Our Best Stuff From a Week We Didn’t Get Stuck in a Bill Murray Movie

Liz Cheney keeps her leadership position, Mitt Romney introduces the Family Security act, and more.

By
56

Admit it: You woke up a little nervous on Wednesday, didn’t you? You were worried that your clock radio would be playing the same tune as Tuesday and the DJs would, with a little too much enthusiasm, announce that it was Groundhog Day, right?  

Good news: We made it. Punxatawney Phil saw his shadow, but consigned us merely to six more weeks of winter. I think we can agree that there were far worse things he could have given us six more weeks of: Donald Trump’s Twitter account or Andrew Cuomo’s book tour, for example. (I would not have complained about six more episodes of Lupin, though.)

As far as the news cycle goes, we haven’t quite turned the corner on Donald Trump and his administration, but we’re approaching the intersection. His impeachment trial looms next week. Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, released a “documentary” called Absolute Proof that purports to lay out how Trump actually won the 2020 election. But it mostly made news for the disclaimer that OAN is running before airings in an attempt to avoid being sued by Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, saying that Lindell purchased the airtime and that the film contains “opinions only.” 

Meanwhile, the House GOP is moving on after some Trump-tangential infighting. Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan led an effort to have Liz Cheney—who as conference chair is the House’s No. 3 Republican—removed from GOP leadership for her vote to impeach Trump. And Donald Trump made calls to House members, urging them to oust her. But as we reported in TheMorning Dispatch, Cheney offered a vociferous defense on her own behalf in a GOP Conference meeting that lasted four hours. Gaetz had said before the meeting that he was worried “the establishment is going to find a way to kick the question, avoid a vote.” In fact, Cheney called for the vote herself. And she won, 145-61. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
56
By
Comments (56)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Ragnar

    Thank you for Chris Stirewalt! He's incredibly entertaining, smart, and a wonderful addition to the team!

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Jen

    Pat Toomey on CNN this morning referring to the Q conspiracy wing of the GOP as “madness”. He’s singing from the same hymnal as Ben Sasse who in his video to the Nebraska GOP said the party has to make a choice between conservatism and madness. Sadly Toomey is retiring and most likely will be replaced by a Democrat or a Trump-y Republican. Boo.

    Liz Cheney not backing down on Fox News Sunday. Says she’s not resigning, the Wyoming GOP is wrong and the GOP is not the party of Trump. God bless Liz Cheney. I wish she was running things in the House and not Kevin McCarthy.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Matmos

    I want to encourage everyone to check out the Remnant this week. The analysis of conspiracy theories and their relationship to politics explains an enormous amount about the past 5 years, both Democratic and Republican behavior, that had been a mystery to me. Lots of counterintuitive insights. Also: yesssss on Stirewalt! Great news!

    Collapse
  4. Brian Walker

    Without getting into specific numbers, I would like to comment on some outcomes of Romney's Family Security act. I agree with the goal of trying to address children being raised in poverty. I do not agree with the approach of subsidizing almost all couples who have children. I'm in the generation(s) beyond child-rearing and beyond funding post-secondary education. We raised our children at our own expense. There were NO subsidies from public money. We paid for the post-secondary education of our children as well. There's now a push to excuse a massive amount of student loan debt, but it's too late for us. The loan forgiveness will mean less revenue coming into the government, which will mean tax increases. Romney's plan would mean big payouts to almost all couples who have children. This would be funded, in part, by eliminating the SALT deduction. I believe most of the people in my generation own their own home and pay property tax, as we do. We also pay state income tax. The SALT deduction was capped a few years ago, which was bad for us. If it's eliminated completely, it will be even worse for us. How the #^@& is it fair to ask us, who paid our own way for decades, to now ALSO pay the way for younger generations? Meanwhile, the dismal fiscal condition of the federal government may well mean that Social Security benefits (which we funded for decades, but are not yet receiving) will be curtailed. Because we paid our own way for decades, we do not have a huge nest egg for retirement. If Social Security benefits are reduced we will take it in the @$$ AGAIN. I realize there may be societal benefits to encouraging families, but how much are these policies actually going to change society while we are still alive to enjoy those benefits? Further, I question the notion that a decreasing national birthrate is due to the expenses of child-rearing (https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us). I think it's much more related to a general societal increase in self-absorption.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      cheerio

      I think I am in the same age group as you are. I don't want my SS to be screwed up either--it's bad enough I have to wait 2 more years than my parents did. It's one thing if you work a desk job but my husband and I have physical jobs that are hard on the spine and joints. My husband has already had one hip replaced and he isn't 54 yet. He has a bad knee and shoulder as well. He at least has union benefits (will get a pension).

