Joe Sure Is Nervous

🚨 Joe Biden has once again REFUSED to take a single question from the media, and announces he’ll be having yet ANOTHER address to the nation tonight

This time, it’ll be from the Oval Office

Biden is DESPERATELY trying to score points here. pic.twitter.com/xyXnMJjpAp

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) July 14, 2024

I double checked the president's schedule, just to be sure I didn't get anything wrong: he addressed the nation from Rehoboth at 8:00 PM Saturday night, then again at 1:30 yesterday afternoon, and he spoke yet again at 8:00 PM last evening. At the afternoon remarks,

"We don't yet have any information about the motive of the shooter, we know who he is," the president said Sunday, without naming the suspect, who was identified by the FBI as 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks. Crooks was killed by a Secret Service sniper after opening fire.

"I urge everyone, everyone please, don't make assumptions about his motives or his affiliations," the president said. "Let the FBI do their job and their partner agencies do their job. I've instructed that this investigation be thorough and swift, and the investigators will have every resource they need to get this done."

The president said the independent security review of Saturday's rally in Butler County, Pennsylvania, will assess "exactly what happened," and the results of that review will be made public.

The problem is, of course, that the suspicion that the shooter somehow intended to support the Biden campaign by taking out Trump is unavoidable. Attorney General Garland's extremely uncertain glance back at Joe at 0:14 as they exit the room is an indication that he's sweating as well -- Joe and Garland are acutely aware that Trump is going to win in November, and Garland's role will be scrutinized then, but meanwhile, nobody trusts either Garland or the FBI to conduct an impartial investigation.

To state the obvious, Garland and Wray must recuse themselves from the investigation into the attempted assassination of President Trump. There should be ZERO — ZERO — DC or FBI HQ involvement. It is patently absurd to think these people could be entrusted with this probe.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) July 14, 2024

Another problem has been reports that the Department of Homeland Security and the Secret Service had consistently turned down requests from the Trump campaign for increased security, repeated after the Butler event by former agent Dan Bongino:

While the Secret Service has emphatically denied reports that Trump’s security detail asked for, and were denied, reinforcements, Bongino says he can prove otherwise. “I can tell you actual quotes,” he said on Sunday.

“I can tell you, and absolutely confirm, from the horse's mouth, from multiple people ... there have been repeated requests to increase the security footprint, around not just the residences of Donald Trump, but the body itself,” the former Secret Service agent said. “And they have been rebuffed.”

Rep Michael Walz, a member of the House Oversight Committee, made the same point and has indicated there will be briefings and hearings on the matter:

Unacceptable. We are determined get to the bottom of WHY former Trump officials denied security in the face of foreign threats. @HouseOversight https://t.co/3a8je2LDvC

— Rep. Mike Waltz (@michaelgwaltz) July 14, 2024

Apparently in response, Joe said this:

First, Mr. Trump, as a former president and nominee of the Republican Party already receives a heightened level of security, and I have been consistent in my direction to the Secret Service to provide him with every resource, capability, and protective measure necessary to ensure his continued safety.

Second, I’ve directed the head of the Secret Service to review all security measures for the — all security measures for the Republican National Convention, which is scheduled to start tomorrow.

But these are just brave words, and there's nothing specific about any increase in Trump's protection going forward. According to a piece by Susan Crabtree at Real Clear Politics,

The Secret Service briefed reporters Sunday afternoon in Milwaukee about the status of security at the convention but declined to discuss any possible lapses before and during Trump’s Saturday rally. The spokeswoman expressed confidence in the agency’s security plan for the Republican convention, which begins today in Milwaukee.

Despite reports that the agency was strengthening some aspects of security after the attempted assassination against Trump, the spokeswoman said there are no changes to the original plan and noted that the agency believes it has the resources it needs to execute it.

Joe's third appearance over the weekend was Sunday evening's seven-minute national address from the Oval Office that said nothing new but was almost a self-parody of gaffes and malapropisms:

“In America, we resolve our differences at the Battle Box,” Biden could be heard saying at one point. “Now, that’s how we do it, at the Battle Box. Not with bullets.”

. . . “Tonight, I’m asking every American to recommit to make America so….make America….well, think about it, what’s made America so special,” Biden continued, appearing to stumble on trying to find a way to say, “make America Great Again” without using those words.

