When Joe Manchin and I were at a reception at the French ambassador’s residence on Monday night for a mutual friend’s induction into the Légion d'Honneur—believe me, this was not my usual Washington weekday night—I had no idea that two days later the in-the-spotlight senator from West Virginia would be denigrating my reporting as “bullshit.” But that’s how he reacted on Wednesday when I published the scoop that Manchin had told associates he was considering leaving the Democratic Party to become an “American Independent” if he didn’t get his way in the ongoing negotiations over President Joe Biden’s $3.5 trillion Build Back Better bill, and that he had a two-step exit strategy for his departure. As the story went viral, Manchin brushed away questions from Capitol Hill reporters by saying the story was BS—“bullshit spelled with a B, U, L, L, capital B”—and he huffed, “I can't control rumors.”

Manchin’s response surprised and puzzled me. The sourcing on this story was impeccable. I wish I could tell you more about it. But I cannot. I swear it was as strong as it could possibly be. One-hundred percent reliable. I knew without any doubt that Manchin had said what the story reported. Certainly, he knew what he had said—and realized that others were aware that he had made these comments about quitting the Democratic Party. Yet Manchin fired off a full denial. That was odd, for if anything happened to further confirm my article, he would look the fool and be exposed as an utter liar.

Meanwhile, a few Capitol Hill reporters were pooh-poohing the story, saying that people close to Manchin—meaning, his staffers—were saying the story was wrong. These journalists were being far too credulous. If Manchin had been planning to dump the party, he may well have not shared that information with his staff, people who are Democrats. When Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey decided to switch from D to R in December 2019, much of his staff resigned. Thus, Manchin’s staffers might have been in the dark. And, it turned out, they were.

Manchin stuck to his bull-ish position for about 16 hours. Then on Thursday morning he shifted his spin and told reporters that actually he had discussed saying goodbye to the party and becoming an independent—but only to help the Democrats. His explanation: Life would be easier for Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and Biden if Manchin were not part of the Democratic caucus, given the political and philosophical differences between Manchin and the rest of the party. (Remember Manchin’s statement that he feared the Biden social infrastructure bill was moving the United States toward an “entitlement mentality”?) Under this plan, Manchin said, he would continue to caucus with the Democrats, which would allow them to retain control of the Senate.

This was an ingenious cover story. Not accurate. But crafty. It turned Manchin into a hero. There was, though, an obvious question: Why hadn’t he said this when first asked about the story? Manchin was now revealing that his initial “bullshit” response was itself bullshit. I pointed this out on Twitter.

I wondered why he or his press secretary had not provided me with such an explanation before the story was published. Prior to posting the piece, I took the obligatory step of contacting Manchin’s press secretary for comment. First, on Wednesday morning, I emailed her and asked what the best way was to reach her with a time-sensitive media query. She replied promptly and asked me to email it to her. About 30 minutes later I did, informing her what I was about to publish and asking for a response by the end of the morning. Nothing came back. At noon I pinged her and inquired if she or Manchin would be replying. In these situations, a press secretary will often request additional time or try to find out more about the story that is about to publish. Sometimes they will offer a response designed to weaken or perhaps kill the piece, particularly if they believe it is BS.

Crickets. Radio silence. Nada. I waited an hour, and then we pushed the “publish” button. Within hours, Manchin himself was pushing back with that epithet. And that night I was on MSNBC telling the world—or whoever was watching—that Manchin’s BS was BS.

The next day something had changed for Manchin. Could it be that his “bullshit” wasn’t flying? On Thursday morning, Politico’s daily “Playbook” column—the morning bible of the inside-the-Beltway crowd—led with a long item on the Manchin article, and it offered this bottom line:

We’ve known Corn for a long time and we trust him. We’ve known his scrupulous editor Clara Jeffery for even longer. (Full disclosure: One of us was her intern in 1997!) Corn and Mother Jones did not invent this. Manchin clearly told someone the account that Corn relayed in his piece.

