And he could spend some time reading Matt's well-documented discussion of Russia Gate over the years. Michael reminds me of a student who didn't do his home work and shrieks at the others thinking by shouting he will make up for skimming the reading list. And the continual quoting of Beria got a little bit hysterical.
Maybe he needs to get some liberal cred back. Reporting the truth can get you branded "far right" unless you bend a knee now and then. Look what happened to Steve Bannon and Alex Jones.
It's funny, this morning I looked myself in the mirror before going to the store, and I'm not the most hygienic guy either, but I stared at myself and immediately thought, "I don't look as bad as Michael Tracey does on camera", so I headed out and got some grub.
He pretty much surrendered any high ground he might have had with his 'genius' remark. Labeling himself "among the rarefied few" seems a bit pretentious, as well.
Matt is right about Russiagate. And I think Trump is a horrible man and a horrible president. I agree with Michael’s general notion of tit for tat use of the justice apparatus. Bottom line? America is fucked.
To quote Bruce Springsteen; “It’s gonna be a long walk home…”
Michael's big idea is that political should decide everything. So. . .hey, no more lawyers. No more laws. Just a totally rigged election process to protect we-the-people from the rich.
I just googled "internet troll", and I see Tracey as a guy who's origins are what google said, but he has gamed it to achieve more. He's seems to me, a savvy internet troll. Maybe I'm wrong, because I live in a cave and only communicate with bats, but that's my take.
Btw... I think we're all a little trollish at times. In a way, the internet promotes it. However, some make a living doing it.
You're correct. I've never heard of, read anything, or have I seen Michael Tracey before he arrived here. My comments are 100% based on what I've observed since then. I'm an SOB and I don't give anyone a break that steps up on "The Stage" in front of me, because I know they wouldn't give me a break. Tracey may be very akamai, but he's not pleasant. I have no interest in watching unpleasant people deliver unpleasant info. The least they could try to do is be pleasant.
Michael is a journalists & sometimes does good reporting but he's also human and sometimes lets his own bias get the better of him and sometimes he's just plain wrong.
I'm unfamiliar with him, but he's here at Racket and I trust Matt to know who's got journalism chops and who doesn't, so it's not about his work. It's not about his appearance nor his annoying podcast persona either. It's about who he seems to be as a person, which is something I shouldn't know about, but I do. Just like I know that Hasan Piker is a egomaniacal sadist (I shouldn't know that), I know things about Michael Tracey that, in my eyes, diminish him as a person. That's his fault, and if he continues to show me, I'll continue to razz him - his disheveled Columbo appearance just gives me a target and makes it fun.
I used to watch America this Week religiously. Now, I check in to Todays News maybe once every couple weeks because Tracey is an insufferable egoist and he always looks like he could use a bath.
Insulting paid subscribers in a private chat forum, also not good form. Maybe Michael needs to take a week or 2 off, a little vacation perhaps, to do some offline thinking.
I don't think it's about being a writer. I think it's about stepping onto the world stage, in whatever capacity that happens to be. Michael Tracey, Matt Taibbi, Walter Kirn, etc, chose to step onto the world stage. It puts them into a hugely different set of circumstances that should require then to use discretion when, say, they choose to insult paid subscribers.
Those that occupy the world stage have followings, resources, connections, etc, that the rest of us only dream of. We've allowed them to use those resources as weapons against regular people who don't particularly like their work... not cool! So, Michael Tracey needs to shut his fucking mouth, suck it up, and take it like a man! Michael Tracey needs to learn a few things from Matt Taibbi.
I’ve seen Glenn Greenwald totally eviscerate those who post critical replies to his posts. I find it amusing. I still see no reason why any writer should have to tolerate online abuse any more than anyone else should.
One danger of a system of paying subscribers is audience capture, where the journalist panders rather than saying anything that might offend his readers. I find it a little refreshing that there's no pandering going on here.
Addressing insults by maintaining a higher intellectual plane is preferred, this is not facebook. Look at his other remarks telling a woman to “sit me down …make sure you are completely nude”, this is silly, misogynistic, I objectionable and just juvenile and sophomoric. The more you respond in kind to insults the more we are debasing normal discussions.
Michael, take a breath occassionally and let Matt speak, please. I thought Walter was bad, but you are worse, with less experience and less crazy, manic brilliance!
I'd be the last to be reminding folks of the bubble you and Matt then inhabited. Millions of others got there without you. But go ahead - pat yourself on the head.
No attempt to pile on Michael, just learn. Is your position based on the premise that prosecuting leakers will chill journalists access to whistleblower content?
The impossible happened - I found myself deeply sympathetic to Matt. Michael confirms he's an incurious, self-inflated buffoon. There's room for debate on all issues. MT's mind-reading of motivations and posturing has always been tiresome. I wouldn't have watched any part of this had Walter not announced that MT self-aggrandizing and inexcusable character assassination " I'm against throwing people in jail for no reason - I guess that's a character flaw." Yuk.
I'm delighted I cut MT off years ago. He was a clown then, and he's worse now.
I thought I would give this a try again post-Walter. But if it's got Michael on it I'm out. Won't bother with this again. He is annoying. He is wrong. But he is always certain.
Matt sat you down - and you grovelled once you knew you'd crossed all the lines. Watch yourself and ask yourself whether your behavior was in any sense defensible. You're an insecure, overbearing child. Time to grow up.
Comments like that really show who you are. You don't look the way you think you do. I know you've convinced yourself you're some kind of "truth teller" but you're not. You are a pervert apologist and spastic weirdo who got publicly bitched by Jim Acosta and the only thing you'll be remembered for is your admiration of Jeffrey Epstein. Now that you're unemployed again you should start a podcast with John Zeigler. He's the guy who tanked his career defending Jerry Sandusky. I'm sure you two dickheads would really hit it off.
Let us not forget, most of the Michael Tracey haters in these comments voted for Donald Trump. Clearly their high and mighty standards have hella leeway.
I tune in to hear Matt and then Michael keeps interrupting him. It's frustrating. I used to anticipate the arrival of each of Matt's podcasts, but I no longer put it on my calendar and often turn it off after the first 30 minutes. Given that both Glenn and Matt have platformed Michael, Michael's writing must have merit, but Michael invariably presents himself as overbearing and self-absorbed. If he wants my advice, because I would really like to see what Glenn and Matt see in him, I would suggest that: 1) he does his homework (Matt certainly has); 2) that he listen to Matt and stop interrupting him; and 3) that he make his points succinctly and NEVER focus the conversation on himself.
I finally listened to the entire broadcast and also saw the way Tracey responded to the posted criticisms of others. I doubt my suggested remedy will work.
It’s difficult because Matt is deferential and courteous by nature and I’ve been wondering for weeks why we don’t have a counter in the corner of the screen of the number of times Michael Tracey interrupts someone - and when it’s the two of them he’s just interrupting Matt. That alone grates on my nerves as I wonder where the conversation might have gone if it was imbued with more free flowing energy and respect.
Michael just seems defensive or something. Just not quite fully developed in some way. Immature.
If this ends the duo, I’m all for it.
Occasional guest, sure, but as part of our regular Racket diet it’s just not working for me.
Keep up the good work Matt. Whatever you decide, you’ve got my support for sure!!
Maybe it's because he is blasted in this comment section every week (sometimes before the show even starts) for his presence on the show, his appearance, and his interruptions.
Very few critical posts address anything he actually says.
As I wrote earlier, Michael believes that the political process, not the rule of law as enforced through the courts, should determine what is good for our country. He seems ignorant of the fact that politics itself is a product of laws. Has he ever read the history of how this country came to be. . . like the Constitution?
It’s rude to interrupt people. Especially so many times in one podcast. I think we can all agree Michael interrupts others mid-thought/mid-sentence quite often.
Defensive on a deeper level than just from the recent comments. Just seems insecure.
Not sure I can put my finger on it but he seems to lack a seriousness in the sense that someone who seriously is trying to learn will listen attentively to others because they recognize that is how one learns.
His replies to comments also belie a defensive and insecure posture. Like he needs to “win” the argument
Yes -- although many of the negative remarks directed at Michael have nothing to do with his statements, or his reporting; they tend to simply express anger that he is still here.
Michael ignores the opinions of others in a consistently offensive and grandiose manner. Matt is a giant - really, by comparison. MT is roundly ignored because even when he's right he buries his own arguments by insulting everyone who does not suck up to him and parrot back the "pronouncements" of Moses Tracey.
MT has been wrong more often than he's been right because he lives in a cartoon world where he's the only hero.
Michael is very hard to get along with. This was hard to listen too, he was acting like a pompous jerk, showing no respect. Missing Walter. Missing book discussions. 😔 I’ll give it another 2 weeks, to see if the show improves, but this was bad enough to call the show off. I wonder if greenwald would make a more interesting, and thoughtful discussion.
Great idea! Tho Glenn can get a bit loquacious at times, he is principled and disciplined and has seen his share of suffering - enough to keep him grounded and appreciative of humor.
It's all come crashing down, punctuated by the purge of Michael Tracey for the unforgivable crime of dissent. My subscription expires today and I don’t intend to renew. I’ve canceled before, but returned reluctantly to see what the Racket 2.0, announced with much fanfare by Matt, was all about.
