The Signorile Report

David from Tennessee, a “Christian nationalist,” claimed “Christians” grow and deliver our food

Welcome to The Signorile Report, where you’ll read hard-hitting political and cultural commentary and exposés, hear interesting conversations, and join in great discussions.

If you’ve enjoyed the ad-free Signorile Report since it launched, or began reading recently, please think about becoming a subscriber. Thanks!

David fromTennessee, a Trump supporter who identified as a “Christian nationalist,” called in to my SiriusXM show in recent days to provide an “opposing view” while we were discussing the insurrection at the Capitol last week.

He first talked about “election reform,” diverting from the topic, but when I brought him back, he said there’s violence on “both sides.” He then didn’t seem to remember Trump praising the terrorists in a video he tweeted out during the siege.

He then tried to claim it was only a “few” people who were trying to storm the Capitol when in fact it was thousands of people.

David then went on to say: “Christians right now are not talking about violence — we don’t have to. We’re the ones that deliver the food to the cities, we’re the ones that grow the food for the cities. All we have to is quit.”

This idea that that white “Christians” grow our food and drive it to the cities is ridiculous. Of course, most of the people actually growing and picking crops are immigrant workers — people of color — and truckers who deliver food products across the country come from all backgrounds.

But more angering to me was this idea he had that all they have to do to harm those of us in the cities “is quit.”

As I told him, my state of New York, like many other urban states, pays more in taxes that then goes to places like Tennessee, which is much more dependent on federal programs — number 15 in ranking, along with many other Southern states — and pays out far less in taxes to the federal government. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts pay almost 17% of all federal receipts despite being little over 11% of the population. When you add in California and other urban, high income states it’s even far more disproportionate.

Tennessee’s populations is comparatively poorer than New York’s and the other states I mentioned and with many (white people) on welfare, as well as great health challenges like obesity and diabetes, and thus needing access to health care.

I’m all for it — all for making sure people across this country have access to health care and are fed and live productive lives, with government help, which we all foster as taxpayers in this society. But to have someone from Tennessee threaten to withhold food from New York when I could say — and, for effect, did — that I’d like to withhold my tax dollars from Tennessee is ludicrous. (One thing I was wrong about: New York’s infrastructure is far worse than Tennessee’s. But that’s precisely because there is much more infrastructure — 17,000 bridges, for example — and the federal money doesn’t come back to New York in great numbers to address it.)

While it started out friendly with my correcting his misinformation, I eventually really had to go hard on David from Tennessee.

Listen in and let me know your thoughts!

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.signorile.com/subscribe

Marty from Wisconsin claimed Trump didn’t incite violence, won “80 million votes.”

Welcome to The Signorile Report, where you’ll read hard-hitting political and cultural commentary and exposés, hear interesting conversations, join in great discussions and get lots of other stuff.

Marty from Wisconsin called in to my SiriusXM radio program as I discussed the insurrection at the Capitol. He started out weirdly referring to Princess Leia from “Star Wars,” and saying “we’re gonna be stronger.”

Obviously living in an intergalactic fantasy, Marty claimed that Trump “got 80 million votes,” which is completely false. When I went on to correct him and tell him that Trump received 74.2 million votes and Joe Biden got 81.3 million votes he shot back at me like I was nitpicking, and said, “You guys are doing all this stuff, you’re pulling all this s**t.”

Marty offers a window into the minds of Trump supporters who are still slavishly devoted to Trump even as they claim to oppose the violence that occurred at the Capitol. They tell themselves that it was just a few people and that Trump doesn’t support it nor did he incite it. And they believe Trump when he says, as he did today, that his speech was “totally appropriate.”

Marty claimed that “we’re not like that,” pointing to the Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol — even though there were thousands of people there, including leaders of groups Trump has condoned and which are violent white supremacist groups, like the Proud Boys.

When I pointed that out, Marty began defending the Proud Boys, saying they were started as a “joke.”