In fact, Joe, at a loss for words, is nevertheless talking up a storm -- three special appearances in front of the cameras in three days. Clearly something has made him deeply worried. Part of it must certainly be that even on the left, it's being acknowledged that the assassination attempt has put the election out of reach for Joe's campaign. According to The Guardian, for instance,

All of this could not come at a worse time for Biden. His campaign, I don’t need to tell you, is in complete disarray. Day after day there has been headline after headline about the president being too frail and feeble for office. . . . Now that contrast has been extraordinarily heightened. Trump is the guy who jumps straight up after being fired at by an assassin; Biden is the guy who stumbles up the stairs. If you’re an undecided voter swayed by which candidate looks more presidential, your mind just got made up.

But that can't be the whole explanation. Biden, as well as Garland at this point, must be lookng at what's going to come out of the investigations, and as Rep Cory Mills put it to Fox News yesterday, "Bottom line is that this is massive negligence to the point of me speculating on what was intentional and what wasn't".

They aren't nervous about the election. They're resigned to that by this point. They're nervous about what's going to come afterward. Just as one example, Garland has been refusing to provide the House Republicans with the tapes of Hur's interview with Joe, presumably on the basis that they would feed speculation about Joe's cognitive state and affect the election. But the election at this point is as good as over, and come January, Garland's Republican successor is going to have those tapes and a whole lot more, whatever Garland refuses to give up now.

They're really, really nervous, not because of the election, but because of what they know will come after it.

Thanks Be To God

One story that's been at the back of my mind since I started this blog is the Jason Bourne series of neo-noir movie thrillers, and as the details about Trump's attempted assassination have trickled out, I keep wondering how I might try to fit them into a Robert Ludlum style plot. Let me say from the start that this is pure speculation driven by an overactive literary imagination.

We have Joe, an elderly, shallow, and self-absorbed president who's been propped up by the organs of state security since his time as vice president -- and as best we can determine, his son, a dissipated drug addict, has been one of his closest advisors since that time as well.

Even while Trump was in office, the organs of state security coordinated an effort to impeach Trump on Joe's behalf; since Joe came into office, the same organs assisted the January 6 "insurrection" investigation and either conducted or assisted a series of criminal indictments and civil actions designed to thwart a Trump effort at reelection.

If I were a Robert Ludlum wannabe, I'd at least insert a strong implication that Joe's dissipated drug addict son was one of the inner circle who advised him to use this strategy -- and because it was a product of the son's mind, it backfired spectacularly, with each successive indictment and civil judgment driving Trump's polls higher in the year before the election.

Joe's inner circle, increasingly worried at this trend, devised a strategy in the spring to stop Trump's advance by taking advantage of European trips to commemorate D-Day and meet with the G7 to look presidential on the world stage. They would then capitalize on this by challenging Trump to a take-it-or-leave-it early debate on their rules with friendly moderators, which would have the effect of popping the Trump balloon and returning Joe to presidential status.

But even before the European trips, Trump's standing in the polls continued to be worrisome, and even before the debate, Joe's bizarre episodes on his European trips began seriously to undermine confidence in his cognitive abilities. The debate, instead of rescuing Joe, made Trump look all the more statesmanlike, and polls began to suggest new states were in play on the electoral map.

This prompted new efforts by Joe's advisors, among whom continued to be his dissipated drug addict son, to restore Joe's presidential prestige, which continued to backfire, leading to efforts by his former mentor, Barack Obama, to replace him on the ticket or as president with an unspecified substitute.

At this point we've reached real Robert Ludlum territory. The Hitchcock MacGuffin of the Bourne series is a CIA black operation called Treadstone, which uses brainwashed deep operatives to conduct strategic assassinations. One of these is Jason Bourne, and the action of the series involves Bourne's gradual recognition of his role in Treadstone and his attempt to recover his identity.

If I were a Robert Ludlum wannabe, I'd develop a plot whereby Joe's inner circle, influenced by his dissipated drug addict son, faced with a coup led by Obama and Pelosi, aims to reverse Joe's dilemma by assassinating Trump. At this point, Joe's strong, experienced, steady-handed leadership comes to the fore, and he calms and unifies a stunned nation, winning reelection by a landslide.

Now, to bring this off, the assassin must be someone at Treadstone level. He definitely has to be a good shot. He should have no paper trail -- he should be completely anonymous. Any possible connection to the organs of state security and Joe's dissipated drug addict son must be not just deniable but unthinkable.

