…so…it’s either the home straight or the slide into the slippery slope…but either way we’re less than a month out from probably knowing if haris will be getting the bump from VP to that bulletproof seat behind the resolute desk…or…the other thing…so…I know we know…but…if only for the nostalgia value…how about that other thing?

Bob Woodward’s new reporting that former president Donald Trump has spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin as many as seven times since leaving office raises all kinds of questions. Among them: What might they have talked about? Why the continued cloak-and-dagger on Trump’s talks with Putin? Did any such conversations continue after Russia invaded a U.S. ally, Ukraine, in February 2022, and pertain to that?

All are valid questions, given Trump’s provocative and often-cozy relationship with Putin.

And the significance of nearly all of those questions was quickly made clear, however unintentionally, by Trump running mate JD Vance.

JD Vance on the report that Trump had seven phone calls with Putin AFTER leaving the WH:

“Is there something wrong with speaking to world leaders? No. Is there anything wrong with engaging in diplomacy?” pic.twitter.com/qUORbZt1lS

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) October 8, 2024

There is, in fact, something potentially wrong — and potentially, technically, illegal — with a former official like Trump engaging in shadow diplomacy with Putin.

…when it was an unelected nigel farage pretending that talking to the man who had been (sorta) president about it was equivalent to actual formally designated representatives of the government speaking to actual members of the US administration to negotiate a trade agreement…it seemed kinda dumb more than anything…but…to the tangerine man I’m guessing that’s basically the same…touching base to see what kind of mutual back-scratching might be on the table…only…nige hasn’t invaded ukraine…for starters…so…just as dumb but incomprehensibly more sinister…in ways it’s by no means clear donnie-donnie-what’s-still-free comprehends the first fucking thing about

…just sayin’

And none other than Trump himself has said as much, at least when it involved a Democrat. Trump not only pushed for but also apparently succeeded in getting a political opponent, former secretary of state John Kerry, investigated for alleged “shadow diplomacy.”
[…]
It’s one thing for Trump to have talked to Putin and another for this to have involved the word Vance invoked: “diplomacy.”

That could be illegal, under the letter of the law. The Logan Act bars unauthorized private citizens from engaging foreign governments with the “intent to influence the measures or conduct of” those countries, “in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States or to defeat the measures of the United States.” Basically, you can’t seek to undermine the official foreign policy of this country by conducting your own diplomacy. If Trump offered guidance to Putin on his conduct in the war in Ukraine, that would be problematic.

…problematic? …are we turning euphemisms into some sort of competitive sport at this point…or have words just lost all meaning because of all the times superlatives & other exaggerated terminology has devalued that shit until the understatement looms larger…because even in the spiritual home of the understatement that one might be considered “a bit much, frankly”?

But the Logan Act has never been successfully prosecuted, which was noted when it cropped up multiple times during Trump’s presidency. So it’s not as if Trump’s breaking the law is a particularly live issue.

…forgive me…I know the answer…but…HOW IN THE ACTUAL FUCK IS IT THAT IT CAN BE ANYTHING BUT A LIVE ISSUE

https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-is-andrew-schulz-the-comedy-podcaster-who-roasted-trump-to-his-face

…AT LEAST WHEN NIXON SAID “I am not a crook” THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO DIDN’T KNOW HE ABSOLUTELY FUCKING WAS…sorry…sorry…I know…but…gah

Feedback loop: the tangled ties between the US election and the Middle East war [Guardian]

…I mean…c’mon…it’s fucking beyond crazy…right?

Trump not only repeatedly accused Kerry of breaking the law by speaking to Iran during Trump’s presidency, he even pushed for Kerry’s prosecution. And a clear timeline of events suggests this had a real impact, resulting in Kerry’s being investigated by the Justice Department.

…so…how do we suppose it might go if he gets another ride on the immunity express?

The Kerry matter was one of the most significant examples of Trump’s apparently weaponizing the government against his foes — something he has suggested he would do even more if he’s elected to a second term.
[…]
Much more is apparently known today about Kerry’s conversations with the Iranians than Trump’s reported conversations with Putin, given that investigation and the fact that Kerry talked at some length about what was discussed. Berman has called Kerry “innocent” and said two districts declined to prosecute Kerry.

