"I can't believe the bespoke NY magazine biz hasn't yet realized that an Annie Leibovitz puff piece photoshoot is a political death sentence."

I can't believe the bespoke NY magazine biz hasn't yet realized that an Annie Leibovitz puff piece photoshoot is a political death sentence pic.twitter.com/INL4dWe7Hb

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) February 2, 2026

"In February 2023, the New York Times published an article titled, 'Kamala Harris Is Trying to Define Her Vice Presidency. Even Her Allies Are Tired of Waiting.'"

"The headline was generous, given what followed. 'The painful reality for Ms. Harris is that in private conversations over the last few months, dozens of Democrats in the White House, on Capitol Hill, and around the nation … said [Harris] had not risen to the challenge of proving herself as a future leader of the party, much less the country,' the New York Times reported. 'Even some Democrats whom her own advisers referred reporters to for supportive quotes confided privately that they had lost hope in her.'... [T]he New York Times reported that 'a quiet panic' had 'set in among key Democrats about what would happen if President Biden opted not to run for a second term.' Harris made the situation even worse by retreating to 'a bunker' for about a year, the New York Times said, 'after her disastrous interview with Lester Holt of NBC News.'..."

Writes Byron York, in "Remember when Democrats (and everybody else) thought Kamala Harris was a bad vice president?" (Washington Examiner). Discussion of other articles at the link and the statement that "there were many more, all of which could be summarized by one, brief sentence: Kamala Harris made a mess of the vice presidency."

These days, the press have tried to boost Harris, but even though they seem to want to help her, she's avoiding them. As for the NYT, it's still musing about Harris's need to "define" herself. There's this, from "Harris Says She’s Ready for Debate as Poll Shows a Tight Race: Election Updates":

"You tell me how and why corporate media constantly speaks from the same exact script this way, verbatim. #KamalaIsJOY"

Not even herd animals are this flagrant about it. You tell me how and why corporate media constantly speaks from the same exact script this way, verbatim. #KamalaIsJOY pic.twitter.com/AHSE9Im1GL

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) August 9, 2024

ADDED: Byron York has "Joy! Irrational exuberance soars to new levels" (Washington Examiner). Excerpt:

"The judge actually threatened to strike all of Costello’s testimony if he raised his eyebrows again."

"That of course would have been unconstitutional because it would have denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and to raise a defense. It would have punished the defendant for something a witness was accused of doing. Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly improper and unlawful to strike his testimony — testimony that undercut and contradicted the government’s star witness.... Moreover, [Justice Merchan's] affect while issuing that unconstitutional threat revealed his utter contempt for the defense and anyone who testified for the defendant. The public should have been able to see the judge in action, but because the case is not being televised, the public has to rely on the biased reporting of partisan journalists. But the public was even denied the opportunity to hear from journalists who saw the judge in action because he cleared the courtroom. I am one of the few witnesses...."

Writes Alan Dershowitz, in "I was inside the court when the judge closed the Trump trial, and what I saw shocked me" (NY Post).

ADDED: Byron York has "The Trump trial suffers a nervous breakdown":

Having Costello testify was a last-minute decision by the Trump defense. He had knowledge of Cohen’s credibility, having been Cohen’s lawyer.... Costello testified that Cohen told him that Trump did not know about the nondisclosure agreement payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. “Michael Cohen said numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about those payments, that he did this on his own, and he repeated that numerous times,” Costello said....

That is important information, given that it goes to the heart of the case — that Trump allegedly, with intent to defraud, falsified records of the payments because he was also intending to commit some other crime that prosecutors have not yet specified. If Trump “knew nothing about those payments,” as Cohen said, according to Costello’s testimony, that would throw a big wrench in the prosecution’s theory of what happened.

Perhaps you have not heard about Costello’s testimony. If not, that was likely because everyone, including the press, got very excited about what happened later....

