ReportWire

Tag: inside the hive

  • America Has a Problem With Political Violence—and It’s a Growing One

    America Has a Problem With Political Violence—and It’s a Growing One

    The recent rise of political violence in the United States is sobering but not surprising to the researchers who study this subject. “We know the factors that put countries at risk of political violence,” says Barbara F. Walter, an expert on violent extremism. “We also know the factors that put countries at risk of election violence, and the United States has all of them.”

    Walter, a professor at the University of California, San Diego and the author of How Civil Wars Start, among several other books, told me on this week’s episode of Inside the Hive that she is worried about the coming election period—but doesn’t think the threats will abate afterward. “We’re in for a rocky few months,” Walter says. “We’re actually, I think, in for a rocky 10 years.”

    That’s because the underlying risk factors are so apparent. “The countries that tend to experience violence around elections are countries that have winner-take-all elections, which the United States has; they have voters and a population who have become deeply divided,

    especially by race, religion, and/or ethnicity; they have weak institutions, or they have a democracy that’s not as strong as it could be and where some of the electorate questions the validity of elections; and they have a candidate that has lost in the past,” Walter explains. “These are the conditions that social scientists have figured out by looking across countries and over time.” And those conditions all exist in the US today.

    Donald Trump, she adds, is “setting up his supporters to believe that if he loses again, it was stolen again. So again, this is the perfect recipe for violence. We will have violence surrounding this election. And really, the key point is, will we be prepared for it?” Thinking ahead and preparing for the possibilities, she says, is “much better than keeping our heads in the sand and pretending that everything’s fine.”

    Regarding the recent threats to Trump’s life, Walter says that “the two big drivers of the rise of assassination attempts are guns, and especially the easy access to assault weapons,” and the internet as a source of radicalization. People are “doomscrolling the internet and they’re on these chat rooms and they’re getting radicalized,” she says. “They’re starting to believe the conspiracy theories that they’re hearing. And many of these people are not mentally stable to begin with.”

    On the topic of civil war, Walter observes that “there is a cancer growing here in the United States” because a subset of the population doesn’t think democracy serves them anymore. She says the two best predictors of civil war are “whether a country is a partial democracy,” as opposed to a vibrant democracy or a repressive autocracy, and “whether its citizens are divided, deeply divided by race, religion, or ethnicity.”

    When you have a democracy that’s in decline, that’s when you start to get into trouble, says Walter. She asserts that political science data indicates America has, in recent years, dropped into this “middle zone.” “Most violence happens in the middle zone.” The key point is preparedness: “We need to pay attention. We need to take precautions against it. We need to be prepared.”

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • Chris Hayes: Joe Biden’s Reelection Pitch Is a “Tough Ask”

    Chris Hayes: Joe Biden’s Reelection Pitch Is a “Tough Ask”

    The two leading candidates for president are aging right in front of our eyes. And that’s causing some very candid conversations all across the media world in the wake of last week’s pivotal presidential debate.

    During this week’s episode of Inside the Hive, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes noted that at the end of the day, we are all just “flesh sacks,” an immutable fact of life that “hovers around so much of this” debate within the Democratic Party over whether Joe Biden, following a disastrous performance, is the best option to take on Donald Trump. Biden is “degraded” Hayes remarked, while adding that Trump “has very clearly declined.”

    “The nature of age is that it’s not static,” Hayes observed. It’s “dynamic and it changes from day to day.” Hayes, 45, said he feels like this reality has been overlooked in some of the recent talk about Biden.

    In his view, Biden has been a remarkable president, with significant legislative achievements. “Biden’s one-term domestic policy record is arguably the best of my life,” he said. “So you can say he’s been doing a great job. It’s like, Right, but do I think that this man should have the world’s most stressful job when he’s 85 years old? And that’s what you’re asking voters to do.”

    He added, “That’s a tough ask.”

    Hayes said the ongoing debate about elderly politicians should take into account that “the spectrum of possibility for aging is so wide.”

    “People can have a stroke at 61 and never recover,” he said, and “people can turn 60 and run marathons until they’re 75 and live to be 100. No one knows what’s gonna happen. I feel like that perspective has been missing from all this.”

    “I know people who were elderly and one week they were going to a Broadway show and two weeks later I was going to their funeral,” he added. “Everyone keeps talking about age as static in a way that’s driving me insane, both the Biden people and the other people. That’s not the way it works. Literally.”

