The same Judge Boasberg who was the presiding judge when FISC accepted a falsified submission from the FBI on Carter Page? Shouldn't that have been part of your comment on the matter?
See last week's issue. They have a strange blind spot when it comes to Boasberg. Apparently, naming everyone else in this newsletter is OK but not the nameless, faceless judge.
The way it is reported using the word "nemesis" and linked to a Truth Social post, undermines the very fact of the matter. When Boasberg was in a position to be the most effective brake on Section 702, he did nothing. Complicit in fact or function. The very nerve of the guy to now hold himself out as some kind of champion. Shame on Racket.
Did we ultimately buy subscriptions so we could edit their newsletter for bias?
Seriously, including the following commentary is pertinent, but seems naked. without mentioning how much Blunderbuss Biden dumped down the Ukraine War memory hole?
“Meanwhile, the Pentagon is asking for a $200 billion fund to fuel the war as receipts come in at more than one billion dollars per day, according to a Fortune report.”
This report seems taken directly from Politico. Come on, do better!!! Do you do partial refunds for annual subscribers when the tone and tenor of the Substack changes within days?
Lol. Biden gave Ukraine $182 billion over three years. Trump wants $200 billion after just three weeks. More key points — Biden did not start the war in Ukraine while Trump started the war with Iran.
"According to an expert interviewed by Politifact, the real monetary value of the abandoned equipment/weaponry is likely closer to $10 billion." The amount often cited: "The $85 billion price tag is the total amount the US has spent on security forces in Afghanistan. "
The Trumptards had a good run, I’ll grant them that, with their stupid eight years of whataboutism. $10 billion dwarfs the amount of insider trading and shakedowns of foreign leaders that is going on in this administration. Before every whiplashing 3am tweet by Dear Leader there are massive unexplained and ‘mysterious’ trades in oil futures representing vast fortunes. Hmmmm…. The corruption and incompetence are unprecedented , but don’t expect the Trumptards or The Racket to notice.
Not much. Most of what was left was worn or obsolete, and would have had to have been flown out at great expense, only to be immediately scrapped. This way, at least, the Taliban will need maintenance expertise and spare parts, and will become a customer of our defense contractors.
A combination of cold war and proxy war has been going on with Iran since 1979 but Trump is the one who decided to turn the conflict into a hot war.
As for the history — Iran had its first secular and democratically elected leader by the name of Mohammad Mossadegh starting in 1951 but the American and British governments ousted Mossadegh in a coup in 1953. Mossadegh had put an end to the British controlling 100% of Iran’s oil production through exploitative contracts and the British wanted their control of Iranian oil back. So the Americans and Brits installed a puppet (Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi) who killed/imprisoned/exiled all his liberal/democratic critics which resulted in the leadership of the opposition being the Muslim clergy. That’s how Iran became controlled by an Islamist theocracy that hates the west.
...and the very same Judge Boasberg who accepted Clinesmith's guilty plea ...
..."Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), the guilty plea proceeding occurred via videoconference before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg." DOJ Press Release August 19, 2020 ...
The article did say that Boasberg is a pain in Trump's posterior. It will be interesting to see if this same judge pops up again and again in any FISA file releases. If he does, his Carter Page outrage might be a nail in his coffin.
Judge Boasberg’s role as presiding judge on FISC during the Carter Page FISA application is irrelevant. The authority of FISC is limited — the court can grant or deny applications but lacks jurisdiction to investigate the truthfulness of FISA requests.
Again, Boasberg and the other judges on FISC lack the authority to investigate the truthfulness of FISA requests. You claiming Boasberg "is complicit in function" makes it seem as if Boasberg had the option to investigate the FBI's claims in their FISA request but chose not to which is false.
Boasberg et al have no authority to "investigate" truthfulness, this is not a Napoleanic system, but they certainly have a responsibility to abjudicate probable truthfulness given a visible pattern of behavior. This is very convenient for this patently partisan judge.
Thanks for proving my point with documentation. The FISC document you posted explains that because of the work of the “Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, the Court has received notice of material misstatements and omissions in the applications filed by the government in the above-captioned dockets.”
Every judge who approves a warrant has the constitutional power and obligation to deny a warrant that they conclude is based upon false information. A warrant based upon false information cannot be constitutionally valid on it's face. Inherent in that power is the power to investigate and compel testimony for that determination.
The idea that any court can be forced to accept the government's testimony as true in a warrant application, and that the court has no power to test or question the government's testimony in that warrant application--is unconstitutional on its face.
A warrant based on false information is inherently unconstitutional.
Lol. How was Boasberg supposed to "conclude the warrant was based on false information"? The FBI falsely claimed that Carter Page was not a source for another U.S. intelligence agency. How were the FISC judges supposed to know that was false? The FISC judges do not have the authority to investigate the truthfulness of government claims in FISA requests.