That perhaps made some sense when Trump was president; official diplomacy often requires secrecy to work. But that doesn’t apply when you’re not actually supposed to be conducting diplomacy. And to the extent Trump might have been doing that with Putin, his own commentary on the subject would sure suggest we need to know more about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/09/vances-diplomacy-quote-points-problem-with-any-trump-putin-calls/

…I dunno as “we” ever will…but I find it hard to believe that at least some people professionally required by oath to find that troubling either will…or do…know more about it than shows up in a WaPo article…but…even leaving aside the specifics in favor of some sweeping statements

In his first Inaugural Address, in January 1981, Ronald Reagan said, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” He was wrong. Government could be arrogant and clumsy; it could make foolish attempts at social engineering and overregulation. The free enterprise system, undervalued by the left, was the most clever antidote to poverty ever invented. But capitalism could overreach, too — and government was the bulwark against the destructive excesses of greed and oligarchy.

Ms. Harris, who was trained in the rule of law, understands viscerally the importance of the stability that government provides. Donald Trump doesn’t. He has attempted to destroy our faith in the institutions that keep us safe — the courts, the F.B.I., the intelligence community, the diplomatic corps, the military, even our electoral process and, this week, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[…]
The basic, irrefutable truth is that we are the luckiest people in the history of the world. We have created a stable democracy from disparate sources, from the world over. We are not in danger of becoming Beirut, not yet. And not ever, if we can respect and curate our traditions and institutions. Kamala Harris’s optimism is a sign not only that she thinks we can but also that she understands how corrosive and dangerous — and, well, un-American — pessimism can be.

I’ve Covered Politics for 50 Years. Here’s Why So Much Hinges on Electing Kamala Harris [NYT]

…or…to put it another way

Boris Johnson knows he’s often cast as Donald J. Trump’s populist twin, and he puts up a perfunctory protest. Analogies between Brexit, which he championed, and Trump’s MAGA movement are “pretty treacherous,” he said, and the caricature of himself as a louche, shambling, Eton-and-Oxford version of Trump does no favors to the once-and-maybe-future American president.

“I wouldn’t want to damage Donald’s chances by encouraging the idea there’s any comparison with me,” Johnson said, over a platter of half-eaten sandwiches. “I wouldn’t want to burden him with the stigma of association.”

Yet, in an interview on Wednesday to promote his new memoir, “Unleashed,” Johnson often spoke as an across-the-pond surrogate for Trump. Drawing on his encounters with Trump when he was prime minister of Britain, Johnson tried to reassure anxious Americans about what a Trump restoration would look like. In a word: He’s bullish.

“I really don’t think that when it comes to it, he is going to want to begin his next presidency by making the Soviet empire great again,” Johnson said. “This guy wants to make America great again, right — not make Russia great again. I’m fundamentally optimistic about a Trump presidency.”

…I haven’t got a list handy…but…let’s say if I ever hear boris is “optimistic” about anything involving me…I’d be worrying more than usual…hint…this is one of those understatement things

In the interview, conducted at Rupert Murdoch’s News Building in London (Murdoch’s HarperCollins imprint published the book), Johnson offered a systematic defense of Trump on a full range of issues: Ukraine, the Middle East, China, trade, tax policy, even climate change, where Johnson brushed aside Trump’s mockery of windmills and electric vehicles by noting that Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla, “was bounding right beside him” at a recent campaign rally.
[…]
In promoting Trump, Johnson knows he’s tweaking the sensitivities of many in the United States. In some ways, that’s the point. “I want your readers’ eyes to…,” he gestured to his own eyes, pantomiming them popping out of his head. But for Johnson, praising Trump is about more than antagonizing all the right people. A Trump return would lay the groundwork for what some in Britain believe is inevitable in their politics: the return of Boris Johnson.
[…]
On the face of it, Johnson’s odds of a comeback appear slim. His memoir has gotten a scathing reception in Britain, with reviewers castigating him for his lack of contrition over parties held at Downing Street that breached lockdown restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic. That was one of a parade of scandals that led lawmakers from his Conservative Party to drum him out of office.

But there is a sense that Johnson, like Trump, is impervious to the critiques that would sink other political figures. So often has he been labeled undisciplined, dishonest, opportunistic, entitled and any number of other pejoratives that the words no longer carry much sting.