Was it the chorus of subscribers insisting Tracey go, or did Matt ‘Bondi’ him? We’ll never know, but suffice it to say I’ve never seen Matt so discombobulated as when he heard Tracey espouse the eminently reasonable position that we shouldn’t endorse Trump’s vendetta-laced prosecutions. In the two years I subscribed, nothing remotely elicited such an unhinged response to his previous co-host Walter Kirn — not when Kirn justified the shootings in Minneapolis on law-and-order grounds, the warrantless searches and arrests or the killings on the high-seas of supposed drug running suspects. To the contrary, more often than not Matt's smirked and his his head bobbed up and down.
What have I learned during the two years I subscribed? That the brand of journalism Taibbi practices, call it Gonzo investigative, while entertaining is ultimately flawed and a deceptive. Why? Because while Gonzo and investigative often precede the word journalism, the two should never mix. Sure, Taibbi was entertaining enough in his books and when he was at Rolling Stone, and he still had the patina of legitimacy. But he had editors then who would fact check him when he’d go off the rails. The articles I've seen here have been rife with hyperbole and straw man tactics, which plays well to his audience but doesn't meet minimum standards of journalism.
This was on full display when Taibbi, who rarely leaves his basement now, decided to go on the Mehdi Hasan show three years ago to discuss his much ballyhooed Twitter Files and was picked apart surgically by Hasan, who methodically exposed his shoddy brand of journalism. Taibbi is undoubtably a gifted and entertaining writer, he should stick to fiction.
Guess I’m one of the few on here who doesn’t think Michael was out of line. His was a pretty typical libertarian argument, and I was pretty surprised when Matt seemed to be offended by it.
I still follow Walter on X and earlier today saw that Michael had posted on Walter's feed. In his defense of himself he wrote he had not watched ATW... And also thought the ATW audience was too literary and some other things that I didn't take note.
My dislike of last week's ATW was mainly that Michael did not seem to understand the long patient unwinding of Russiagate on Racket News. If I were asked to be on someone's podcast I would have prepared by watching past ATW podcasts and reading back issues of Racket News.
My main dislike of last week's episode was I felt Michael did not know the well-documented history Matt Taibbi has provided . I have huge respect for the lengthy and tedious work that Matt has done at Racket. That is why last week's episode caught me off-guard.
I'm a librarian and the level of documentation Matt has done over the years has deeply impressed me. I respect the receipts.
And so the comments, not just the podcast, devolve into Michael’s private mud wrestling pit. The reason we have continued to try to listen to this podcast, Michael, despite your personality, is the affection we had for the Matt/Walter podcasts, and hope that maybe the next one will be better. But no.
If MT is gone and that's the first step to a return to the original Racket I may give Matt another chance. Look at how much shit Matt had to eat just to finish the podcast. I'd have dumpt MT the moment MT spewed: "I'm not gung-ho about locking people up for no good reason - maybe that's a character flaw." Good point! Bye!
Many comments here aren’t total trash. Do they warrant the nasty responses? People have criticized Matt and (if I recall correctly) most of his responses were at least civil.
Michael’s TDS extends into everything he comes across, whether he admits it or not. The charges brought against Trump were bogus, even changing NY law to allow the SOL to lapse for a year. They divided up 1 accounting error into 34 just so that MSM could spew it over and over in the news. They prosecuted Trump over classified documents that they set up and arranged on the floor to make it look like he had left it that way. They raided MAL without proper predicate. They did not charge Biden for storing classified docs in his garage which he took home as VP.
Michael needs to know the difference between criminal leaking and whistleblower leaking. Criminal leaking, which Comey did, was conspiring and orchestrating leaks to damage Trump with false information so the NYT would publish it and millions would read the false information. Richman was brought in to essentially launder it through to give Comey immunity through client lawyer privilege. There was no need to hire Richman as a SGE as he had no other role being there legitimately. I also believe Richman had a role in the sharing of the leaks between silos, the NSA and FBI. As for statutes, Michael should know if he studied this enough to be qualified to tal about it other tham left wing propaganda and that is there are plenty, including deprivation of constitutional rights of the President and many other people. How would Michael like to have his constitutional rights violated? At the very least, 4A and due process, because that’s what happens when an FBI director violates the procedures and laws that Congress voted in and the FBI is supposed to follow regarding surveillance and FISA. FISA is a very powerful tool and when weaponized is devastating. To sit there and ask Matt for specific statute numbers is ludicrous look it up). Michael has the perception promulgated by those on the left and MSM that this is a corrupt DOJ, when in fact the Holder and Garland DOJ were corrupt and teamed up with the IC to remove Trump. People suffered greatly under the Holder and Garland DOJs because statutes and procedures were broken. Those should be prosecuted because we do not want them to happen again, victims deserve justice and the guilty must be held accountable
I’m glad Matt pushed back because we saw how weak Michael’s argument was.
If you did not have TDS you would look at Russia Gate and see the many statutes that were violated and should be prosecuted. We simply cannot have FBI directors going around conspiring to weaponize powerful national security tools to deprive people of their rights and then burying it under classified and hiding it in burn bags. Remember, DNI Gabbard declassified the many docs and Kash and Dan found others in burn bags hidden away.
Of course they know what he did and didn't do. All of the FISAs have to be approved and/or signed, especially while spying on members of a presidential transition team, by the FBI director and sometimes the AG. Director Patel found burn bags hidden in a secret room filled with notes and signatures. They spent hours upon hours reading the papers--Bongino described it in a recent podcast. And most of all I could not be the judge and jury because I am a VICTIM of the FBI under Comey--and he of course at the very least knew about it. I know exactly what Obama, Comey, Clapper,Hayden and Brennan did because they did it to me!
You utter clown. This latest iteration of Matt's podcast might be tolerable if, and only if, one had never seen ATW. Whereas Walter brought wisdom, nuance, and perspective, to news stories, you bring self-absorbed, vulgar, vitriol.
Your lack of self-awareness has you responding to comments, making you look even more petulant.
I was going to cancel my subscription to Racket, as ATW was the primary draw for me. However, I'll stick around a bit longer now, simply to watch your fall.
We should at least be honest with the “one.” It was one payoff to a porn star to cover up infidelity. That’s not 34 felony counts, but it’s also not an accounting error.
But in my opinion transforming one payoff to a porn star into 34 felonies is the greater crime. I am getting pretty bored with the sex lives of politicians at this point, when compared to constant revelations of corruption, egregious grift, and other crimes.
I've been watching and reading Tracy for years as well. I used to watch System Update and Michael would appear and sub for Glenn. I like Michael's man-on-the-street shows. I happen to think that he does have TDS because without fail he comes down on the side of supporting arguments against Trump. He said that he didn't have TDS because he didn't think there was any merit to the cases against Trump. It must be noted though that many people thought that. He refused to listen to any argument Matt had that Russiagate had merit as an orchestrated hoax and like MSM always says that it must be Trump's need for retribution. That is just not true. This is not retribution for Trump against those so called "enemies" because those people like Comey hurt many many Americans. Those Americans should be able to see due process play out and if guilty be held accountable.
I have to agree with others, Matt...Tracey was really out of control this time. I am NOT going to pester you about bringing back Walter (that's Walter's decision, after all), but Tracey needs to learn some self restraint. BTW, I will continue to be a subscriber because I have always enjoyed your writing, but if this keeps up, I'm giving up on the new podcast.
What? Are you saying. We hear that you have elreservations. But to assert that your judgment is righteous is crossing the original parameters of this podcast.
With respect, the majority of comments (that I actually read) were from long-time subscribers who renewed their subscriptions for more Walter and ended up with this instead. Like it or not, even the venal critiques of MT are rooted in MTs cartoon character pronouncements. I praised MTs journalism during Ferguson - from COVID forward he's had his head up his own ass, dare I say so bluntly. I haven't teed-off on MT until now. He'd have been thrown out of every civil discussion I've been a part of for his indefensible ad homs and posturing alone - the insults to interlocutors (paid subscribers) can't be defended in my view.
Only if he wants to. I would prefer for Matt to get a new cohost at this point, but that's his decision, not mine. As for myself, I'm not watching the podcast anymore, but I will continue to read Matt's pieces.
I enjoyed the writing from when Matt was at Rolling Stone. Grew to love the pod when it was hosted by Walter and Matt. Tracey did some decent coverage in Minnesota during the summer of Floyd. That was 6 years ago. I don’t know what he has done since and I have no interest in finding out. It feels like Matt is punking the OG’s by having Tracey on in Walter’s place. That whole strange episode with Emily Kopp, where she was the editor of Racket for 2 weeks before she was caught lying about Walter Kirn in print, and then removed from Racket??
My sub renewal is December, so lots of time on the clock, but if it was in the next month it would be an easy NO. This product no longer resembles what i purchased.
Things change all of the time. I still enjoy Matt's writing, so I'm sticking around. Just renewed my subscription last month, so I'm stuck here anyway.
Matt ....please. My ears are bleeding from the show's last hour of you trying to reason with someone who only wants to listen to his own opinion. Maybe Michael should read some of your work from the last 4 years regarding Russiagate or better yet listen to the ATW shows from years past to see how people with differing political and philosophical views can still deliver a successful podcast and build a diverse audience. People should be able to agree to disagree and maintain respect another's body of work without being an A-hole.
Michael had no defense for his opinion, no grounds other than contending no crimes were committed or laws broken and it was simply political. Then he appeared to begin equating apples to oranges once he realized Matt remained unimpressed and he was losing ground. He appeared to not have thought his opinion through well enough to defend it, and was shooting from the hip.