FISC is very different from other courts. The purpose of FISC is to “hear applications for and grant orders approving electronic surveillance anywhere within the United States" according to Section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. FISC relies on one-sided information from the government and has to trust that that information is true and complete as FISC lacks the authority to challenge the government's claims in FISA requests.
Also, these were multi hop FISA warrants aimed at a sitting US president.
The idea that the courts have to throw up their hands and suck on whatever the FBI shoves in their mouth is beyond absurd, and in this case would be a massive infringement on executive power.
The only way a warrant against a sitting president can make constitutional sense is only if the judiciary has the ability to test the veracity and constitutionality of that warrant then to refuse to issue the warrant if they see fit.
If a warrant cannot be denied by a judge then it is facially unconstitutional, and in the case of the president is extra-extra-unconstitutional.
If a judge can deny a warrant then they have the power to order testimony and documentation in order to make that determination.
I showed you a document from the FISA court where the court demanded documents and testimony from the federal government.
Ordering the production of documents and testimony is one of the ways that courts investigate to make legal determinations.
If you are even lightly familiar with the cases that Boasberg is involved in right now, you know he has no problem demanding documents and testimony from the government specifically to address his concern that the government is not being truthful with him.
If you are arguing that courts can make determinations of facts in every case--except for warrants--that is a silly argument that is not in any way supported by the constitution or precedent.
I think what has you confused is that a depressingly large percentage of judges treat warrants with the same speed and critical analysis as a web site click thru terms of service agreement.
Think about it like this, just because it seems cops are never prosecuted doesn't mean they can't be prosecuted.
The Dems surely don’t read bills. ICE was fully funded through the “big beautiful bill” so them holding the TSA hostage is a seriously moot point but you’d never know that by the talking heads on TV. If you waited in a 3-4 hour line at an airport recently or even missed a flight and still vote for these morons then you deserve each other.
Q: “I wonder when we'll have the 1st female Secretary of War.”
A: “Senator Elizabeth Warren wears a mean Indian war bonnet. So does Senator Lindsay Graham, except that when he wears it, he looks like Elizabeth Warren.”
Lindsay Graham: “Everything tastes better with a war bonnet on it!”
[“ … 1970-80s TV commercials … the "Everything's Better with Blue Bonnet on It" jingle was commonly performed in the key of F major or G major …, often sung by a bright, cheerful chorus … a melody that emphasized a light, simple tonality.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkm4HY-3cD8&t=1s]
--- ESPN headline (03/22/26):
“Jets paying combined $48M for Rodgers, Field Not To Be Their QB in 2026.”
This is worse than the Minnesota Day Care Centers that were paid over a billion dollars not to be teaching any children!
--- [France flipped and is now supporting the Hormuz fleet action]
Thank goodness that The Frogs have changed their minds!
We now can reap the benefit of the French military mess halls with the crêpes --- can’t go to war without crêpes suzette!
"It is famous for being flambéed tableside, a dramatic technique that ignites the alcohol, burns off the harshness, and caramelizes the sauce."
Well, we beat them to the punch, having flambéed the Iranian navy and caramelized the Ayatollah and his top 100 goat-horny cohorts.
A ton. And like Angus King did in the video, Dems can claim they have a bill to fund every other part of Homeland Security (ESPECIALLY TSA!!), and we can worry about ICE funding later, but Republicans won’t vote for it. It’s a bullshit scam, but if Trump and Republicans continue to be blamed for airport lines, the leverage will have been successfully utilized.
Bull. Dems want to fund DHS but also want to dictate how ICE operates. Lines will ease when ICE shows up. Looking forward to the Dem performance videos.
I hope Social Justice Warriors don’t repeat the Minneapolis mistake by strapping on their piece and going through ICE-staffed security lines.
It’s too bad that guy Alex Preti is dead, but I will never understand his decision to take a gun to a peaceful protest, with extra ammo clips, which tells law enforcement he may have been thinking there would be a LOT of people needing shooting that day.
One thing is for sure—there will be less smart-ass shit out of passengers with ICE vs the usual TSA folks.
Reads like AI slop. Didn't get through the first paragraph.
The second sentence, "The third week of conflict saw continued tension over shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz", is at the same information level as: "The gas pedal makes the car go fast"
Neither I nor anyone else says you left. You complained about "paying Racket for BSNOW leftovers" which makes you part of the howling mob of right wingers in this comments section who are whining about the recent changes to Taibbi's substack with many threatening to cancel their subscriptions to Racket.
...LOL ... your "howling mob of right wingers" doesn't exist ... if readers and commenters to this substack detect a certain amount of bias, it hardly makes them a "howling mob" ... disappointed, higher expectations ... yes, I am indeed THAT ...
