Republicans have a 30-20 majority in the state Senate and a 71-47 majority in the state House of Representatives (there are also two ex-Democrats in the House who recently switched to "unaffiliated" after voting with Republicans to override vetoes by Democratic governor Josh Stein).

And the state's congressional delegation is 10-4 GOP, also because of gerrymandering. Republicans are trying to change that to 11-3.

This is what Republicans want for the entire country: a permanent GOP congressional majority no matter how popular or unpopular the party is in this effectively 50-50 country. I think they might get their wish by 2030, because Democrats in states like California and New York are unlikely ever to be as ruthless as Republicans in red America. Democrats' current successes (or, in the case of Virginia, near-successes) have been largely in response to the awfulness of Donald Trump, but Republicans hate all Democrats as much as Democrats hate Trump, so I don't expect them to lose focus on the goal of permanent party control. We may eventually see Congress as locked-in Republican, the way we've seen the Supreme Court for decades.

Democratic voters, including less politically involved voters, need to develop a basic understanding of gerrymandering and need to recognize the necessity of curbing the GOP's power, even after Trump leaves office. But Republicans will sell a status quo with a GOP lean as natural and democratic, and will portray any Democratic efforts to fight back as anti-democratic chicanery. It would be nice if the public understood that we got where we are because of Republican chicanery. Can Democrats sell that idea? I hope so, because democracy in America might depend on it.

DEMOCRATS SHOULD LIGHTEN UP -- TACTICALLY

Last month, The Atlantic's Sarah Fitzpatrick reported on the excessive drinking and general incompetence of FBI Director Kash Patel. Patel filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit, but Fitzpatrick and The Atlantic were undeterred. She now tells us this:

After my story appeared, I heard from people in Patel’s orbit and people he has met at public functions, who told me that it is not unusual for him to travel with a supply of personalized branded bourbon. The bottles bear the imprint of the Kentucky distillery Woodford Reserve, and are engraved with the words “KASH PATEL FBI DIRECTOR,” as well as a rendering of an FBI shield. Surrounding the shield is a band of text featuring Patel’s director title and his favored spelling of his first name: KA$H. An eagle holds the shield in its talons, along with the number 9, presumably a reference to Patel’s place in the history of FBI directors. In some cases, the 750-milliliter bottles bear Patel’s signature, with “#9” there as well. One such bottle popped up on an online auction site shortly after my story appeared, and The Atlantic later purchased it. (The person who sold it to us did not want to be named, but said that the bottle was a gift from Patel at an event in Las Vegas.)

This is not the most important story in America. Patel's conduct in office won't make any voter's list of top concerns.

I don't care. Democrats in D.C. and on the campaign trail shouldn't ignore this story in order to remain laser-focused on the economy, Iran, and/or Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats should talk about Patel's bizarre behavior as much as possible.

I wrote this last September, and I stand by it:

Many people on our side believe that Democrats need to have a narrow message focused on "kitchen-table issues," and think everything else is a "distraction." Or maybe they believe that everything is a distraction from the Epstein files. Whichever version they prefer, they agree on one thing: Democrats shouldn't talk about anything apart from a highly select group of issues.

That's ridiculous. Trump's messaging successes are proof that Americans can focus on multiple issues in the course of day. (Given what the internet has done to our attention spans, this was inevitable.) I think Democrats should focus on the important stuff -- but they should also focus on anything Trump does or says that makes him look ridiculous or that's wildly unpopular. Invading Greenland. The Gulf of America. That kind of thing. When Trump makes himself look like an idiot, Democrats should draw as much attention as possible to it.

This story makes the entire administration look ridiculous, along with the congressional Republicans who enable it. That's why Democrats should talk about Patel a lot.

Saul Alinsky would understand. His Rules for Radicals included Rule #5:

Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

And Rule #6:

A good tactic is one your people enjoy.

In 2024, at least momentarily, the campaign of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz seemed to understand this. Walz was connecting with voters by calling Trump and other Republicans "weird." Then, as CNN reported, this happened:

Three weeks into her presidential run was the first time the Biden campaign's pollsters — now hers — held a deep-dive call with Kamala Harris' inner circle to discuss what she's been saying on the stump.

