(MAJOR NOTE) The reason Manafort took over Trump's campaign in just 3 weeks despite being hired as a mere delegate counter is that ROGER STONE initiated a whisper campaign against Corey Lewandowski. That campaign started...days after Manafort returned from meeting with WikiLeaks.

MSNBC medical experts are underscoring that the course of treatment Trump is on is one you would *not* apply to someone who's doing well—but to someone who is struggling. Indeed, the experts say, it would be a *dangerous* treatment to give to a COVID-19 patient who is doing well.

NOTE/ The specific cause for concern here is the steroids; they're given to "severe and critical" hospitalized patients, and could harm patients who are not having breathing or immune-response issues. Keep in mind Trump's doctors claim they're discussing discharging him tomorrow.

NOTE2/ Tomorrow Trump's doctors will come up with a reason why he can't be discharged. Or they'll recall what was always the case—Trump can get basically the same treatment at the White House. I maintain the most likely scenario is that he demanded Walter Reed, then regretted it.

NOTE3/ Another possibility: Trump's White House doctors are basically jokes who just do whatever he tells them, and he wanted the real doctors at Walter Reed. Now that *real* doctors have set the course of treatment, Trump can go to the White House unless/until it becomes acute.

(THREAD) The main problem with that @DanDrezner piece in the Post is that it's an international politics prof writing about the field in which I'm a professor—communications. No one in communications would *ever* compare the blogosphere to either Twitter or Substack. Here's why.

1/ Back in the mid-aughts, I was a Koufax Award-nominated political blogger (I don't know what Drezner was doing then; I first heard of him about a year ago). So I was into the blogosphere pretty deep, as I also ran a second high-traffic blog that was focused on the art world.

2/ The "blogosphere" was an outgrowth of MySpace and LiveJournal, inasmuch as in the heady early days of the internet people suddenly realized that they could engage in private diaristic writing—a very specific subgenre of writing—in the public square, and it was suddenly "okay."

3/ So the blogosphere as such had *nothing* to do with journalism, which needless to say was in a different state just 15 years ago (note: unlike Drezner, I also teach writing and journalism at the university level, so this thread is squarely "in my area," unlike his Post piece).

4/ The blogosphere was a manifestation of the transformation of the public-private binary at the dawn of the internet—and *also* connected to the "creative writing" explosion (what I did a PhD on); in the aughts, creative writing was the fastest-growing discipline *in the world*.

🆚: (MAJOR REPORT): For the first time in U.S. media, Donald Trump's plan for the January 6 insurrection has been itemized, fully sourced, and annotated. The 12-part strategy, never before outlined, is terrifying—and involves elements not widely discussed.

PS/ As most of you here know, the "🆚" symbol means content accessible "via subscription." I use this icon both for certain PROOF content and content from sites like the Washington Post and the WSJ. You can find dozens of free articles at PROOF to decide if you want to subscribe.

PS2/ There are *47* free articles at PROOF—all published in the last 60 days, and the product of hundreds of hours of research/writing. I know not everyone subscribes to the many outlets that are 🆚—WP, WSJ, NYT, Daily Beast, &c—so I offer scores of reading-hours of free content.

NOTE/ As I mentioned earlier this week, I'll do a public AMA (Ask Me Anything) thread at PROOF shortly, so folks—whether subscribers or not—can ask any questions of me they have. I'll do my best, but if past is precedent I'll only be able to get to 40-80 of hundreds of questions.

(TRUE STORY) In the weeks before the 2020 election, ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne was desperately trying to get to me through an intermediary to share info about the coming election he claimed was critical.

I ignored his overtures.

Donald Trump invited him to the Oval Office.

I had messages from Byrne's rep on every social media platform I'm reachable on. I decided that his public instability was such that I wanted nothing to do with him. Incredible to think that the President of the United States—the most powerful man alive—made a different decision.

MORE/

NOTE/ What's telling about this—and what U.S. media might wonder about, now—is whether Byrne was contacting me to tell the same tale he told the president in the Oval. Seems unlikely, right? Seems like maybe Byrne is just peddling nonsense wherever he thinks he can get attention?

NOTE2/ Here's what I can tell everyone (and media): Byrne represented—via his rep—he'd been in touch with Roger Stone, and wanted to talk to journalists pre-election about the FBI/Comey. I'm sure I'm not the only one he contacted. After all, we know he contacted the White House.