Go to the link for quotes from the transcript covering the material Dershowitz wrote about as an eyewitness.

"But what is interesting is that a few voices on the Left have spoken up to question the fairness of the proceedings."

"Not to defend Trump — they could never bring themselves to do that — but to ask whether the process being used to go after him is fair. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, firmly in the liberal camp and firmly anti-Trump, expressed worries about the precedent the Trump case could set. From her column this week: 'The essence of Trump’s argument on appeal is that the supposed harm he caused was minimal at best — all his lenders were repaid — and that the penalty levied against him was therefore wildly excessive....' Progressive commentator Cenk Uygur, also firmly anti-Trump, had a similar view. 'To me, putting up all the cash upfront before you appeal the case seems draconian for everyone, not just Trump.... But what if he wins the appeal? So you made him sell all of his properties to get the collateral, but then he can’t buy them back....'... Someday, of course, what goes around will come around for Democrats, probably in circumstances that none of them could predict right now...."

Writes Byron York.

Most Trump antagonists seem to be laughing and salivating. I suppose they would enjoy seeing the man tortured. It's bizarrely shortsighted. Do they think Trump is uniquely evil and nothing that happens to him will set a precedent?

"The judge later tried... to argue that the jury 'implicitly' found Trump liable for rape...."

The dishonesty of Stephanopoulos' interview is striking. He says 10 times that Trump was found 'liable for rape' in the E Jean Carroll case. He says that the jury found Trump 'liable for rape.' In fact, the jury specifically found Trump *not* liable for rape. It found him liable… https://t.co/AGr0WWnaMS

— Byron York (@ByronYork) March 10, 2024

"The big obstacle, for Smith, Biden, and the Democratic Party, is that Smith’s case involves 'novel applications of criminal laws to unprecedented circumstances'..."

"... in the words of a New York Times analysis....The defendant has a right to question the legality of the unprecedented charges against him.... But Smith is in an enormous hurry. He has tried everything he can think of to cut corners and bypass procedures to get to trial quickly. The Supreme Court, even though it agreed to expedite the case, has not given him the quick go-ahead he wanted.... He can’t admit why he is moving so fast. It’s obvious to everyone that he is racing to try Trump before the election. But Justice Department guidelines very clearly say federal prosecutors 'may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.' That is what Smith is doing. He can’t admit his true motivation without admitting that he is violating long-held Justice Department rules against interference in an election. That did not keep some Biden allies from expressing profound disappointment with the Supreme Court move that will delay the 2020 trial. The crew at MSNBC — the network’s big stars, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O’Donnell — held an on-air therapy session to vent their frustration and dismay....."

Writes Byron York, in "Democrats’ double freakout" (Washington Examiner).

It's so ignorant to openly advocate interfering with an election. Have Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O’Donnell not heard of the long-held Justice Department rules? It's ironic too, since the Jack Smith case is about Trump's purported interference with the election.

The "double freakout" refers to the response to new developments: 1. Polls showing Trump ahead in every swing state, 2. The Supreme Court granted cert on the immunity question in the Jack Smith case.

I'm watching Biden's press conference in Vietnam because I saw that Byron York said "He's clearly exhausted, mumbling, and rambling at times."

Link to York. Here's the whole thing:

Biden goes a long time, speaking clearly and lucidly. I don't think he seems "exhausted." He's an old man, but he has consistent energy. Near the end, the last questioner, "Anita from VOA," says "I hope you didn't think that calling only on woman would get you softballs tonight," and he gives us a little of that old-man quasi-feminism: "Oh, I know better than that."

Corny, jaunty... whatever. It's not "exhausted." He's "rambling"... along.

Is he "mumbling"? His voice is quiet and he speaks quickly and without crisply pronounced consonants… but he's not “mumbling” like a confused person.

Here's how he speaks at the end, 23 minutes into a fast-moving performance:

"Trump, who was at about 44% just before [the first] indictment, shot up above 50%. DeSantis, who had risen to 30%, fell to 25%."