    Hayes made the case that the media scrutiny about Biden’s fitness to serve has been “exacerbated by choices the Biden people have made,” specifically to limit Biden’s interviews and news conferences.

    The relationship between the White House and the press corps has been “mutually hostile, in some ways more than average,” Hayes observed. So “part of what you’re seeing is a lot of rage pent up from journalists who have felt like they’ve been frozen out.”

    Of course, the post-debate scrutiny of Biden—Hayes called it a “rebellion” within the Democratic Party—“is going to drive polling numbers as much as the original debate. Whether that’s good or bad, like, I don’t know.”

    But it’s definitely different than the dynamic within the Republican Party.

    “This is such an amazing moment when you compare the aftermath of Trump’s conviction to the aftermath of the debate,” Hayes said. “The aftermath of the debate has been maybe a hundred times as big a story… and the reason that it’s been a much bigger story is that the center-right media never batted an eye” at Trump’s recent conviction. “They were like, It’s awesome that he was convicted. It’s great. We love it. Everyone should be convicted convicts.”

    “The entire Republican Party just unified,” Hayes said. “So there was no real story. It was just like, What are you going to do? That has not been the case with Biden’s debate performance. And so because of that—because the center-left media broadly construed from the sort of mainstream media over—is much more disputatious, I think more reality-based, there’s discourse and debate—you’re getting this huge story. But also I think that’s ultimately, in the long run, a good thing.”

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • Mary Trump Expects a Post-Conviction “Revenge Tour”

    Mary Trump Expects a Post-Conviction “Revenge Tour”

    In a special episode of Inside the Hive, host Brian Stelter discusses the Donald Trump guilty verdict with Mary Trump, a writer, psychologist, and niece of the former president and now convicted felon. “This isn’t a victory for Democrats. It’s a victory for the rule of law in America,” said Mary Trump, who stressed that “the attacks on the rule of law have to be taken very, very seriously.”

    “And that has been, perhaps, the most devastating part of this process in New York City,” she continued. “On the one hand, and incontrovertibly, this trial was run almost impeccably by a very professional judge who was very even-handed. Clearly the jury took it seriously. All of the court officers, the security—everybody just acted like total pros, except, of course, for the defendant.” Not to mention, she said, Donald Trump had a highly paid defense team and “there was due process at every step of the way.”

    “But then you have members of Congress not coming to New York to support him, but coming to New York to undermine the American people’s faith in the rule of law, just as they’ve been undermining the American people’s faith in the concept of free and fair elections,” she said, adding, “This is the beginning of what will be yet another very dark, very stressful, very trying period in American history.”

    Mary Trump also described how her uncle has long suppressed feelings of humiliation, or “feeling like a loser,” and why she expects him to lash out even more post-conviction. “I think that’s one of the scary things about this verdict,” she said. “He doesn’t play by the rules, he never feels like the rules apply to him, but now it’s like, what does he have to lose? He’s already been convicted, and he will be on a revenge tour.”

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • The Democratic War Room Against RFK Jr.

    The Democratic War Room Against RFK Jr.

    Nobody likes a spoiler. For that reason, Lis Smith, a well-known Democratic operative, is on a mission to make sure nobody likes Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    Smith is leading the party’s efforts to reduce Kennedy’s support and thus his potential spoiler power in this year’s presidential election. She shared insights from the Democratic “war room” on this week’s episode of Inside the Hive. “One thing that we’ve seen is that while [RFK] attracts 10 to 15% in the polls right now, a lot of voters who say they are supporting him or open to voting for him don’t know much about him beyond his last name,” Smith says. Furthermore, “the more people hear or see RFK Jr.,” she says, “the more they learn about him, the less they like him.”

    That’s what Democrats (and some Republicans) are banking on. “It’s incumbent upon us to fill in the blanks for voters,” Smith says. “To let them know that he’s a spoiler for Donald Trump. To let them know that a vote for RFK is a wasted vote. And to really lay out the stakes of this election.” Smith came prepared for the podcast with anti-RFK talking points that doubled as anti-Trump points: “He was recruited by Trump allies, he’s being funded by Trump’s biggest donor, and his staff has identified stopping Biden as their top goal.”