Over the line came a lot of praise, but also some suggested tweaks. First, said veteran Democratic numbers man Geoff Garin, summarizing their analysis, stop saying, "We're not going back." It wasn't focused enough on the future, he argued. Second, lay off all the "weird" talk — too negative.

As Jason Sattler noted:

The Harris campaign ultimately stuck with the “We're not going back” chant because they had no choice—her crowds wouldn't stop chanting it. But “weird” was gone.

"Weird" was gone, the campaign tried to get "serious" and issue-oriented -- and Harris and Walz lost.

When was the last time a Democratic officeholder or candidate made you laugh? Among the centrists, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are dour. So are Jon Ossoff and Pete Buttigieg. On the left, AOC is often intense and serious. So is Graham Platner. Democrats do a lot of scowling.

The exception is Gavin Newsom, or at least his social media feed. Newsom's online presence has been the source of a lot of laughter -- and it propelled him to a lead in many polls of the 2028 Democratic presidential contest, despite the qualms many voters have about him.

Republican humor is infantile, bigoted, and mean -- but it connects with a portion of the electorate. No one in the GOP ever says, "Don't post that meme! It will make our party look unserious!" They just post away. Trump has been doing it for years and years, and he won two elections and came close to an Electoral College win in his other election. Voters can handle a few jokes.

Democrats should ridicule Patel mercilessly. They should ridicule Trump's building and redecorating obsession. They should ridicule Pete Hegseth's Kid Rock obsession. They shouldn't leave all this to the late-night comics. They should revive "weird" and make voters see them as the normal ones. (And the funny ones -- people like someone who can make them laugh, and Democrats often struggle with likability.) Democrats can do this and talk about the affordability crisis.

THE MAGIC BULLET FOR DEMOCRATS ISN'T "PLAIN ENGLISH"

In an interview with Stephen Colbert, Barack Obama embraces a right-wing critique of Democrats:

Obama: "What I'm more interested in for Democrats is, do you know how to just talk to regular people like we're not in a college seminar? Can you talk in plain English to folks? And not have a bunch of gobbledygook around it. Just talk like normal people talk. 'The rent is too high.'"

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) May 6, 2026 at 8:51 AM

IB know, I know -- this isn't just a right-wing critique of Democrats. Many Democrats agree that their party's leaders sound too cerebral and professorial. But "Democrats are out-of-touch elitists" is a core right-wing argument, and Obama is echoing it here.

I don't really believe that professorial talk is what's holding back Democrats. Many liberal and left slogans -- "No Kings," "Tax the Rich" -- are very plain English. And Republicans don't always talk like regular folks.

I'll remind you that many of the young men whom Democrats would like to win over were introduced to right-wing thinking by a literal college professor, Jordan Peterson. These same young men embrace Stoicism (admittedly in a dumbed-down form) and follow influencers who regularly invoke the ancient Greeks and Romans. In the manosphere, young men invoke pseudo-scientific concepts like "hypergamy" to explain their struggles with dating.

Older Republicans praise pseudo-intellectual right-wing pundits such as Thomas Sowell and Hugh Hewitt, not to mention Newt Gingrich and Dinesh D'Souza, who delighted Republican voters for years with their academic-sounding denunciations of Obama's alleged "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior." GOP voters appreciate efforts to turn institutions of higher learning such as Florida's New College into conservative beachheads.

They hate mainstream scientists, but love scientists who embrace vaccine and climate denialism. They distrust lawyers in general, but they revere the memory of Antonin Scalia, and they cheer on the Federalist Society lawyers who control much of the federal bench. They appreciate the work of right-wing think tankers like Chris Rufo. And they sometimes use fancy language: remember, we talk about trans rights, while their term for the trans rights movement is the very academic-sounding "gender ideology."

I don't think right-wingers care how highfalutin your language is, as long as they agree with you. If you tell them things they want to hear, you can use any language you want. If you tell them things they don't want to hear, they'll reject you even if you use nothing but one-syllable words.

BUT DEMOCRATS ARE THE EXTREMISTS

Last month, comedian Ramy Youssef commemorated Arab American Heritage Month on Sesame Street by teaching Elmo the meanings of "salamu alaykum" and "habibi."

