For years, I’ve been wondering why a handful of former lefty journalists—among them Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi—keep insisting that all talk of Russia’s attacks on the last two US presidential elections is a hoax concocted by hysterical liberals in league with the Deep State. We’ve seen evidence of Vladimir Putin’s clandestine information war with our eyes (such as Moscow’s 2016 hack-and-leak operation that boosted Donald Trump), and numerous investigations, government agencies, indictments, and bipartisan congressional reports have provided details about the Kremlin’s efforts to help Trump and damage the prospects of Hillary Clinton and, then, Joe Biden. Yet these dead-enders stick to the line that none of this happened and pooh-pooh any mention of current Russian disinformation efforts targeting US politics.

Why do they keep echoing Putin’s own dishonest denials? Do they despise Democrats or the intelligence community so much that they are reluctant to legitimize their concerns about Russian assaults on the United States? Are they blinded by their own-the-libs anti-anti-Trumpism that they refuse to give any credence to Trump’s opponents? Do they so loathe foreign policy hawks and neocons or so fear a new Cold War that they lie about Russia’s malfeasance to deny its critics any ammunition to deploy against Moscow? Do they see Vladimir Putin and Russia, the enemy of their enemy, as an ally or at least a useful check on US and Western power? Do they believe that any acknowledgement of Russian disinformation operations would undercut their own crusade against tech companies, liberals, academia, the intelligence community, and the media, which they feverishly (and, to my mind, absurdly) portray as a unified and diabolical censorship industrial complex? One could believe in this dark theory and still recognize that Putin is a bad-faith actor mounting cyber-plots against the West. Yet Greenwald, for instance, legitimizes Tucker Carlson, a documented liar and disinformationist (and Putin softie), and excoriates anyone who points to Russian information ops as a threat to the United States. Like me.

With Russian information warfare against the United States underway and perhaps intensifying as the presidential contest approaches E-Day, Putin’s intervention to boost Trump and the efforts to deny this could become a factor in a close race. 

After I recently wrote a piece on Moscow’s current attempts to influence the Trump-Biden rematch, Greenwald weighed in on Twitter (a.k.a. X):

Hide your wife, hide your kids! The Russkies "are coming again" -- to get the Democrats again! So says the DNC activist masquerading as a reporter who became very wealthy by first introducing the Steele Dossier hoax into our politics.

Greenwald is very talented when it comes to dolloping out derision. Of course, he did not engage with—let alone refute—any of the facts in my article, which referenced government and journalistic sources reporting on the Kremlin’s ongoing operations aimed at the United States. Instead, he resorted to his and the Trump crowd’s go-to deflection: the Steele memos. I was indeed the first journalist to report on their existence, though I did not publish them. And whatever issues there were with their accuracy—they were never meant to be publicly released—these documents written by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele have no bearing on what did transpire during the 2016 election: documented Russian interference that aided Trump. The Steele memos, which, contrary to Trump’s rants and far-right talking points, did not trigger the FBI’s Trump-Russia inquiry, are a handy target for those who cannot handle the truth. And I’m pretty sure if you ask anyone at the Democratic National Committee, no one will say they consider me a DNC activist. Greenwald hides behind insults and lies.

In my response to his online missive, I tried to stick to the substance and asked Greenwald for his help, as I tried to puzzle out his stance:

So I guess Greenwald’s still sticking with the Putin-and-Trump disinformation line that there was no Russian attack on the 2016 election. No Democratic emails hacked and leaked, right? Why does he deny reality? There must be a reason.

No surprise, Greenwald did not respond to this. But his sidekick Taibbi did:

David, he’s referring to one of the biggest hoaxes in the recent history of journalism, the Steele dossier, which you played a lead role in introducing. Glenn didn’t screw up—you did. And you still haven’t admitted it.

Once again, you can see the seams. Focus on the Steele memos, not the bigger and more consequential issue of Putin’s sabotage campaign against the 2016 election that helped Trump reach the White House, let alone the aiding-and-abetting role Trump played by relentlessly and falsely denying such an operation was underway.

Responding to Taibbi, I tried to be more explicit:

Answer a simple question I have asked you before: Did Russia intervene in the 2016 election to hurt Clinton and help Trump? Extra points if you answer this one: Did Trump aid & abet that operation by denying it was happening?

Crickets.