    Smith says she is not opposed to third-party candidates in theory—“I don’t think more choice is a bad thing”—but “ultimately, there are only two people in this election with a realistic path to victory, and those two people are Joe Biden and Donald Trump.” That’s why the Democratic Party has established a formal effort to warn voters about third-party contenders. “This is the first time in history that a war room like this has existed,” Smith says. “And it came into existence because Democrats finally learned the lessons of the 2000 election and the 2016 election: when third-party candidates played the role of spoiler and threw the election to Republicans with disastrous results.”

    Democrats certainly haven’t forgotten how candidates like Green Party nominee Jill Stein drew votes away from Hillary Clinton in 2016. “We’re making sure that third-party candidates receive a similar amount of scrutiny that the major party traditional candidates receive,” Smith says. In practice, this means “we basically live and breathe everything RFK Jr. right now,” she says. “We listen to or watch all of his interviews, all of his events, and we just go out and make sure that voters are fully informed about him.”

    This opposition-research effort is being emulated, to some degree, by Republicans. “They, like us, understand that RFK Jr. could be a wild card in this election,” Smith says. But pro-Trump forces are “of two minds” about Kennedy’s candidacy, Smith says. One day Fox’s Sean Hannity is bashing him on the air; the next day Hannity’s prime-time colleague Jesse Watters is interviewing him. “Biden, Trump Go on Offense Against RFK,” a banner on Watters’s show proclaimed during the interview.

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • Meet CNN’s Legal Eagle With a Bird’s-Eye View of the Trump Trial

    Meet CNN’s Legal Eagle With a Bird’s-Eye View of the Trump Trial

    When former president Donald Trump struck a two-debate deal with President Joe Biden on Wednesday, the Drudge Report posed a provocative question: “WILL HE BE IN PRISON” by the time the first debate takes place on June 27?

    Trump’s hush money cover-up trial will surely be over by then, but, according to CNN’s chief legal correspondent, talk of jail time drastically overstates the stakes. It’s “highly unlikely he’s gonna go to prison. This is a first-time offender,” Paula Reid explained on the latest episode of the Vanity Fair podcast Inside the Hive. “Yes, this is a felony charge, but it’s falsifying business records. It’s highly unlikely that he would be sentenced to any prison time, and even if he was, that is going to be litigated and appealed for quite some time. So anyone saying that, that’s just hyperbole.”

    Reid calls herself a “recovering lawyer” and specializes in legal-world reality checks, so here’s another one: A Trump conviction is anything but a certainty. “This case very much rests on the testimony of Michael Cohen, a flawed witness, to put it mildly,” she said. “And it’s just not clear what the jury is going to make of him.”

    “If jurors, even one juror, [have] reasonable doubt about Michael Cohen,” Reid added, “this should not be a conviction, and I think it is possible that you could get a hung jury here.”

    Reid is based in Washington but has relocated to New York for the duration of the trial. She has been a near-24/7 presence on CNN when court has been in session. It “takes a village,” she said, describing the challenges of covering a trial without the benefit of cameras in the courtroom. CNN’s newsroom ingests a “stream of text messages” from reporters who are in court and summarizing the testimony, she explained. Then it’s up to Reid and her on-air colleagues to put it in context.

    That’s where her legal background helps. Reid passed the bar exam twice and worked in a prosecutor’s office in Chester County, Pennsylvania, before pivoting into journalism. Legal fluency helps when “talking to lawyers, talking to sources, asking good questions,” she said.

    Reid has been covering Trump legal controversies for the better part of a decade, so she is intimately familiar with the “infighting” and power struggles among past Trump lawyers. “I think the hardest thing with the Trump legal team is there is so much turnover,” Reid explained, but Trump’s current team for the New York hush money trial “is probably the most solid one” he has had overall.

    Reid is noticeably well sourced in Trump’s legal orbit. She said his defense lawyers, Todd Blanche and Susan Necheles, are confident about their chances, in part because “it’s a weird case,” with a felony charge for falsifying business records. “A paperwork case for a man who doesn’t leave a paperwork trail is challenging,” she noted. Therefore, the prosecution’s success rests largely on Cohen, who underwent cross-examination on Thursday.

    The parade of witnesses has progressed largely as expected for the past few weeks. Given the climate of intimidation that Trump is known for, “the biggest surprise, to me, is that we haven’t lost more jurors,” Reid said. “It’s an incredibly stressful thing to be caught in his crosshairs…So I’m surprised. Maybe it just speaks to the toughness of Manhattanites.”