It was after this landed that Manchin hit the media with his yes-but spin. Coincidence? In any event, he was still not being candid. Maybe he had at some point told Biden, Schumer, and other Democrats that it could be best for the party if he skedaddled. In recent days, though, he had indeed described to associates his possible farewell to the party as a signal he would send to Democrats should the ongoing negotiations break down, according to people who had heard him discuss this. That does not sound like a guy trying to help the Dems. (You can imagine all the DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY headlines such a move would cause.) But it’s not hard to imagine Manchin saying different things to different people.

As the dust settled, at least two takeaways were evident. First, Manchin, given his initial response, had shown himself to be completely disingenuous—and that’s not a good look for a politician who’s in the middle of intense negotiations and who’s being widely vilified by members of his own party. Second, if Manchin had believed he could somehow leverage his withdrawal from the party to gain an advantage during these talks, that option now was gone. With his “bullshit” response, he self-disarmed. And it was back to the main show: Can the Democrats work out a deal that Manchin can vote for and the rest of the party, including the progressives, can stomach? As a citizen, I’m hoping that in the end good policy talks, and bullshit walks.

Got a comment on this item—or any suggestion, tip, lead for the newsletter? Email me at thisland@motherjones.com.

Dumbass Comment of the Week

I try to keep Donald Trump out of the contest for Dumbass Comment of the Week to be fair to the many other contenders. But he certainly deserves mention for a rather dangerous statement he issued on Thursday: “The insurrection took place on November 3, Election Day. January 6 was the Protest!” Trump was yet again excusing the violent raid on the Capitol he incited. And this could even be read as a message of encouragement for any of his Brownshirts contemplating a repeat performance or similar acts. Here was more recklessness from an irresponsible authoritarian who reportedly enjoyed the violence of January 6. That’s not surprising for a narcissist, for what matters most to Trump about that day is that it was all about him.

An easy winner this week might be End Times conspiracy theory nutter Rick Wiles, who warned that an “evil cabal” bent on “control of the world” is using COVID-19 vaccines to infect people with “an egg that hatches into a synthetic parasite and grows inside your body.” Has he watched Alien too many times?

But I’d rather hand this week’s award to someone who’s sane. And that would be Byron York, chief political correspondent for the conservative Washington Examiner and a Fox contributor. In a tweet, he denigrated people who cite the construction of a gallows as evidence the January 6 riot was an armed insurrection: “Some of you point to the 'gallows' at the Capitol riot as evidence the riot was an armed insurrection. Call it a threat, call it an ugly symbol, call it a prop, call it what you like. But it wasn't a real gallows.”

Years ago, I often appeared on cable and radio news shows with York and considered him a reasonable conservative pundit. But in the Trump years, he has been slavishly devoted to protecting Trump and the Republicans from lefty critiques. And in this instance—quibbling over the gallows—he is demonstrating bad faith. During the assault on Congress, Trump-triggered rioters called for Vice President Mike Pence to be hanged. Rage-driven marauders were hunting for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In this context, the raising of a gallows—be it operational or not—was a horrendous act of right-wing extremism and conveyed a violent intent. (By the way, my colleagues at Mother Jones recently published an article detailing the weapons possessed by the rioters who attacked the Capitol and protesters who were nearby.) York is a 1/6 downplayer because that’s what’s required of a scribe in Trump’s court.

Got a nomination for Dumbass Comment of the Week? Email me at thisland@motherjones.com.

The Mailbag

Readers wrote in on many subjects this week. A reminder: Include your full name if you want to appear in the Mailbag.

Nicholas Sinisi had an important question about Squid Game. If you want to avoid a big spoiler, skip to the next piece of correspondence:

On the subject of Squid Game, what did you think of the ending? The series held me spellbound almost all the way through, but I was disappointed at finding out the old man had not been killed and was to some degree pulling the strings (though them not showing his shooting made me wonder). Considering how emotionally wracking the “marbles” episode was, it felt to me like an unnecessary cheat. What did you think?