…oh…quick aside…the stealth teams stealing covid vaccines from the dutch thing…yeah…he managed to…ummm…make that worse than it sounds?

[…] a military raid on a warehouse in the Netherlands to seize five million doses of Covid vaccine that he said were being held illegally by the Dutch government. Having run through the options, one of his military advisers warned him that this would constitute an invasion of a NATO ally.

“I knew he was right,” Johnson wrote. “I secretly agreed with what they all thought but did not want to say aloud: that the whole thing was nuts.”

…why would he need to make a secret of his agreement…& why wouldn’t anyone say it aloud…other than…because, boris…that whole thing…from the stupid I’m-just-a-scruffy-schoolboy haircut down to “this little piggy went to market…” the whole thing was…& is…fucking beyond nuts…like, the bantam of mar-a-largo not being in prison level nuts

The vaccine rollout is Exhibit A for Johnson’s argument that Brexit was worth the upheaval it caused in Britain. It is also his main argument for why the Tory lawmakers were so wrong to chuck him out, after he had led them to an electoral landslide in 2019. If they had just kept their nerve, he wrote, the Conservative government might still be in power.
[…]
Rattled by the rise of a hard-right anti-immigrant party, Reform U.K., the Tories are now lurching to the right. “You’ve got to bubble gum together the two identities,” Johnson said of the Tories and Reform. “You’ve got to govern from the center right. When I was running the show, Reform — those guys were on zero or about zero. Don’t pander, but just take their oxygen. Crowd them out.”

Then he added, a touch wistfully, “That’s what I used to do.”

Boris Johnson Makes a Case for Trump’s Return, and Perhaps, His Own [NYT]

…no shit, sherlock…but…things ain’t like they used to be

Under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity, could President Richard M. Nixon have legally ordered his Plumbers to burgle the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist? Might they all have gotten away with it?

It certainly looks that way to me, and I have a particular interest in this matter. As a young lawyer in the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office in 1971, I oversaw the burglary indictment of senior White House officials and White House operatives for breaking into the Beverly Hills office of Dr. Lewis Fielding. In my assessment, if Trump v. U.S. had been on the books then, the president’s agents responsible for the Fielding burglary and related crimes, instead of going to prison, would have escaped prosecution and punishment entirely.

…I’m not a senior judge on the 9th circuit court of appeals…but…it looks that way to me, too…although…strictly speaking that isn’t on account of how the law sees it…even allowing for this whole bullshit thing

Let me explain why. In its June ruling, the Supreme Court held for the first time that a former president cannot be prosecuted for any acts undertaken while in office if those acts fall within the core constitutional powers of the presidency even if they constitute prima facie crimes under the federal criminal code. Other official acts outside that core responsibility, the court said, are at least presumptively immune.

…that submission of jack smith’s the other day made a hell of a case for rebutting the immunity thing or illustrating how it doesn’t apply because the asshole did plenty of massively illegal crap not in the exercise of his official duties & thus not enjoying that bonus immunity thing…but in practice instead it seems to be about as broad & absolute as it isn’t by the word of the law even as expressed by *this* SC(R)OTUS…so I see where hz’zon’r seems to be going with that

Let me explain why. In its June ruling, the Supreme Court held for the first time that a former president cannot be prosecuted for any acts undertaken while in office if those acts fall within the core constitutional powers of the presidency even if they constitute prima facie crimes under the federal criminal code. Other official acts outside that core responsibility, the court said, are at least presumptively immune.
[…]
Second, the Supreme Court held that “the Constitution vests the entirety of the power of the executive branch in the President,” giving him exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial function of the Justice Department. In that capacity the president has “absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute. Even if the president makes those decisions and pursues them with a corrupt motive and criminal intent, it is now beyond debate that those determinations cannot be formally questioned.

…that was then…this is…now?

Nixon would not have permitted the Justice Department to investigate himself and the Plumbers for any of their acts pursuant to his orders. The appointment of a special prosecutor to do so would have been out of the question. Moreover, any official resisting the president’s orders could have been fired on the spot.