He denied that Trump incited the mob, condoning his speech, and said I was taking it “out of context” when I quoted Trump’s video which he tweeted out during the siege, in which he said we “love you” to the insurrectionists and that they are “special people” and “patriots.”

I really had to break everything to Marty very gently because he was truly losing it.

Listen in and let me know your thoughts!

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.signorile.com/subscribe

James Fallows, former speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter and staff writer at The Atlantic, lays out a plan

Welcome to The Signorile Report, where you’ll read hard-hitting political commentary and exposés, hear interesting conversations, join in great discussions and get lots of other stuff.

Last week I interviewed James Fallows, who’d spoken with many people over a period of a few months who’d been involved in or studied previous investigations of presidents, for a piece he wrote on how Joe Biden should investigate Donald Trump.

As he noted to me, “there’s never been anything quite like this,” even as many presidents have previously been investigated for wrong-doing. Trump is in a league of his own. And it will take a lot of work to investigate him.

Fallows explained that, “when a new president takes office there is just this enormous onrush of all the normal stuff a president has to do.” And with the Biden administration, it’s going to be even more intense as President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and their team deal with challenges greater than most presidents, including “economic catastrophe, the pandemic, international relations.”

Fallows laid out several tiers to investigating Trump.

1) Tier one is “straight out corruption,” which would include the violations regarding Donald Trump and his family and their businesses, and Fallows said many experts concluded “the judgement on these corruption issues is [that] most of them you leave to the states.”

Those that do involve federal law, like the postal service, “you make sure you have a good, eminent attorney general who makes sure you have have good inspectors’ general” at the various government agencies.

Tier 1 is: “let the process work at the state level and within the departments.”

2) Tier 2 is what Fallows identifies as “corrosion issues.” These are issues in which “the government has been eroded.” He notes that, “we’ve seen this in public health, the State Department, the [National] Weather Service” and many other areas. “This is something the president can deal with,” he said, because, of the 4000 political appointees the president will make, “about 3000 will not get Senate confirmation.” These are people a president can bring in who may have more expansive ideas and can move quickly and don’t need a Senate confirmation which might block them from being appointed because of their backgrounds or perceived intentions in doing their jobs.

3) Tier 3 includes “three big areas where you want to have national commissions.”

Commissions have often been viewed skeptically, particularly because they’ve been used by some administrations to just kick something down the road. But when used with good intentions, Fallows noted, “commissions have been effective tools.”

In 1968, he pointed out, the Kerner Commission was important in taking on racial injustice. The Space Shuttle Commission, he noted, is another effective example. And he viewed the 9/11 Commission as having done a “surprisingly impressive job.”

Commissions that are run not by the federal government but rather through universities and other institutions have had major impact, he said. The three commissions would look at, respectively, the coronavirus pandemic, the human rights abuses at the border, and “attacks on democracy itself.’

“These warrant special treatment,” he said. “There’s leverage in each of them.” Regarding the coronavirus pandemic, for example, “there’s what happened, and the certainty that new viruses from new parts of the world will emerge. What have we learned and how can this not happen again?”

For the border and the abuses of immigrants, Fallows noted that John Allen, the retired four star general who is now president of the Brookings Institution, told him the rest of the world views us a state-sponsor of child abuse, so it’s also about America’s standing in the world. That commission needs to look at what went wrong. What brought this country to violate human rights in a such a horrific way and allowed for separating children from their parents and putting them in cages?

And the commission on attacks on democracy would look at “the structure of democracy” and what led to white supremacist violence and domestic terrorism.

I liked the way Fallows laid this all out, and I had questions particularly about how we make sure abuse like this never happens again.

Regarding what to do about preventing any president from doing the things Trump did, we discussed how much of what Trump did violated norms that presidents in the past knew to follow and not cross, and whether we need new laws limiting the president’s power. Fallows interestingly noted that he asked historians and others, and “[they] generally concluded that norms can’t be codified.”