      I don't know that this children's allowance will encourage larger families but it may decrease the stress on them, result in less child hunger. My husband and I well remember when the EIC started, we made $30 too much to qualify for it. We had only one child because we could not afford daycare for any more. My sister had 3, stayed at home because she could not afford daycare and her husband patched together 2-3 jobs and she received welfare-- AFDC?, rent help... HEAP and Food Stamps. We felt a little resentful because I could not afford to stay home with my son, we worked hard, followed the rules and yet, could not get the credit, yet they did. So I understand where you are coming from. In retrospect, I am glad she did get help when she needed it. She eventually got her s&9t together and has a good job, owns a home, 2 out of 3 kids are college graduates, 2 out of 3 are married, 2 out of 3 have children of their own now -- but 2 out of 3 are still living with her (the ones with children). I hope this allowance can be what helps them afford to have their own households. The problem they have is the housing costs are so high where they live and their pay has not increased at the same rate. I think eventually they will end up moving out of the area which would be a heartbreak for my sister and her husband who love watching their grandchildren grow up and spending time with them. I wish you and your husband well.

      Collapse
      1. Brian Walker

        I'm on board with a new government program that consolidates (and eliminates) several existing government programs and provides help for those who actually need it. However, a family that earns twice as much income as mine does not need (or deserve) financial assistance at our expense just because they have children. We wish you and yours well too!

        Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Jen

    More Adam Kinzinger media attention. He says he regrets voting for Trump and is glad Biden won. Which makes me wonder if he had to do it over would he have voted for Biden? I’m not sure how I feel about him saying this. I obviously didn’t want four more years of Trump but at the same time I can’t say I’m glad Biden is president because there’s next to nothing I agree with him on. This is one reason I chose not to vote.

    https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/02/06/adam-kinzinger-is-making-a-lone-stand-against-donald-trump?frsc=dg%7Ce

    I think the path Kinzinger is taking is interesting compared to someone like Ben Sasse. Kinzinger has been all over the media these past few months whereas Sasse has largely avoided it. Sasse says he didn’t vote for Trump (wrote in Mike Pence) but he never said he was glad Biden won. I could see Kinzinger go the way of Jeff Flake (who endorsed Biden). I hope all this media attention doesn’t turn him into a mushy moderate but it wouldn’t surprise me. One you start getting all this positive media attention you start behaving in ways to get more of it.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Matmos

      The problem with Kinzinger is it seems like it’s all for media attention. I’m not so worried about mushy moderate as about gasbag making controversy for controversy’s sake without it actually improving anything.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Jen

        I hope that’s not the case but once you start getting all this positive media attention it can go to your head. Like I said I wouldn’t be surprised if Kinzinger becomes the Jeff Flake of the GOP.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      We need boring, mushy moderates in congress, IMO. I'd like to see more people swinging back and forth across partisan lines.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Perhaps Mr. Lindell's "documentary" should have been called "Absolut 200 Proof" and sponsored by the eponymous Swedish vodka company. Can I get an "I'll drink to that" from this crowd?

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    James Sophocleus

    Here in MN. 6 more weeks of winter would be a blessing. Spring in mid March? Wow! 6 more weeks probably means May. Booooooo. Love the movie reference. One of my faves.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    James Sophocleus

    Here in MN. 6 more weeks of winter would be a blessing. Spring in mid March? Wow! 6 more weeks probably means May. Booooooo. Love the movie reference. One of my faves.