Racial gerrymandering has always been wrong. In the old days, it helped Republicans — they’d pack all the Black voters into one district, so you’d get a Black representative there, but then all of the surrounding districts would be solid Republican. Black districts traded policymaking power for superficial “representation” and the CBC was happy with that bargain because it benefited them personally. Carol Swain wrote a book about it.
Today, it’s even less defensible in our multi-racial society, where it’s not just Black/white, and black candidates are competitive in all sorts of districts.
Comey etc: I agree with Matt about the need to prosecute some government crimes. Comey and the lower-level people involved in Russiagate don’t care if Trump supporters “politically repudiate” them. All of their friends already hate Trump. Political consequences aren’t enough of a deterrent, especially for government employees who aren’t known to the general public.
I also agree with Matt about the importance of prosecutors and prisons. The safety of the community (including being safe from nonviolent crime like burglary) matters. Prosecution is a tough, relatively low-pay, often thankless job, and I’m very grateful to the people who do it.
I wonder if Matt and Michael have different views on prosecution, in part, because Matt has children. When I was growing up, I used to watch The Practice and root for the defense attorneys to win. Fuck the police, limit government power, etc. Then I rewatched it as a parent, and I had a totally different reaction. All of my sympathy was with the prosecutor who was trying so hard to get justice for victims’ families.
Spending so much time on the fake crimes of the Epstein-verse may have skewed Michael’s view — understandably so — but there are a lot of real crimes that harm innocent people, and recidivism rates are high. If anything, a lot of people aren’t in prison who should be. A lot of murders are committed by perpetrators with long criminal records.
My slight agreement with Michael is that I think victims’ rights have gone too far. I don’t think the identity of the victims, how sympathetic they are, or their ability to advocate for themselves, should make a difference in sentencing. The penalty should depend on the crime, not whether the victim was a sympathetic person or not.
This show feels like it needs a third: a moderator who can cool things off, keep things moving and mediate, with good humor. Otherwise, it feels like this project is ending in real time.
I get Matt's frustration that Russiagate is mostly accepted lore among an entire segment of our population, and that something needs to happen to let people know the truth, before the lies are printed in history books. It's also apparent that any act that Trump's Justice Department makes in this matter is going to be spun as lawfare, bullying, or even the dreaded "fascism" by the Democrats and legacy media. The whole thing works in an asymmetrical way, where every (ahem) trumped-up prosecution of Trump is going to be treated as necessary holy writ, while any attempt at turnabout will be treated as unprecedented governmental abuse.
Trump's people aren't helping matters by blundering around. The seashell case is dumb and the continued attacks on Kimmel (asshole that he is) are a disaster. This hurts what I think are necessary correctives in the SPLC revelations and undoing racial gerrymandering, the latter of which has the most normie of Dems calling for packing the Supreme Court (and adding states, abolishing the Electoral College, getting rid of the filibuster, etc.). Lawfare is only going to ratchet up dramatically from here.
I agree with Michael that some crimes are over-prosecuted. Michael's right that we've drastically expanded the definition of trafficking, and that, coupled with the removal of due process and activist reporting in sex cases, has led us to an incredibly unconstitutional place. Matt's own reporting on Eric Garner and broken windows policing has pointed in the direction of over-prosecution. The results of progressive DAs recently going radically in the other direction — not prosecuting low level violent offenses, allowing open air drug use, and allowing generalized disorder — have left many large cities in a weird, unsettling place, and many in the cities are clamoring for something much more strict. Here in NYC, criminal justice runs terribly and slowly. Fixing it would help. Instead, we have Mamdani wanting to close Riker's before any replacements are built (replacements that are in residential neighborhoods where the residents are fighting tooth and nail to keep them out).
Both parties need to operate under the same principles, but they don't. There should be some consequences for Russiagate, Covid failures, the Hunter Biden laptop fiasco, the SPLC hate-creation enterprise, and the rest, but there probably won't be. When the Democrats are back in power, they're promising to throw every single ICE agent in jail for absurd charges like treason,to prosecute anyone associated with Trump in any capacity, and to disenfranchise any Republican voter permanently by radically changing the game board. It would be nice if Trump's people could get it together enough to prevent any of this, but it's unlikely. I don't know if Comey and his ilk need to be in jail, but they sure as hell shouldn't be near any power again.
I have evolved 180 degrees on the Electoral College. I used to oppose it and now I believe it is indispensable.
Eliminating the EC would put the whole country under a centralized, remote control by the federal government, with even less local control and accountability as now.
It would do away with statehood, and the reason is simple: everything that you love or hate about government originated in a State government- thats why the States are the "laboratory of democracy."
It's not going to be easy for that to be accomplished. There's almost no way in hell that the constitutional amendment necessary to change our electoral structure is going to pass. This is why a lot of the DSA/activist/progressive class want to paint the constitution, our courts, this country and our history as evil, racist and illegitimate. I firmly believe they think that a wholesale destruction of the whole thing will be easier to pull off than any legal change. It's like playing chess with someone who's a poor player and can't control their emotions: they'd rather throw the chess board against the wall than lose.
There are some slightly more moderate Dems who are monkeying with things like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but I'm not sure that will be very effective. One thing I'm fairly certain of is that the Democrats will do everything in their power to upend everything they can to try to ensure permanent power.
I could not believe they chose THAT to pursue. I get that Trump was target of many frivolous lawsuits, but the "revenge" -- if there is to be such a thing -- should be LEGITIMATE cases.
The process is the punishment, as they say. The stupidity of this one might be the point, to make him jump through expensive hoops for something so ridiculous.
That punishment only seems to go one way now, which is why it’s all high pranks and middle fingers.
A big part of the Trump experiment, and a clue to his popularity, is his cynical, brazen mockery of our cynical and empty politics, emanating from inside the White House itself. It’s almost performance art. Maybe it is. It would be more entertaining if we didn’t all have to live through it, bracing ourselves for the inevitable aftermath.
This is the broken window theory applied after the third serious attempt on the president's life. There's no room for ambiguity when the consequence indirect, or not, is normalizing threats which can clearly be construed as advocating the "86ing" of "47".
There are a million ways to protest any cause/individual while unambiguously wishing long life and a fair trial to the worst malefactors.
8647 is shorthand for assassination in some circles. Comey knows it.
I've seen many articles that frame it like '86' just means to 'get rid of something'.
I learned the term '86' playing video games at my friend's apartment back in the 2000s. At least where I was and among my friend group at the time -- that is to say, urban millennials in east TN -- '86' meant 'kill'.
Maybe there's some kind of generational difference in the usage of the term. It is slang after all, and Comey is 30 years older than me, so I could give him the benefit of the doubt maybe. But a guy in his role spelling out a message like that? Unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned.
I think they 8647 case against comey is part of some other strategy they are not and may never disclose. I don't think they believe it will succeed on merits, and possibly don't want it to. There is some other strategic advantage, the simplest being just resource depletion and others relating to discovery or classification of evidence and witnesses.
I think the problem is that some of the potential prosecutions may be past the statute of limitations. The seashell case is recent. Also, any case brought in D.C. would likely be jury nullified due to TDS.
That North Carolina county tilts republican, and so a prosecution might have a chance -- akin to how Trump was convicted on nonsense in Manhattan that wouldn't fly with a more balanced jury pool.
I liked Kimmel back in his blatantly offensive Man Show days. The irony level of guys like him and Howard Stern, who used to make their living having girls in bikinis wrestle, become the keepers of political decency and moral correctness is through the roof.
I personally think ABC/Disney wants to get rid of him. His show loses money, costs a small fortune to produce, and having him be one of the faces of the network drags the entire enterprise down in a time when network viewership is at an all-time low. When he spread the Heather Cox Richardson/MSNBC propaganda line that Charlie Kirk's assassin was MAGA and the network pulled him from the air, that likely would have been it for him. FCC chair Brendan Carr and Trump weighing in on the matter instantly turned Kimmel into a cause célèbre, and ABC was forced to put him back on. CBS successfully cut off the dead weight that is Stephen Colbert, and people read a Trump conspiracy into it, but there was no evidence, so it was able to happen. I actually had someone claim to me the other day that "Bari Weiss got rid of Colbert," even though Skydance had not yet acquired CBS, let alone hired Weiss for CBS News.
The networks would like to save themselves, and Trump and his cronies should lay off and just let it happen. It will, naturally. Opening their big mouths gets #resistance types to actually watch the shows and spike the ratings. #Resistance sold during the first Trump term, and now it's box office and Nielsen ratings poison.
Grok was asked to explain the SCOTUS ruling like one is a 5-year old. This is what it spit out:
“The big judges said grown-ups can't color on the map using mostly skin color crayons to make special shapes just for one group of kids to win more games.
Everyone still gets to vote the same, but the lines on the paper must be drawn fairly by where people live, not by picking favorites by their color.
It's like sharing toys equally without saying ‘these are only for brown kids’ — the rules want the same fair play for all kids in America.”
In the Jim Crow South, it was the Democrats suppressing the Black vote, not the Republicans. Prior to the CRA and VRA passage in the mid 1960s, the KKK held about as much sway with the National Dem party as the Teachers’ Unions do in the modern alignment.
(Most of the people who are not in prison but should be, have 7, 8, 10- digit incomes).
Read Justice Stevens dissent in Payne v. Tennessee re victims rights.
Victims rights is partisan politics whipping jurors into a frenzy based on emotion, not reason.
Victims have no constitutional rights, because victims are not being prosecuted or persecuted by the Government. The Bill of Rights protects us from the Goverment through prohibitions, not mandates (although it is easy to conflate the two).