The same fate would have befallen the entire mission of Cox and his successor, Leon Jaworski. After the Watergate break-in by White House burglars on June 17, 1972, Cox assembled a crack team of prosecutors to assist him. By the time the dust had settled, the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, operating within the Justice Department, had secured 40 felony convictions of government officials, including John Mitchell, Nixon’s former attorney general. If Nixon had known he had the unreviewable power to fire the special prosecutors and refuse to investigate and prosecute anyone related to the Watergate scandal, no one would have had to pay the price for their crimes.

…sometimes now doesn’t look so hot

Presumably, the president has the same bulletproof authority over the Treasury Department and the IRS. Nixon kept a political “enemies list.” In 1972, White House Counsel John Dean urged the IRS to investigate 575 people on that list. Dean’s objective on behalf of the president was “to use the available machinery [of government] to screw our political enemies.” Presumably, that gross abuse of executive power would also have been unreviewable and entitled to immunity? As an aside, where does the court’s imprecise language leave the jurisdiction of federal inspectors general and congressional oversight of the executive branch?

…& then can make you…wistful?

This is not how previous courts have understood the powers of the presidency. In 1882, the Supreme Court declared that “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may [defy] that law with immunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and bound to obey it.”

Are we to believe that in 1882 the court silently intended to exclude the president from this unequivocal statement of principle? The Trump ruling is irreconcilable with this long-standing postulate, a precept understood by all since 1788 until now, that ours is a government of laws, not of the officials who enforce it.
[…]
The court’s paradoxical holding is that the person we choose every four years to faithfully enforce our laws does not have to follow them. Why? Because if he must comply with our laws, it might render him fearful and cautious in office to the detriment of the responsibilities of the executive branch. The court cited no evidence or examples to support this concern. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson observed in dissent, this unsupported, counterintuitive holding allows a president to do whatever he wants as long as he uses his official powers to do so. The court has uprooted the principle that it is the law that is supreme, not our officeholders.

…hamilton got it…how come the originalists got knotted?

Hamilton wrote: “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, removed from office, and would afterward be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the King of Great Britain [by comparison] is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subject without involving the crisis of a national revolution.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/07/trump-immunity-justices-ellsberg-nixon-trott/

…but…unlike when it was about backstopping the capitol police in preparation for what plenty of folks were pretty sure in advance was gonna be some fucking fuckery on jan 6th…now he’s been not-assassinated two whole times he basically thinks the whole US military should line the walls of his echo chamber

Late last month, Trump campaign co-manager Susie Wiles reached out to White House chief of staff Jeff Zients to ask the administration to provide military assets, including armored cars, protection while flying, and temporary airspace restrictions, among other security measures, the source said.
[…]
A defense official told NBC News that the “department continues to provide enhanced support to the U.S. Secret Service” for the presidential and vice presidential candidates. Another source said Trump is receiving the same level of protection as Biden, so the campaign should not expect more.

The Pentagon and Secret Service are both concerned that providing more assets would violate federal law restricting the use of the military for domestic purposes, two officials told NBC News.

Trump campaign requests more military support for the former president’s protection [NBC]

…but…who cares about the restrictions of federal law, right?

A federal judge on Thursday approved the release of redacted evidence against Donald Trump that support a brief unsealed this month in his federal election case, but allowed the former president seven days to attempt to block the disclosure.

…hell, when the case being prosecuted instead of thrown out helps her patron even come-on-eileen can go to trial real quick…weird, huh?

In her order, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, said that prosecutors’ suggested redactions to the brief’s appendix “are appropriate, and that Defendant’s blanket objections to further unsealing are without merit.”

Judge to allow release of redacted evidence in Trump’s federal election case [NBC]

…redacted witness statements will unfairly influence his election prospects…tv networks should lose their licenses for failing to edit their footage of kamala to make her less favorable than a sad sack serial offender with shit for brains…so they should keep that shit under wraps like elon did with vance stuff…which isn’t the thing they said twitter did about hunter’s laptop because…checks notes…now elon runs that show?

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign worked with X to prevent information about his running mate JD Vance from being posted on the social media platform, a move that resulted in the journalist who revealed the information being kicked off the site, according to reports.