    After watching the jurors remain attentive during “deadly boring” accountant testimony, Reid concluded that they “have accepted the risk” and “understand the gravity of what they have been tasked with.” She added, “I’m pretty sure you could stop any subway car in Manhattan, take the first 18 people—because there’s 12 jurors and then you have the alternates—this would be them. It’s very diverse and just really looks like it represents any dozen or so people on the streets of Manhattan.”

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • Delay, Delay, Delay: Will Trump Ever Be Held Accountable?

    Delay, Delay, Delay: Will Trump Ever Be Held Accountable?

    “When the hell are these Trump cases going to happen?” That’s the question we’re all asking as we wait and wait for a real, live Donald Trump courtroom trial. 

    On this week’s Inside the Hive, host Brian Stelter, Vanity Fair politics correspondent Bess Levin, and staff writer Dan Adler examine the many criminal charges against the former president and presumptive GOP nominee. They also reflect on Trump’s decades-long go-to legal strategy of invoking delay tactics to avoid legal repercussions and what that could mean for the 2024 election and beyond.

    The group discusses the details of the four indictments, including the Manhattan “hush money” case involving Stormy Daniels, the classified-documents case involving Mar-a-Lago, and the two federal election cases involving the DOJ and Fulton County. They also consider whether the tone of a case featuring the contents of a 2005 Access Hollywood tape will come across as an embarrassing, scandalous tabloid story for the former president or a technical, financial case, as a new poll from Politico and Ipsos of American adults, conducted March 8–10, found that 50% of respondents said they believe Trump is guilty of the alleged crimes charged in Manhattan.

    It’s anyone’s guess if and when these trials actually happen, but if Trump is reelected, it’s likely game over for the federal cases. And if Trump goes scot-free, it’s unclear what impact it will have on the justice system.

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • Wayne LaPierre Finally Takes the Fall. Will the NRA Survive Without Him?

    Wayne LaPierre Finally Takes the Fall. Will the NRA Survive Without Him?


    Host Brian Stelter talks with Will Van Sant, a staff writer for The Trace, a nonpartisan newsroom covering guns, about whether the National Rifle Association can recover after the blockbuster NRA corruption trial and the resignation of CEO Wayne LaPierre. 

    The New York attorney general’s civil fraud case against the NRA alleges that the group’s top officials used the nonprofit’s charitable assets to provide for themselves. Since LaPierre’s exit from the organization, according to Van Sant, the NRA has attempted to distance itself from its former leader, characterizing itself as a victim of his siphoning—their argument, in part, that he perverted the organization. (LaPierre has denied the allegations against him.)

    In addition to the damning evidence against LaPierre, Van Sant and Stelter discuss who LaPierre is, as an alleged grifter and stoker of culture wars, and if the NRA and LaPierre’s downfall ultimately even matter at this point when it comes to gun control measures. LaPierre first joined the NRA as a lobbyist and became its longtime leader of more than 30 years, overseeing the organization “as it reached its apex in terms of power and influence,” says Van Sant. And while much of the NRA’s impact on society is too far along for the verdict of this case to cause any meaningful effect, Van Sant does note: “The NRA has been the standard-bearer, right? And when the standard-bearer is exposed for wrongdoing, that is not good for the broader movement.”



    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • To Panic, or Not to Panic: The 2024 Election Question

    To Panic, or Not to Panic: The 2024 Election Question

    It’s 2024, and the Iowa caucuses are just days away. Host Brian Stelter talks with Michael Calderone, editor of Vanity Fair’s the Hive, and Vanity Fair executive editor Claire Howorth about the defining issues of the 2024 election and how to cover them, including what’s to come in the GOP primary, liberal fantasies and panic, and Trump ideology now. 

    To an extent, the media has been preparing for how to cover Donald Trump in 2024 for almost a decade—his rise, his victory in 2016, his loss (despite what he might tell you) in 2020, his 91 criminal charges, and his authoritarian ideology. The team discusses what the news media has learned, the forceful objectivity that has tripped up some news organizations in covering the former president, and the MAGA mediaverse that still exists. 

    Of course, Trump and his allies haven’t been shy about his authoritarian plans if he’s reelected, like calling for retribution against political adversaries and saying he’d be a dictator on “day one.” They discuss voter political fatigue and why down-ballot races this year could be particularly important.