I've been a Taibbi fan for a couple of decades. Used to subscribe to Rolling Stone just for his articles - bought all his books. Was an early subscriber to this site too. Never in a million years would I think I'd ever unsubscribe from him, but I did last week. If I want to read stuff the MSM would put out, I'd get a subscription to the TImes or something. Have been extremely disheartened by what I've been seeing and barely reading here. I've mostly just been stopping by to see the comments and read what people, more articulate than I, have been into words. I miss Walter, too. I used to really look forward to the podcast and would read whatever Matt wrote...even if it was a real investigative piece I might feel challenged to follow. I didn't always agree with every opinion he might have, but that didn't matter - he was always interesting to read - I'd learn something - or give me something to think about. It's been a real blow to see how this site has changed. Oh well...and so it goes...
Exactly like I feel. I am not a member of a "Howling mob". I am seriously questioning the remake of Racket. Has Matt written anything lately? What about Eric Salzman (sp?) on the economy? The entire product is very vanilla.
Factual error here. No, Trump did not say “nobody saw this coming” (or the equivalent phrasing he used) about Iran closing or threatening the Strait of Hormuz. He used that language exclusively in reference to Iran’s retaliatory missile and drone strikes on other Middle Eastern countries—specifically Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Kuwait.
The exact remarks come from two events on March 16, 2026:
- At a Kennedy Center board lunch: “In the last two weeks, they weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East. Those missiles were set to go after them. So they hit Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait. **Nobody expected that. We were shocked.
- Later the same day, when directly asked whether he was surprised no one had briefed him that this might be Iran’s retaliation: “Nobody, nobody, no, no, no. No, the greatest experts, nobody thought they were going to hit — they were — I wouldn’t say friendly countries, they were like neutral. They lived with them for years.”
In the same speeches, Trump *did* discuss the Strait of Hormuz (noting U.S. actions had largely neutralized Iran’s navy and mine-laying capability there, and that countries like South Korea rely heavily on it for oil). But he never tied the “nobody expected”/“nobody saw this coming” surprise to the strait’s closure or any Iranian action there. The surprise was framed purely as Iran hitting neighboring Gulf states that “weren’t supposed to” be targeted and had coexisted with Iran.
In short, the reports claiming it was about the Strait of Hormuz are inaccurate or conflated; Trump’s actual remark was only about Iran’s unexpected attacks on the other regional targets.
Trump claimed that “nobody” expected Iran to retaliate by attacking U.S. allies in the region which was yet another false statement by Trump. Multiple experts had publicly warned that Iran would likely respond this way and Iranian officials had themselves vowed that Iran would target nearby U.S. allies if attacked.
As for the Strait of Hormuz, Trump underestimated Iran’s willingness to close the strait since he believed the closure would hurt Iran by stopping its oil exports. Of course Iran will allow ships carrying Iranian oil to sail through the strait — Iran will only attack ships carrying other countries’ oil. Trump did not understand this for some reason.
My comment was addressing this inaccuracy by the author:
King, though, argued that “they did not plan for the Strait of Hormuz — the president said ‘Who knew that was going to happen?’”
As I stated, Trump never said that and it’s been inaccurately stated on CNN and MSM and I expect much better than that from Racket News. Even if just poor editing, it’s disappointing and should be corrected.
Since Iran placed the mines in the strait it knows where the mines are and therefore instructs ships carrying its oil on where to sail in the strait in order to avoid the mines.
They didn’t mine the entire Strait, they channelized it. Look up what that means if you don’t understand, it’s pretty simple. Also as Helo Pilot correctly pointed out, Iran knows where the mines are - and more importantly, where they aren’t.
The U.S. and Trump knew that Iran could and would close the Strait and chose to launch the war regardless, understanding they can’t open it back up quickly, if at all.
Just mainly here for the comments section until my subscription runs out. I guess this is the scenario when a monthly is actually the better deal.
Did anyone else think it odd that Matt kept calling out the most aggressively off-base accusations from the comments during the ATW final episodes, instead of addressing serious questions?
Given the current state of Racket, giving preference to those trolls seems even more suss.
My year is up in May. I never would have thought that a monthly subscription would be the way to go at Racket, but I am reluctantly convinced that it is so; and mystified and concerned for Matt.
Same here. I'm around, Down to Sasha Stone and Simulation Commander now. I wonder what that says about me? I started this journey with TFP and Peachy Keenan. Matt just ended up another speed bump.
My annual renewal just came up and I did switch to a monthly. Unless I start seeing less partisan reporting and more actual news being discussed in the podcast I will be cancelling at the end of the month.