This is where I can't help but have questions. We know far less at this stage about Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, the alleged assassin who shot at Trump but killed one other in Pennsylvania yesterday evening, than we learned at the time about Lee Harvey Oswald, Sara Jane Moore, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, or John Hinckley Jr in equivalent circumstances. It took hours for the FBI to identify Crooks at all, and only a few outlets are willing to report even the little we know:

Crooks' father, Matthew Crooks, 53, told CNN that he was trying to figure out what happened and would wait until he spoke to law enforcement before speaking about his son. Thomas Crooks graduated in 2022 from Bethel Park High School, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. He received a $500 "star award" from the National Math and Science Initiative, according to the newspaper.

The problem here is that in the wake of the event, eyewitnesses were claiming that they saw Crooks climbing onto the roof with a gun, tried to notify law enforcement, but law enforcement paid no attention. So naturally, Crooks's father's first instinct is to talk everything over with law enforcement.

Now, I've worked in the crisis management-contingency planning field, and at least I know that under such circumstances, a family needs to designate a spokesperson, possibly a trusted relative or an attorney. I'm puzzled that Crooks's father seems to be so clueless -- someone instead should basically be saying as little as possible to anyone, and that definitely includes law enforcement.

The next question I have is how Crooks got to be such a good shot. He wasn't a perfect shot -- he only grazed Trump's ear -- but he was awfully good, close to Lee Harvey Oswald level. While in the US Marines,

. . . Oswald was tested for marksmanship with his rifle on five different exercises—from 200, 300 and 500 yards firing slowly and from 200 and 300 yards firing rapidly. Based on these results a Marine would be rated by a defined scoring system. . . . in both tests that most closely matched the conditions in the Kennedy assassination for rapid fire shooting Oswald scored above an expert level. Additionally on his third test from 500 yards firing slowly, Oswald scored 46 out of a possible 50: again shooting above an expert level.

Crooks's rooftop was 148 yards from Trump. In contrast, Sara Jane Moore and Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme were unable to handle a firearm competently; their attempts to shoot Gerald Ford both failed. John Hinckley Jr shot Reagan with a handgun at close range. Crooks was far more capable with a firearm than any of the other failed assassins.

Although Crooks appears to have been a reclusive who lived with his mother, he had to have received fairly advanced firearms training somewhere. In addition, he lived some 40 miles away from the rally site -- he must have done some detailed planning, or have had planning done for him, to identify the layout of the scene and find an advantageous rooftop. What we know about Crooks doesn't fit with what he appears to have been able almost to bring off.

And then we have the problem of the Secret Service:

Steve Nottingham, a former SWAT commander in Long Beach, California, called Saturday’s shooting “a fundamental security failure.”

He has worked security details for visiting world leaders, including presidents, and now trains officers on how to respond to critical incidents. He pointed at likely breakdowns in the pre-event scouting and real-time monitoring of places a gunman could shoot from.

But one thing definitely worked -- at least, if I were a Robert Ludlum wannabe. Just an instant after Crooks got off his rounds, the Secret Service snipers knew exactly where to shoot, and they blew his head off. Crooks had no ID and had to be identified with DNA. Gee, if they'd caught him climbing onto the roof before he shot, they'd have been able to interrogate him, huh? Well, the crack Secret Service snipers neutralized him instead, just seconds after he shot.

They were all high fivin' each other, from what I read. I think we have a lot to learn. But I'm just a Robert Ludlum wannabe.

UFOs, Ancient Aliens, And The Democrat Race

The impression, possibly fostered by Fr Schmitz and his Bible in a Year podcast, has been forming in my mind for a while that belief in space aliens is a form of idolatry. It's been enough to make me put a limit on the shows I watch on History that cover the subject. Here's an example of what's begun to bother me, an episode of Ancient Aliens that aired Aug 26, 2022:

Ancient cultures around the world often referred to the gods as the "Immortals" - but could they have encountered extraterrestrial beings that had achieved eternal life? And if these visitors genetically engineered the human race, as Ancient Astronaut Theorists suggest, is it our destiny to become immortals as well?