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • How Elon Musk Made Himself the Internet’s Main Character in 2023

    How Elon Musk Made Himself the Internet’s Main Character in 2023

    Host Brian Stelter breaks down Elon Musk’s erratic stewardship of Twitter, now X, with Zoë Schiffer, managing editor of Platformer and author of the forthcoming book Extremely Hardcore. They discuss Musk’s rightward shift, his war against the “woke mind virus,” and stated mission of restoring free speech to the platform. “I think we’ve seen in the year since that his definition of free speech is very different from ours, and it basically means, his speech and speech that he aligns with,” says Schiffer. 

    They also discuss the ramifications of Musk blowing up Twitter’s verification system, and whether it’s responsible to still post on X as misinformation and toxicity flow. “The more that you continue to post on X, the more that you legitimize this platform that in my mind warrants no legitimacy at this point,” says Schiffer. 

    “It was really, really hard for me to give up and it feels like a huge loss, but there have just been so many moments over this past year where Elon Musk has promoted ideas and people who I think are very harmful and very dangerous for this world,” she says, adding that “doing what amounts to unpaid labor for that platform is really continuing to support his mission and his campaign.”

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • The Democratic Strategist Who’s Bullish About Biden

    The Democratic Strategist Who’s Bullish About Biden

    Inside the Hive host Brian Stelter previews the 2024 general election and explores Joe Biden’s chances and challenges with Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg, author of the Hopium Chronicles on Substack. Rosenberg tells Stelter he believes the campaign will be brutal but is optimistic for Democrats in 2024.

    “I think that we underestimate sometimes how unsettled the world is,” he says, “It’s been a bumpy time.” It’ll take a while to tell Americans we’ve gotten to the other side, but according to Rosenberg, that’s what a campaign is for. 

    Rosenberg says that it’s expected, at this point, that some Democratic voters are unengaged and wandering, but he believes Democrats will still succeed next November because the presidential election will be a referendum on Trump. In his view, the general election will start in January because Donald Trump is so far ahead in the primary race and will demand that the other GOP hopefuls get behind him by a specific date. “We’ve seen this movie before,” he says. Trump, Rosenberg notes, is dangerous for Republicans because he’s too powerful for anyone to compete with him in the primary, but his ceiling among the general electorate is much lower.

    Rosenberg acknowledges that Biden’s age is an issue and that if November is a referendum on the president, Democrats will likely lose. But, he emphasizes, Biden’s wisdom is because of his age rather than despite it. “Having the most experienced person in the Oval Office during this time of enormous tumult may have been a blessing.”

    The primary reason Rosenberg is so bullish on Biden in 2024: He has to be. “The Republican Party has become deeply untethered from truth and facts.” The only way for the “dark grip of MAGA” to loosen, according to Rosenberg, is for Democrats to win the next election by an overwhelming margin and for Republicans to believe that MAGA is a losing stance.

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • Monica Lewinsky on Her Plan to Fix the Constitution

    Monica Lewinsky on Her Plan to Fix the Constitution

    When Monica Lewinsky wanted to write about amendments that would upgrade the US Constitution, she turned to Neal Katyal, the celebrated Supreme Court litigator. In her Vanity Fair column, she called Katyal “my pal,” leaving some readers wondering about their seemingly unlikely friendship.

    Turns out that the connection dates back to 1998, when Lewinsky was the most famous intern in the world. Katyal asked her to speak to his Georgetown University constitutional law class, and she improbably said yes.

    Lewinsky and Katyal talked about their history and the proposed amendments on this week’s episode of Inside the Hive. “I was teaching a class actually called Clinton during the Clinton impeachment,” Katyal explained. Lewinsky agreed to visit, provided it would be kept a secret since she was being mobbed by cameras at every turn. “I have never seen a hundred students so riveted,” Katyal said, “because she was so articulate, so human, so legally sophisticated.”

    Katyal later wrote Lewinsky a letter of recommendation when she applied to the London School of Economics. She was especially thankful because, at the time, it “wasn’t kosher to like me,” she quipped.

    On the podcast episode, Lewinsky mentioned a couple of additional proposals she didn’t broach in the column. One was about the presidency: She said she supports allowing a single six-year presidential term rather than two four-year terms. 

    Another amendment was suggested by several Vanity Fair readers who wrote to Lewinsky in support of having “a real, true right to privacy” codified into law. “That’s certainly something that I felt I didn’t have protected 25 years ago,” Lewinsky said, adding, “It should have been easier for me to be able to figure out whether or not my constitutional rights had been violated back then. And it wasn’t so easy to figure out. It wasn’t clear-cut.”