The former president’s team contacted X, owned by the billionaire Trump backer Elon Musk, about a 271-page document compiled by his campaign to vet Vance that was linked to by Ken Klippenstein, an independent journalist, the New York Times has reported.

X responded by blocking links to the material, claiming that it contained sensitive personal information such as the Ohio US senator’s social security number, and banned Klippenstein from the platform.
[…]
The removal of the material from X has highlighted the increasingly strident support of Musk, the world’s richest person, for Trump’s attempt to return to the White House after losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden. After buying Twitter in 2022, Musk said that he was an advocate of free speech and the open sharing of information, even if it offended either political party.
[…]
Klippenstein, whose X account has been restored following the New York Times reporting, said in a Substack post on Friday that Musk had purchased political influence and “is wielding that influence in increasingly brazen ways”.

“The real election interference here is that a social media corporation can decree certain information unfit for the American electorate,” he wrote.

“Two of our most sacred rights as Americans are the freedoms of speech and assembly, online or otherwise. It is a national humiliation that these rights can be curtailed by anyone with enough digits in their bank account.”

Musk is set to appear at further Trump rallies – and he may even knock on voters’ doors for the campaign in Pennsylvania in the coming week. He has funded a political action entity called America Pac that has spent around $80m to help Trump reach voters in crucial swing states like Pennsylvania.

Trump campaign worked with Musk’s X to keep leaked JD Vance file off platform [Guardian]

…how to put it

Hurricane Milton has left two worlds in its wake. Elon Musk lives in one of them. The other is called reality [Guardian]

…that’s one way, I suppose

Roger Stone calls for ‘armed guards’ at polling spots in leaked video [Guardian]

…let’s just stick to twitter…if I get started on roger I’ll never get anything done today

Many of these people picked up where they left off, according to a New York Times analysis of 50,000 posts by more than 100 high-profile reinstated users. They include Laura Loomer, a right-wing influencer who has campaigned with Mr. Trump; Mike Lindell, the chief executive of MyPillow; and Rogan O’Handley, a right-wing political commentator. All have a broad reach — at least 100,000 followers — and were identified by researchers who study disinformation or extremism on X.

Most hold right-wing or even far-right views, and are part of a broader political shift underway on X. With just weeks before the U.S. election, Democrats have been abandoning the platform, according to recent academic research, while use by Republicans has remained steady. After publicly endorsing Mr. Trump for president in July, Mr. Musk has used X as a bullhorn to promote the candidate, one that many of the reinstated accounts then echo.

The company has not disclosed how many people have been allowed back. The accounts tracked by The Times — political candidates, media personalities, Mr. Trump and members of his inner circle — are most likely a sliver and do not represent everyone who was reinstated. But they often propel the conspiracy theories that circulate on Mr. Musk’s social network.
[…]
In the last month, posts from 51 accounts discussed “illegal immigrants.” Claims that people from other countries were committing voter fraud, stealing taxpayer money and linked to possible terror plots were shared or liked over 2.7 million times.
[…]
Every day, about a quarter of a billion people use X, which remains a popular destination for news. The power of the reinstated accounts to shape the discourse on the platform is enormous, as is the risk, said Isabelle Frances-Wright, the director of technology and society at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a nonprofit research organization.

“X has gone from being a social network to, frankly at this point, an online opinion news network where the majority of the narratives and hateful content come from a very small group of people who affect the entirety of the platform in an outsized way,” Ms. Frances-Wright said.
[…]
For many of the users tracked by The Times, X has been a growing megaphone. Alex Lorusso, a right-wing media personality who met Mr. Musk during a visit to X headquarters last year, has amassed a total 802,600 followers since returning in November 2022, a 948 percent jump.

Andrew Tate has added nearly 10 million followers since his reinstatement — up from fewer than 40,000 just before he was barred in 2017, according to the Times analysis. He has pushed a narrative this year that elections in London were rigged by liberal politicians who brought in hordes of immigrants to vote.

“When it’s made clear that certain kinds of speech are not only not going to be punished, but that prominent individuals who were deplatformed for it are now reinstated, it sends an extremely clear signal to everyone that this speech is now explicitly welcome on the platform,” said Paul E. Smaldino, a professor of cognitive and information sciences at the University of California, Merced.