Note how quickly the story elides from archaeology through sci-fi to immortality, which is the province of religion -- if we somehow believe strongly enough that the ancient aliens were immortal, then maybe we can live forever ourselves, or sorta-kinda something like that. Nobody ascribes much to Presbyterianism any more, but the ancient aliens are becoming a real option. Those offer real hope for the human condition!

What interests me is that there's actually so little evidence for extraterrestrial life in the modern era, especially, say, post-1600, and even less now in the era of space probes and radio telescopes, that people are forced to impute evidence of UFOs into Egyptian tomb paintings or Mayan calendars. Doesn't that say something about how little concrete evidence of alien life forms we can find now, using scientific tools?

Actually, there's far more evidence for even the wishy-washiest version of Presbyterianism than there is for space aliens, but this is something millions of people apparently refuse to see. I'm starting to see an oddly similar mindset taking hold among a certain faction of Democrats, to wit, the idea that somewhere out in space, there must be a Democrat who can replace Biden and beat Trump. Douglas Schoen, whom up to now I had thought to be more grounded, writes in The Hill:

[T]here’s no doubt Biden has lost the confidence of his party and the country. I believe the solution — and indeed, a great opportunity for the Democrats — is a truly open, transparent, “blitz primary” that could lead to a truly open convention.

. . . Prominent Democratic strategist James Carville authored his own plan for a mini-primary, suggesting party magnates such as former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would select the eight strongest candidates to sit in a series of town halls moderated by liberal icons such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack and Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey.

At the convention, delegates would decide on the nominee using ranked choice voting, concluding on the third day. Once a nominee has been crowned, they would appear on stage with Biden and Harris, as well as Obama and Clinton in a demonstration of unity and progress.

Without this, the likely winner — indeed the almost certain winner — of November’s election, will be Donald Trump.

Let me see if I can parse this out. We have the list of usual suspects, starting with Kamala and extending through Newsom and Whitmer until veering into the impossibilities of Pritzer and Shapiro, who are Jewish and won't pass muster with the anti-Semitic wing of the party. Michelle Obama has taken herself out of the running, twice. Of Kamala, Schoen himself says,

Indeed, it is unlikely Harris would be a strong candidate, and she proved to be a less than adept campaigner after dropping out two months before the first primary in 2020.

Schoen goes through the rest of the list and adds a few others -- Pete Buttigieg?? -- and concludes,

While none of these candidates beat Trump in the current polling, a blitz primary would no doubt catapult any one of these individuals into the national spotlight, making up for a lack of familiarity among the broader electorate.

Basically he's hoping that somewhere there's an as-yet-undiscovered generic Democrat, so far completely unknown to the public but in fact known to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who could be found and suddenly shine in an August "blitz primary", who would steal the electorate's heart in a whirlwind romance and beat Trump soundly in November. Someone -- well, someone like Pete Buttigieg, or maybe Beto O'Rourke.

In other words, some pretty-boy young white guy, but without the baggage -- after all, with Buttigieg, where does presumptive first spouse Chasten fit in? You can't call him "first lady", and it's not inclusive to call him "first gentleman" like Doug Emhoff.

I suggested "first f*****" to my wife -- after all, Pope Francis uses the term -- but I think this is all just an example of how wishful any such scenario turns out to be. It's no different from the attempt in 1972 to replace Tom Eagleton with Sargent Shriver -- but I don't think the Democrats have anyone now with even the prestige of Sargent Shriver.

Well, if the ancient aliens are immortal, maybe they can hold a seance or something and rustle one up. He might just fit the bill. Erich von Däniken himself, though, is 89. Cross him off the list.

Good Enough?

I didn't watch Joe's big boy press conference last night, but I did check the aggregators later to see if there'd been any major blunders. My sense of things was that, although he'd started out by misgendering Vice Preasident Trump, his performance was good enough:

The Democrat Party is left in limbo as President Joe Biden’s NATO press conference avoided total disaster despite several gaffes, and it could stave off internal efforts among Democrats to remove him as the nominee in the immediate future.

. . . Biden’s former White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, said on MSNBC that she thinks the press conference “gave [Biden’s campaign] more time, which for the campaign is a win.”

Nevertheless, the consensus that seems to be emerging is more aligned with Susan Glasser in the New Yorker:

And sure enough, Biden was barely into his first response before he let loose another gaffe, arguably even cringier than the first. Asked about Vice-President Kamala Harris and her ability to step in for him if need be, Biden responded by saying, “Look, I wouldn’t have picked Vice-President Trump to be Vice-President if I think she was not qualified to be President.” This time, he did not even spot the error.