Did I just click on The Free Press? What the sweet hell was that? I’m really trying to want keep my subscription, and ain’t looking good. Subscribed years before it was called “Racket”, specifically for Taibbi’s journalism. Tremendously disappointing.
I suspect Matt is taking some time to regroup career wise and mentally. Walter leaving probably knocked him for a loop. I’m giving him some grace and some time, hoping he can eventually pull it back together.
I don’t disagree. I highly suspect that MT is happier when writing books and doing deep dive investigations. This may have just been a star that burned bright and fast that’s now on the wane. If he’s unhappy I would personally prefer that he lets Racket’s star collapse and not become another TFP. He’s got plenty more investigations and books in him and we most certainly don’t need another TFP. I do hope that you are correct, but I ain’t holding my breath as all signs seem to point to the death knell of the former best substack on Substack. Sigh.
Yes it is expensive but I believe a large number of his subscribers are free, including me. He has set up a way to make one-time donations -- there's a link at the bottom of his newsletter -- and I do donate $50 once a year. His paid subscribers receive an additional newsletter on Sundays.
Well, it was fun while it lasted. Goodbye to Racket after many years. Loved Matt and Walter, but I could read these types of articles for free. Which is overpriced.
I subscribed to Matt Taibii, now I’m reading a bunch of recently hired wokesters who “interpret” the news and Michael Tracey on the podcast. I’m a monthly subscriber and about to pull the plug.
Thanks. I've chosen not to renew other Substacks, on occasion, and just waited it out. In this case, Taibbi himself said he was changing the content. Fine. He seems like a good guy, so I figured there would be a way to part amicably. Seems not.
Trapping unhappy subscribers will only pollute the comments section.
A few sentences in and this week's issue is even worse than last week's. Where is Taibbi? He made a bombastic announcement of how "this time, it's going to be different" and then washed his hands to go run a podcast with pedo-infatuated Michael Tracy. WTF? My year's long subscription is in danger.
I am still waiting for some sort of word from the author regarding the comments indicating a misleading use of statistics in Ryan Lovelace's recent hit piece on Kash Patel's FBI. We were told that this was going to be reporting that we could trust.
I would like to receive a refund for the remaining amount of my year’s subscription. I have been a subscriber to Matt Taibbi’s work for several years and this is not what I thought I was going to continue to receive. (This is the second time I’ve requested a refund for the current subscription.)
Since I am trapped as a yearly subscriber, I only open these to read the comments and occasionally post one myself. Probably won't be long before I don't open them at all.
The same Judge Boasberg who was the presiding judge when FISC accepted a falsified submission from the FBI on Carter Page? Shouldn't that have been part of your comment on the matter?
See last week's issue. They have a strange blind spot when it comes to Boasberg. Apparently, naming everyone else in this newsletter is OK but not the nameless, faceless judge.
The way it is reported using the word "nemesis" and linked to a Truth Social post, undermines the very fact of the matter. When Boasberg was in a position to be the most effective brake on Section 702, he did nothing. Complicit in fact or function. The very nerve of the guy to now hold himself out as some kind of champion. Shame on Racket.
"Shame on Racket."?
Hell, Racket is lost.
as in BoASSberg!
Did we ultimately buy subscriptions so we could edit their newsletter for bias?
Seriously, including the following commentary is pertinent, but seems naked. without mentioning how much Blunderbuss Biden dumped down the Ukraine War memory hole?
“Meanwhile, the Pentagon is asking for a $200 billion fund to fuel the war as receipts come in at more than one billion dollars per day, according to a Fortune report.”
"Did we ultimately buy subscriptions so we could edit their newsletter for bias?"
All modern journalism happens in the comment section. Today, journalists pay for the privilege :)
Exactly! With MSM, I always went straight to comments, and if Racket starts to become MSM, that's what will happen.
This report seems taken directly from Politico. Come on, do better!!! Do you do partial refunds for annual subscribers when the tone and tenor of the Substack changes within days?
Lol. Biden gave Ukraine $182 billion over three years. Trump wants $200 billion after just three weeks. More key points — Biden did not start the war in Ukraine while Trump started the war with Iran.
What was the $ amount associated with the military equipment and weapons Biden left in Afghanistan?
"According to an expert interviewed by Politifact, the real monetary value of the abandoned equipment/weaponry is likely closer to $10 billion." The amount often cited: "The $85 billion price tag is the total amount the US has spent on security forces in Afghanistan. "
The Trumptards had a good run, I’ll grant them that, with their stupid eight years of whataboutism. $10 billion dwarfs the amount of insider trading and shakedowns of foreign leaders that is going on in this administration. Before every whiplashing 3am tweet by Dear Leader there are massive unexplained and ‘mysterious’ trades in oil futures representing vast fortunes. Hmmmm…. The corruption and incompetence are unprecedented , but don’t expect the Trumptards or The Racket to notice.