The Government does not owe you protection from fellow citizens, see Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), even if you are very vulnerable, see DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). Arguably, that protection is what the Second Amendment is for.
Why doesn't the Constitution impose affirmative duties on the Government? Because the Founders distrusted governments and knew that they would eff up any attempt at affirmative actions. They knew that tyranny was part of the state of nature that law was created to overcome. They designed the three branches to be suspicious and skeptical of each other.
Also, there is no such thing as gerrymandering. There are such things as "winners" and "losers."
If you win, you get to redraw the district; if you lose, you don't. Read Justice Scalia's dissent in Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, about the "Spoils System."
The Voting Rights Act is the last piece of legislation related to the post-Civil War Reconstruction. Through the VRA, the Department of Justice gets to invoke the Civil War stereotypes over and over, even though discrimination and resegregation happen all over, not just in the South.
Candace Owens became famous via a single statement: "the Democratic Party is a slave ship." She was, and is correct.
This is not to say that Black persons who are descended from enslaved persons are not owed anything from the United States; they definitely are.
Descendants of enslaved persons are owed Reparations that will make them whole and bring closure to America's original sin. The tinkering with civil rights, even desegregation itself, has not even put a dent in the disparate between those descendants and the median population.
I would propose that such persons receive a 20-year moratorium on income and residential property taxation, with criminal penalties for fraud or straw buyers. This would not cost the government any initial outlay, and impact revenue very little, as those citizens pay little currently due to their low-wealth.
Also, this proposal incentivizes people to work and save, and thus overcomes most objections to means-tested government assistance as "welfare."
Michael you are a talented writer displaying inelegant behavior. You probably have a high IQ, but you need to work on your emotional quotient. Maybe try and “read” the room better and not take the criticism so seriously that you need to lash out.
Maybe many people here were too young to see it, but try seeing if you could find Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal debate the issues of the day, a right vs left exercise. It was deliciously delightful both were brilliant wordsmiths. They were so eloquent in their intellectual eviscerations of each other but always civil and hugely entertaining. Nothing like that exists today. A real shame.
I think it's generational, this embedded incivility both coming and going. I'm not completely understanding causation.
I think it boils down to extreme wealth inequality. Anyone born after '80 or so is getting a real good humping. Anyone doing well (upper 10%) has to be pretty ruthless.
If you look at the normal income distribution curve, it was the flattest in early 1970s. If you were a sentient being then, you understand why they were truly
"the Wonder Years."
Sanders gave people some hope, and then cheesed out. So people are effing pissed in an ambient way.
I appreciate your work, I appreciate everyone's respectful comments.
As I peruse the comments and your numerous responses to them I’m convinced that I have never seen such sophomoric, defensive and futile attempts at humor under the circumstances. I’m comfortable in my assumption that self-reflection is not one of your strong suits and to paraphrase the principal in Ferris Buehler: “we are all, no doubt, dumber for having listened to you at all”. It won’t happen to me again as I say farewell to Matt and your forum.
I loved a clip of Jimmy Carr’s stand-up when an audience member wanted him to trash Ticketmaster for charging high prices for shows. Jimmy says, “you do know that you can decide to not go to the show, right?”
Some of us are hooked on the soap opera aspect of "Today's News." Is this the episode when long-suffering Matt will finally smack down his obnoxious partner, even if ever so politely? Payoff, it is! Tune in next time to see if this marriage has survived. Perhaps the show should be titled "As the World Turns."
Michael lacks humility and often is unable to show respect to others for their opinions. There is a saying in commerce that the customer is always right, As a principal partner in his debate with Michael, he repeatedly fires back at criticisms from readers’ .... most of whom are paying customers to racket.news ... with his own invectives and acerbic comments that include “sit me down and educate me. Make sure you are completely nude.”, “suck on lemons”, “insufferable”,“control me, Daddy,” etc. In all cases, his disagreement response is manifest by an angry retort with a lack of humility, which is the cornerstone of respect for others. Michael is smart and certainly has followers for his expertise, but he has lost a following in this substack.
As the former director of FBI he knew exactly what he was doing and calling for and he very well knows how the mob used it. 86 means eight miles away and six feet deep. There’s no ambiguity in what he’s calling for. To suggest otherwise is denial.
And, his pretending he had no recollection of things when testifying before congress was bs. His facial contortions while pretending he couldn’t recall some 100 or so times was unconvincing. He’s a liar.
86 can mean the 25th Amendment and this is why the case will fail to win. The DOJ case vs. Comey is a ‘punishment is the process’ exercise and a bit of a waste of time and $. I say that as someone who doesn’t like Comey one iota but who does absolutely love the 1st Amendment.
Before Reddit ownership decided that threatening to kill politicians was perfectly acceptable content, a lot of Reddit posters had this game where they believed that if they came up with another word for "assassination" like the word "corndog", then that would be a legal loophole that would mean they couldn't get prosecuted or banned for threatening the president.
This was obviously delusional "I'm not touching you" games from very mentally unwell people that would never fly in a courtroom.
And just because a word has another definition besides "assassination" is not a get out jail free card--and this too clever by half logic of a nine year old boy doesn't work in the legal world.
If you call someone a "kid fucker" and then once you are sued insist that you only meant that they do not have the proper respect for young goats--no one is going to buy that shit. It's just going to make you look even more guilty.
One of Comey's problems here is that he said he didn't know what that message meant but that he thought it might have something to do with Trump so he posted a picture.
Not even Comey's lawyer believes that bullshit.
This case does not hinge on whether "86" has other meanings besides "assassinate", this case hinges on Comey's intent and the evidence that the government has to show Comey's intent.
Why does everybody forget how much data is recorded in the world and how much of that the federal government has access to? Comey worked for the government for long time. Hell, he may have used "86" before in work related communications.
We will see how this plays out in a courtroom, but if Comey had written "assassinate" instead of "86" I think there would be very few people who think that this would go well for Comey.
I'm not sure why so many think the "corndog" defense is going to work in this case, but we will see what evidence the government has.
Fellas: today's podcast was painful. Someone needs to sit Michael down and educate him on basic human discourse decorum.
And he could spend some time reading Matt's well-documented discussion of Russia Gate over the years. Michael reminds me of a student who didn't do his home work and shrieks at the others thinking by shouting he will make up for skimming the reading list. And the continual quoting of Beria got a little bit hysterical.
I originally met Matt because we were both among the rarefied few who were contemporaneously covering Russiagate from a critical perspective, genius.
Well, you didn't demonstrate you understood it.
I'm not a "genius," but I expect that wasn't meant to be respectful.
He's SO rude. He couldn't respond without attacking you personally. I just don't get why Matt is torturing us with him.
Maybe he needs to get some liberal cred back. Reporting the truth can get you branded "far right" unless you bend a knee now and then. Look what happened to Steve Bannon and Alex Jones.
It's funny, this morning I looked myself in the mirror before going to the store, and I'm not the most hygienic guy either, but I stared at myself and immediately thought, "I don't look as bad as Michael Tracey does on camera", so I headed out and got some grub.
He pretty much surrendered any high ground he might have had with his 'genius' remark. Labeling himself "among the rarefied few" seems a bit pretentious, as well.
I believe he was referring to journalists on the left, and in that regard, he was correct.
Matt is right about Russiagate. And I think Trump is a horrible man and a horrible president. I agree with Michael’s general notion of tit for tat use of the justice apparatus. Bottom line? America is fucked.
To quote Bruce Springsteen; “It’s gonna be a long walk home…”
Michael's big idea is that political should decide everything. So. . .hey, no more lawyers. No more laws. Just a totally rigged election process to protect we-the-people from the rich.
The core problem is that that would favor the establishment over those outside of it.
The most relevant axis today isn't right/left, but establishment/anti-establishment.
If the establishment never faces a bloody nose from abusing power, they'll never stop.
But those outside of it can easily be Roger Stoned or J6ed, with no structural way to fight back.
More accurately, to protect the already-rich from upward mobility.
I just googled "internet troll", and I see Tracey as a guy who's origins are what google said, but he has gamed it to achieve more. He's seems to me, a savvy internet troll. Maybe I'm wrong, because I live in a cave and only communicate with bats, but that's my take.
Btw... I think we're all a little trollish at times. In a way, the internet promotes it. However, some make a living doing it.
You might try searching "Michael Tracey" and then you'd see that he is actually a reporter, who has been writing for many years.
The fact that he hits back against online critics doesn't make him a troll; it makes him human.
In fact, one of the things I admired about Trump was that he hit back at critics, too.
You're correct. I've never heard of, read anything, or have I seen Michael Tracey before he arrived here. My comments are 100% based on what I've observed since then. I'm an SOB and I don't give anyone a break that steps up on "The Stage" in front of me, because I know they wouldn't give me a break. Tracey may be very akamai, but he's not pleasant. I have no interest in watching unpleasant people deliver unpleasant info. The least they could try to do is be pleasant.
Same. But with Trump it was more of a performance. Don Rickles meets 'The Apprentice'.
Michael Tracey is a real journalist who does real reporting. He might be abrasive in person, but that's no reason to ignore the substance of his work.
Michael is a journalists & sometimes does good reporting but he's also human and sometimes lets his own bias get the better of him and sometimes he's just plain wrong.
