Team Trump said the former president "believes anyone convicted of a crime should spend time behind bars."

It's amazing just how frequently these guys pretend the Republican nominee wasn't recently found guilty of 34 felonies.

But as notable as the circumstances are, just as interesting was the reaction from the Republican’s campaign team. The article added:

When asked to comment about the latest incident, Karoline Leavitt, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, said only, “President Trump believes anyone convicted of a crime should spend time behind bars.”

He does? Wouldn’t that have a direct impact on the former president himself, given his own rap sheet?

NBC News had a related report that added: “Leavitt and another campaign spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday about Trump’s view on jail time for convicts as it relates to his own conviction.”......

This need not be complicated. A jury recently found Trump guilty of 34 felonies. This is not to be confused with a different jury finding Trump liable for sexual abuse, or the case in which a court found that Trump oversaw a business that engaged in systemic fraud.

He’s also still facing several dozen other pending felony counts, across multiple jurisdictions. (He has pleaded not guilty.)

What’s more, the former president has also surrounded himself with other criminals. “With Lincoln, they had a team of rivals,” presidential historian Douglas Brinkley recently noted. “With Trump, you have a team of felons.”

In case that weren’t quite enough, during his failed presidency, Trump had a habit of issuing scandalous pardons to politically aligned criminals, and if elected to a second term, the Republican has promised to issue even more pardons to politically aligned criminals — including those who violently clashed with police officers.

And so, as Team Trump insists that the former president believes “anyone convicted of a crime should spend time behind bars,” it’s probably worth reminding the Republican operation that a little self-awareness goes a long way.

Where the Russians got lucky was in Trump’s response to the 2016 effort. His sympathy for Russia and for Russian President Vladimir Putin was obvious well before Election Day that year. (In retrospect, it’s probably not a coincidence that Russia’s efforts in 2014 followed surprisingly sympathetic responses from prominent Republicans after Russia’s initial Ukraine incursion that year.) It was Trump’s vanity, though, that proved most useful to the Russians.

In the weeks after the election, reporting slowly began to detail what Russia had been up to. Having won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, Trump was sensitive about any suggestion that his victory wasn’t a mandate proving his popularity. So he forcefully rejected the idea that Russia had aided his campaign, though reporting (and common sense) suggested that this had become one of the country’s aims. He even repeatedly rejected the idea that Russia had tried to interfere in the election at all.

The issue lingered because of a federal investigation seeking to determine whether people on Trump’s campaign or the candidate himself had worked with the Russian actors. Some had: His son and campaign chairman met with a Russian attorney who promised dirt on Trump’s opponent; that same campaign manager later passed internal polling data to a person linked by a bipartisan Senate investigation to Russian intelligence. It also documented the breadth of Russia’s influence effort, including that trip taken by Krylova and Bogacheva a decade ago. But the investigation was ultimately unable to prove direct coordination between Trump and Russian actors.

Trump proclaimed this to be a complete exoneration, proof that (as he had claimed since early 2017) the Russia probe was “a hoax.” Over the years, he and his allies responded to any report about Russia’s efforts with this same simplistic rejoinder: All that Russia stuff was a hoax! This narrative was helped by occasions on which commentators on the left embraced dubious or debunked claims (like that there was a nefarious connection between Trump’s company and a Russian bank, which there wasn’t). But it was more broadly a catchall aimed at waving away any claim about Russian activity as a Democratic fever dream.

The new indictment reinforces that it wasn’t. Russia began trying to influence American politics a decade ago, ultimately finding a sympathetic ally in Trump. Now, instead of trying to make fake personalities who can elevate contentious issues to Russia’s benefit, there’s a stable of Trump-allied voices who already are.

It’s useful to note, too, that Russia’s efforts to move the needle are often even less subtle. On Thursday, apparently in response to the new indictments, Putin announced his endorsement of … Vice President Kamala Harris.