Not much. Most of what was left was worn or obsolete, and would have had to have been flown out at great expense, only to be immediately scrapped. This way, at least, the Taliban will need maintenance expertise and spare parts, and will become a customer of our defense contractors.
Trump started the war with Iran? You might want to read some history.
Uh, he is the Commander in Chief who gave the go-ahead, which surely makes him the guy who started the war.
Are we to the point of disputing obvious facts? C’mon.
Now let’s hear the “Iran MADE him do it!” reply.
Who do you think started the war with Iran?
This war has been ongoing for 50 years. The U.S. finally decided that the Neville Chamberlain / Obama paying protection money wasn't working.
A combination of cold war and proxy war has been going on with Iran since 1979 but Trump is the one who decided to turn the conflict into a hot war.
As for the history — Iran had its first secular and democratically elected leader by the name of Mohammad Mossadegh starting in 1951 but the American and British governments ousted Mossadegh in a coup in 1953. Mossadegh had put an end to the British controlling 100% of Iran’s oil production through exploitative contracts and the British wanted their control of Iranian oil back. So the Americans and Brits installed a puppet (Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi) who killed/imprisoned/exiled all his liberal/democratic critics which resulted in the leadership of the opposition being the Muslim clergy. That’s how Iran became controlled by an Islamist theocracy that hates the west.
Biden starting the war in Ukraine could be debated
...and the very same Judge Boasberg who accepted Clinesmith's guilty plea ...
..."Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), the guilty plea proceeding occurred via videoconference before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg." DOJ Press Release August 19, 2020 ...
The article did say that Boasberg is a pain in Trump's posterior. It will be interesting to see if this same judge pops up again and again in any FISA file releases. If he does, his Carter Page outrage might be a nail in his coffin.
Judge Boasberg’s role as presiding judge on FISC during the Carter Page FISA application is irrelevant. The authority of FISC is limited — the court can grant or deny applications but lacks jurisdiction to investigate the truthfulness of FISA requests.
So you're saying Boasberg is just complicit in function. Thanks for the clarification.
Apparently he has now been reformed by the experience of being the presiding rubber stamp. He now hopes to make amends for being an appointed stooge.
Again, Boasberg and the other judges on FISC lack the authority to investigate the truthfulness of FISA requests. You claiming Boasberg "is complicit in function" makes it seem as if Boasberg had the option to investigate the FBI's claims in their FISA request but chose not to which is false.
Boasberg et al have no authority to "investigate" truthfulness, this is not a Napoleanic system, but they certainly have a responsibility to abjudicate probable truthfulness given a visible pattern of behavior. This is very convenient for this patently partisan judge.
https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Declassifed%20Order%2016-1182%2017-52%2017-375%2017-679%20%20200123.pdf
Thanks for proving my point with documentation. The FISC document you posted explains that because of the work of the “Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, the Court has received notice of material misstatements and omissions in the applications filed by the government in the above-captioned dockets.”
Every judge who approves a warrant has the constitutional power and obligation to deny a warrant that they conclude is based upon false information. A warrant based upon false information cannot be constitutionally valid on it's face. Inherent in that power is the power to investigate and compel testimony for that determination.
The idea that any court can be forced to accept the government's testimony as true in a warrant application, and that the court has no power to test or question the government's testimony in that warrant application--is unconstitutional on its face.
A warrant based on false information is inherently unconstitutional.
Lol. How was Boasberg supposed to "conclude the warrant was based on false information"? The FBI falsely claimed that Carter Page was not a source for another U.S. intelligence agency. How were the FISC judges supposed to know that was false? The FISC judges do not have the authority to investigate the truthfulness of government claims in FISA requests.
FISC is very different from other courts. The purpose of FISC is to “hear applications for and grant orders approving electronic surveillance anywhere within the United States" according to Section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. FISC relies on one-sided information from the government and has to trust that that information is true and complete as FISC lacks the authority to challenge the government's claims in FISA requests.
You lost me with "LOL."
Another also :)
At it's core your argument is that the warrant requirement in the constitution can be discarded through simple legislation.
That is quite an assertion.
edit: the>that, simply>simple, discard>discarded
Also, these were multi hop FISA warrants aimed at a sitting US president.
The idea that the courts have to throw up their hands and suck on whatever the FBI shoves in their mouth is beyond absurd, and in this case would be a massive infringement on executive power.
The only way a warrant against a sitting president can make constitutional sense is only if the judiciary has the ability to test the veracity and constitutionality of that warrant then to refuse to issue the warrant if they see fit.
If a warrant cannot be denied by a judge then it is facially unconstitutional, and in the case of the president is extra-extra-unconstitutional.