    Collapse
  9. The original Optimum.net

    A little off topic but there was some discussion last week about Jen Psaki, with one commenter particularly annoyed at her. As a former congressional press secretary I defended her in general and compared to the previous administration's clown show, specifically. Here is a piece by Lloyd Grove today that I think is a fair assessment of her:

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-press-secretary-jen-psaki-prepares-for-end-of-media-honeymoon-says-im-not-gonna-be-a-pushover?ref=home

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Re this:

    ---begin quote---
    Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, released a “documentary” called Absolute Proof that purports to lay out how Trump actually won the 2020 election. But it mostly made news for the disclaimer that OAN is running before airings in an attempt to avoid being sued by Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, saying that Lindell purchased the airtime and that the film contains “opinions only.”
    ---end quote---

    Ms. Larimore's link is to a tweet from someone named Jeremy Newberger, which both attached a screenshot of the disclaimer and provided a satirical commentary about the disclaimer. Mr. Newberger's take is pretty funny, and worth the click on the link, even though it's on Twitter. (Twitter delenda est.)

    Here, for purposes of contrast, is my own take — not as a satirist, but as someone who's practiced defamation trial and appellate law from time to time throughout the last four decades:

    OAN's lawyers are not idiots. The disclaimer is well-drafted. It does as good a job as can be done in an attempt to disassociate OAN — in the prospective eyes of some future trial judge, ruling on a motion to dismiss a prospective defamation claim by U.S. Dominion, Inc., Smartmatic USA Corp., GA secstate Brad Raffensperger, and/or and his office's COO, Gabriel Sterling — based on the contents of My Pillow Guy's "documentary."

    But this "disclaimer" is one of those guns that kicks as hard as it shoots. I would certainly enjoy cross-examining OAN's top-decision-maker with questions like these:

    OAN depends on advertiser revenues to stay afloat as a for-profit business, correct?

    OAN accepts not only paid advertisements, but on occasion, payment for the use of its media platforms by those purchasing large blocks of time.

    The program which Mr. Lindell [or his company, if that's who wrote the check] paid OAN to broadcast was an example of that: You didn't create the content, but you republished the content Mr. Lindell.

    He asked you to republish it as a quote-unquote "documentary," didn't he? Not a "paid political advertisement," was it? And OAN happily took his money, on the condition that he agree to this disclaimer marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit A-1, correct?

    Let's now discuss every other instance in which OAN has conditioned its agreement to rebroadcast someone else's content on that someone's agreement to OAN prefacing it with a disclaimer of any sort. [Probably there are none; if by chance there are others, however, they're likely similarly outrageous content examples. The cross-examining lawyer is happy either way, with this either being an extraordinary one-off, or it being just another example of whoring out OAN's bandwidth.]

    The disclaimer marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit A-1 says, quote, "[t]he views, opinions and claims[*] expressed in this program by Mr. Lindell and other guests, producers, presenters or advertisers[*] are theirs, and theirs alone and[**] are not adopted or endorsed by OAN or its owners," unquote. Correct?

    It goes on to say, quote, "the statements and claims expressed in this program are presented at this time as opinions only and[**] are not to be taken or interpreted by the viewer as established facts," unquote. Correct?

    If they are not to be taken or interpreted as established facts at this time, then at what time are they to be taken as established facts? [Witness will probably hem and haw, and when pressed will eventually agree with "maybe never."]

    But by the time OAN decided to republish Mr. Lindell's content, OAN had already done its own independent reporting on these topics, correct? Indeed, OAN admits that right at the start of Exhibit A-1, correct?

    Does the disclaimer marked as Exhibit A-1 ever inform the viewer of the results of OAN's independent reporting on these topics? Does the disclaimer ever inform the viewer that indeed, at least some of OAN's independent reporting on matters of objective, verifiable fact has been contrary to the claims asserted in the content Mr. Lindell paid OAN to republish?

    Who at OAN was the person who made the ultimate decision whether to disclose, or keep from the viewer, the fact that OAN's own independent reporting on at least some of these matters of objective, verifiable fact were contrary to the claims asserted in Mr. Lindell's content? [Hopefully here the witness will tar the owners — but again, the cross-examining lawyer can make lemonade from any possible answer, including "nobody" or "I did."]

    If I say to you, "The sun rose this morning in the west," and then I say, "Of course, that's just my opinion," would you understand that to be a statement of opinion, or a statement of objective, verifiable fact?