I'm unfamiliar with him, but he's here at Racket and I trust Matt to know who's got journalism chops and who doesn't, so it's not about his work. It's not about his appearance nor his annoying podcast persona either. It's about who he seems to be as a person, which is something I shouldn't know about, but I do. Just like I know that Hasan Piker is a egomaniacal sadist (I shouldn't know that), I know things about Michael Tracey that, in my eyes, diminish him as a person. That's his fault, and if he continues to show me, I'll continue to razz him - his disheveled Columbo appearance just gives me a target and makes it fun.
Living in a "cave" can promote clearer thought.
True, but it comes with a price. I'm good with it... most of the time.
I used to watch America this Week religiously. Now, I check in to Todays News maybe once every couple weeks because Tracey is an insufferable egoist and he always looks like he could use a bath.
Michael you are a writer why do you have to resort to personal insults, I expect that from the trolls not you.
Insulting paid subscribers in a private chat forum, also not good form. Maybe Michael needs to take a week or 2 off, a little vacation perhaps, to do some offline thinking.
Michael needs to go back to Oregon and take another mescaline trip. He was full of bonhomie after the last one.
Why shouldn't he?
Why should writers be expected to ignore insults?
I don't think it's about being a writer. I think it's about stepping onto the world stage, in whatever capacity that happens to be. Michael Tracey, Matt Taibbi, Walter Kirn, etc, chose to step onto the world stage. It puts them into a hugely different set of circumstances that should require then to use discretion when, say, they choose to insult paid subscribers.
Those that occupy the world stage have followings, resources, connections, etc, that the rest of us only dream of. We've allowed them to use those resources as weapons against regular people who don't particularly like their work... not cool! So, Michael Tracey needs to shut his fucking mouth, suck it up, and take it like a man! Michael Tracey needs to learn a few things from Matt Taibbi.
I disagree.
I’ve seen Glenn Greenwald totally eviscerate those who post critical replies to his posts. I find it amusing. I still see no reason why any writer should have to tolerate online abuse any more than anyone else should.
One danger of a system of paying subscribers is audience capture, where the journalist panders rather than saying anything that might offend his readers. I find it a little refreshing that there's no pandering going on here.
Addressing insults by maintaining a higher intellectual plane is preferred, this is not facebook. Look at his other remarks telling a woman to “sit me down …make sure you are completely nude”, this is silly, misogynistic, I objectionable and just juvenile and sophomoric. The more you respond in kind to insults the more we are debasing normal discussions.
Michael, take a breath occassionally and let Matt speak, please. I thought Walter was bad, but you are worse, with less experience and less crazy, manic brilliance!
"Rarified".
You caught that trick. Geezuz the guy gets worse each week
Well you can still chat with Glenn Greenwald.
Insulting the paying subscribers makes it less likely they'll continue to be paying subscribers.
I'd be the last to be reminding folks of the bubble you and Matt then inhabited. Millions of others got there without you. But go ahead - pat yourself on the head.
No attempt to pile on Michael, just learn. Is your position based on the premise that prosecuting leakers will chill journalists access to whistleblower content?
The impossible happened - I found myself deeply sympathetic to Matt. Michael confirms he's an incurious, self-inflated buffoon. There's room for debate on all issues. MT's mind-reading of motivations and posturing has always been tiresome. I wouldn't have watched any part of this had Walter not announced that MT self-aggrandizing and inexcusable character assassination " I'm against throwing people in jail for no reason - I guess that's a character flaw." Yuk.
I'm delighted I cut MT off years ago. He was a clown then, and he's worse now.
Could you please spell out names for us? They're both MT.
hah!
The clue is the observable behavior.
'A student who didn't do his homework' . . . perfect.
I thought I would give this a try again post-Walter. But if it's got Michael on it I'm out. Won't bother with this again. He is annoying. He is wrong. But he is always certain.
Why does Matt go along with it?
Get rid of him, Matt. He's an arsehole. I'm not saying bring Walter back, but get rid of this tool.
I'll sign that petition
walter's a rat bastard for leaving but i want him back!
Sit me down and educate me, then. Make sure you are completely nude.
Could you be more disgusting, Tracey? I'm sure you'll try.
As I said during the "podcast", I would tap in for Jimmy Acosta (a truly despicable human being) simply to teach you some manners, tough guy.
Give Michael a break. It's been years since a woman has taken off her clothes for him.
Dude, stop being defensive and take some constructive criticism from those of us who pay for this content.
Matt sat you down - and you grovelled once you knew you'd crossed all the lines. Watch yourself and ask yourself whether your behavior was in any sense defensible. You're an insecure, overbearing child. Time to grow up.
Good point. You're painfully unfunny too.
Actually that's the biggest problem. Obnoxious can work if you're funny.
Comments like that really show who you are. You don't look the way you think you do. I know you've convinced yourself you're some kind of "truth teller" but you're not. You are a pervert apologist and spastic weirdo who got publicly bitched by Jim Acosta and the only thing you'll be remembered for is your admiration of Jeffrey Epstein. Now that you're unemployed again you should start a podcast with John Zeigler. He's the guy who tanked his career defending Jerry Sandusky. I'm sure you two dickheads would really hit it off.
You’re an offensive shit stain.
I don’t need to pay Matt to listen to an arrogant prick.
Let us not forget, most of the Michael Tracey haters in these comments voted for Donald Trump. Clearly their high and mighty standards have hella leeway.
Ugh!
Way ahead of you.
I tune in to hear Matt and then Michael keeps interrupting him. It's frustrating. I used to anticipate the arrival of each of Matt's podcasts, but I no longer put it on my calendar and often turn it off after the first 30 minutes. Given that both Glenn and Matt have platformed Michael, Michael's writing must have merit, but Michael invariably presents himself as overbearing and self-absorbed. If he wants my advice, because I would really like to see what Glenn and Matt see in him, I would suggest that: 1) he does his homework (Matt certainly has); 2) that he listen to Matt and stop interrupting him; and 3) that he make his points succinctly and NEVER focus the conversation on himself.
I finally listened to the entire broadcast and also saw the way Tracey responded to the posted criticisms of others. I doubt my suggested remedy will work.
It’s difficult because Matt is deferential and courteous by nature and I’ve been wondering for weeks why we don’t have a counter in the corner of the screen of the number of times Michael Tracey interrupts someone - and when it’s the two of them he’s just interrupting Matt. That alone grates on my nerves as I wonder where the conversation might have gone if it was imbued with more free flowing energy and respect.
Michael just seems defensive or something. Just not quite fully developed in some way. Immature.
If this ends the duo, I’m all for it.
Occasional guest, sure, but as part of our regular Racket diet it’s just not working for me.
Keep up the good work Matt. Whatever you decide, you’ve got my support for sure!!
Gee, I wonder why Michael might "seem defensive"?
Maybe it's because he is blasted in this comment section every week (sometimes before the show even starts) for his presence on the show, his appearance, and his interruptions.
Very few critical posts address anything he actually says.
As I wrote earlier, Michael believes that the political process, not the rule of law as enforced through the courts, should determine what is good for our country. He seems ignorant of the fact that politics itself is a product of laws. Has he ever read the history of how this country came to be. . . like the Constitution?
It’s rude to interrupt people. Especially so many times in one podcast. I think we can all agree Michael interrupts others mid-thought/mid-sentence quite often.
Defensive on a deeper level than just from the recent comments. Just seems insecure.
Not sure I can put my finger on it but he seems to lack a seriousness in the sense that someone who seriously is trying to learn will listen attentively to others because they recognize that is how one learns.
His replies to comments also belie a defensive and insecure posture. Like he needs to “win” the argument
I would much rather the substance of the arguments be addressed rather than emotional responses or ad hominem remarks.
Yes -- although many of the negative remarks directed at Michael have nothing to do with his statements, or his reporting; they tend to simply express anger that he is still here.
Maybe he should learn something from that.
Michael ignores the opinions of others in a consistently offensive and grandiose manner. Matt is a giant - really, by comparison. MT is roundly ignored because even when he's right he buries his own arguments by insulting everyone who does not suck up to him and parrot back the "pronouncements" of Moses Tracey.
MT has been wrong more often than he's been right because he lives in a cartoon world where he's the only hero.
I genuinely want a refund at this point
Michael is very hard to get along with. This was hard to listen too, he was acting like a pompous jerk, showing no respect. Missing Walter. Missing book discussions. 😔 I’ll give it another 2 weeks, to see if the show improves, but this was bad enough to call the show off. I wonder if greenwald would make a more interesting, and thoughtful discussion.
Great idea! Tho Glenn can get a bit loquacious at times, he is principled and disciplined and has seen his share of suffering - enough to keep him grounded and appreciative of humor.
It's all come crashing down, punctuated by the purge of Michael Tracey for the unforgivable crime of dissent. My subscription expires today and I don’t intend to renew. I’ve canceled before, but returned reluctantly to see what the Racket 2.0, announced with much fanfare by Matt, was all about.
Was it the chorus of subscribers insisting Tracey go, or did Matt ‘Bondi’ him? We’ll never know, but suffice it to say I’ve never seen Matt so discombobulated as when he heard Tracey espouse the eminently reasonable position that we shouldn’t endorse Trump’s vendetta-laced prosecutions. In the two years I subscribed, nothing remotely elicited such an unhinged response to his previous co-host Walter Kirn — not when Kirn justified the shootings in Minneapolis on law-and-order grounds, the warrantless searches and arrests or the killings on the high-seas of supposed drug running suspects. To the contrary, more often than not Matt's smirked and his his head bobbed up and down.