“You need to demonstrate them,” he said. “The exemplifying of standards. But in this third commission there are a number of people with ideas in mind of how you would reduce gerrymandering, have fixed terms for the Supreme Court justices, things you would practically do to restore norms.” Personally, I think there are laws thqt need to be passed to limit the president’s power after Trump, because we don’t know what the GOP will do next. What other authoritarian might they get behind and help elect president, and what if they nominate Trump again in 2024 and he gets elected?

We also discussed how President Obama, even after making promises during the 2008 campaign, didn’t investigate George W. Bush’s actions in the Iraq War nor investigate big banks after the mortgage crisis and economic collapse in 2008. Fallows believes that was a mistake, and on that we certainly agree.

He believes Biden and his team will be different, pointing out that Biden saw it all under Obama and, and for that reason, will be inclined to make sure he doesn’t let it happen again. He also pointed to how Biden has nominated people to his Cabinet who seem like they will take on the challenge of investigating Trump. (You can of course listen to the full interview here.)

Let me know your thoughts.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.signorile.com/subscribe

Cameron from Georgia is so deep in the cult that he’d convinced himself he wasn’t

Welcome to The Signorile Report, where you’ll read hard-hitting political commentary and exposés, hear interesting conversations, join in great discussions and get lots of other stuff.

Okay, well this one started out calm but devolved into F bombs — yes, on my part.

I’m just not going to allow lies to be spewed on the air and, frankly, am not going to put up with racists claiming they voted for Trump not because they like him but because they had to stop the “left-wing agenda.”

In a discussion about Joe Biden commenting on whether or not Donald Trump should attend Biden’s inauguration, Cameron called in from Georgia to my SiriusXM show, and began by saying he didn’t want to “start any arguments.”

But that was in fact the purpose of his entire call, soon getting combative and hurling false charges.

Cameron tried to equate Trump’s refusal to concede the 2020 election with Democrats opposing Trump’s fascistic presidency — even as Democrats acknowledged Trump won in 2016, an election that was much closer than 2020.

I posed a series of “yes” or “no” questions to him — for example, “Did Hillary Clinton concede the election [in 2016] the day after the election?” — and while forced to answer “yes” to all of them he then veered off and claimed Nancy Pelosi did’t attend the inauguration, which is a blatant lie.

After pushing disinformation, Cameron then tried to divert to other issues, and soon claimed, “I am not a Trump supporter” but said that he just had to vote for Trump.

It got pretty heated from there. Some people will think I went too far, or lost my cool, and maybe I did.

Also, I’m sure some would say that someone who says they don’t like Trump but had to vote for him “to stop the left-wing agenda” isn’t necessarily racist. But I disagree completely. Anyone who voted for Trump in 2020 voted for a racist and bigot who engaged in horrendous actions against so many groups. No excuse to vote for such a candidate absolves the voter, who voted for a racist. End of story.

Listen in and let me know what you think. Thanks!

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.signorile.com/subscribe

Bob from Connecticut called into my SiriusXM show to say he once “was a Democrat”

Welcome to The Signorile Report, where you’ll read hard-hitting political commentary and exposés, hear interesting conversations, join in great discussions and get lots of other stuff.

Bob, a Connecticut resident, called in to my SiriusXM show to say he was a Democrat at one time but his “mind has been changed” over the last four years, and he now supports Donald Trump.

And regarding the election, he said, even in response to Bill Barr, the attorney general, loyal to Trump, saying there was no voter fraud to overturn the election, that, “I don’t think enough people are looking both sides of it.”

This was preposterous and his argument just got weaker and weaker as he tried to explain — and couldn’t respond to my clarifications.

I’ve talked with many Trump supporters, but there was something grasping and desperate about Bob. He was on a ledge — but not quite near jumping —and I tried to talk Bob off the ledge.

He seemed mildly reachable — and I could be wrong, and you’re welcome to tell me your opinion. Perhaps he called the program to test out some theories and wanted to be pushed back against because he knows where things are going — and I surely pushed back. Maybe it’s actually better that Trump keeps trying and losing, so it shows the Bobs of the world how ridiculous this all is.