    “You’re calling for these constitutional reforms,” Katyal observed, “but you’re also calling for a kind of change in our culture to bring attention to these issues…. ‘Hey, do we really want a president to be above the law and be able to pardon himself? Hey, do we really want to have a world in which state legislatures can outright, flatly ban abortion, or the national Congress can take it away from every woman in this country?’ I mean, these are really important discussions to have—not just as a legal matter, but as a cultural matter.”

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • Dominion’s Fox News Case Was Just the Beginning

    Dominion’s Fox News Case Was Just the Beginning

    The 2024 presidential contest is well underway, but teams of lawyers are still poring over the 2020 election, and for a very good reason: They are trying to hold Donald Trump’s allies accountable for the damage done by their election lies. Civil lawsuits by companies like Dominion Voting Systems are progressing at the same time that Trump is facing criminal trials in multiple jurisdictions. “We have so much work ahead of us,” Stephen Shackelford says on this week’s episode of Inside the Hive.

    Shackelford was one of the lead attorneys in Dominion’s lawsuit against Fox News, which resulted in the media giant paying $787.5 million in April to settle that case. According to Davida Brook, another one of the lead attorneys, Dominion has “lawsuits pending against Newsmax, One America News, Mike Lindell and MyPillow, Sidney Powell and her law firm, Rudy Giuliani, and Patrick Byrne.” Those cases, she says, are “all proceeding towards trial.”

    Host Brian Stelter interviewed Shackelford and Brook multiple times for his new book, Network of Lies, which hits shelves November 14. (Vanity Fair recently published an excerpt from the book about Tucker Carlson’s abrupt exit.) On Inside the Hive, Stelter shares some of his reporting from the book and asks the attorneys about the pending cases. Shackelford says Dominion was “put through hell” by Trump’s election lies in 2020—“hell that continues to this day.”

    Brook says the ongoing litigation is about “setting the record straight”—which is what Dominion’s PR representatives called their fact-checking emails that Fox received in November 2020. “The truth was in Fox’s inbox,” Shackelford says. And yet Fox stars like Maria Bartiromo and Lou Dobbs hyped conspiracy theories about Dominion instead.

    The lawyers are now preparing for depositions. The suits are moving more slowly than the Fox case “because most of them are in DC, and the DC courts are very busy, still to this day, with a lot of the January 6 cases,” Shackelford says. The courts in Delaware, where Dominion sued Fox, “have traditionally moved at a quicker pace.” Dominion’s case against Newsmax is poised for a September 2024 trial in Delaware—if there is no settlement first. “We’ve got a long road ahead to finish up this work for Dominion,” Shackelford says.

    Another election technology company, Smartmatic, is also suing Fox, Newsmax, and other defendants. “Smartmatic is a global company that was injured on a global scale,” attorney J. Erik Connolly told Stelter for the book. “The damages are much bigger.” Fox, which denies any wrongdoing, has dismissed Smartmatic’s damages claims as “implausible, disconnected from reality, and on its face intended to chill First Amendment freedoms.”

    This article has been updated.

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • Exclusive: Mitt Romney Says Trump Is “Such a Whack Job”

    Exclusive: Mitt Romney Says Trump Is “Such a Whack Job”

    Inside the Hive host Brian Stelter explores Mitt Romney’s path from Republican standard-bearer to party pariah with author McKay Coppins, who interviewed Romney dozens of times for Romney: A Reckoning. Coppins, an Atlantic staff writer, discussed Romney’s decision to unburden himself after the January 6 attack, the senator’s own complicity in the GOP’s Trumpian trajectory (along with his unvarnished thoughts on the former president), and the fragility of American democracy.

    “One of the biggest revelations to me in my conversations with Romney was just how important the threat of political violence was to the psychology of elected Republicans today,” said Coppins, who recalled Romney telling him “story after story about Republican members of Congress, Republican senators, who at various points wanted to vote for impeachment—vote to convict Trump or vote to impeach Trump—and decided not to, not because they thought he was innocent, but because they were afraid for their family’s safety. They were afraid of what Trump supporters might do to them or to their families.” That “raises a really uncomfortable question,” Coppins said, which is “how long can the American project last if elected officials from one of the major parties are making their political decisions based on fear of physical violence from their constituents?”