I disagree. I understand your point, Nicholas. But I did not see this twist coming, and I enjoy surprises—especially those that are somewhat realistic and flip a story on its head. Looking back, I see how this development made it easier for writer-director Hwang Dong-hyuk to concoct a powerful confrontational ending. But cheating? I thought this turn was fully in sync with a marvelous series in which a viewer never knew what was going to happen next.

Don Michaelsen sent this query:

I understand the number of this right-wing caucus [the GOP House Freedom Caucus] is a secret. Can you find out the number of its membership? I have heard a rumor there may be between 25 - 70 members.

Don, I am happy to google for you. Wikipedia tells us there were 44 members as of April and lists all of them, noting that the chair is Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and the vice chair is Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). Are there others who keep their membership a secret? I don’t know. I also wonder what the initiation rites might be. Maybe we better not think about that.

Patrick Reid emailed about the recent issue that noted that once the House of Representatives would vote to approve a criminal contempt referral for Steven Bannon—which it did on Thursday—Attorney General Merrick Garland would face a tough decision:

Thank you for your article on this critical moment in history. If a Congressional subpoena is allowed to be ignored—without serious consequences for an instigator of insurrection against the United States Congress and the Constitution—then we are in grave danger as a country. I hope the House Democrats and the Attorney General have the guts to prosecute Bannon to the fullest extent possible. Then they also need to subpoena the #1 instigator of the attempted coup—Trump himself. Trump should be prosecuted for seditious conspiracy (carries a 20-yr federal prison term and fine) and for attempted direct election tampering in the Georgia election results! If nothing is done to hold these criminals accountable, then we are in critical danger of becoming a nation without laws that protect democracy and we will be unbelievably susceptible to being taken over by another Trump-like “president" in the future who proceeds to take complete control as a dictator.

A fundamental issue is at stake here. If Congress does not have the power to subpoena witnesses, its oversight power regarding the White House, the executive branch, and just about everything else is eviscerated. The framers of the Constitution clearly believed Congress should provide a check on possible malfeasance within the other branches of government. The Trumpers are trying to destroy that. It’s another sign of the creeping—and sometimes galloping—authoritarianism embraced by this gang. As for Trump being subpoenaed, that would certainly move the ongoing political conflict to a DEFCON-1 level. What do you think this Supreme Court would do in that circumstance?

Lisa Stevens commented:

I just read the newsletter about the opioid crisis and Trump. It was good, as I expected. People like you and Eugene Robinson [of the Washington Post] are masterful at organizing things we knew, partly knew, or didn't know, and explain to me why I feel sad, outraged, or in despair in more logical and clearly defined ways than what is in my head. I am grateful to those of you who do this.

Thanks, Lisa…She mentioned that, because she is living on a fixed income dependent on a low Social Security benefit, she isn’t able to subscribe to This Land. A few other readers have said they, too, cannot afford the newsletter. I appreciate the economic hardships many face. That’s why it’s possible to receive a limited version of the newsletter without subscribing. Obviously, I hope people do pay the few bucks a month we are asking, especially because that money helps support the kickass journalism of Mother Jones. But if you’re not able to do that, please keep reading the limited version, and I hope you will forward it to others.

Nancy Paist-Riches wrote:

I do appreciate your thoughts, insight, and views in your newsletter. Though it is draining for me to read about the topics you present, I believe it's necessary for me to understand various sides of a topic/situation…I do wonder about the impact this has on your mental health. I hope you are trying to remain positive and see some of the steps being taken to help move us forward after 4 years of moving sooo far backwards…We have a golden doodle, though the only part he received from the retriever was the personality. His size and interest in playing, unless of course you count the extreme interests he has in food, is that of a standard poodle. Not what was anticipated but loved very much.

Nancy, thanks for your concern. The last part of your note answers the first part. Having Moxie, a standard poodle, helps a lot. We all know about the studies showing dog ownership—or should we say, dog companionship—has mental and physical health benefits. Harry S. Truman is famously rumored to have quipped, “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.” Now we can say—with scientific backing—“If you want to lower your cortisol level, get a dog.”

And Maria Garcia had this to say about the newsletter:

- definitely more Moxiecam

- definitely not too long, I enjoy every subject

You asked for it. You got it...