If a judge can deny a warrant then they have the power to order testimony and documentation in order to make that determination.
I showed you a document from the FISA court where the court demanded documents and testimony from the federal government.
Ordering the production of documents and testimony is one of the ways that courts investigate to make legal determinations.
If you are even lightly familiar with the cases that Boasberg is involved in right now, you know he has no problem demanding documents and testimony from the government specifically to address his concern that the government is not being truthful with him.
If you are arguing that courts can make determinations of facts in every case--except for warrants--that is a silly argument that is not in any way supported by the constitution or precedent.
I think what has you confused is that a depressingly large percentage of judges treat warrants with the same speed and critical analysis as a web site click thru terms of service agreement.
Think about it like this, just because it seems cops are never prosecuted doesn't mean they can't be prosecuted.
edit: depressing >depressingly
Well, Trump is nevertheless (wrongly) seeking FISA renewal. Go figure
The Dems surely don’t read bills. ICE was fully funded through the “big beautiful bill” so them holding the TSA hostage is a seriously moot point but you’d never know that by the talking heads on TV. If you waited in a 3-4 hour line at an airport recently or even missed a flight and still vote for these morons then you deserve each other.
It's even worse, they read them.
Kinda like the Schumer shutdown. Obviously ill cconceived and done for performative reasons.
...but hey ... the democrats are the advocates for the "working class" ... it's just that they don't mind wage theft when it suits them ...
🎯
03/23/26: In other news today:
Q: “I wonder when we'll have the 1st female Secretary of War.”
A: “Senator Elizabeth Warren wears a mean Indian war bonnet. So does Senator Lindsay Graham, except that when he wears it, he looks like Elizabeth Warren.”
Lindsay Graham: “Everything tastes better with a war bonnet on it!”
[“ … 1970-80s TV commercials … the "Everything's Better with Blue Bonnet on It" jingle was commonly performed in the key of F major or G major …, often sung by a bright, cheerful chorus … a melody that emphasized a light, simple tonality.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkm4HY-3cD8&t=1s]
--- ESPN headline (03/22/26):
“Jets paying combined $48M for Rodgers, Field Not To Be Their QB in 2026.”
This is worse than the Minnesota Day Care Centers that were paid over a billion dollars not to be teaching any children!
--- [France flipped and is now supporting the Hormuz fleet action]
Thank goodness that The Frogs have changed their minds!
We now can reap the benefit of the French military mess halls with the crêpes --- can’t go to war without crêpes suzette!
"It is famous for being flambéed tableside, a dramatic technique that ignites the alcohol, burns off the harshness, and caramelizes the sauce."
Well, we beat them to the punch, having flambéed the Iranian navy and caramelized the Ayatollah and his top 100 goat-horny cohorts.
Ever hear of the concept of leverage?
What leverage do they have? Schumer will be humiliated again.
A ton. And like Angus King did in the video, Dems can claim they have a bill to fund every other part of Homeland Security (ESPECIALLY TSA!!), and we can worry about ICE funding later, but Republicans won’t vote for it. It’s a bullshit scam, but if Trump and Republicans continue to be blamed for airport lines, the leverage will have been successfully utilized.
Bull. Dems want to fund DHS but also want to dictate how ICE operates. Lines will ease when ICE shows up. Looking forward to the Dem performance videos.
I hope Social Justice Warriors don’t repeat the Minneapolis mistake by strapping on their piece and going through ICE-staffed security lines.
It’s too bad that guy Alex Preti is dead, but I will never understand his decision to take a gun to a peaceful protest, with extra ammo clips, which tells law enforcement he may have been thinking there would be a LOT of people needing shooting that day.
One thing is for sure—there will be less smart-ass shit out of passengers with ICE vs the usual TSA folks.
Um, the denial of funding for DHS.
Reads like AI slop. Didn't get through the first paragraph.
The second sentence, "The third week of conflict saw continued tension over shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz", is at the same information level as: "The gas pedal makes the car go fast"
Glad to know it's just not me. No thoughtful analysis just regurgitation. So disappointing.
...I studiously avoid reading or watching BSNOW for many reasons ... Suddenly I have this epiphany ... I am paying Racket for BSNOW leftovers? ...
Fox News, Newsmax and One America News Network will be happy to have you back.
...who says I left? ...
Neither I nor anyone else says you left. You complained about "paying Racket for BSNOW leftovers" which makes you part of the howling mob of right wingers in this comments section who are whining about the recent changes to Taibbi's substack with many threatening to cancel their subscriptions to Racket.
...LOL ... your "howling mob of right wingers" doesn't exist ... if readers and commenters to this substack detect a certain amount of bias, it hardly makes them a "howling mob" ... disappointed, higher expectations ... yes, I am indeed THAT ...