    Coppins said Romney has been grappling with what complicity he, and others in the party, have with Trump’s political rise. “He was looking back at the moments in his pursuit of the presidency that he sort of flirted with the more extreme elements of his party,” Coppins said. “I think he realizes now that the mistake he made, and the mistake that a lot of the Republican establishment made, was thinking that they could basically harness the energy of the far right without succumbing to it.” Romney, Coppins said, has been reflecting on “all those little compromises he made that didn’t seem like a huge deal at the time,” such as accepting Trump’s endorsement in 2012. “He wishes he didn’t do it,” Coppins said. “And I think that that’s emblematic of a lot of these these small ethical compromises that he and a lot of his party leaders made not realizing the kind of Pandora’s box they were opening.”

    Trump, predictably, lashed out at Romney in response to details surfacing from Coppins’s book, calling the Utah senator “a total loser that only a mother could love” and bragging how he “forced this Left Leaning RINO out of politics.” Coppins said, “I sent that statement to Mitt and hold on, I want to, I’ll just pull up the text. He wrote back, ‘Ha, ha, ha. He’s such a whack job.’ So Mitt kind of enjoyed Trump’s response.” 

    The conversation also turned to why Romney, at 76, decided to speak so extensively, and candidly, to a journalist, along with providing his own journals for the book project. “When I first approached him, it was just a couple months after January 6. I remember our first meeting was in his Senate hideaway, which is this little cramped windowless room that the senators get near the chamber in the Capitol building. And there was still barbed wire fence around the building because the riots had just happened. And I think, honestly, his initial decision to cooperate with this book was just born of, like, extreme frustration and disappointment with the leaders of his party and fear for the country,” said Coppins, adding, “I think he thought of this book as a warning.”

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • How RFK Jr.’s Media Paranoia Shapes His Worldview

    How RFK Jr.’s Media Paranoia Shapes His Worldview

    Joe Hagan recounts his recent visit with the conspiratorial Kennedy scion who could prove a spoiler in the 2024 election.

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • With Rupert Murdoch Stepping Down, Is a Fox Sale Possible?

    With Rupert Murdoch Stepping Down, Is a Fox Sale Possible?

    On a special episode of Inside the Hive, host Brian Stelter talks to Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman about Rupert Murdoch stepping down Thursday as chairman of News Corp. and Fox, the 92-year-old media mogul’s legacy, and the future of his sprawling empire. Theories are flying as to why Murdoch officially passed the reins now to his oldest son, Lachlan, including that it might help the family patriarch avoid testifying in another 2020-election case.

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • The Exquisite Agony of Being Kevin McCarthy

    The Exquisite Agony of Being Kevin McCarthy

    On Inside the Hive, host Brian Stelter talks to Vanity Fair’s Abigail Tracy and veteran political journalist John Harwood about Kevin McCarthy’s failure to control his House GOP caucus as a government shutdown looms. 

    “You talk to pretty much any lawmaker on the Hill, and there’s sort of just an acceptance, reluctant though it might be, but an acceptance that there will be a shutdown,” says Tracy, as a group of “rogue Republicans” keeps “making demands, shifting the goalposts, but nothing is going to placate them.”

    Bomb throwers like Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lauren Boebert are “not serious people,” says Harwood, a Polis Distinguished Fellow at Duke University. “They’re on television, they have podcasts or whatever,” he adds, “but they’re not built to do what politicians have to do to make government work.” 

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • Republicans Are Putting Democracy on Life Support

    Republicans Are Putting Democracy on Life Support

    On Inside the Hive, host Brian Stelter discusses the Republican Party’s antidemocracy trajectory with Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, Harvard professors and coauthors of the new book Tyranny of the Minority. The authors, who warned of backsliding in their acclaimed 2018 book, How Democracies Die, address Donald Trump and his GOP allies’ refusal to accept the 2020 election results, the violence of January 6, and ongoing threats.

    “When you don’t have a peaceful transition of power, an uncontested transition of power, that should really set off alarm bells, because most democracies, fully consolidated democracies, don’t have trouble with that kind of thing,” says Ziblatt. 

    “There must be something,” Ziblatt adds. “This is not just a blip. This is not just a kind of momentary detour. It could happen again in 2024, could happen again. And we need to try to understand why we’re vulnerable. We need to give ourselves a really hard look in the mirror and say, okay, what, what’s going on here? What’s happening in America that leaves us in this position?”