Got anything to ask me—or anything to say about, well, anything? Email me at thisland@motherjones.com.

MoxieCam™

“Why are there sooooo many squirrels these days?” Moxie asked.

“Well,” I said. “Look at all the acorns. There must be 20 times the number of acorns we usually see in the fall.”

“Why all the acorns?”

Moxie stumped me with that. The daily and nightly rainfall of acorns from the mighty oak in our backyard has been stunning, causing a racket, a few smacks on the noggin, and a lawn full of crunchy seed carriers. Was this a sign of a problem with the tree, which I estimate to be at least 200 years old? (A limb came down recently, and it had 120 rings.) But in response to Moxie’s question, I headed to Google and entered “lots of acorns,” and I learned about mast years. Every few years—there is no regular pattern—oaks and other trees and shrubs produce a bumper crop of their nuts or fruits. Why? One theory is that it’s an evolutionary trick. By generating so many acorns, this oak fills up the tummies of all the happy squirrels—and a great many acorns go undisturbed. (The technical term: predator satiation.) Thus, the odds improve that one of these acorns will take root and grow up to be a towering oak. In any event, the squirrels are running amok in the yard. It’s been a weeks-long feast. For Moxie, this is like binge-watching Succession every day for a month. There is always a squirrel to spy on from the porch or to chase in the yard. She occasionally comes close to capturing one. Only twice in her life has she succeeded. It wasn’t pretty. Once I had to finish the job. And that’s all I have to say about that.

Read Previous Issues of This Land

October 19, 2021: Who’s the most dangerous House Republican and why you might not know his name; why Squid Game hooks us; a new book on the history of xenophobia; Rock ’n’ Roll Flashback: a young and angry Elvis; and more.

October 16, 2021: Crunch time for Merrick Garland; Bannon, QAnon, and the Virginia governor race; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

October 12, 2021: How Donald Trump betrayed Trump country; one of the best books about survival and isolation ever; the disappointments of The Many Saints of Newark; and more.

October 9, 2021: Can Trump and the GOP be stopped from shoving 1/6 into a memory hole?; how you can join a This Land online salon; the world premiere of Jill Sobule’s new song, “You Better Not F*ck in Texas”; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

October 5, 2021: The Democracy Crisis: Could this be Joe Biden’s big mistake?; kicking Pat Robertson on the way out; Skyfall vs. Casino Royale; a Velvet Underground tribute; and more.

October 2, 2021: How we almost got that big Lewandowski scoop; Dumbass Comment of the Week; MoxieCam™; and more.

September 29, 2021: Note to Greta Van Susteren: The road to hell is paved with both-siderism; the value of Netflix’s Worth; a crazy CIA story; and more.

September 25, 2021: What do Common, Leonard Bernstein, and Dwight Eisenhower have in common?; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

September 21, 2021: The Trump-Russia scandal denialists are taking another desperate stab at gaslighting you; Netflix’s The Chair nails the assignment; and more.

September 18, 2021: Hey Marco Rubio and Glenn Greenwald, this is the real problem with Milley, Trump, and nuclear weapons; Dumbass Comment of the Week (did Barack Obama really kill rock ’n’ roll with racial politics?); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™ (a new toy!); and more.

September 14, 2021: Will the new Bill-and-Monica television series spur a reappraisal of the Clinton scandal?; a stunning new Holocaust movie you can’t see—yet; one of the best articles ever about a family and its dog; and more.

September 11, 2021: How Trump’s conspiracy theories are killing people in West Virginia and elsewhere; more 9/11 reflections; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Special Confederacy Edition); a look at HBO’s very odd White Lotus; MoxieCam™; and more.

September 8, 2021: 9/11 plus 20: a remembrance and a thank-you; the chilling climate crisis warning in HBO’s Reminiscence; and more.

September 3, 2021: Texas shows how Trumpism has become fascistic vigilantism; Dumbass Comment of the Week; Rock ’n’ Roll Flashback (how I was popped by Iggy Pop); MoxieCam™; and more.