"Trump's lead over DeSantis, which had hovered around 30 points before DeSantis's reelection and fell to around 15 points after, returned to the 30-point range.... On June 8, Trump announced that he had been indicted by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith.... Trump dipped about 3 points in the RealClearPolitics average after the indictment but remained above 50% the whole time.... Will anything change that? Can anything change that? Who knows? There's no doubt that a number of campaigns, rather than having some clear theory of the race, are simply pushing on in hopes that something will happen. Something will happen to make Trump implode, or Trump will begin a long, slow slide, or something...."

 
Writes Byron York in "The shape of the GOP race so far" (Washington Examiner).

York seems to be saying the Trump challengers need to get a "clear theory" — other than the theory that Trump is so awful people will have to turn away from him. Trump's problems become his great advantage. He seems like the underdog, but he's also the overdog. One may psychically bond with underdogs... and with overdogs. Trump is both the underdog and the overdog. That's quite a show. And yet so many are counting on people to turn away from that ultra-compelling show. The other candidates are staring at that show, fixated by the grip it has on voters. They can't look away from the failure to look away.

"The biggest problem with the Joe Biden documents story is that we know only what Joe Biden's lawyers have told us."

Writes Byron York (at Washington Examiner).

Would it be "good to see" all this?

Now that a few days have passed, and with crazy theories/rhetoric flying around, would be good to see SFPD release info in Paul Pelosi attack: 1) 911 call audio; 2) officers' bodycam video; 3) toxicological tests; 4) all reports. Facts are vital to understanding.

— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 31, 2022

"Secrecy is exactly what is wrong about this."

Below, @axios on Trump Mar-A-Lago raid. Secrecy is exactly what is wrong about this. Secrecy allowed wild media speculation in Trump-Russia matter. As target, Trump is entitled to copy of warrant, underlying affidavit. He should make them public immediately. Today. pic.twitter.com/96FZ20lcZB

— Byron York (@ByronYork) August 9, 2022

The image says: "The bottom line: These investigations are top secret. So more likely than not, we won't get the full picture any time soon."

That's from Mike Allen at Axios: "What we know — and don't know — about the Trump raid."

Biden did another press conference, but the pressfolk are helping him too much.

Many of the questions for Joe Biden after his remarks today consisted of reporters asking Biden to elaborate on how bad Trump is. A list (not exact quotes): pic.twitter.com/0ixZlVcItz

— Byron York (@ByronYork) September 4, 2020

Here's the transcript in case you'd like to check the accuracy of York's assessment. And here's video:

"The baffling thing was why they were baffled. Barr's statement was accurate and supported by publicly known facts...."

"It is a fact that in October 2016 the FBI wiretapped Carter Page, who had earlier been a short-term foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. The bureau's application to a secret court for that wiretapping is public. It is heavily redacted but is clearly focused on Page and 'the Russian government's attempt to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.' Page was wiretapped because of his connection with the Trump campaign. Some critics have noted that the wiretap authorization came after Page left the campaign. But the surveillance order allowed authorities to intercept Page's electronic communications both going forward from the day of the order and backward, as well. Investigators could see Page's emails and texts going back to his time in the campaign. So there is simply no doubt that the FBI wiretapped a Trump campaign figure.... [I]t is also known that the FBI engaged at least one informant, a professor named Stefan Halper, to penetrate the Trump campaign... [D]espite the cries from outraged Democrats and the media analysts who simply can't imagine what Barr might have been referring to, the attorney general's words were demonstrably true."

Writes Byron York at The Washington Times.

"Hours of commentary and analysis on TV and the web elaborated on the news. Trump admitted it!"