. . . But, for those who listened to the full hour of Biden’s press conference, it wasn’t, in the end, the gaffe that made this a poor performance. It was Biden’s over-all halting, painful delivery. It was his struggle to find words, and the fact that when he did find them they were often not the right ones. Most important, it was his inability to make the case for himself—and his difficulty prosecuting the case against Trump.

Mark Leibovitch wrote this in The Atlantic before the press conference:

Never underestimate the destructive power of a stubborn old narcissist with something to prove.

Ideally no one gets hurt along the way: Maybe grandpop refuses to give up his license, drives into an oak tree, and only the car gets totaled. But sometimes there are casualties[.]

. . . President Joe Biden, 81, is acting like one of history’s most negligent and pigheaded leaders at a crucial moment, and right now, we are all pedestrians.

Since his debate debacle nearly two weeks ago, much of America has been locked into the classic “Will he or won’t he?” cliffhanger. Will Biden step aside and not run for reelection, as massive majorities of voters have for years said they want him to do? Or will he persist in pursuing one of the most ill-fated and ill-advised presidential campaigns ever carried out?

. . . As of now, it looks as if Biden is committed to “riding this out” and “staying the course,” no matter how unfit he might be for the ugly course ahead. This is, maddeningly, the only consideration that now matters, because Biden is the ultimate decision maker.

According to Axios,

Democrats who were bracing for the worst out of President Biden's press conference at the NATO summit instead saw a passable performance – but it doesn't appear to have calmed Capitol Hill's panic around his candidacy.

. . . One senior House Democrat, asked it the press conference would quiet the uproar on Capitol Hill, told Axios "probably not," while another said "not quite, but almost."

Said another House Democrat: "Tonight he looked better than the debate, but still not enough to recover and beat Donald Trump."

So for now, the emerging situation seems to be that Trump is at minimum expected to do much better than he did in either 2016 or 2020, while the main obstacle for Democrats is Joe Biden himself. The party is consumed by controversy over whether to replace him as a candidate, but even if it were to agree to do this, there's no concrete plan of action, and other than Kamala Harris, there's no clear substitute. Nor is there any assurance that Harris would do any better against Trump.

Meanwhile, the longer the uncertainty drags out, the less time is available for a replacement Democrat candidate to unify the party or organize a campaign operation, and the less pressure is on Trump to do strenuous campaigning while the Democrats self-immolate in full view.

Right now, I still think the closest parallel to this year's campaign is 1972, except that the foreordained loser this year is the incumbent, not the challenger. It doesn't mean as much if the challenger has no credibility, as McGovern didn't have, and the Democrats were able to disavow him as a representative Democrat in the wake of his loss, while they soon enough recovered their credibility by shifting the focus to Nixon with Watergate.

The problem for 2024 is that Biden is the incumbent Democrat unifier and elder statesman.

"I Sorta Got On My Knees And Begged Him."

Biden describes giving NATO Sec. Gen. Jens Stoltenberg the Medal of Freedom: "I sorta got on my knees and begged him." pic.twitter.com/ONvsEIcWbC

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 11, 2024

It took me some time to connect the dots between two cryptic clips of Joe's remarks surrounding the NATO summit yesterday. It looks as though he was trying to tell some sort of private joke that stayed in his mind over two separate contexts.

The clip above was in a discussion with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, while the clip belolw that more or less explains it was made at the NATO summit itself in a direct exchange with retiring Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:

😳Oh boy…
“I realize after _____ing your wife. “

“I personally ask you to extend your service….laughs......... Forgive me?”

⁉️What did Joe just say he was doing to his wife? pic.twitter.com/KHi4bojNfY

— RoamingRN (@roaming_rn) July 9, 2024

Nobody is quite sure what the word was as Joe slurred out "_____ing", but I'm with those who think it was indeed _____. As best I can reconstruct what was going on in the presidential brain, the story he was trying to tell was that he was getting down on his knees and begging, but the person he somehow meant to be begging wasn't Secretary General Stoltenberg, it was the Secretary General's wife, or something like that. Yuk, yuk, huh?