The word of the day is HABIBI! Happy #ArabAmericanHeritageMonth from Ramy Youssef, Elmo, and all of your friends on Sesame Street! pic.twitter.com/Hc4BLcehEl

— Sesame Street (@sesamestreet) April 16, 2026

The right lost its shit, of course.

Fox's Raymond Arroyo was incensed:

“I wish Sesame Street would stick to teaching kids about letters and numbers and leave the Arabic immersion to someone else,” he said on The Ingraham Angle. “Next, Bert and Ernie will be praying five times a day on Sesame Street, facing east.”

Podcast host Chad Prather said, "Time to deport Elmo.... On this episode of Sesame Street, Elmo learns how to build an IED."

Fast forward to last Friday. Sesame Street commemorated Jewish American Heritage Month by posting a video featuring actress Kat Graham, in which she talked about matzoh ball soup with a Muppet named Abby Cadabby.

Happy #JewishAmericanHeritageMonth! Join us this May as we honor and celebrate our Jewish American friends and neighbors in our communities.💛💚 pic.twitter.com/324fyjW8SQ

— Sesame Street (@sesamestreet) May 1, 2026

Again there were angry right-wing responses:

There is no such thing as an "ethnicity"-American. You are either jewish or you are American.

— Groypeon (@Groypeon) May 1, 2026

Even the Count can't figure out how they arrived at 6,000,000.

— Nostradumbass (@Nostradumb_ss) May 2, 2026

One was from an influencer and ex-Navy SEAL named Dan Bilzerian:

Nobody wants anymore jewish supremacy bullshit

— Dan Bilzerian (@DanBilzerian) May 1, 2026

Bilzerian is well known in some circles. He

initially gained fame for his Instagram photos alongside bikini-clad women....

[He] has 30 million followers on Instagram and 2 million on X. He regularly tweets opinions like "Jewish supremacy is the greatest threat to the world today," questions the accuracy of the statistic that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, and reposts clips of avowed antisemite Nick Fuentes....

By 2024, the occasional surveys he took of his followers became pointedly focused on Jews. "Who causes the majority of the world's problems?" he asked, with users overwhelmingly voting for the multiple-choice option "16 million Jews."

In January 2025, Bilzerian asked his followers whether Hitler was a "good person," a "terrible person," or if they didn't know. A third of the 178,000 voters said Hitler was a "good person," and 23% said they didn't know.

Bilzerian laid out his views on Jewish people in a 2024 interview with conservative commentator Patrick Bet-David, during which he said Jews "knew about 9/11" and "had JFK assassinated." Later that year, conservative media personality Piers Morgan asked Bilzerian how many Jews he believed died in the Holocaust. "I don't know, but I would bet my entire net worth that it was under 6 million," Bilzerian said.

Bilzerian is now a Republican candidate for Congress. The incumbent in this race is Randy Fine, a notorious anti-Muslim bigot:

... he privately wrote “Go blow yourself up!” to a Florida Muslim after they challenged his social media posts, calling on an Islamophobic trope that Muslims are prone to violence or suicide bombings.

In December 2023, as Palestinians awaited much-needed humanitarian aid, Fine mocked them, posting on his X account, “Stop the trucks. Let them eat rockets. There are plenty of those. #BombsAway.”

... In May 2025, Fine suggested on national television that the United States should use nuclear weapons against Gaza, invoking the atomic bombings of Japan as a model for dealing with Palestinians. When asked to explain this genocidal rhetoric, he doubled down with a racist and dehumanizing response, claiming that half of Gaza’s population is “married to their cousins” and has “mental defects,” and that “you’ve got to have a mental defect to interpret the comment that way.”

Last winter, he responded to a snarky tweet from a Muslim activist about the prevalence of dog poop in New York City after a major snowstorm with this:

If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.

— Congressman Randy Fine (@RepFine) February 15, 2026

And a third candidate in that Republican primary, Aaron Baker, has been endorsed by James Fishback, a Republican gubernatorial candidate who has referred to the Black front-runner in the race, Byron Donalds, as "By’rone" and "posted a video of himself shooting a gun along with a demand that Donalds join him to prove that he is 'actually black.'" Fishback has "referred to the junk in school cafeterias as 'goyslop,' a far-right term for unhealthy food that Jews [allegedly] foist on non-Jews." And he's been endorsed in the governor's race by manosphere sex criminal Andrew Tate.