    Could it be an opinion today, but an objective, verifiable fact at some other time? [Objection, sustained as argumentative; cross-examiner cares not.]

    In fact, Mr. Witness, putting a written disclaimer in fine print on the front of this content didn't change — and couldn't possibly have changed — a claim which is on its face one of objective, verifiable fact into a statement of opinion, could it? [Again, cross-examiner is happy either with an argument, which makes the witness look combative and untrustworthy, or with an admission. This same argument will be made to the judge in the briefing on OAN's motion to dismiss the defamation claims, and he's not bound by the witness' answer.]

    I could — and would, if being paid by the hour — go on and on in this vein.

    But the bottom line is that the disclaimer is evidence of OAN's decisionmaker(s)' contemporaneous awareness that the garbage they'd decided to republish as a quid-pro-quo for Lindell's filthy lucre — err, advertising revenues, sorry Your Honor — was full of factual assertions of objective, verifiable fact, that OAN as a corporate entity already "knew" to be false when they put them out on the airwaves for a vastly broader audience than My Pillow Guy could ever have attracted on his own, or on the purported merits of his quote-unquote documentary.

    And there, Your Honor [and in due course, "Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury"], is your decisive circumstantial evidence that indeed, OAN republished these defamatory claims of objective, verifiable fact with actual knowledge of their falsity. The disclaimer doesn't disclaim, but rather proves OAN's guilty mind.***

    -----------
    Footnotes:

    [*] Never trust a lawyer who eschews the Oxford comma.
    [**] Beware lawyers who write run-on sentences without any commas to properly separate independent clauses — especially if they have already eschewed the Oxford comma.
    [***] Unlike your humble correspondent in this comment, OAN's lawyers had the opportunity to review carefully, and correct if necessary, their disclaimer. #editbutton

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

      The TL/DR version of this is:

      Documentary = pig
      Disclaimer = lipstick

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      JohnF

      Nicely done!
      I'm looking forward to seeing all this play out. However, I read something yesterday that suggested it could take 3-5 years to work through the system. Does that sound right?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

        Absent a consensual settlement, which can happen any time, every winning path for the plaintiffs would indeed take years.

        There are winning paths for OAN — if the trial judge decides the disclaimer can turn a re-published statement of fact into a statement of opinion just by magical assertion, for instance — which could take only weeks, at least at the trial court level.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          JohnF

          If nothing else, I'm hopeful that this will serve as a reminder that people can't just make stuff up and go on the air to say all kinds of defamatory things. I expect that FOX (and Newsmax and OAN, if they get sued) will settle out of Court, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Dominion and Smartmatic to refuse to settle with Powell and Giuliani so that they have to face up to their words in a public forum.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

            The very presence of the disclaimer, almost certainly as a condition precedent to OAN's agreement to air the program, is already the direct result of OAN's justifiable concerns for its defamation liability.

            If this were unpaid public affairs programming, ironically, or a presentation made by OAN's own reporting staff, then OAN might have a better chance to cloak itself in the flag, the First Amendment, and NYT v. Sullivan's actual malice/reckless disregard caselaw.

            That it's a paid presentation instead — and in particular that it presents objective claims of verifiable fact that OAN has already independently investigated and found to be untrue — makes those defenses comparatively hollow.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

          In most jurisdictions, however, there is pretty good law to the effect that waving ones arms about and shouting, "This is only an opinion!" does not change the character, or legal effect, of a statement of objective, verifiable fact. The more specific the facts, the less likely that the magic pixie dust will stick.

          "I think John is dishonest, but that's just my opinion." <-- Not defamatory.

          "Right after I heard John's employer warn John that he had no authority to touch the petty cash drawer, I watched John, with my own two eyes, wait until the employer left, and then I watched him reach into his employer's cash drawer, pull out a $20 bill, walk next door with it in his hand, and use it to buy an ice-cream cone for his kid. John is dishonest! But that's just my opinion." <-- Defamatory in most jurisdictions.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            JohnF

            Ice Cream prices have risen a lot since I was a kid. 🙂

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

            "Defamatory IF FALSE," I ought to have written.

            Collapse
Load More