Which brings me to where I began. Greenwald, Taibbi, and their ilk cannot engage in an honest dialogue about Russia and the 2016 election, or the 2020 election, in which Russian agents tried to smear Biden, or the current presidential election. Given that they refuse to concede that Putin did help Trump win the White House and strived to keep him there, they likely will not acknowledge that Russia-linked operations are currently occurring to exacerbate political divide in the US and assist Trump and will probably ratchet up in the months ahead. This week, the New York Times reported that someone created a deepfake showing State Department spokesman Matt Miller seeming to suggest Russian targets for a Ukraine attack. Was Moscow behind this move? That seems a good bet—or a pro-Kremlin actor. Russian media outlets and websites disseminated the forgery to inflame anti-American sentiment and boost Putin’s propaganda that the United States is propelling the Ukraine war. It seems obvious this sort of operation could be trained against the US election.

Why don’t Greenwald and Taibbi care about Russian assaults on US politics? I remain flummoxed. These dead-enders certainly are free to assail the Steele memos, which were inaccurate on key points but raised the important and largely unknown matter of Russian interference, and even criticize my reporting on them (though my main point at the time was that the FBI was investigating Steele’s allegations as part of a Trump-Russia inquiry not yet made public). Yet why fixate on that and refuse to deal with the bigger picture of the Kremlin’s war on America? I’m sorry I cannot provide you an explanation. I’m sure it’s a doozy.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

As I noted in the last issue, the next Zoom gathering of Our Land subscribers is June 19 at 8 p.m. ET. Remember, this funfest is only open to premium subscribers to Our Land. But there’s plenty of time to sign up—which will bring you the full version of the Our Land newsletter featuring more insider reports on politics and on the media, reviews of movies, television shows, books, and music, the Dumbass Comment of the Week, access to the interactive Mailbag, and, best of all, MoxieCam™. And, most important, if you become a premium subscriber, you will be supporting Our Land. Without premium subscribers, you would not now be holding Our Land in your cyber-hands. So either to join our get-together or to keep us afloat, please consider enlisting as a premium OurLander.

After Donald Trump was deemed a felon by 12 jurors in New York City last week, there was much talk of how he and his MAGA comrades would lash out and seek revenge. For some of us, this point was sort of...duh. For eight years, I have been pointing out in various articles and punditry appearances that Trump’s top three psychological motivations are revenge, revenge, and revenge. It is entirely accurate to say that he is obsessed with vengeance. I will leave it to psychologists and others to speculate on what underlies his excessive desire to get even. (Mary Trump, what say you?) And I may address this in coming days. But if you want a primer, here’s the first piece I wrote about Trump and revenge from 2016. Back then I found his fixation on retribution to be worrisome and frightening, and I thought it ought to be one of many disqualifications for a fellow yearning to have his stubby finger on the nuclear button (which really isn’t a button). With Trump’s intensifying authoritarian impulses and expanding list of enemies, it’s even more so now.

Civil War. Alex Garland’s new film about a crew of journalists traveling from New York City to Washington, DC, amid a modern-day civil war is both harrowing and frustrating. The time is just down the road from now. Nineteen states have seceded, and as an internecine conflict rages—with the Western Forces, made up of armies from California and Texas, and the Florida Alliance combatting federal troops loyal to the third-term president holed up in the White House—Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst), a renowned, hard-boiled war photojournalist, and Joel (Wagner Moura), a wild-man reporter for Reuters, decide to head to the nation’s capital to grab an interview with the besieged president before his government falls (which seems imminent) and he’s executed (which seems likely). Joining them are Jessie Cullen, a plucky young photog who hero-worships Lee, and Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), an over-the-hill and overweight New York Times journalist who’s obviously not up to the challenges of this dangerous journey.

This quartet must take the long way and heads toward Pittsburgh and then West Virginia, passing through cities, towns, and rural stretches that have been devastated by the fighting. They encounter the aftermath of butchery that occurred as Americans fought Americans. There are several haunting scenes. One occurs when our intrepid journalists are pinned down with a couple of soldiers by a sniper at the site of what once was a carnival. Why is the gunman shooting at them? No one knows. Another pivotal moment transpires when they come across soldiers who appear to be covering up a civilian massacre by using a bulldozer to dump bodies into a mass grave.