Let's track some of Donald Trump's solutions to problems: Give Hurricane victims paper towels (to sop it up), rakes to wildfire fighters (make America rake again), teaching kids to look at solar eclipses (they're too smart for that), and asking for global warming in cold winters.

This is the perfect asymptotic approach to the extremes of both Republican and Democratic rhetoric (which are both inevitably devoid of any sound logic) - you eventually get presidents like this. This is a warning call to dissolve the Republican and Democratic parties.

It seems to me our nation is now tossed between two insane extremes, bickering and arguing with each other, embodied in the Republican and Democratic parties. When you get extremist politicians who adhere fully to broken logic and rhetoric, our future is laid waste.

New parties must emerge soon. For fun, I propose a new party : "Uniters" and call the other parties "Dividers" (Republicans and Democrats). We can say that the Uniters believe in uniting people rather than dividing people.

That implies that one 'dominant' world view cannot prevail (including the illusion that we are in fact a set of states United right now) - we have to work and labor hard together to fulfill the promise the founders sought to build this country upon.

Pretending that voting for Trump or denying climate change or suggesting the solution to every problem is more guns is a legitimate point of view, worthy of respect is not "how America works." It is how it dies.

People in a free society are entitled to any point of view no matter how obviously wrong or outlandish or destructive provided they do not impose their views on others.

But suggesting that something ignorant or divorced from reality warrants the same kind of treatment in public debate as something based in fact or at least credible is absurd and when done on behalf of a society in public media or academic settings it is self-destructive.

We would not grant media coverage or much bandwidth at all to a group that argued that unicorns exist or that there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Yet views like denying climate change or basing policy decisions on sweeping, obvious lies, are just as unsound.

Somewhere, somehow, judgments must be made. Some behaviors are wrong and must be condemned. Someone must challenge lies and demand facts. Coddling people who embrace idiocies does not help them no matter how loudly they demand to be coddled.

Thread – The Buffoon in the White House (Irony)

1. A pal passed this to me the other day, and I saved it for today. The author is unknown (at least to me), but this has been posted on a number of blogs. An excellent read!

At my office in Congress I have an original ballot of Mandela’s election as reminder to never take democracy for granted. After yesterday’s senate vote, I turn back to Mandela’s first speech when released from prison 31 years ago this week. Here’s what we can learn (THREAD)

GRACE: “I greet you all in the name of peace, democracy and freedom for all.”

Robbed of 27 years of his life, no one would have faulted Mandela if he emerged from prison with anger. But instead, with his first words of his first speech in decades, he chose grace. 2/13

HUMILITY: “I stand before you not as a prophet but as a humble servant of you, the people.”

Mandela was revered by millions as a leader of conscience. But in his second sentence, he made sure to set the tone for humility and service. No individuals stand above the people. 3/13

SOLIDARITY: “I salute the working class...religious communities..the endless heroism of youth.. the mothers and wives and sisters of our nation”

He focused on the contributions of the many and showed respect to those often overlooked. He showed the vitalness of coalitions. 4/13

URGENCY: “Our struggle has reached a decisive moment.”

Mandela used the speech to set the tone for the work ahead. His release was not the climax, but instead just the possibility of change. No assumptions could be made of what comes next. 5/13

Several Hindutva supporters, BJP members, Far RW propaganda websites and a few prominent handles (Journalists, Singers etc) were supporting this hate monger Mahant Yati Narasimhanand Saraswati. Let me share a few things he said about, The Missile Man of India, Dr. Abdul Kalam. 👇

This hate Monger claims, Dr. Abdul Kalam had a huge role in making Atom bomb for Pakistan.

He claims, The person who you (Hindus) chose as your role model, He (Dr, Abdul Kalam) was one of the biggest Jihadi India has ever produced. One of the biggest...

He further vomits, 'When Abdul Kalam visited USA, He was stripped naked. When Dr. Manmohan & Sonia G Objected, USA sent 124 files & said, He might be a Scientist to U, but according to our files, He is a terrorist, guardian of Pakistan & Father of Pakistan's Atom bomb'

He says, 'Anyone can recite a few slokhs of Gita & fool u.. Not once did Abdul Kalam miss Namaz. Yes, He was a vegetarian, But if he hadn't been a Vegitarian, How would've he got a Padam bhushan or Bharat Ratna. How would have he fooled you & made a Atom bomb for Pakistan..."