As I said when Joe violated diplomatic protocols at the G7, including forehead-bumping Pope Francis, meetings at that level are intricately pre-scripted, and there are meant to be no surprises, especially not in the public exchanges. Ronald Reagan did not share toidy jokes with Margaret Thatcher no matter how much they may have agreed in their respective agendas.

At the very best, what this suggests is that Joe had basically lost situational awareness: this was a diplomatic summit at which nobody jokes about diddling the wives of other high-level diplomats, but Joe just had to get out a giggly sort of barb that nobody quite understood, but it had apparently been on his mind for hours. In this, he did nobody any favors.

But this turned out not to be the only time sex was on his mind yesterday -- he dropped by an AFL-CIO meeting and came up with this:

BIDEN: "I look back now and wonder how my dad handled those thin walls" 😳 pic.twitter.com/cMgtH5VBCW

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 10, 2024

As this commentator said, "This is what happens when Biden speaks without a teleprompter." He tells private jokes that either nobody quite gets, or if they get them, it makes them uncomfortable. On one hand, the experimental data that backs up the Dunning-Kruger effect involves people who tell jokes that nobody thinks are funny, but on the other, that a US president would routinely do this sort of thing, especially in a diplomatic context, is worrisome.

Nevertheless,

An embattled President Biden is set to stage a “big-boy” press conference Thursday afternoon — the first since his disastrous debate performance threw his 2024 re-election campaign into utter disarray.

The 81-year-old plans to close out the NATO summit in Washington — an event meant to showcase his leadership on the world stage — with the rare, solo news conference as he scrambles to prove to the American public that he’s capable of serving another four years.

The commander-in-chief is scheduled to take questions from the White House press corps at 5:30 p.m.

Beyond that,

President Joe Biden is slated to participate in a one-on-one interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, as the 81 year old continues to stand defiantly in his decision to remain in the presidential race, despite the pleas of some very well-known Democrats.

NBC’s Monica Alba announced the upcoming interview, writing on X, “BREAKING: @NBCNews anchor Lester Holt will sit down with President Biden for an exclusive one-on-one interview on Monday in Austin, Texas.”

The only thing that comes to mind here is "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Why are Hunter and Dr Jill still putting him up to this? One theory is that Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer have begun to lose patience, and they're telling Joe he's got to do more to prove he's healthy enough to continue. In this scenario, the Dunning-Kruger effect is in full force, and Joe is convinced that all he needs is one good performance to pull it off -- not just to keep the nomination, but in fact to win in November.

Another scenario might be that Hunter and Dr Jill know it's a lost cause, but they aren't yet ready to throw in the towel. Letting Joe do one last press conference, one last interview, maintains the fantasy for just a few more days, and they'll deal with next week when they come to it.

But it's hard to imagine that in the context of June's repetitive disasters, anyone seriously thinks Joe is in a position to rescue his candidacy and turn things around in the next few days, especially given his performance yesterday.

UPDATE: Today's "big boy" press conference has been moved back from 5:30 to 6:45.

So, Why Has The Press Suddenly Turned On Biden?

Whether it's thought to be a cynical betrayal or a belated acknowledgement of the obvious, there's been a general recognition that the legacy media -- more or less except for MSNBC -- has turned against Biden in its news coverage and often editorially called for Joe to "step aside", although without explaining precisely what that should imply. Piers Morgan sums it up at the New York Post:

The US mainstream media are currently gorging on President Biden’s cognitive decline like ravenous hyenas on the freshly slain carcass of a decrepit old buffalo.

In fact, since his train-wreck debate debacle, the nation’s predominantly liberal-skewed, Democrat-defending journalists have competed with each other as to who can sound the most faux shocked, horrified, appalled, and furrowed-brow-uncomprehending about the physical and mental state of their president.

But why? I think if Rush Limbaugh were still around, he'd give the same reason he gave at the end of his life as Trump left the White House at the end of his first term: ratings. Whatever the media thought of Trump, they got ratings when they covered him, and they lost those ratings when he was out of the news. For instance:

CNN has seen ratings plummet since former President Donald Trump left the White House, according to a Fox News report on Nielsen Media Research data.

The network averaged 2.5 million primetime viewers between the day after the election— November 4, 2020 — and Inauguration Day on January 20, 2021, Fox News reported.

Since President Joe Biden was sworn in, however, those numbers have dropped dramatically. An average of 1.6 million viewers tuned in during primetime hours between January 21 and March 15, Fox News said. That's a downturn of 36% since Biden took office.