What have I learned during the two years I subscribed? That the brand of journalism Taibbi practices, call it Gonzo investigative, while entertaining is ultimately flawed and a deceptive. Why? Because while Gonzo and investigative often precede the word journalism, the two should never mix. Sure, Taibbi was entertaining enough in his books and when he was at Rolling Stone, and he still had the patina of legitimacy. But he had editors then who would fact check him when he’d go off the rails. The articles I've seen here have been rife with hyperbole and straw man tactics, which plays well to his audience but doesn't meet minimum standards of journalism.
This was on full display when Taibbi, who rarely leaves his basement now, decided to go on the Mehdi Hasan show three years ago to discuss his much ballyhooed Twitter Files and was picked apart surgically by Hasan, who methodically exposed his shoddy brand of journalism. Taibbi is undoubtably a gifted and entertaining writer, he should stick to fiction.
Guess I’m one of the few on here who doesn’t think Michael was out of line. His was a pretty typical libertarian argument, and I was pretty surprised when Matt seemed to be offended by it.
Good haiku. He missed this part of human education.
100%!
https://substack.com/@justindeschamps/note/c-239785347?r=3z9ype&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I still follow Walter on X and earlier today saw that Michael had posted on Walter's feed. In his defense of himself he wrote he had not watched ATW... And also thought the ATW audience was too literary and some other things that I didn't take note.
My dislike of last week's ATW was mainly that Michael did not seem to understand the long patient unwinding of Russiagate on Racket News. If I were asked to be on someone's podcast I would have prepared by watching past ATW podcasts and reading back issues of Racket News.
My main dislike of last week's episode was I felt Michael did not know the well-documented history Matt Taibbi has provided . I have huge respect for the lengthy and tedious work that Matt has done at Racket. That is why last week's episode caught me off-guard.
I'm a librarian and the level of documentation Matt has done over the years has deeply impressed me. I respect the receipts.
Well stated. And I think we all walked alongside them with the understanding of Russiagate to deepen our understanding of this discourse.
See if you can get through this podcast without mentioning Epstein…
God I miss Walter. 😔
And so the comments, not just the podcast, devolve into Michael’s private mud wrestling pit. The reason we have continued to try to listen to this podcast, Michael, despite your personality, is the affection we had for the Matt/Walter podcasts, and hope that maybe the next one will be better. But no.
Yes, I wanted to like this podcast, but can’t get through even 5 minutes of it.
I stopped trying
Wise move. I might have to unsubscribe. 🧐
If MT is gone and that's the first step to a return to the original Racket I may give Matt another chance. Look at how much shit Matt had to eat just to finish the podcast. I'd have dumpt MT the moment MT spewed: "I'm not gung-ho about locking people up for no good reason - maybe that's a character flaw." Good point! Bye!
Yes, I don’t know why Matt picked him to team with in the first place.
Desperation?
How many of us would read comments trashing us and never respond? I’m guessing very few.
How many of is would read this many comments saying we should stop interrupting and never wonder if we should maybe do that? I'm guessing very few.
I wish Michael would watch the podcast and see for himself what we're all complaining about. Takes courage to look in the mirror, sadly.
Many comments here aren’t total trash. Do they warrant the nasty responses? People have criticized Matt and (if I recall correctly) most of his responses were at least civil.
How many? Everyone who is professional paid to remain civil irrespective of the baiting. So, good point.
Wishful thinking.
Michael’s TDS extends into everything he comes across, whether he admits it or not. The charges brought against Trump were bogus, even changing NY law to allow the SOL to lapse for a year. They divided up 1 accounting error into 34 just so that MSM could spew it over and over in the news. They prosecuted Trump over classified documents that they set up and arranged on the floor to make it look like he had left it that way. They raided MAL without proper predicate. They did not charge Biden for storing classified docs in his garage which he took home as VP.
Michael needs to know the difference between criminal leaking and whistleblower leaking. Criminal leaking, which Comey did, was conspiring and orchestrating leaks to damage Trump with false information so the NYT would publish it and millions would read the false information. Richman was brought in to essentially launder it through to give Comey immunity through client lawyer privilege. There was no need to hire Richman as a SGE as he had no other role being there legitimately. I also believe Richman had a role in the sharing of the leaks between silos, the NSA and FBI. As for statutes, Michael should know if he studied this enough to be qualified to tal about it other tham left wing propaganda and that is there are plenty, including deprivation of constitutional rights of the President and many other people. How would Michael like to have his constitutional rights violated? At the very least, 4A and due process, because that’s what happens when an FBI director violates the procedures and laws that Congress voted in and the FBI is supposed to follow regarding surveillance and FISA. FISA is a very powerful tool and when weaponized is devastating. To sit there and ask Matt for specific statute numbers is ludicrous look it up). Michael has the perception promulgated by those on the left and MSM that this is a corrupt DOJ, when in fact the Holder and Garland DOJ were corrupt and teamed up with the IC to remove Trump. People suffered greatly under the Holder and Garland DOJs because statutes and procedures were broken. Those should be prosecuted because we do not want them to happen again, victims deserve justice and the guilty must be held accountable
I’m glad Matt pushed back because we saw how weak Michael’s argument was.
Amazing you could accuse me of "TDS" for rejecting the substantive legitimacy of all four prosecutions of Trump.
Then why are you saying this is tit for tat?
If you did not have TDS you would look at Russia Gate and see the many statutes that were violated and should be prosecuted. We simply cannot have FBI directors going around conspiring to weaponize powerful national security tools to deprive people of their rights and then burying it under classified and hiding it in burn bags. Remember, DNI Gabbard declassified the many docs and Kash and Dan found others in burn bags hidden away.
Thank you for reading and commenting on my post.
No one knows what he did and didn’t do because they refuse to calmly investigate who did what.
Lucky you’re not the judge and jury.
Of course they know what he did and didn't do. All of the FISAs have to be approved and/or signed, especially while spying on members of a presidential transition team, by the FBI director and sometimes the AG. Director Patel found burn bags hidden in a secret room filled with notes and signatures. They spent hours upon hours reading the papers--Bongino described it in a recent podcast. And most of all I could not be the judge and jury because I am a VICTIM of the FBI under Comey--and he of course at the very least knew about it. I know exactly what Obama, Comey, Clapper,Hayden and Brennan did because they did it to me!
You utter clown. This latest iteration of Matt's podcast might be tolerable if, and only if, one had never seen ATW. Whereas Walter brought wisdom, nuance, and perspective, to news stories, you bring self-absorbed, vulgar, vitriol.
Your lack of self-awareness has you responding to comments, making you look even more petulant.
I was going to cancel my subscription to Racket, as ATW was the primary draw for me. However, I'll stick around a bit longer now, simply to watch your fall.
One accounting error into 34 counts…
We should at least be honest with the “one.” It was one payoff to a porn star to cover up infidelity. That’s not 34 felony counts, but it’s also not an accounting error.
But in my opinion transforming one payoff to a porn star into 34 felonies is the greater crime. I am getting pretty bored with the sex lives of politicians at this point, when compared to constant revelations of corruption, egregious grift, and other crimes.
I agree. What he did with Stormy is between Melania and him. Trying to classify it as a business expense is the weakest felony ever.
I've been watching and reading Michael for several years, and I don't think I would ever accuse him of TDS.
I've been watching and reading Tracy for years as well. I used to watch System Update and Michael would appear and sub for Glenn. I like Michael's man-on-the-street shows. I happen to think that he does have TDS because without fail he comes down on the side of supporting arguments against Trump. He said that he didn't have TDS because he didn't think there was any merit to the cases against Trump. It must be noted though that many people thought that. He refused to listen to any argument Matt had that Russiagate had merit as an orchestrated hoax and like MSM always says that it must be Trump's need for retribution. That is just not true. This is not retribution for Trump against those so called "enemies" because those people like Comey hurt many many Americans. Those Americans should be able to see due process play out and if guilty be held accountable.
Maybe it's time.
I have to agree with others, Matt...Tracey was really out of control this time. I am NOT going to pester you about bringing back Walter (that's Walter's decision, after all), but Tracey needs to learn some self restraint. BTW, I will continue to be a subscriber because I have always enjoyed your writing, but if this keeps up, I'm giving up on the new podcast.
Come over and control me, Daddy.
As usual, Tracey gets ratioed
Michael you need to add some skin to your shell. Your TDS is showing.
What? Are you saying. We hear that you have elreservations. But to assert that your judgment is righteous is crossing the original parameters of this podcast.
Well, Tracey just made a smart ass remark, so I blocked him. No more podcast for me.
Maybe he is trying to ruin the Substack. We can still read Matt w/o the podcast.
I don't think he has the capability to ruin Substack. All I had to do was block him, so now he's dead to me.
And yes, I will continue to read Matt. I like him better as a writer than as a podcaster anyway.
Matt rarely responds to comments, but when he does he's thoughtful, not mean.
Yeah, but also, the majority of comments about Matt don’t trash him the way people tee off on Tracey.
With respect, the majority of comments (that I actually read) were from long-time subscribers who renewed their subscriptions for more Walter and ended up with this instead. Like it or not, even the venal critiques of MT are rooted in MTs cartoon character pronouncements. I praised MTs journalism during Ferguson - from COVID forward he's had his head up his own ass, dare I say so bluntly. I haven't teed-off on MT until now. He'd have been thrown out of every civil discussion I've been a part of for his indefensible ad homs and posturing alone - the insults to interlocutors (paid subscribers) can't be defended in my view.
Quite honestly, I feel Tracey had it coming to him because he's an asshole.
Yes, he is.