And yet we're forever being told that the Democratic Party is the party of extremism, and that Democrats need to silence party members whose beliefs are seen as radical.

The GOP should be widely recognized as the hatemonger party. But instead, we're likely to get a half-dozen more center-left "studies" reinforcing the notion that it's Democrats who have an extremism problem. The Republican Party is increasingly a party of unabashed haters, people who hate without resorting to codes or dog whistles. Maybe Democrats should make a habit of talking about that.

JOHN FETTERMAN IS A PSYOP

Politico's Jonathan Martin thinks Senator John Fetterman might switch parties.

It’s a few days after the election this November, and the results have become clear: Democrats have netted the four seats they need to claim a Senate majority.

But then there’s a disturbance in the force: Senate Republicans and President Donald Trump persuade Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) to switch parties or at least become an independent to ensure Republicans retain power in the chamber.

It’s a scenario that’s becoming less fantastical by the day.

Fetterman says he won't:

“I’m not changing,” Fetterman told me in an interview Friday when I asked if he was ruling out both becoming a Republican or turning independent. “I’m a Democrat, and I’m staying one. “

Yet, at least in private, he’s not totally rejecting dropping his “D.”

When one senior Republican recently brought up the idea of becoming an independent to Fetterman, he absorbed the suggestion and didn’t embrace or reject the overture, according to a GOP official familiar with the conversation.

In our interview, Fetterman said bluntly: “I’d be a shitty Republican.” ...

“Committed conservatives like Cassidy and Tillis are getting pushed out of their seats,” he noted. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) voted to convict Trump on impeachment charges in 2021, and the president is now targeting him in his primary. And Tillis announced his retirement after clashing with Trump over the [One Big Beautiful Bill]....

If Republicans can’t tolerate even Tillis, Fetterman suggested, how would they accept somebody who supports abortion rights, gay rights, legalizing marijuana and is pro-labor? (He flies the pride flag outside his Senate office.)

Fetterman could decide to stop calling himself a Democrat, but my guess is that he won't. The reason has nothing to do with ideology. It's all because Fetterman is perceived as more useful to the right-wing media (and thus to the GOP) if he remains a nominal Democrat.

Fetterman is just the latest in a series of "Fox News Democrats" or "Fox News liberals" -- figures who are registered Democrats but regularly agree with right-wing talking points. Fox has been promoting such figures for a long time -- here's a piece about Fox News Democrats from 2012:

Fox News co-host and contributor Bob Beckel has called for the assassination of WikiLeaks spokesperson Julian Assange (“A dead man can’t leak stuff”—Follow the Money, 12/6/10), for furnishing guns to school children (“If you give your kid a gun, no bullying”—Five, 1/5/12) and for militant opposition to the “War on Christmas,” which is “completely out of hand” (Five, 12/9/11)....

But Beckel is presented as a left-leaning voice on Fox, a counterweight to the network’s army of right-leaning talkers. And he’s far from an atypical specimen there....

For years, Susan Estrich, former campaign manager for 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis, was one of Fox’s leading tepid liberals. (Sean Hannity—Hannity & Colmes, 5/23/04—has called her “my favorite liberal.”) ... During the 2003 California gubernatorial campaign, Estrich defended candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger against charges he had physically assaulted numerous women ...; after he won, Estrich accepted a job working on his transition team....

Fox News contributor and former Clinton White House special counsel Lanny Davis (FoxNews.com, 10/6/11) wrote a paean to an arch-conservative political organizer, headlined “I’m a Democrat and I Respect Grover Norquist.” Davis recounted how the anti-tax crusader had set him straight on the Great Depression and Herbert Hoover’s liberal economic lunacy, and ended by praising Norquist’s love for his family: “But it’s not possible for anyone to be anything but a good person who has such love and devotion to his wife and his children.”

The piece lists other self-styled Democrats who regularly seconded right-wing arguments at the time: Zell Miller, Juan Williams, Doug Schoen, Alan Colmes.