Nearly all the accounts tracked by The Times are part of X’s Blue program, which verifies users — giving their commentary a sheen of trustworthiness and promoting their content in X’s recommendation algorithm.
[…]
Posts from Jackson Hinkle, a conservative influencer who has been kicked off YouTube, Twitch and Instagram for spreading pro-Russian misinformation and false claims about the conflict in Gaza, have received at least 257 Community Notes since he got his X account back in 2022, according to the Times analysis.
[…]
Mr. Hinkle frequently appeals to his followers to flag the notes themselves as false — which can result in their removal — and occasionally tags Mr. Musk in his complaints about the program. Mr. Hinkle did not respond to a request for comment.

There is a symbiotic relationship between Mr. Musk and the accounts tracked by The Times. Several amplified rumors from him — later debunked by government officials — about the emergency response to Hurricane Helene. Nearly 90 percent of the reinstated accounts examined by The Times have tried to engage with the billionaire, often expressing their admiration for him.

One reinstated account bragged that it had received “the @elonmusk stamp of approval.” Until recently, Mr. Lorusso’s X profile read, “Banned in 2020 — freed by Elon Musk in 2022.” Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to Mr. Trump, proclaimed that Mr. Musk “is a warrior worthy of our prayers.”

Twitter Barred Them.
What Happened When Elon Musk Brought Them Back? [NYT]

…nope…not going there…roger stone can go die in some poetically just way & be done with it…fuck that noise

In the final weeks of the presidential campaign, the richest man in the world has involved himself in the U.S. election in a manner unparalleled in modern history.
[…]
He has effectively moved his base of operations to Pennsylvania, the place that he has recently told confidants he believes is the linchpin to Mr. Trump’s re-election.

He has relentlessly promoted Mr. Trump’s candidacy to his 201 million followers on X, the social platform formerly known as Twitter that he bought for $44 billion and has used to spread conspiracy theories about the Democratic Party and to insult its candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris.

Above all, he is personally steering the actions of a super PAC that he has funded with tens of millions of dollars to turn out the vote for Mr. Trump, not just in Pennsylvania but across the country. He has even proposed taking a campaign bus tour across Pennsylvania and knocking on doors himself, in part to see how his money is being used.

Taken together, a clear picture has emerged of Mr. Musk’s battle plan as he directs his efforts to elect Mr. Trump with the same frenetic energy and exacting demands that he has honed at his companies SpaceX, Tesla and X.
[…]
These days, in private conversations, Mr. Musk is obsessive, almost manic, about the stakes of the election and the need for Mr. Trump to win. He praises Mr. Trump’s courage under fire — he endorsed him on the night of the assassination attempt in Butler — and talks about how funny he is. One person who spoke recently to Mr. Musk recalled him saying, without any hint of irony, “I love Trump.”

Mr. Musk’s frenzied engagement reflects his view of this moment in American history. On X, he has warned in dire terms about the effects of progressive policies and censorship. He has claimed, without basis, that Democrats are trying to fill the country with undocumented immigrants who would reward them with permanent power, warning that the 2024 race could be the last free election in America.

It may be impossible to capture the financial value of all the support Mr. Musk is providing to Mr. Trump. This is in part because of his role on X, where he amplifies so much of the former president’s message. Mr. Trump has privately used grand — and unverified — terms to describe what Mr. Musk is donating to the super PAC, telling one associate recently that the figure is $500 million.
[…]
Ensconced in a war room in Pittsburgh with a team of lawyers, public-relations professionals, canvassing experts and longtime friends, Mr. Musk is trying to apply strategies and entrepreneurial lessons from his businesses to a grind-it-out political mission with just weeks to go until Election Day. This article is based on interviews with 17 people familiar with Mr. Musk’s thinking and operations as Election Day approaches.

“I’m not sure there is a precedent in modern history to how Musk has inserted himself into the presidential race,” said Benjamin Soskis, a historian of the ultrarich.

Musk Is Going All In to Elect Trump [NYT]

…it’s a hell of a read…but…gotta say it does feel like there ought to be a law against it?

Elon Musk ‘Censors’ Vance Leak, Goes Full Tilt for Trump [HuffPo]

…fuck it…that’ll do, pig

…lemme find some tunes & have a go at this day of rest malarkey