"Just in case anyone in the media missed the importance of it all, longtime Trump critics were even willing to write reporters' stories for them. Tweeted NeverTrump writer David Frum, 'Your lede: President Trump today confessed that his son, son-in-law, and campaign chair met in June 2016 with Russian agents in hope of obtaining Russian intelligence to sway the 2016 election.' The only problem with the news was that it was not news. The president had said precisely the same thing a year earlier. Trump had long ago, and in no uncertain terms, acknowledged that the proposed purpose of the meeting was for the Russians and Russian-Americans to offer dirt on Clinton...."

"Byron York: On a quiet Sunday, Trump Tower mania strikes" (in The Washington Examiner).

"There have always been two parts to the Trump-Russia probe: the what-Russia-did part... and the get-Trump part...."

"Trump's problem is that he has always refused, or been unable, to separate the two. One is about national security and international relations, while the other is about Donald Trump. The president clearly believes if he gives an inch on the what-Russia-did part — if he concedes that Russia made an effort to disrupt the election — his adversaries, who want to discredit his election, undermine him, and force him from office, will take a mile on the get-Trump part. That's consistent with how Trump approaches other problems; he doesn't admit anything, because he knows his adversaries will never be satisfied and just demand more."

Writes Byron York at The Washington Examiner.

"The House Intelligence Committee has released its controversial memo outlining alleged abuses of secret surveillance by the FBI and Justice Department in the Trump-Russia investigation."

Says Byron York (Washington Examiner), summarizing it, without quoting any text or linking to any text.

ADDED: York asserts that the memo (which I haven't seen) says:

* The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the initial and all three renewal FISA applications against Carter Page.

* Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.

* The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials, but excluded from the FISA applications.

* DOJ official Bruce Ohr met with Steele beginning in the summer of 2016 and relayed to DOJ information about Steele's bias. Steele told Ohr that he, Steele, was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected president and was passionate about him not becoming president.

AND: Now, you can read it for yourself: Here.

ALSO: I'm reading the memo, which is, basically, a list of 5 omissions from what was submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). According to the memo, the court, in order to protect "the rights of Americans" needs to see "information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application" where the government knows this information, as it did for all 5 of these things:

1. The initial application (and the renewal applications) did not disclose the role of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign in paying $160,000 to Christopher Steel to compile "the dossier." Nor did it show that Steele was working for Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson, who was paid by the law firm that represented the DNC, or that "Steele was ultimately working on behalf of — and paid by — the DNC and Clinton campaign."

2. The application made a Yahoo News article (by Michael Isikoff) look like it corroborated the Steele dossier, when it just had material that came from Steele. The application "incorrectly" asserts that the Yahoo News material didn't come from Steele. Steele was later terminated as an FBI source for leaking to Mother Jones in October, but he should have been terminated for these leaks to Yahoo News back in September, which was before the first application to the FISC.

3. Before Steele was terminated as an FBI source, Steele told then-Associate Deputy General Bruce Ohr (who worked closely with Yates and Rosenstein) that he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president." That's presumably a quote from Ohr, not Steele, given the "was" (as opposed to an "am"). At the time, Ohr's wife worked for Fusion GPS, doing oppo research on Trump, and this info was presented to the FISC without specifying its origin.

4. This point doesn't specify an additional omission. It talks about internal opinion at the FBI about the inadequacy of the Steele dossier.

5. The application refers to Papadopoulos, and the Papadopoulos investigation was opened in July 2016 by Pete Strzok, who had to be reassigned because of his "demonstrated clear bias against Trump."

MORE: Here's the response from the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. It calls the majority's memo "a shameful effort to discredit" the Department of Justice and the FBI and "a transparent effort to suppress the full truth," so what I'm looking for as I read this is something terribly important that's missing from the majority's memo.

"We knew the FBI was involved in Trump dossier during campaign. Now we learn knowledge of dossier reached into highest levels of Obama Justice Department."

