There was lots of feedback regarding the recent issue comparing and contrasting Watergate and Trump—and reviewing a Paul McCartney concert and HBO Max’s The Staircase. Thanks to all who heeded my plea for concision and only one space after a period.
Kris Weinschenker wrote:
Nice summary on the Chennault Affair. I hadn't known about that until I saw the Rachel Maddow special on it a few years ago.
I neglected to mention that Maddow had produced a wonderful documentary on the Chennault Affair. Everyone should watch it.
Holly Hertel wrote:
Every item in today's offering was spot on! Speaking as an original Beatle's Fan Club member... Awesome! And the history of Nixon is fascinating as it shows the corrosive effect of corruption and warns that we can't let it go this time. Also, as you were recounting other similar corruption, I seem to remember hearing something about the Iran hostage situation that may have implicated Ronald Reagan in trying to slow down its resolution so that he could win the presidency against Jimmy Carter. Do you know what that would be? PS: My favorite true-crime film is Code of a Killer, about the first time that DNA was used to find a serial killer. (I'm not much into true crime, either, but am a science geek.)
Holly, you’re referring to what’s known as the October Surprise conspiracy theory that alleged Reagan campaign operatives—including future CIA chief William Casey—in 1980 contacted the Iranians and urged them not to release the hostages until after the election. There was indeed a fear within the Reagan camp that a pre-election release would buoy Carter and perhaps win his re-election. Congressional investigators did probe this accusation but never discovered solid evidence of such a plot. Many media outlets concluded the claim was baseless. I recall having several conversations with Christopher Hitchens, who often had a conspiratorial mindset, who insisted the story was true because it had to be true.
There was also much response to my piece about covering the January 6 committee hearings. I can tell that many of you have been paying close attention to the proceedings.
Jacky Grindrod emailed:
Regarding these [January 6 committee] interrogations of which we are seeing relevant clips, has anyone during these depositions asked these criminally-adjacent enablers of the criminal president why they didn't say anything publicly to warn the nation they profess to "love" when it might have made a difference? (Their rehab efforts are meaningless now.)
Since we haven’t seen the rest of these depositions, I don’t know if that question has been directly put to these witnesses. But we do know that Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway, Trump daughter Ivanka, and many other Trump intimates who claim they didn’t buy the Big Lie did not publicly call BS on Trump while he was trying to defraud the American public. Their silence was an act of profound cowardice and should never be forgotten.
Jeanne Fuller emailed:
Thank you for your reporting on 1/6 committee's hearing. It was difficult to watch but we learned so much. Taped it and have watched it again and learned even more details. As you pointed out the gravity of Rep. Bennie Thompson's opening remarks, two other thoughts occurred to me. 1. This committee shows the way our government should work, two parties with different views working together to find truth, rather than only obstruction being the goal of one party, to our nation's harm... 2. Did Thompson's words firmly lay the groundwork for those in government to be potentially charged...? Does the 1/6 committee have evidence to show that?
That is indeed the question. The evidence and testimony presented at the hearings do bolster the argument that Trump and/or his minions might have criminally violated the law during their efforts to undo American democracy. Of course, that call is up to Attorney General Merrick Garland and his team at the Justice Department. On Thursday, it was reported that the DOJ has asked the committee for all its depositions—and even complained it was not receiving full cooperation from the committee on this. My assumption is that the Justice Department will get all the material it wants. But it’s still anyone’s guess whether its lawyers will conclude the evidence is strong enough to indict Trump or others. I know many progressives want to see such indictments. But imagine this: an indictment that yields a difficult case, with Trump getting off at the end of a trial. What would be the consequences of that?
Mo Winograd observed:
I was appalled to hear that only 20 million people watched the hearings on network TV when 96 million watched the last Super Bowl, one of the least watched Super Bowls ever. That speaks volumes about us as a country... It seems we are becoming more pathetic with every passing day.
Sharon Storm had a different take:
I just read your piece concerning the J6 committee hearings. I was struck by your description of the attack feeling personal, because I felt that same discomfort. Since the hearings were viewed by at least 20 million Americans, perhaps there is a chance that our democracy can be saved. It will be a long uphill climb, but the word will spread, and the treason of the former president will be recognized by more voters.
Karen Martin noted:
I agree with your observations and perspectives. I am afraid the hearings may not be enough to enlighten/convince independents and has no shot of convincing Trump supporters.
I believe there is a chance that some of the few independents left might think a bit more about the January 6 riot and its consequences, due to the hearings. But nothing is going to persuade Trump supporters. The Big Lie is now the foundational theology of the Trump cult. The best reality-based Americans who care about democracy can do is segregate that segment of the public as much as possible.
A reader identified only as RJV wrote:
Would love if you provided browser links to your excellent Our Land posts.
Thank you. People keep asking for this. I’m forced to repeat that the point of the newsletter is to be a newsletter, not a website post. We are trying to earn subscription revenue, and that would be much harder if the full issue of the newsletter were put on a website. If you would like to share issues—and I encourage that—please forward the email and ask recipients to consider subscribing. Many thanks for helping in that way.
Sharon Dennis wrote:
Love you David, but here’s my friendly reminder I’m on Social Security, and I don’t have an extra five dollars or $10 to pay for any newsletters. If I did, I would pay for yours.
Thanks, Sharon. I understand. That’s why I’m glad that (a) we put out a free limited version and that (b) others who can afford the subscription do pay, for that makes it possible for me to publish a newsletter that reaches so many people.
Sam Tate had an important point to share:
We need more of Moxie. It's a great finish after reading about an increasingly dismal world. And as a dog lover without a dog (my schedule would be totally unfair to them), it's a vicarious experience. Moxie has me halfway convinced that my next dog will be a standard poodle even though I'm very partial to Lhasa Apsos. Keep up the great work.
Great work? Do you mean me or Moxie? Because you asked so nicely, we have a special double-feature MoxieCam™ this week.