Fake Democrats are such a regular feature on Fox that "Fox News liberal" shows up in online encyclopedias of TV tropes, such as Tropedia:

Also known as a conservative Democrat or a DINO (Democrat In Name Only), a Fox News Liberal is a character who allegedly provides political balance in the narrative.... They can be presented as the Only Sane Man in their party, and their criticisms of said party can also evoke from those in the prevailing party that "See? Even this die-hard ... liberal thinks that their party has gone way too far and become way too extreme. *sigh* If only the rest of their party could be as reasonable as they are, they wouldn't be in such bad shape". In particularly extreme versions of this trope, the character forsakes their own beliefs as a means of Character Development, claiming their party line has "gone too far".

TV Tropes adds:

It's also very common for them to admit the solutions proposed by people with (what their superiors consider to be) the 'correct' political views are basically good and desirable, but quibble about the details or minutiae of their 'correct' policies.

Fox News Democrats are meant to be a gateway drug for Democratic audience members. (According to Pew, 18% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say they regularly get news from Fox.) These audience members are expected to watch Fox News Dems and think, Wow, even members of my own party think Democratic officeholders and candidates are radical and weird. The goal is to get these viewers to switch parties, or at least vote GOP some of the time.

Fox and the GOP clearly think that the psyop is more effective if the on-screen critic of Democrats remains a registered Democrat, which is why these people claim to be Democrats long after it becomes obvious to more sophisticated viewers that they've switched teams. Alan Dershowitz, for instance, was a Fox News Democrat for more than a decade. Here's a clip from 2015 titled "Megyn Kelly, Alan Dershowitz Rip Liberal Fascism on Campuses: 'These Students Are Book Burners'":



Dershowitz kept up this "I'm a Democrat, but..." charade until last month, when he made his affiliation with the GOP official. (Dershowitz will turn 88 later this year. I guess he's aging out of this role.)

So Fetterman is perceived as a more useful Republican propagandist if he continues to call himself a Democrat. But what about the Senate? Won't the party want him to switch if it prevents Democrats from taking over?

I wonder if Republicans are weighing the publicity risk of a perceived betrayal of voters vs. Fetterman's usefulness as a saboteur. They might think Democrats voters will take to the streets in large numbers if it's clear they've voted for a Democratic Senate and Fetterman's party switch prevents that. There might be intense pressure on him to resign so he can be replaced by an actual Democrat.

By contrast, if he stays in the party, Democrats run the Senate -- and Fetterman, like Joe Manchin and Kysten Sinema before him, can make the party seem divided and radical. He can still vote for Trump's appointees and judicial nominees, and he will. Between that, the filibuster, and Trump's veto pen, Republicans can limit how much Democrats accomplish, while persuading low-information voters that the country's failing are owned, or at least co-owned, by "the Democrat-controlled Congress."

In any case, Democrats need 52 senators for anything resembling real control. That could happen, but it's a longshot.

TODD BLANCHE WILL TOTALLY PROVE AT TRIAL THAT JAMES COMEY IS TRAVIS BICKLE, SWEAR TO GOD

On Meet the Press today, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche reassured Kristen Welker that it's not a crime merely to use the phrase "86 47" -- even though, in his view, it constitutes a threat to kill Donald Trump -- and those of us who have used the number code, or bought or sold "86 47" merchandise, shouldn't worry about being brought up on federal charges just for the use of the numbers.

WELKER: On Amazon, there are dozens of "8647" products being sold and purchased right now. Should individuals selling or buying that merchandise be concerned they are going to prosecuted? BLANCHE: Of course not

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) May 3, 2026 at 10:28 AM

WELKER: The image -- excuse me -- is part of what led to this indictment.

BLANCHE: Yes.

WELKER: It is worth noting that on Amazon.com -- we looked this up -- there are dozens of products with the same terminology. We're showing it right here: "86 47" being sold and purchased right now. Should individuals selling or buying "86 47" merchandise be concerned that they're going to be prosecuted by the DOJ?

BLANCHE: This isn't -- this isn't about a single incident. Okay, this isn't -- I mean, of course not. That's posted constantly. That phrase is used constantly. There are constantly men and women who choose to make threatening statements against President Trump. Every one of those statements do not result in indictments, of course. There are facts, there are circumstances, there are investigations that have to take place....

So why is James Comey being indicted for posting an image of seashells in an "86 47" arrangement? Blanche says that's super-secret:

WELKER: Just to be very clear: You are suggesting the seashells themselves are not at the root of this indictment.