Thank you for that crystal clear description of our situation.
But they aren't much better.
On the other hand, there are plenty of commenters who love to trash any analysis at all (if the analysis doesn’t agree with their current views).
I've been a Taibbi fan for a couple of decades. Used to subscribe to Rolling Stone just for his articles - bought all his books. Was an early subscriber to this site too. Never in a million years would I think I'd ever unsubscribe from him, but I did last week. If I want to read stuff the MSM would put out, I'd get a subscription to the TImes or something. Have been extremely disheartened by what I've been seeing and barely reading here. I've mostly just been stopping by to see the comments and read what people, more articulate than I, have been into words. I miss Walter, too. I used to really look forward to the podcast and would read whatever Matt wrote...even if it was a real investigative piece I might feel challenged to follow. I didn't always agree with every opinion he might have, but that didn't matter - he was always interesting to read - I'd learn something - or give me something to think about. It's been a real blow to see how this site has changed. Oh well...and so it goes...
Exactly like I feel. I am not a member of a "Howling mob". I am seriously questioning the remake of Racket. Has Matt written anything lately? What about Eric Salzman (sp?) on the economy? The entire product is very vanilla.
😭
Factual error here. No, Trump did not say “nobody saw this coming” (or the equivalent phrasing he used) about Iran closing or threatening the Strait of Hormuz. He used that language exclusively in reference to Iran’s retaliatory missile and drone strikes on other Middle Eastern countries—specifically Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Kuwait.
The exact remarks come from two events on March 16, 2026:
- At a Kennedy Center board lunch: “In the last two weeks, they weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East. Those missiles were set to go after them. So they hit Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait. **Nobody expected that. We were shocked.
- Later the same day, when directly asked whether he was surprised no one had briefed him that this might be Iran’s retaliation: “Nobody, nobody, no, no, no. No, the greatest experts, nobody thought they were going to hit — they were — I wouldn’t say friendly countries, they were like neutral. They lived with them for years.”
In the same speeches, Trump *did* discuss the Strait of Hormuz (noting U.S. actions had largely neutralized Iran’s navy and mine-laying capability there, and that countries like South Korea rely heavily on it for oil). But he never tied the “nobody expected”/“nobody saw this coming” surprise to the strait’s closure or any Iranian action there. The surprise was framed purely as Iran hitting neighboring Gulf states that “weren’t supposed to” be targeted and had coexisted with Iran.
In short, the reports claiming it was about the Strait of Hormuz are inaccurate or conflated; Trump’s actual remark was only about Iran’s unexpected attacks on the other regional targets.
Trump claimed that “nobody” expected Iran to retaliate by attacking U.S. allies in the region which was yet another false statement by Trump. Multiple experts had publicly warned that Iran would likely respond this way and Iranian officials had themselves vowed that Iran would target nearby U.S. allies if attacked.
As for the Strait of Hormuz, Trump underestimated Iran’s willingness to close the strait since he believed the closure would hurt Iran by stopping its oil exports. Of course Iran will allow ships carrying Iranian oil to sail through the strait — Iran will only attack ships carrying other countries’ oil. Trump did not understand this for some reason.
My comment was addressing this inaccuracy by the author:
King, though, argued that “they did not plan for the Strait of Hormuz — the president said ‘Who knew that was going to happen?’”
As I stated, Trump never said that and it’s been inaccurately stated on CNN and MSM and I expect much better than that from Racket News. Even if just poor editing, it’s disappointing and should be corrected.
Are you arguing with Racket about the veracity of a Senator’s comments in a hearing?
What a canard, those mines can differentiate which nation an oil tanker belongs to.
Since Iran placed the mines in the strait it knows where the mines are and therefore instructs ships carrying its oil on where to sail in the strait in order to avoid the mines.
They didn’t mine the entire Strait, they channelized it. Look up what that means if you don’t understand, it’s pretty simple. Also as Helo Pilot correctly pointed out, Iran knows where the mines are - and more importantly, where they aren’t.
Why is this not obvious?
The U.S. and Trump knew that Iran could and would close the Strait and chose to launch the war regardless, understanding they can’t open it back up quickly, if at all.
A month later it’s still closed.
And the game clock is ticking. Only 36 shopping days until the War Powers Act requires Congressional approval.
Trash. I used to like seeing Racket in my inbox. Now it just seems pointless even opening them
Just mainly here for the comments section until my subscription runs out. I guess this is the scenario when a monthly is actually the better deal.
Did anyone else think it odd that Matt kept calling out the most aggressively off-base accusations from the comments during the ATW final episodes, instead of addressing serious questions?
Given the current state of Racket, giving preference to those trolls seems even more suss.
