Remember when Kellyanne Conway became so ridiculously full of obvious lies (See: alternative facts) that news media stopped putting her on the air? It's about time they did the same with once-respectable Rudy Giuliani. He's deliberately obtuse about the Mueller investigation.
To be fair, that's his job. His client is in hot water, and Giuliani is trying to play to the jury. In this case, the jury is the American public, who are able to affect their respective elected representatives and senators one way or another. Giuliani doesn't have to win in an actual courtroom — he has to win in Congress.
But looking at what he's saying with any critical eye at all is... weird at the least and likely troubling. For instance, he's gone after Michael Cohen in recent days. "I don't see how you can believe Michael Cohen" and calling Cohen a "pathological liar." This came after it was revealed that Cohen had (at least... don't forget that's a minimum number right now) 12 tapes of he and President Trump. Then one of those tapes was leaked to CNN.
What I wish a smart journalist would do is ask Giuliani when Cohen became a pathological liar. Because as of May, Giuliani was calling Cohen an "honest, honorable lawyer." As of Saturday, Giuliani told the same source that he didn't know Cohen that well when he made that first statement. Guess what that makes you, Mr. Giuliani? A liar. Anyway, the obvious answer to anyone paying attention is that Giuliani changed his mind when Cohen had evidence and/or turned on President Trump.
Then we had the most recent forehead-slapping defense by Giuliani: "Four months, they're not going to be colluding with Russia, which I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians. You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime... the President didn't hack." Let's take that quote apart, Fire Joe Morgan style:
Four months...
He's talking about how long Paul Manafort was campaign manager for President Trump, implying that it wasn't enough time to collude with Russia. There's no way that Manafort had time to hear about and attend a meeting with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton in the office/building that Trump owned and lived in. Four months is so short! It's not like he was campaign manager during the Republican National Convention, Trump saying that Russia should hack Hillary Clinton's emails and the start of Russian hacking attempts on the DNC.
...they're not going to be colluding with Russia, which I don't even know if that's a crime, colluding about Russians.
First of all, that's a pretty definitive first statement about a hypothetical Trump campaign. I wish we had a real-world Trump campaign that we could compare it to...
Second, you don't know if it's a crime? You're a former prosecutor of the mafia in New York. At the very least, you're the main public lawyer for the President of the United States, who is under investigation for.... collusion. Either you're being obtuse or you're a bad lawyer.
Third, collusion itself is not explicitly a crime. No one has claimed it is. The word you're looking for is "conspiracy." That IS a crime. Further, the issue isn't really whether he's guilty of the theoretical crime of collusion. If it's proved that the President's campaign knowingly worked with Russians to hack political opponents and release their information at damaging times to his political opponents, then that's a) conspiracy and b) cause for immediate impeachment for subverting our democracy with the aid of a foreign rival. Impeachment is not criminal action, it's "you've embarrassed our country so much you don't get to keep your job."
You start analyzing the crime — the hacking is the crime... the President didn't hack.
No s*** he didn't hack. I would pay $100 to see the President try to attempt two lines of code. I would pay $50 to see President Trump attempt to connect to a password-protected wifi. Hell, I would pay $250 to watch him try to create an Excel spreadsheet.
But apply Giuliani's argument to Watergate: You start analyzing the crime — the breaking into a rival political party's office is the crime... the President didn't break into the opposing party's office. I guess we got Watergate all wrong! Case solved, Det. Giuliani!
Elections Update
I'm going to do quick updates on my view of the Senate, the House, and the current Electoral College outlook.
Electoral College
Wisconsin and Michigan hate Trump now, by double digits in recent polling. If you consider them blue (I believe midterm elections will back me up), then there are four states that will be true battlegrounds: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina. If [insert Democratic nominee] can flip any one of those four, in addition to Wisconsin and Michigan, then they will win the Presidency. That's not crazy to think of in Pennsylvania, Florida or North Carolina. One last kink in the works: Arizona went less for Trump than it did for Romney. It was only a 4 percent difference, and Trump did not break the 50 percent mark and had not announced policies targeting Hispanics. Arizona is a likely Senate seat to flip, and not by a slim margin. If Arizona flips and none of the aforementioned battleground states flip, then we have... a tie! 269-269 electoral votes (provided MI and WI flip, and if no other votes like those in Maine or Nebraska change)! That would send the election to the House of Representatives. Wow. Still way too early, but the MI/WI changes are significant.
Senate
I still have this as either staying as it is (51-49, Republicans) or maybe the Democrats picking up just one seat to make it 50-50, with VP Pence as the tiebreaker. I've got McCaskill holding on in Missouri, AZ/NV/TN flipping to Democrats (normally a good sign in a nearly impossible map, which I've talked about a lot) and Dems keeping their seats in WV, OH and the rest of the Rust Belt. However, I also see Florida, Indiana and North Dakota as real problems for Democrat incumbents. Best-case scenario for the GOP: 54-46 lead in the Senate. Best-case scenario for the Democrats: 52-48 lead in Senate. My guess: 51-49 GOP retains. In short, I agree with this guy. Also, quick note on the 2020 map: Unless Democrats become real popular or the GOP tanks, it looks like really only two clear opportunities for Dems to flip seats: CO and NC. It's a better map than this year, but not an easy map.
House
Sabato's Crystal Ball, one of the best in the analysis world, has the Democrats as slight favorites to flip the House. Cook's Political Report has the Democrats as "substantial favorites" to win the House. I think Sabato is closer to reality. To keep this short, I'll just say that I think a blue wave is likely, but 20+ seats should still be considered a blue wave. The GOP currently holds a 43 seat lead in the House, so even the Democrats flipping 20 seats would not be enough to win the House, barely. But what if they pick up 23? Or 24? Then the Democrats would be able to flip the House and win control of one house of Congress. Either way, I think this will come down to a few votes either way. Paul Ryan won't be there to keep the Freedom Caucus from running amok if the GOP wins -- governing would be harder than it is now.
Summary Judgments
This is terrifying to think about, but there are some solid points. The long and short of it is: Russia tried hacking our election systems. They breached seven states. Changing votes was something they could easily do. And yet some of those states insist nothing happened. Georgia, in particular, could be hacked by a 16-year-old. Hmmm.... I don't know if it's true, but I don't know that it's not, either. • • • This whole thing infuriates me. The CNN reporter was asking normal questions that any reporter would. Then they were banned, but I guess not using the word "ban" makes it not a ban? The attacks on the press are demoralizing. • • • Speaking of, wasn't there a giant conflict of interest with a Fox News host dating Donald Trump Jr.? I think that should have been brought up every time she was on TV. Her name is Kimberly Guilfoyle, and she was one of the more prominent female hosts on the channel. She left recently to take a job with a Trump PAC. (There's also some reports of abuse, but I'm ignoring those for now.) I would call that bias that should have been excised long ago. • • • I've been running 2.5 miles twice a week and then doing a bigger, 3-4 mile run on the weekend. I'm signing up for a 10K in September. It's going OK right now. I don't feel at ease about my long runs right now, but I am finishing them, so...? • • • Roland was having a rare bad day at day care the other day. The type that leads to the whole facility hearing him scream his head off and he had to be sent up front. One of the day care leaders talked to him and said, "This isn't you. The Roland I don't know doesn't act like this. Are you ready to calm down and go back in?" Almost immediately, he said, "Ok" and stopped crying and went back as if nothing happened. He can flick that switch instantly.