Where the Russians got lucky was in Trump’s response to the 2016 effort. His sympathy for Russia and for Russian President Vladimir Putin was obvious well before Election Day that year. (In retrospect, it’s probably not a coincidence that Russia’s efforts in 2014 followed surprisingly sympathetic responses from prominent Republicans after Russia’s initial Ukraine incursion that year.) It was Trump’s vanity, though, that proved most useful to the Russians.

In the weeks after the election, reporting slowly began to detail what Russia had been up to. Having won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, Trump was sensitive about any suggestion that his victory wasn’t a mandate proving his popularity. So he forcefully rejected the idea that Russia had aided his campaign, though reporting (and common sense) suggested that this had become one of the country’s aims. He even repeatedly rejected the idea that Russia had tried to interfere in the election at all.

The issue lingered because of a federal investigation seeking to determine whether people on Trump’s campaign or the candidate himself had worked with the Russian actors. Some had: His son and campaign chairman met with a Russian attorney who promised dirt on Trump’s opponent; that same campaign manager later passed internal polling data to a person linked by a bipartisan Senate investigation to Russian intelligence. It also documented the breadth of Russia’s influence effort, including that trip taken by Krylova and Bogacheva a decade ago. But the investigation was ultimately unable to prove direct coordination between Trump and Russian actors.

Trump proclaimed this to be a complete exoneration, proof that (as he had claimed since early 2017) the Russia probe was “a hoax.” Over the years, he and his allies responded to any report about Russia’s efforts with this same simplistic rejoinder: All that Russia stuff was a hoax! This narrative was helped by occasions on which commentators on the left embraced dubious or debunked claims (like that there was a nefarious connection between Trump’s company and a Russian bank, which there wasn’t). But it was more broadly a catchall aimed at waving away any claim about Russian activity as a Democratic fever dream.

The new indictment reinforces that it wasn’t. Russia began trying to influence American politics a decade ago, ultimately finding a sympathetic ally in Trump. Now, instead of trying to make fake personalities who can elevate contentious issues to Russia’s benefit, there’s a stable of Trump-allied voices who already are.

It’s useful to note, too, that Russia’s efforts to move the needle are often even less subtle. On Thursday, apparently in response to the new indictments, Putin announced his endorsement of … Vice President Kamala Harris.

Under the newly agreed-upon rules, Trump’s and Harris’ microphones will be live only for the candidate whose turn it is to speak, which is the opposite of what Democrats were hoping for.

The Harris campaign explained to ABC News in a letter that the vice president “will be fundamentally disadvantaged by this format.”

“Notwithstanding our concerns, we understand that Donald Trump is a risk to skip the debate altogether, as he has threatened to do previously, if we do not accede to his preferred format,” the letter added. “We do not want to jeopardize the debate. For this reason, we accepted the full set of rules proposed by ABC, including muted microphones.”

So, the former president, who repeatedly went back and forth on whether he’d show up for next week’s debate, must be delighted to be getting his way, right? Wrong. As The New York Times reported, the Republican nominee is still whining anyway.

Hours after the Trump and Harris campaigns agreed to rules for their first presidential debate, former President Donald J. Trump sought to instill doubt that the debate would be fair, downplayed his need to prepare and suggested he was more worried about the network hosting the debate than his opponent.

As part of his latest event with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, the GOP candidate claimed anew that ABC News is “dishonest,” adding that he fears the network will give Harris “the questions in advance.”......

For whatever reason, Trump approaches practically every challenge with the same thought: “If I fail, it can’t be my fault.”

The GOP nominee has approached debates the same way, even making pre-emptive excuses for possible failure ahead of his recent debate with President Joe Biden.

Given this recent history, it would’ve been more surprising if Trump didn’t try to pre-emptively delegitimize next week’s debate with Harris.

There's no shortage of Republicans saying they see Trump as a unique and dangerous threat, but they can't bring themselves to endorse Harris.

Liz Cheney apparently has a message for them.

That question now has an answer. NBC News reported:

Former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., on Wednesday endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president, the latest high-profile Republican endorsement for Democrats. Cheney’s comments took place during an appearance at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy.