I get where you’re coming from, but is that the best solution? Should Tracey block everyone trashing him?
Only if he wants to. I would prefer for Matt to get a new cohost at this point, but that's his decision, not mine. As for myself, I'm not watching the podcast anymore, but I will continue to read Matt's pieces.
Free country!
I enjoyed the writing from when Matt was at Rolling Stone. Grew to love the pod when it was hosted by Walter and Matt. Tracey did some decent coverage in Minnesota during the summer of Floyd. That was 6 years ago. I don’t know what he has done since and I have no interest in finding out. It feels like Matt is punking the OG’s by having Tracey on in Walter’s place. That whole strange episode with Emily Kopp, where she was the editor of Racket for 2 weeks before she was caught lying about Walter Kirn in print, and then removed from Racket??
My sub renewal is December, so lots of time on the clock, but if it was in the next month it would be an easy NO. This product no longer resembles what i purchased.
Things change all of the time. I still enjoy Matt's writing, so I'm sticking around. Just renewed my subscription last month, so I'm stuck here anyway.
Matt ....please. My ears are bleeding from the show's last hour of you trying to reason with someone who only wants to listen to his own opinion. Maybe Michael should read some of your work from the last 4 years regarding Russiagate or better yet listen to the ATW shows from years past to see how people with differing political and philosophical views can still deliver a successful podcast and build a diverse audience. People should be able to agree to disagree and maintain respect another's body of work without being an A-hole.
Our only hope seems to be that Matt tires of Mike
Michael had no defense for his opinion, no grounds other than contending no crimes were committed or laws broken and it was simply political. Then he appeared to begin equating apples to oranges once he realized Matt remained unimpressed and he was losing ground. He appeared to not have thought his opinion through well enough to defend it, and was shooting from the hip.
I his defense, it is much harder to prove that something did not occur than to prove that it did. Sometimes not possible.
I can’t watch any more. But the withdrawal symptoms from the good days at racket keep me trying
That's all of us I think
Racial gerrymandering has always been wrong. In the old days, it helped Republicans — they’d pack all the Black voters into one district, so you’d get a Black representative there, but then all of the surrounding districts would be solid Republican. Black districts traded policymaking power for superficial “representation” and the CBC was happy with that bargain because it benefited them personally. Carol Swain wrote a book about it.
Today, it’s even less defensible in our multi-racial society, where it’s not just Black/white, and black candidates are competitive in all sorts of districts.
Comey etc: I agree with Matt about the need to prosecute some government crimes. Comey and the lower-level people involved in Russiagate don’t care if Trump supporters “politically repudiate” them. All of their friends already hate Trump. Political consequences aren’t enough of a deterrent, especially for government employees who aren’t known to the general public.
I also agree with Matt about the importance of prosecutors and prisons. The safety of the community (including being safe from nonviolent crime like burglary) matters. Prosecution is a tough, relatively low-pay, often thankless job, and I’m very grateful to the people who do it.
I wonder if Matt and Michael have different views on prosecution, in part, because Matt has children. When I was growing up, I used to watch The Practice and root for the defense attorneys to win. Fuck the police, limit government power, etc. Then I rewatched it as a parent, and I had a totally different reaction. All of my sympathy was with the prosecutor who was trying so hard to get justice for victims’ families.
Spending so much time on the fake crimes of the Epstein-verse may have skewed Michael’s view — understandably so — but there are a lot of real crimes that harm innocent people, and recidivism rates are high. If anything, a lot of people aren’t in prison who should be. A lot of murders are committed by perpetrators with long criminal records.
My slight agreement with Michael is that I think victims’ rights have gone too far. I don’t think the identity of the victims, how sympathetic they are, or their ability to advocate for themselves, should make a difference in sentencing. The penalty should depend on the crime, not whether the victim was a sympathetic person or not.
This show feels like it needs a third: a moderator who can cool things off, keep things moving and mediate, with good humor. Otherwise, it feels like this project is ending in real time.
I get Matt's frustration that Russiagate is mostly accepted lore among an entire segment of our population, and that something needs to happen to let people know the truth, before the lies are printed in history books. It's also apparent that any act that Trump's Justice Department makes in this matter is going to be spun as lawfare, bullying, or even the dreaded "fascism" by the Democrats and legacy media. The whole thing works in an asymmetrical way, where every (ahem) trumped-up prosecution of Trump is going to be treated as necessary holy writ, while any attempt at turnabout will be treated as unprecedented governmental abuse.
Trump's people aren't helping matters by blundering around. The seashell case is dumb and the continued attacks on Kimmel (asshole that he is) are a disaster. This hurts what I think are necessary correctives in the SPLC revelations and undoing racial gerrymandering, the latter of which has the most normie of Dems calling for packing the Supreme Court (and adding states, abolishing the Electoral College, getting rid of the filibuster, etc.). Lawfare is only going to ratchet up dramatically from here.
I agree with Michael that some crimes are over-prosecuted. Michael's right that we've drastically expanded the definition of trafficking, and that, coupled with the removal of due process and activist reporting in sex cases, has led us to an incredibly unconstitutional place. Matt's own reporting on Eric Garner and broken windows policing has pointed in the direction of over-prosecution. The results of progressive DAs recently going radically in the other direction — not prosecuting low level violent offenses, allowing open air drug use, and allowing generalized disorder — have left many large cities in a weird, unsettling place, and many in the cities are clamoring for something much more strict. Here in NYC, criminal justice runs terribly and slowly. Fixing it would help. Instead, we have Mamdani wanting to close Riker's before any replacements are built (replacements that are in residential neighborhoods where the residents are fighting tooth and nail to keep them out).
Both parties need to operate under the same principles, but they don't. There should be some consequences for Russiagate, Covid failures, the Hunter Biden laptop fiasco, the SPLC hate-creation enterprise, and the rest, but there probably won't be. When the Democrats are back in power, they're promising to throw every single ICE agent in jail for absurd charges like treason,to prosecute anyone associated with Trump in any capacity, and to disenfranchise any Republican voter permanently by radically changing the game board. It would be nice if Trump's people could get it together enough to prevent any of this, but it's unlikely. I don't know if Comey and his ilk need to be in jail, but they sure as hell shouldn't be near any power again.
I have evolved 180 degrees on the Electoral College. I used to oppose it and now I believe it is indispensable.
Eliminating the EC would put the whole country under a centralized, remote control by the federal government, with even less local control and accountability as now.
It would do away with statehood, and the reason is simple: everything that you love or hate about government originated in a State government- thats why the States are the "laboratory of democracy."
It's not going to be easy for that to be accomplished. There's almost no way in hell that the constitutional amendment necessary to change our electoral structure is going to pass. This is why a lot of the DSA/activist/progressive class want to paint the constitution, our courts, this country and our history as evil, racist and illegitimate. I firmly believe they think that a wholesale destruction of the whole thing will be easier to pull off than any legal change. It's like playing chess with someone who's a poor player and can't control their emotions: they'd rather throw the chess board against the wall than lose.
There are some slightly more moderate Dems who are monkeying with things like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but I'm not sure that will be very effective. One thing I'm fairly certain of is that the Democrats will do everything in their power to upend everything they can to try to ensure permanent power.
"The seashell case is dumb"
I could not believe they chose THAT to pursue. I get that Trump was target of many frivolous lawsuits, but the "revenge" -- if there is to be such a thing -- should be LEGITIMATE cases.
The process is the punishment, as they say. The stupidity of this one might be the point, to make him jump through expensive hoops for something so ridiculous.
I’d expect them to keep coming.
Yes, very true, but I long for the good ol' days when the punishment was the punishment.
speedy trial (2 weeks or less) is dead. it's just all punishment, nowadays.
That punishment only seems to go one way now, which is why it’s all high pranks and middle fingers.
A big part of the Trump experiment, and a clue to his popularity, is his cynical, brazen mockery of our cynical and empty politics, emanating from inside the White House itself. It’s almost performance art. Maybe it is. It would be more entertaining if we didn’t all have to live through it, bracing ourselves for the inevitable aftermath.
This is the broken window theory applied after the third serious attempt on the president's life. There's no room for ambiguity when the consequence indirect, or not, is normalizing threats which can clearly be construed as advocating the "86ing" of "47".
There are a million ways to protest any cause/individual while unambiguously wishing long life and a fair trial to the worst malefactors.
8647 is shorthand for assassination in some circles. Comey knows it.
I've seen many articles that frame it like '86' just means to 'get rid of something'.
I learned the term '86' playing video games at my friend's apartment back in the 2000s. At least where I was and among my friend group at the time -- that is to say, urban millennials in east TN -- '86' meant 'kill'.
Maybe there's some kind of generational difference in the usage of the term. It is slang after all, and Comey is 30 years older than me, so I could give him the benefit of the doubt maybe. But a guy in his role spelling out a message like that? Unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned.
Agreed.
There has to be something else they could go after Comey on.
I suspect this is something being done to appease MAGA, while knowing there is no hope that it will go anywhere.
Some things are probably past the statute of limitations. Also, unlikely to get a court and grand jury that isn't heavily biased against Trump in D.C.
I think they 8647 case against comey is part of some other strategy they are not and may never disclose. I don't think they believe it will succeed on merits, and possibly don't want it to. There is some other strategic advantage, the simplest being just resource depletion and others relating to discovery or classification of evidence and witnesses.
I think the problem is that some of the potential prosecutions may be past the statute of limitations. The seashell case is recent. Also, any case brought in D.C. would likely be jury nullified due to TDS.