BLANCHE: I am suggesting that every single case depends on the investigation that's done. And of course the seashells are part of that case -- I mean, that's what the public sees. But without a doubt -- and it should be evident by the fact that it's been eleven months since the posting and the indictment -- there is an investigation that takes place, and that's the result. The result of that investigation is the indictment that was returned last week.

The headline for NBC's story about this is "Acting Attorney General Says Indictment Against James Comey Goes Beyond Seashell Photo."

“This is not just about a single Instagram post,” Blanche told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “This is about a body of evidence that [prosecutors] collected over the series of about 11 months. That evidence was presented to the grand jury.”

Blanche said he was not “permitted” to share the other evidence against Comey that was collected, but added: “At the trial — a public trial that will be open to the public — everybody in this country will know exactly what evidence the government has against Mr. Comey.”

And, in fact, that's what the indictment implies (emphasis added below):

COUNT ONE

On or about May 15, 2025, in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the defendant, JAMES BRIEN COMEY JR, did knowingly and willfully make a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States, in that he publicly posted a photograph on the internet social media site Instagram which depicted seashells arranged in a pattern making out "86 47", which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 871(a).

COUNT TWO

On or about May 15, 2025, in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the defendant, JAMES BRIEN COMEY JR, knowingly and willfully did transmit ininterstate and foreign commerce a communication that contained a threat to kill the President, Donald J. Trump, specifically, by publicly posting a photograph on theinternet social media site Instagram which depicted seashells arranged in a pattern making out "86 47", which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to President Trump.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 875(c).

This is a hilarious bluff. Blanche wants us to think that James Comey is secretly this guy, a person acquiring and planning to use multiple weapons to take out Trump while living in a 1970s cold-water flat and wearing his hair in a Mohawk:

Once a jury is "familiar with the circumstances" of Comey's seedy, violent existence, it will be plain as day that he had intent to kill.

Blanche will probably be nominated to replace Pam Biondi as a result of this bluff, but at trial we'll all see that he has nothing. I assume the DOJ will present other perfectly reasonable, non-violent negative statements Comey has made about Trump and suggest that they're evidence of a crime; DOJ lawyers will probably use the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome," as if anyone who's not in the MAGA/Fox News cult believes that's an actual thing that suggests violent mental instability.

The case will be thrown out of court. But the cult will believe that a "swamp" judge tossed it in order to suppress inconvenient facts about Comey's murderous intent. And Blanche will need to indict a few more innocent people if he wants to save his job.

DONALD TRUMP, THE ALL-CONTROLLING PUPPET

The New York Times Magazine has published Lulu Garcia-Navarro's long interview with Tucker Carlson. As you can imagine, the interview sanewashes Carlson -- his batshit crazy conspiracy theory about the Chabad Lubavitch movement's alleged role in pushing the United States into war with Iran doesn't come up, and Carlson's invocations of demons and Satan aren't mentioned.

Garcia-Navarro gets Carlson to explain some of his conspiracy thinking, but he's careful to make it sound rational and not too anti-Semitic. When asked why he believes President Trump agreed to go to war with Iran, he calculatedly provides a list of pro-war advisers that's a mix of Jews and non-Jews:

My strong impression, and I could be wrong because I don’t work there, is that no one in the [White House] was pushing for this, at least overtly. That all the pressure was coming from outside — constant calls from donors and people with influence over the president. Rupert Murdoch, Miriam Adelson, etc., and then a small constellation of, I guess they’d be called influencers, beginning with Mark Levin, but there were others, Sean Hannity, pushing the president to do this and telling him that you will be a figure out of history, you will save and redeem Israel or something.

I have to admit that this, in isolation, is fairly plausible. Later, Garcia-Navarro tries to pin Carlson down, and he sounds a bit more conspiratorial:

You said he’s a hostage just now. You told the BBC he’s a “slave” to foreign interests. Correct.

I just want you to be explicit. Trump is being held hostage by whom? By Benjamin Netanyahu and by his many advocates in the United States.

Saying that Netanyahu strongly influenced Trump's decision to go to war isn't conspiratorial, of course, but saying that Trump is a "slave" to Netanyahu is.