“It is crucially important for people to recognize — not only is what I’ve just said about the danger Trump poses something that should prevent people from voting for him, but I don’t believe we have the luxury of writing in candidates’ names, particularly in swing states,” the Wyoming Republican said.

“As a conservative, as someone who believes in and cares about the Constitution, I have thought deeply about this. And because of the danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for Donald Trump, but I will be voting for Kamala Harris.”
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1831487202322251808

Not surprisingly, the Harris campaign was delighted.

“The Vice President is proud to have earned Congresswoman Cheney’s vote,” campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon said in a written statement. “She is a patriot who loves this country and puts our democracy and our Constitution first. ... Vice President Harris will be a president for all Americans, regardless of political party. For any American who is looking to reject the chaos and division of Donald Trump, turn the page, and pursue a new way forward that protects our freedoms and defends the American values we all believe in, there is a place for you in the Harris-Walz coalition, and we will continue working to earn your support.”.....

But that’s what makes Cheney’s announcement so notable: She didn’t just declare her intention to vote for Harris, she subtly reminded her party’s other anti-Trump voices that they face a binary choice. One of the two major-party nominees will be sworn into office in January.

This isn’t especially complicated: As Cheney made clear, if you recognize Trump as a unique threat to the American experiment, you have a responsibility to support the person — the only person — who stands between him and the White House.

Will this inspire other Republicans to follow Cheney’s lead? Watch this space

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Revealing a major schism within the Republican Party, on Thursday Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene lambasted Sen. JD Vance, calling the Ohio senator “totally unhinged.”

“I have remained silent on this issue, but I can do so no longer,” the congresswoman said. “I have been listening to the things Senator Vance says on the campaign trail, and they are the ravings of a lunatic.”

Greene warned that the party “will go down to certain defeat” if Vance remains on the ticket, and proposed herself as a possible replacement.

“If asked to serve I will,” she said, adding that she would restore “much-needed gravitas to the Republican ticket.”

Greene said that she did not know what was causing Vance’s bizarre utterances, but observed that they were consistent with long-range laser burns to the brain.

For one thing, the idea that the former president hangs out with “like, English professors” is hilarious. For another, there’s no hidden genius in Trump’s rambling. He seems to enjoy sharing bizarre ideas, theories, and the details of conversations that occurred only in his mind. There’s nothing “brilliant” about it.

Elaine Godfrey wrote for The Atlantic this week about one of the GOP candidate’s latest gems.

During a conversation onstage at a Moms for Liberty event last week, Donald Trump said something that made even me — a seasoned visitor to Trump’s theme park of hyperbole — look around in confusion at the people around me in the audience. Said Trump: “The transgender thing is incredible. Think of it; your kid goes to school, and he comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what’s going to happen with your child.”

Not to put too fine a point on this, but Trump’s claim was plainly delusional. The is no epidemic of school-based gender-related surgeries......

The larger question is whether Trump is actually getting worse.

My MSNBC colleague Zeeshan Aleem presented a persuasive answer this week: “Trump has been embedded in the public consciousness as a rule-breaker for so long that it can be easily to forget how far he is from fulfilling the basic requirement of a politician to speak clearly. Trump’s speeches seem to be growing more discursive and difficult to comprehend by the day.”

The New York Times’ Jamelle Bouie made a related case, arguing that the Republican presidential hopeful is unable “not just to speak truthfully about a topic, but speak coherently about any topic. ... Trump hasn’t just deteriorated, he’s clearly cognitively impaired, and it is bizarre to me that this isn’t just a major story.”

For much of the year, there was a spirited public conversation, fueled by intense media interest, about whether President Joe Biden was too old and addled to do the job. Perhaps it’s time to renew that conversation, turning attention to the incumbent’s immediate predecessor and would-be successor?

As MSNBC’s Chris Hayes summarized last week, “It is a little weird that ‘age concerns’ have disappeared as a constant focus of campaign reporting and discussion even though the GOP nominee would be the oldest man ever sworn in to the office and is very obviously sharply declining before our eyes.”