I'm baffled and disappointed by the whole thing. I was monthly and when I canceled they gave me a free month. It's barely worth even that.
My year is up in May. I never would have thought that a monthly subscription would be the way to go at Racket, but I am reluctantly convinced that it is so; and mystified and concerned for Matt.
For what it’s worth, it’s been fun debating with you. All best wishes.
Same here. I'm around, Down to Sasha Stone and Simulation Commander now. I wonder what that says about me? I started this journey with TFP and Peachy Keenan. Matt just ended up another speed bump.
My annual renewal just came up and I did switch to a monthly. Unless I start seeing less partisan reporting and more actual news being discussed in the podcast I will be cancelling at the end of the month.
I agree. This is subpar.
Did I just click on The Free Press? What the sweet hell was that? I’m really trying to want keep my subscription, and ain’t looking good. Subscribed years before it was called “Racket”, specifically for Taibbi’s journalism. Tremendously disappointing.
I suspect Matt is taking some time to regroup career wise and mentally. Walter leaving probably knocked him for a loop. I’m giving him some grace and some time, hoping he can eventually pull it back together.
I don’t disagree. I highly suspect that MT is happier when writing books and doing deep dive investigations. This may have just been a star that burned bright and fast that’s now on the wane. If he’s unhappy I would personally prefer that he lets Racket’s star collapse and not become another TFP. He’s got plenty more investigations and books in him and we most certainly don’t need another TFP. I do hope that you are correct, but I ain’t holding my breath as all signs seem to point to the death knell of the former best substack on Substack. Sigh.
🥲
I gave up hoping for that.
One of our fellow commenters is convinced Emily, the new editor, fired Walter.
This is nothing if not "takes." Worse, takes on old news.
For a stunning example (and how-to) of connecting the dots, see today's Coffee & Covid by Jeff Childers: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/fizzles-fears-and-flip-flops-monday
Thanks Christine. This is an interesting link.
I’d like to see people who advertise other substacks banned in the comments. Do you get a cut from this overpriced outlet Christine?
$50 a month? Too pricey for me.
Yes it is expensive but I believe a large number of his subscribers are free, including me. He has set up a way to make one-time donations -- there's a link at the bottom of his newsletter -- and I do donate $50 once a year. His paid subscribers receive an additional newsletter on Sundays.
Will do.
I scanned it until the part where only Democrats were quoted at a committee bitch session/PR stage opportunity. Resistance!!
I kept going, but you made the right decision. And, Matt, for one who is against "takes," there sure were a lot of them in this piece!
Well, it was fun while it lasted. Goodbye to Racket after many years. Loved Matt and Walter, but I could read these types of articles for free. Which is overpriced.
I subscribed to Matt Taibii, now I’m reading a bunch of recently hired wokesters who “interpret” the news and Michael Tracey on the podcast. I’m a monthly subscriber and about to pull the plug.
Please clarify the refund policy for those of us who renewed for a year before the "New Racket."
When I cancelled last week I didn't see any refund option. Instead, the subscription plays out until its term ends and it's not renewed. Sad!
Thanks. I've chosen not to renew other Substacks, on occasion, and just waited it out. In this case, Taibbi himself said he was changing the content. Fine. He seems like a good guy, so I figured there would be a way to part amicably. Seems not.
Trapping unhappy subscribers will only pollute the comments section.
I resemble that remark
Same for me. I will NEVER AGAIN buy a year’s subscription to any Substack subscription. Only monthly or free from now on…
Yes, I am losing Interest in Substack generally and may soon quit.
"losing Interest in Substack generally"
Yes.
I get it--it's a racket!
Make sure you haven't checked auto-renew. That's how I got stuck with another year of TFP.
A few sentences in and this week's issue is even worse than last week's. Where is Taibbi? He made a bombastic announcement of how "this time, it's going to be different" and then washed his hands to go run a podcast with pedo-infatuated Michael Tracy. WTF? My year's long subscription is in danger.
I am still waiting for some sort of word from the author regarding the comments indicating a misleading use of statistics in Ryan Lovelace's recent hit piece on Kash Patel's FBI. We were told that this was going to be reporting that we could trust.
I would like to receive a refund for the remaining amount of my year’s subscription. I have been a subscriber to Matt Taibbi’s work for several years and this is not what I thought I was going to continue to receive. (This is the second time I’ve requested a refund for the current subscription.)
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Substack does not give refunds. I learned this the hard way.
I think it depends on the author.
I also learned to uncheck "auto renew." Some give you advance notice that you're about to be billed and some don't.
Since I am trapped as a yearly subscriber, I only open these to read the comments and occasionally post one myself. Probably won't be long before I don't open them at all.
Let’s hope.