But here’s the rub: It’s unclear which side these killers are on, as it is unclear how the war was triggered and what each side is fighting for. Armies from Texas and California joining together, alongside troops from Florida, to oust a sitting president by force? Under what scenario could that happen? Garland avoids explanation. There’s no mention of Rs or Ds. The president (Nick Offerman) seems to be a Trumpian sort trying to hold on to power illegitimately. But if there’s an armed uprising against him (and, again, led by California, Texas, and Florida?), why are terrorists attacking New York City and why is there fighting in New Jersey? Highways are full of automobile carcasses. Shopping centers are bombed-out. Much of the territory through which our intrepid journos pass appears abandoned. Where are the people? Where did they all go? The reporters never talk about what led to this calamity or the politics of the fighting. They are fixed on reaching the White House and getting the big scoop: the final words of the president and the money shot of him being killed.  

There have been movies that have explored the thrill-seeking psychology that drives war journalists, and much of Civil War focuses on this theme. Why is Lee driven to take such risks? How does Jessie get sucked into the dopamine rush of fear and danger? Garland, who was the creator of the wonderful Devs sci-fi thriller that mined theoretical physics, time, and reality, does a fair job of examining this terrain—though the easy-to-predict ending doesn’t resolve the internal conflicts at hand. But while this tautly directed film presents a valuable cautionary tale—don’t let political polarization reach this stage, or your malls will be turned into hellholes—it’s not much of an explanatory tale. These days, it might be more important to know how we reach the breaking point than what happens afterward.

“Singapore Sadie,” Richard Thompson. A few months ago, I saw Richard Thompson play a wonderful show at the Birchmere, a fine venue outside Washington, DC. Afterward, I got the chance to visit with him, and I said something like this: “Can you please tell me how it is that you are getting better?” It’s true. Both my companion that night and myself—each of us a longtime Thompson aficionado—believed that his playing and singing appeared to be of a higher quality than in previous years, when his playing and singing were already superb, as they have been for his entire half-century-long career. Given that Thompson, a creator of the folk-rock genre, is a singer-songwriter extraordinaire and a brilliant guitarist who justifiably resides on Rolling Stone’s list of all-time great guitarists, how could he be improving in his mid-70s? Was it a mirage? As is his wont, Thompson modestly accepted my compliment with a wry smile and shrugged.

Thompson is clearly not one of those musicians who scored success decades ago and has been coasting ever since. He continues to produce compelling songs and notable albums. And on Friday, he released his 27th studio album, Ship to Shore. (Six of his past records were with his former wife Linda Thompson. He previously put out five albums as a member of the British band Fairport Convention.) This new collection is classic Thompson, soundly rooted in traditional British, Irish, and Scottish music, with hints of country and jazz. A standout track is “Singapore Sadie,” an earthy ode to a woman who casts love as a “mystical thing.” The jaunty “Turnstile Casanova” takes a more jaundiced view of love. And in “The Day I Give In,” he turns his well-worn cynical eye to the eternal subject of love in vain.

While viewing YouTube videos for the new songs, I spotted a comment from a fan: “How does someone who started his career back in 1967 seem to never have played a bad note or written a bad song, extraordinary.” It truly is—and even more extraordinary that he still is producing plenty of good notes and good songs.

June 1, 2024: Trump loses a big battle in his war on accountability; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

May 25, 2024: Trump’s dangerous grifting; Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s crazier than you might think; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Jared Perdue); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

May 21, 2024: Why do they believe Trump?; the meaning of Trump’s bad makeup; lesson from a mass shooter’s mother; the beautiful noir of Ripley; and more.

May 18, 2024: Here come the Russians, again; Sonya Cohen Cramer’s You’ve Been a Friend to Me; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Eric Trump); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. 

May 14, 2024: Paul Manafort and the metrics of shamelessness; 3 Body Problem’s obvious but understated tie to climate change; Neil Young and Crazy Horse keep a promise; and more.

May 11, 2024: America is broken, and the media ain’t helping; my fascinating trip to Japan; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Laura Ingraham); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

May 7, 2024: Modern-day lessons from Hiroshima; Ed Zwick’s Hits, Flops, and Other Illusions; the virtues of Tokyo Vice; and more.

May 1, 2024: From the Our Land archive: Donald Trump, stochastic terrorist; and more.

April 24, 2024: From the Our Land archive: Take a walk; and more.

April 20, 2024: Ari Berman’s new book explains the GOP's grand plan: minority rule; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Sen. Tom Cotton and Kari Lake); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.