I finally had to tell Bob:

‘You need, like, a hobby, of some sort, that will help work you through this…You have to either decide you’re going to move away from this cult or you’re sucked in, you’re done, you’re finished. You’re gonna lose family, you’re gonna lose friends, your children, everybody. So make your decision, Bob.”

Listen in, and let me know your thoughts!

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.signorile.com/subscribe

Kirk from North Carolina called into my show to argue that we should accept his vote because he’s a “man of God.”

Welcome to The Signorile Report, where you’ll read hard-hitting political commentary and exposés, hear interesting conversations, join in great discussions and get lots of other stuff.

And please read my recent news about The Signorile Report if you didn’t see the post.

In a discussion on my SiriusXM show, celebrating Joe Biden’s win and talking about how people are dealing with family members who supported Trump and are now having a meltdown because he lost the election — but also how it was demoralizing that so many people still voted for Trump — Kirk from North Carolina called.

He was coming from the opposite place: His daughter voted for Biden, but he voted for Trump, and he thought we should all accept it.

“I voted for Trump,” he said, and then, in a pre-emptive manner, said, “Thank for not being mean to me” even though I’d not even responded to him yet. He was a nice enough person, and I was nice back — up to a point.

Kirk identified as a “very conservative Christian” and a “holy roller,” and kept using his religious beliefs to defend his support for Trump.

But he would do two things when presented with facts that showed Trump to be anything but Christian: 1) he would admit he didn’t approve of this or that one particular thing Trump did, or; 2) would say he doesn’t know about this or that thing, using ignorance or not being informed, particularly about the most egregious things Trump has done. And he never actually explained what great thing Trump supposedly did.

I frankly then just got impatient with his b******t, and told him that Trump has harmed people and harmed our country, which isn’t Christian — and he interjected, “well, I’m a man of God.”

I responded, “No, you’re not — you’re a man of a false God. Don’t you dare hide behind religion and besmirch faith like that. Don’t you dare.”

Well, Kirk kind of melted after that, and said there was “nothing malicious” in what he did in voting for Trump, seeming to want forgiveness — but I had to explain how malicious his actions in fact were.

Listen in and let me know your thoughts!

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.signorile.com/subscribe

An expert on authoritarians says this is the "most dangerous time."

Welcome to The Signorile Report, where you’ll read hard-hitting political commentary and exposés; find interviews with newsmakers; hear me “engage” with right-wingers who call my radio program; and connect with like-minded, passionate people everywhere committed to fighting against hate and corruption. Subscribe now to get all of this in your email box a few times a week.

As Donald Trump rages on with vengeful firings by tweet, fizzling court battles and useless recounts more than two weeks after a presidential election he clearly lost to Joe Biden, we see our democracy under attack in brutal ways.

Trump and his enablers in the GOP are sowing doubt about our election system. And they’re denying President-elect Joe Biden the ability to obtain funds and access for his transition during the most deadly pandemic in over 100 years. It’s a time when we have to be alert to what Trump might do as he becomes more desperate, clinging to power while lashing out.

So I turned to an expert on authoritarians to get more insight.

New York University professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat has studied authoritarians the world over, looking back over the past 100 years — from Italy’s Benito Mussolini and Chile’s Augusto Pinochet to Russia’s Vladimir Putin and yes, the U.S.’s own Donald Trump.

In her new book, Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present, she looks at the different motivational circumstances and ultimate outcomes of various authoritarians, but, more interestingly, homes in on the similarities among them, from overt displays of virility to the vicious use of propaganda.

“I’ve never thought that Trump is governing according to a normal democratic frame of reference,” Ben-Ghiat said in an interview on my SiriusXM show last week about her book, and in particular about Trump’s loss in the election. “He’s used this authoritarian playbook. His personality and his temperament check all the boxes of all the leaders that I’ve studied.”

In Trump’s case, she explained, “He’s been in office to build his personality cult and to stay in office as long as possible.”

Trump, like other authoritarians, sees a loss of power as “psychological annihilation," something for which he’s not prepared.