Carlson goes on to argue that we're stuck in Iran because of Netanyahu:

And we know that not simply because Trump started the war on Feb. 28, but because he couldn’t get out of it. He declares we’re having a cease-fire. He says, We’re having a cease-fire and we’re having these talks and they’re going great, and we are going to open the strait. And Iran says, Yeah, one of our conditions is Israel’s got to pull back from southern Lebanon. You can’t use the Iran war as a pretext for stealing more land from a sovereign country that’s not your country....

And within hours of Trump announcing this, Israel publicly, in a way that was designed to get the attention of everyone, including the Iranians, starts killing civilians in Lebanon. Now, what was the point of that? Not to secure the Israeli homeland. The point of it was to end any talk of a negotiated settlement, to keep this going until Iran was destroyed and chaotic, which is the Israeli goal.

Carlson is essentially saying that Trump is blameless in this matter -- he could have gotten us out of the war, but Israel trapped him. Carlson ignores Trump's own strategic ineptitude, and his own desire to keep fighting the glorious war that both Netanyahu and Fox News want him to fight until he achieves the glorious victory they tell him he can achieve.

We think Carlson has broken with Trump, but I think he's being careful not to burn the bridge between himself and Trump.

Carlson describes a conversation he had with Trump about Iran -- and puts an utterly implausible spin on it:

He felt he had no choice and he said to me, Everything’s going to be OK. Because I was getting overwrought. Don’t do this. The people pushing you to do this hate you. They’re your enemies. This will destroy you. This will gravely harm our country. We’ve got kids. I’m hoping for grandkids. Let’s not go there. And he said, It’s going to be all right, and he said, Do you know how I know that? And I said no, and he said, Because it always is. There’s a kind of Teddy Rooseveltian optimism there, but that’s not really what it was. This is my read. That was more a justification from a man who feels he has no choice.

No, it wasn't "a justification from a man who feels he has no choice." It was Trump being the Power of Positive Thinking simpleton he's always been, going back to his real estate days. And, well, you can't blame him -- he's run multiple businesses into the ground and destroyed the United States, but he always seems to emerge without a scratch.

Carlson doesn't talk about demons or Satan, but he manages to inject some "spiritual" mumbo-jumbo into the conversation:

... I never saw, nor did I hear about anybody who works for the Trump administration, who was enthusiastically pushing this war on Trump, being like: “You want to make this country great again? We need a regime-change effort in Iran.” Instead there were a lot of cowardly people, as there always are, and Trump engenders cowardice in the people around him through intimidation. And there is a kind of quality that he has that’s spellbinding. And I think it probably literally is a spell. And the effect is to weaken people around him and make them more compliant and more confused. And I’ve experienced this myself. You spend a day with Trump and you’re in this kind of dreamland. It’s like smoking hash or something. It’s interesting, very interesting. And there may be a supernatural component to it. I’m not a theologian, but it’s real, and anyone who’s been around him can tell you it’s true. But whatever the cause, no one around him was weighing in strongly, as far as I know, on either side, for or against. But people from the outside were strongly weighing in, calling him constantly.

Okay, let me get this straight: Trump is so spellbinding that his own aides are afraid to be forthright with him, but Trump somehow isn't spellbinding when talking to Netanyahu, Murdoch, Adelson, Hannity, and Levin. This spellbinder -- this theologically supernatural spellbinder -- apparently loses his theologically supernatural powers when talking to boldface names -- or maybe to bellicose Zionists. I can't quite pin down what Carlson is saying here.

I have an alternate theory.

Perhaps Trump is just an egomaniacal ignoramus desperately searching for legacy projects as the monthly injections in his hands remind him of his own mortality, and the boldface names just played him like a Stradivarius.

But Carlson prefers the narrative in which Trump is too powerful to get honest advice from his subordinates and also too powerless to rebuff Netanyahu and a couple of Fox News talking heads, not to mention the 95-year-old man who founded Fox. Either way, Carlson seems to be describing Trump as more sinned against than sinning, which tells me he could return to the Trump fold in the future.

Finally, I want to note another aspect of Carlson's method here. He uses the word "spellbinding," which invokes the religious realm for the yobs who subscribe to his podcast, but is also a term the Times might have used for a John F. Kennedy speech in 1962. He's trying to speak to more than one audience here, and I'd admire the code-switching skill if I weren't distracted by how willing Garcia-Navarro is to fall for it.