    In addition to issuing warnings, Levitsky and Ziblatt propose changes, from abolishing the Electoral College to placing limits on the tenure of Supreme Court justices, in hopes of keeping the United States on the path toward multiracial democracy.

    “Compared to other countries, we had a pretty progressive democratic constitution in 1789,” Levitsky says. “Other countries, over the course of 200-plus years, have gradually reformed their constitutions to make it more democratic. They expanded suffrage. In some cases, they eliminated or they weakened their senates or upper chambers. They established term limits on judiciaries. They created more, more majoritarian systems. And we did that too, to an extent…but we’ve done it a lot less than other democracies. And over the last half century, we just stopped. We stopped doing the work of making ourselves more democratic.”

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • Mitch McConnell’s Health Scare and the Future of the GOP

    Mitch McConnell’s Health Scare and the Future of the GOP

    Inside the Hive host Brian Stelter talked to Politico senior political columnist Jonathan Martin about Mitch McConnell’s refusal to step down despite a couple on-camera freeze-ups—and how Republican senators (for now, at least) are standing by him. Martin describes McConnell as “one of these rare modern American senators who never had an appetite to run for president,” explaining how “it is extraordinarily difficult for somebody like that to walk away from the pinnacle of their career in public life.”

    Stelter and Martin also discuss the state of America’s political gerontocracy, as well as the 81-year-old minority leader’s relationship with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, his response to Trumpism, and his support for Ukraine. McConnell’s “last big public fight,” Martin says, is “the effort to keep the Republican Party away from the temptation of isolationism and away from kind of what he views as the most virulent strain of Trumpism.” That’s McConnell’s “mission at this point,” he says, and perhaps “his final battle.”

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • The RICO Case That Even Donald Trump’s Closest Cronies Might Flip Over

    The RICO Case That Even Donald Trump’s Closest Cronies Might Flip Over

    Host Brian Stelter breaks down the Georgia racketeering charges against Donald Trump with Anthony Michael Kreis, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law, and Anna Bower, a Georgia native covering legal affairs in Fulton County for Lawfare. They discuss the details of the case brought by District Attorney Fani Willis, along with the likelihood of any of the ex-president’s 18 codefendents flipping, the potential for cameras in the courtroom, and if this trial can even get underway before the 2024 election.

    Brian Stelter

    Source link

  • How Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump’s Toxic, Twisted Bromance Nearly Drove the Country Off a Cliff

    How Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump’s Toxic, Twisted Bromance Nearly Drove the Country Off a Cliff

    Inside the Hive host Brian Stelter talks to Rudy Giuliani biographer Andrew Kirtzman and Vanity Fair executive editor Claire Howorth about the epic fall of “America’s Mayor” and his yearslong, symbiotic relationship with Donald Trump. “There’s something about Rudy that makes Donald Trump swoon,” says Kirtzman.

    A veteran political reporter, Kirtzman considers the Giuliani saga to be “one of the great rise and fall stories of our lifetime.” He recalls Giuliani being an “extraordinary prosecutor” and was alongside him on September 11, remarking that the former New York City mayor acted as a “calm, fatherly general.” 

    “The Giuliani that I watched from two feet away that whole morning was, if anything, more impressive than the Giuliani that people watched across the world on television,” Kirtzman says, adding that “there was a reason he became the most admired man in America for a short time.” But Kirtzman watched Giuliani spiral after his failed 2008 presidential bid, and sink even lower in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

    When asked what happened to Giuliani, Kirtzman says that if “you had to boil it down to one word it would be ‘desperation.’ It would be desperation for power and money kind of on the way up, and then desperation to recapture his relevance, his fame after he lost the 2008 presidential race.” It’s after that letdown that Giuliani “went downhill into the clutches of Donald Trump’s arms, it was the flameout of his race for president.”

    More recently, of course, Giuliani was central to Trump’s first impeachment, over pressuring Ukraine for dirt on the Bidens, and his second, in advising the president as he tried to overturn the 2020 election. Giuliani appears to be co-conspirator 1 in the DOJ’s latest indictment of Trump and may face charges himself in Washington, DC, as well as Georgia. 

    “I think that Giuliani will never admit any kind of fault,” says Kirtzman, adding: “He is never going to admit that he was wrong about anything. And right now, he’s throwing spaghetti against the wall, just like hoping something will stick, hoping he can muddy the waters, but he’s in terrible trouble.”

    Brian Stelter

    Source link