That North Carolina county tilts republican, and so a prosecution might have a chance -- akin to how Trump was convicted on nonsense in Manhattan that wouldn't fly with a more balanced jury pool.
Couldn't care less about Kimmel, but it's so wrong that he gets a paycheck from Disney.
Walt Disney must be turning in his grave regarding the leftwing political hacks who hijacked his company.
I liked Kimmel back in his blatantly offensive Man Show days. The irony level of guys like him and Howard Stern, who used to make their living having girls in bikinis wrestle, become the keepers of political decency and moral correctness is through the roof.
I personally think ABC/Disney wants to get rid of him. His show loses money, costs a small fortune to produce, and having him be one of the faces of the network drags the entire enterprise down in a time when network viewership is at an all-time low. When he spread the Heather Cox Richardson/MSNBC propaganda line that Charlie Kirk's assassin was MAGA and the network pulled him from the air, that likely would have been it for him. FCC chair Brendan Carr and Trump weighing in on the matter instantly turned Kimmel into a cause célèbre, and ABC was forced to put him back on. CBS successfully cut off the dead weight that is Stephen Colbert, and people read a Trump conspiracy into it, but there was no evidence, so it was able to happen. I actually had someone claim to me the other day that "Bari Weiss got rid of Colbert," even though Skydance had not yet acquired CBS, let alone hired Weiss for CBS News.
The networks would like to save themselves, and Trump and his cronies should lay off and just let it happen. It will, naturally. Opening their big mouths gets #resistance types to actually watch the shows and spike the ratings. #Resistance sold during the first Trump term, and now it's box office and Nielsen ratings poison.
Grok was asked to explain the SCOTUS ruling like one is a 5-year old. This is what it spit out:
“The big judges said grown-ups can't color on the map using mostly skin color crayons to make special shapes just for one group of kids to win more games.
Everyone still gets to vote the same, but the lines on the paper must be drawn fairly by where people live, not by picking favorites by their color.
It's like sharing toys equally without saying ‘these are only for brown kids’ — the rules want the same fair play for all kids in America.”
asking Grok is a 100% indicator that you're a complete slobbering moron by the way just so you know
In the Jim Crow South, it was the Democrats suppressing the Black vote, not the Republicans. Prior to the CRA and VRA passage in the mid 1960s, the KKK held about as much sway with the National Dem party as the Teachers’ Unions do in the modern alignment.
(Most of the people who are not in prison but should be, have 7, 8, 10- digit incomes).
Read Justice Stevens dissent in Payne v. Tennessee re victims rights.
Victims rights is partisan politics whipping jurors into a frenzy based on emotion, not reason.
Victims have no constitutional rights, because victims are not being prosecuted or persecuted by the Government. The Bill of Rights protects us from the Goverment through prohibitions, not mandates (although it is easy to conflate the two).
The Government does not owe you protection from fellow citizens, see Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), even if you are very vulnerable, see DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). Arguably, that protection is what the Second Amendment is for.
Why doesn't the Constitution impose affirmative duties on the Government? Because the Founders distrusted governments and knew that they would eff up any attempt at affirmative actions. They knew that tyranny was part of the state of nature that law was created to overcome. They designed the three branches to be suspicious and skeptical of each other.
Also, there is no such thing as gerrymandering. There are such things as "winners" and "losers."
If you win, you get to redraw the district; if you lose, you don't. Read Justice Scalia's dissent in Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, about the "Spoils System."
The Voting Rights Act is the last piece of legislation related to the post-Civil War Reconstruction. Through the VRA, the Department of Justice gets to invoke the Civil War stereotypes over and over, even though discrimination and resegregation happen all over, not just in the South.
Candace Owens became famous via a single statement: "the Democratic Party is a slave ship." She was, and is correct.
This is not to say that Black persons who are descended from enslaved persons are not owed anything from the United States; they definitely are.
Descendants of enslaved persons are owed Reparations that will make them whole and bring closure to America's original sin. The tinkering with civil rights, even desegregation itself, has not even put a dent in the disparate between those descendants and the median population.
I would propose that such persons receive a 20-year moratorium on income and residential property taxation, with criminal penalties for fraud or straw buyers. This would not cost the government any initial outlay, and impact revenue very little, as those citizens pay little currently due to their low-wealth.
Also, this proposal incentivizes people to work and save, and thus overcomes most objections to means-tested government assistance as "welfare."
I was a fan of ATW. I stopped watching after Walter left, but decided I would give this show a try. Watched until the Comey part and turned it off.
After you turned it off, did you go suck on a lemon? I hope so.
No. I turned you off and went about my day doing productive things without your whiny ass voice in my ear. Matt is devaluing his brand with you.
Are you twelve?
Michael you are a talented writer displaying inelegant behavior. You probably have a high IQ, but you need to work on your emotional quotient. Maybe try and “read” the room better and not take the criticism so seriously that you need to lash out.
Maybe many people here were too young to see it, but try seeing if you could find Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal debate the issues of the day, a right vs left exercise. It was deliciously delightful both were brilliant wordsmiths. They were so eloquent in their intellectual eviscerations of each other but always civil and hugely entertaining. Nothing like that exists today. A real shame.
Re: All this snide snark:
I think it's generational, this embedded incivility both coming and going. I'm not completely understanding causation.
I think it boils down to extreme wealth inequality. Anyone born after '80 or so is getting a real good humping. Anyone doing well (upper 10%) has to be pretty ruthless.
If you look at the normal income distribution curve, it was the flattest in early 1970s. If you were a sentient being then, you understand why they were truly
"the Wonder Years."
Sanders gave people some hope, and then cheesed out. So people are effing pissed in an ambient way.
I appreciate your work, I appreciate everyone's respectful comments.
Matt, you need to pull rank here.
Another exciting episode of...... "Michael's Therapy Session."
You’re the one choosing to watch podcasts you evidently dislike so much. So between the two of us, who’s really in need of a therapeutic intervention?
As I peruse the comments and your numerous responses to them I’m convinced that I have never seen such sophomoric, defensive and futile attempts at humor under the circumstances. I’m comfortable in my assumption that self-reflection is not one of your strong suits and to paraphrase the principal in Ferris Buehler: “we are all, no doubt, dumber for having listened to you at all”. It won’t happen to me again as I say farewell to Matt and your forum.
I loved a clip of Jimmy Carr’s stand-up when an audience member wanted him to trash Ticketmaster for charging high prices for shows. Jimmy says, “you do know that you can decide to not go to the show, right?”
Some of us are hooked on the soap opera aspect of "Today's News." Is this the episode when long-suffering Matt will finally smack down his obnoxious partner, even if ever so politely? Payoff, it is! Tune in next time to see if this marriage has survived. Perhaps the show should be titled "As the World Turns."
I'd rather watch one of Tony Soprano's therapy sessions.
I don't know, Matt. It might be time to cut Michael Tracy loose.
Michael lacks humility and often is unable to show respect to others for their opinions. There is a saying in commerce that the customer is always right, As a principal partner in his debate with Michael, he repeatedly fires back at criticisms from readers’ .... most of whom are paying customers to racket.news ... with his own invectives and acerbic comments that include “sit me down and educate me. Make sure you are completely nude.”, “suck on lemons”, “insufferable”,“control me, Daddy,” etc. In all cases, his disagreement response is manifest by an angry retort with a lack of humility, which is the cornerstone of respect for others. Michael is smart and certainly has followers for his expertise, but he has lost a following in this substack.
As the former director of FBI he knew exactly what he was doing and calling for and he very well knows how the mob used it. 86 means eight miles away and six feet deep. There’s no ambiguity in what he’s calling for. To suggest otherwise is denial.
And, his pretending he had no recollection of things when testifying before congress was bs. His facial contortions while pretending he couldn’t recall some 100 or so times was unconvincing. He’s a liar.
86 can mean the 25th Amendment and this is why the case will fail to win. The DOJ case vs. Comey is a ‘punishment is the process’ exercise and a bit of a waste of time and $. I say that as someone who doesn’t like Comey one iota but who does absolutely love the 1st Amendment.
Before Reddit ownership decided that threatening to kill politicians was perfectly acceptable content, a lot of Reddit posters had this game where they believed that if they came up with another word for "assassination" like the word "corndog", then that would be a legal loophole that would mean they couldn't get prosecuted or banned for threatening the president.
This was obviously delusional "I'm not touching you" games from very mentally unwell people that would never fly in a courtroom.
And just because a word has another definition besides "assassination" is not a get out jail free card--and this too clever by half logic of a nine year old boy doesn't work in the legal world.
If you call someone a "kid fucker" and then once you are sued insist that you only meant that they do not have the proper respect for young goats--no one is going to buy that shit. It's just going to make you look even more guilty.
One of Comey's problems here is that he said he didn't know what that message meant but that he thought it might have something to do with Trump so he posted a picture.
Not even Comey's lawyer believes that bullshit.
This case does not hinge on whether "86" has other meanings besides "assassinate", this case hinges on Comey's intent and the evidence that the government has to show Comey's intent.
Why does everybody forget how much data is recorded in the world and how much of that the federal government has access to? Comey worked for the government for long time. Hell, he may have used "86" before in work related communications.
We will see how this plays out in a courtroom, but if Comey had written "assassinate" instead of "86" I think there would be very few people who think that this would go well for Comey.
I'm not sure why so many think the "corndog" defense is going to work in this case, but we will see what evidence the government has.
Michael Tracey. One word: Insufferable.