“They surround themselves not with professionals, with experts who can give them the best policy, give them critical feed back,” Ben-Ghiat explained. “They surround themselves with flatterers and sycophants who tell them what they want to hear. And this is counterproductive in the long run, and this is why most of them end up badly.”

For Trump that meant losing the election. But, like other authoritarians, the loss is unacceptable.

“They don’t go quietly,” Ben-Ghiat said. “They’re not capable of foreseeing a future without them having this kind of hold over people. So this is the most dangerous time, when they feel that their power is threatened.”

Listen in to the entire interview and let me know your thoughts.

And please “like” this post, it as it helps get it more readers. Thanks!

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.signorile.com/subscribe

Brent from Missouri says Biden can’t be called “president-elect” until the votes are certified by electors

Welcome to The Signorile Report, where you’ll read hard-hitting political commentary and exposés; find interviews with newsmakers; hear me “engage” with right-wingers who call my radio program; and connect with like-minded, passionate people everywhere committed to fighting against hate and corruption. Subscribe now to get all of this in your email box a few times a week.

Trump-supporting caller Brent from Missouri first claimed that we can’t consider Joe Biden as having been elected president until the election is certified in December. When I explained that that wasn’t the case in 2016 — when Donald Trump was called “president-elect” the day after the election was called for him by the networks — he switched to claiming that only if Trump “concedes” can Biden be considered president-elect.

When I then asked him where it says in the Constitution that the president must concede to finalize the election, he couldn’t provide it.

Basically, he was a jumble of Fox News talking points and Trump’s Twitter feed.

I know — I was probably a bit too aggressive with him but I really can’t take this b******t, especially now. Let me know your thoughts!

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.signorile.com/subscribe

Laurie from Pennsylvania claimed I said Barrett nomination was “illegal” when I didn’t

Welcome to The Signorile Report, where you’ll read hard-hitting political commentary and exposés; find interviews with newsmakers; hear me “engage” with right-wingers who call my radio program; and connect with like-minded, passionate people everywhere committed to fighting against hate and corruption. Subscribe now to get all of this in your email box a few times a week.

Laurie from Pennsylvania called into my SiriusXM show on Thursday to claim I called the Barrett nomination “illegal,” when I did not.

I then explained to her the extraordinary breaking of norms Republicans engaged in by pushing through this nomination, and how Democrats now have no choice but to expand the Supreme Court.

Having run out anything to really say, she diverted to calling me a “very angry man.”

Yes, I’m angry at the GOP for the recklessness they’ve engaged in, moving to strip my and millions of others’ rights.

And I’m angry at Trump — whom Laurie claimed she didn’t vote for, but then didn’t seem to have a quick answer regarding whom she actually cast her ballot for.

Take a listen!

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.signorile.com/subscribe

Neil from North Carolina not only had the numbers wrong on Covid-19 deaths; he couldn’t add

Welcome to The Signorile Report, where you’ll read hard-hitting political commentary and exposés; find interviews with newsmakers; hear me “engage” with right-wingers who call my radio program; and connect with like-minded, passionate people everywhere committed to fighting against hate and corruption. Subscribe now to get all of this in your email box a few times a week.

I was away for the long weekend, but back on my SiriusXM show today and looking forward to being back!

And thought I’d put up this call from Neil in North Carolina, a man who had some ridiculous numbers and couldn’t seem to add them up — and also seemed not to know that Trump’s press secretary, now with coronavirus, never wore a mask.

After refuting his numbers, we then got into the discussion about masks, in which he asked if I actually wear a mask everywhere. He couldn’t seem to understand that many people where masks out in public all the time.

He then tried to change the subject and wouldn’t answer my basic questions about Trump not wearing a mask, as well as his now-coronavirus-infected press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany.

I know — I lost my temper with him! Sometimes it happens. And I just got angry a little while ago with two men not wearing masks on the New York City subway, believe it or not. And I let them know exactly how I felt. I guess I was also angry watching the Amy Coney Barrett hearing. It’s one of those days! We’ll be discussing that on the show.

Meanwhile, let me know your thoughts to this!

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.signorile.com/subscribe