So why did CNN, of all networks, host the first debate? As homicide detectives say, there's no such thing as a coincidence. Why did ABC hold the interview with George Stephanopoulos? Again, no coincidence. Biden supporters nevertheless accuse the media of stirring up the controversy over Biden's cognitive decline instead of blandly outlining Joe's steady hand, decency, and years of experience. Well, why aren't they?

Part of the problem is simple -- if it bleeds, it leads. The commander in chief is sick, but if that's not bad enough, the White House is covering it up. But that doesn't seem to be the full explanation. Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge quotes extensively from the Editor at Large for the Wall Street Journal, Gerry Baker, in an opinion piece there behind a paywall:

the fiction of Mr. Biden’s competence … suggests they [the Democrats] evidently thought they could get away with promoting it. [Yet] by perpetuating that fiction they were also revealing their contempt for the voters and for democracy itself[.]

. . . They sought a loyal and reliable figurehead, a flag of convenience, under which they could sail the progressive vessel into the deepest reaches of American life — on a mission to advance statism, climate extremism and self-lacerating wokery. There was no more loyal and convenient vehicle than Joe.

You [the Democratic machine] don’t get to deceive, dissemble and gaslight us for years about how this man was both brilliantly competent at the job and a healing force for national unity – and now tell us, when your deception is uncovered, that it’s ‘bedtime for Bonzo’ – thanks for your service, and let’s move on.

Except that News Corp, the Murdoch vehicle that owns the Wall Street Journal, was consistently Never Trump throughout this same period, and it was just as complicit as any other legacy outlet in perpetuating the idea that boring Biden was preferable to tempestuous Trump. Gerry Baker here is doing nothing but limning the same faux shocked, horrified, appalled, and furrowed-brow-uncomprehending schtick of all his colleagues.

In fact, even before the June 27 debate, it was recognized that in its initial early June story that made it OK to talk about Joe's cognitive decline, the WSJ was simply giving everyone a permission slip, not covering anything new. I quoted Greg Gutfeld at the time:

The Wall Street Journal revealed that Joe Biden may be suffering cognitive decline. Talk about breaking news. Nice work there, Wall Street Journal!

So, although nearly every legacy outlet from CNN through ABC and NBC to Fox is cashing in on the Joe-is-senile stampede, there may even be a faint element of remorse in the brow furrowing. This goes back to the origin of the 2024 constitutional crisis, which stems from the "stolen" 2020 election. I've been saying that the current crisis of succession is actually very similar to the 1972-74 Watergate succession crisis, which in turn was caused by the conditions of the 1972 election and the failure of the Democrats to run a viable opponent to Nixon.

As I've been pointing out, in order to get a Nixon resignation, it was necessary to get Agnew to resign first and replace him with the safe and boring Gerald Ford, who in turn was replaced by the uber-lizard-person Nelson Rockefeller. This all was needful to mitigate the effect of Nixon's 1972 landslide victory over McGovern and restore center-left credibility, which it did in large part by demonizing Nixon and allowing the national media to portray themselves as saviors and heroes.

So the Watergate crisis was something that extended over a period of years. I think the 2024 constitutional crisis has been building even longer -- it arguably started when Trump announced his first candidacy in 2015, became more acute with his 2016 surprise victory, and grew even more problematic through two unsuccessful impeachments, the questionable 2020 Biden election victory, the January 6 committee, and now the revelations that, enabled by rhe establishment media, the Democrats concealed Biden's cognitive decline over a period that probably began while he was vice president.

But at the root of both the Watergate crisis and the 2024 crisis is the failure of the Democrats to nominate a viable presidential candidate. The difference is that in 1972, McGovern was recognized from the start as a foreordained loser, to the point that no serious Democrat would agree to run as his vice presidential nominee. In 2024, the election was at least politely handicapped as a "tossup", and up to the events of June, establishment media was complicit in concealing Biden's actual condition.

One aspect of how the 2024 crisis is resolved will be, as in 1972-4, the need for legacy media to rehabilitate its credibility in the crisis's wake. They'll need to find new Woodwards and Bernsteins at minimum. This is partly what's happening now -- Jake Tapper is in the running. Even Jen Psaki's got herself a new face, don't count her out.