"The Ohr revelation comes not long after word that top FBI agent Peter Strzok was removed from the Mueller investigation for anti-Trump text messages he exchanged with a top FBI lawyer who had also worked for the Mueller probe. Now, with news of Ohr’s contacts with Steele and Simpson, Republicans on Capitol Hill — and perhaps some Democrats, too — will wonder just how far the Obama Justice Department officials went in the effort to stop Trump."

Instapundit, quoting Byron York.

It's especially disturbing to read about this right after the reading about the Wisconsin DOJ report on John Doe investigation. Both stories are about Democratic partisans using the machinery of government to go after their Republican rivals.

"What campaign wouldn't seek motherlode of Clinton emails?"

Asks Byron York.

"The feeling was that they [the emails] must exist somewhere," [a former Trump aide said], "because once something is digital, it's never truly gone."... "There was never a thought of who might have them," the aide said. "Nobody at the campaign was trying to find them."...

Would it have been appropriate for the Trump campaign to try to find the emails?... What if an intelligence operative from a friendly country got them and offered them? And what about an unfriendly country? Would there be a scale, from standard oppo research on one end to treason on the other, depending on how the emails were acquired?

York asked "three veteran Republican operatives." You should go read all that. I'll just quote what was said by Barry Bennett ("who ran Ben Carson's 2016 campaign and also served briefly as an adviser to the Trump effort)":

"If someone I didn't know reached out and said, 'I have them,' I would have immediately called the [Trump campaign] committee and said this person says he has them... I wouldn't want to touch them. But I would very much want them out there in the public. It is still hard for me to believe that copies of them aren't out there somewhere... Even during the Carson campaign I didn't meet with anyone I didn't know... How do you know you're not being set up? I had people come to me and say they had dirt on [Ted] Cruz. I passed. Information can only be as trusted as the source that gives it to you. You can get easily burned with bad info or even looking like you want dirt. This is why everyone outsources research. No one in their right mind would want to touch documents under subpoena. No lawyer would ever let you. All of this being said, of course you want them to go public.... If the Russians had them, the last thing they would do is call a goofy record promoter in England and set up a meeting with a lawyer that can't even get a visa. Instead, DHL them from Asia to the New York Times."

ADDED: I'm rereading Bennett's last sentence. Bennett seems to be saying Don Jr. was a fool: 1. For getting personally involved in acquiring the material, and 2. If he thought the Russian government would hand over material in this manner. #2 also supports the inference that the Russian government wasn't behind the Don Jr. meeting. It wouldn't operate like that. But that also could mean that Don Jr. didn't think he was dealing with the Russian government and that he simply didn't think too much about what he was doing. He was a neophyte.

By the way, Hillary Clinton tried to pass off her destruction of the email as some sort of rookie mistake. I don't think anyone believed that. But, as York says (at the link), Donald Trump was effective just talking about how bad she was — having an insecure system, destroying the email while it was under congressional subpoena, and lying about it.

"Have you noticed something different about the Trump campaign?"

"It's been more than two weeks since the last really outrageous thing the Republican front-runner has said or done," writes Byron York.

It's not an accident. When it comes to outrageousness, Donald Trump has dialed it back, on purpose. And indications from Trump world are that the new pattern will continue....

Why the change? Ask people knowledgeable about the campaign, and they'll say the addition of new staff has had a quick effect. Pushed by his children, Trump has expanded his super-tight circle of advisers with the addition of Paul Manafort, and now others, too. The sense is that Trump actually can listen, both to advice on what to say and not to say. The message has evolved; he is a better candidate than than [sic] the man who messed up right and left just a few weeks ago. And with his latest crusade against "voterless victory," Trump is scoring points again, not so much against Ted Cruz directly but against the Republican establishment — always Trump's most comfortable target. For Trump, Cruz's vulnerability is not that he is part of the establishment but that he has gotten in bed with the establishment as the only way to win. So the belief is that Trump's fight against the Republican National Committee and insider campaign rules pays off everywhere — especially if Trump is not making critical unforced errors at the same time....