Jen Psaki totally had plastic surgery. She looks different. https://t.co/8in1xjFQCM

— Cecilia Glennon (@CeciliaGlennon) December 15, 2023

The auditions for the next Woodward and Bernstein are already under way.

A Lie Is As Good As A Confession

Regarding what may or may not ail Joe, I'm not qualified to say, except that the media has suddenly taken a lot of interest in the question. What intrigues me is the evasiveness of the White House's attempts to answer the questions from the press. I know almost nothing about Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, but as a truie crime fan who reads and watches the insights of detectives about interrogation, I've learned a few things about lying -- and in particular, the truism that a lie is as good as a confession.

In other words, if you can catch someone in a definite lie, you're starting to get a road map to just what it is they're trying to cover up. It's hard to avoid thinking that Press Secretary Jean-Pierre is displaying signs of lying in her answers to a couple of the questions she was asked in her press briefing yesterday. The relevant sequence starts at about 38:00

Q: When you were here last Tuesday, you were asked if the president had had any medical examinations [unintelligible] including the time period after the debate, and you said flately, "no". A few days later, you admitted the president had had a short checkin thereafter. Those are two very different. . .

KJP: . . . To answeer your point, he did not have a medical exam, he did not have a physical, he did like a verbal checkin with his doctor a couple days after the debate, and it was very quick, it was a couple of words that were spoken to each other, and that's how we were able to give you that answer, he did not haver a medical exam, he did not have a physical. . . I did not mean to steer anybody wrong, I was still thinking about the physical, that's how I answered the question, . . . and that's when we went back and asked the medical doctor, and he said they had a verbal checkin.

Q: [Regarding the frequent visits of a Parkinson's specialist over the past several months,] Could you state very clearly, yes or no, was that expert here to participate in anything surrounding the care of the President of the United States?

KJP: So let me just say a couple things. We have had a comprehensive -- I just want to take another step back, a comprehensive physical examination, the president has had that, we've given a comprehensive report, we've shared that the past three years, every year that he has, every year that he has had this exam, he sees a neurologist, and, uh, just to give you a quote from that, the report most recently in February, an extremely detailed neurological exam was again reassuring in that there were no findings which wokuld be consistgent with any cerebellar or central neurologicsl disorders such as a stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons's, ascending lateral sclerosis, end quote, so that came from, in February, that comprehensive report trhat was prepared by the president's doctor, that I shared with all of you, so anybody who is watching can certainly go to our website.

Several things pop out at me, and they're covered in typical "how to tell if someone is lying" sites, for instance this one:

Liars will often repeat themselves ad nauseam when telling a half-truth or a complete falsehood. This is done for three reasons. First, they will repeat a lie over and over in order to solidify the ‘facts’ in their mind, so they can stick to their story. Secondly, they’re trying to convince you that they’re telling the truth by solidifying their words in your mind. Lastly, they repeat themselves in order to buy time to come up with the next part of their story. If they were telling the truth, they’d be able to recall everything without thinking about it.

. . . When a person gives too much information when questioned, it’s because they have rehearsed in their head exactly what to say, and exactly how to say it. They also feel that if they’re able to give a full story, they’re more likely to be believed. However, this often just shows they’ve anticipated what the other person will say next, and jump right into answering subsequent questions before the questions have even been asked. If someone seems to immediately have every answer for all the questions you have for them, they’ve most likely constructed a huge lie in their head and are ready to stick to it no matter what.

This is a useful observation:

The research conducted at the University of Michigan found “speaking with more vocal fill” to be a common indicator of deception. Glass says that people tend to use these words more when they’re trying to buy time to figure out what they’re going to say next.

This is a big tell:

When someone is lying, they might avoid answering your question directly. Instead, they might try to change the subject or deflect the conversation away from themselves.

This is one of the tested and most common signs of lying. If you notice someone doing this, it’s a good sign that they’re not being truthful with you. They will slowly try to shift the conversation to another topic to take the focus off of themselves.

It’s just what most people call “red handed.” It’s not usual to see a person try so hard to avoid a certain topic, so if you sense this, then it’s a positive sight that they are lying.

In the press briefing, Ms Jean-Pierre was directly asked a yes-or-no question, which she promptly evaded by providing too much information and never answering yes or no. I have no idea what the truth is that she was trying to conceal, but the pattern of her answers suggests she's trying to conceal something.

Beyond that, who knows?