#david graham

and here i have the vid.

"That will be all, Parker." "Very good, M'Lady. Very good."

Trump’s “nothingburger” speech 24 hours later.

July 18, 2026

Robert B. Hubbell

Twenty-four hours after Trump’s much-anticipated speech alleging election fraud, the reactions are sharply divided.

Most outlets branded the speech a flop in terms of content, style, and effect. See, e.g., NYTimes, Trump’s Election Claims Land With a Whimper Among Republicans. Fox & Friends—the Fox infotainment coffee clatch—managed to talk about the news for three hours on Friday morning without mentioning Trump’s Thursday evening speech. Can you say that you are embarrassed by Trump without saying the word “embarrassed”

On the other hand, Rep. Jim Himes and a handful of Substack authors caused panic among readers of this newsletter, who emailed me saying they were distraught and alarmed, with one reader saying she “spent a sleepless night” because of the dire warning by politicians and commentators about Trump’s speech.

Because this polarized reaction will recur many times before the November midterms, it is worth asking which camp has it right and whether we are responding appropriately to Trump’s threats.

Spoiler alert: There is wisdom in both raising the alarm and recognizing that the emperor has no clothes, but in the first 24-hours after the speech, the doomsday industry and its acolytes went into overdrive, creating panic by selectively focusing on hypothetical actions by Trump without acknowledging that such actions are likely remote, unlawful scenarios that would be stopped by the courts—and the people. And the people. That is the part that the doomsday industry always omits, assuming that we are helpless victims with no agency over our democracy. More on that in a moment.

But first, it is hard to overstate how badly Trump’s speech failed. This was his big reveal of evidence of election interference, and it was worse than pathetic—the documents he released affirmatively proved that the 2020 election was free and fair, and that Joe Biden won. See NPR, Trump promised evidence of election fraud. Experts say there was none; and Fact Check.org, Fact Checking Trump’s Election Security Speech.

Per FactCheck.org,

There is no evidence that a foreign influence campaign changed votes that were cast in any U.S. election. While Trump’s speech may have suggested to some listeners that this happened, he didn’t explicitly claim that it did. . . . John Solomon, an adviser to the president and a conservative journalist, told reporters outside the White House after Trump’s speech: “The Intelligence Community has zero evidence that someone, that a foreign power flipped a vote in 2020, ’22 or ’24.

Crucially, the sore-loser speech impressed no one in the Republican Party, which largely remained silent about the speech. See NYTimes article, above. The unceremonious thud with which the speech landed may indicate that Trump has passed the high-water mark of his unholy influence over the Republican Party, which has tired of his obsession with the 2020 election.

It is not just that Trump lost the plot and made himself look like an old man yelling at kids to “Stay off my lawn!” The substantive failure of the speech is the latest in the string of defeats Trump has suffered in his efforts to subvert the 2026 elections. On Friday, Trump lost his sixteenth consecutive case in which the administration is demanding that states turn over voter rolls. See Democracy Docket, Trump DOJ took a victory lap in Connecticut. Then it became their 16th straight voter roll loss.

Moreover, Trump’s executive order commanding the Post Office to refuse to deliver mail ballots from voters who do not appear on a federally approved voter list has been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Massachusetts, whose injunction protects the 23 plaintiff states and D.C., and the Post Office confirmed in a letter to Senate Democrats this week that it is abiding by the court orders. See Democracy Docket, USPS says it’s not implementing Trump’s anti-mail voting order, for now.

Most importantly, Senate Republicans have repeatedly refused to pass the Save America Act, Trump’s signature anti-voting legislation. They have refused to do so because it would require the elimination of the filibuster in voting rights cases—an extinction-level event for a party that maintains minority rule through gerrymandering and the filibuster.

In short, Trump’s attacks on the 2026 elections are largely failing because legal advocacy groups and Democratic governors are consistently beating Trump in court. See The Atlantic, Trump’s Plan for November Is Failing.

All of this led to Trump being roasted for his pathetic speech. The speech has been labeled as his “I Have a Scheme” speech and the “Pettysburg Address.” I thought I had given the speech its due when I called it a “nothingburger” in the title of yesterday’s newsletter.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I awoke to reader emails frantically forwarding me articles from fellow Substack authors and a video of Rep. Jim Himes on the Lawrence O’Donnell show that had incited panic, sleeplessness, and a sense of dread—all based on Trump’s speech.

I am not going to tangle with my fellow Substack writers. I have my own woes with Substack that I will discuss next week, and I don’t need to complicate those challenges. If you choose to follow other writers who specialize in trying to frighten you, then expect to be frightened. That’s how they grow their audience. I don’t understand the attraction to doomsaying, but it apparently works; otherwise, there wouldn’t be so many people following that formula. But my comments below regarding Rep. Jim Himes apply equally to every article that focused selectively on Trump’s plot to steal the 2026 election but failed to mention that we (and the courts) have a say in the matter.

So, let’s talk about Jim Himes on Lawrence O’Donnell’s program. Himes is a member of the “Gang of Eight,” the select eight members of the House and Senate with special oversight of the intelligence community. Himes is usually a rational, reasoned, and calm person. But not last night. Instead, he spun a detailed scenario in which Thursday’s speech was preparation for dispatching armed troops to seize ballots in Democratic strongholds in November. No evidence, just sheer fear-based emoting.

In his delivery, Himes was panicked, breathless, and obsessed with what Trump might do to interfere in the election without giving any context, such as the likelihood that Trump would actually attempt the hypothetical actions, the likelihood that they would succeed, the role of the courts, the role of the people, and the downstream consequences of Trump seizing ballot boxes.

Here are two snippets from reader emails:

For a man not given to alarmist speeches, this was one of the most depressing, discouraging warnings that I could have ever heard. Voter suppression is one thing; taking over the ballot boxes to dispute the outcome after the Republicans lose in November seems much more dangerous and un-fightable. I am VERY, VERY worried.

From another reader:

I tuned in to Lawrence O’Donnell’s show and Jim Himes was on. As you may know he is part of the gang of 8 and quite knowledgeable. He was very worked up and predicted the feds will send in armed officials to seize ballot boxes around the midterms and that he is close to certain Trump’s goal last night was to set us up for that.

The problem with Himes’ presentation is (a) he seemed scared and rattled (not a good look for one of the senior congressional leaders overseeing the intelligence community), and (b) he acted as though there was nothing we could do to stop Trump.

When Lawrence O’Donnell asked Himes what Americans could do to fight back, Himes said they should visit WhiteHouse.gov and read the heavily redacted documents just posted by Trump.

What? “Go on a website to read documents” to prevent Trump from using the military to seize ballots? What the hell was Himes thinking? He wasn’t. That’s the point.

So, let’s work through this methodically and rationally.

Is it possible that Trump could order the military or DHS to seize ballots? Sure, anything is possible. But it’s not likely.

As David Graham writes in The Atlantic article linked above,

The danger posed by either of these options [troop deployment or seizing ballots] should not be dismissed, but there are reasons they were not Trump’s first choices: They are risky and less likely to succeed. Because election officials, experts, and nonprofit organizations have been paying attention to the threat for months, they are now much more prepared for anything the administration might attempt, as Washington Monthly’s Garrett Epps recently reported.

If Himes had only added to his grim scenario, “But state officials and voter protection groups are doing everything they can to prepare for any eventuality,” he would have done much less damage.

The problem with everyone who predicts that “Trump will declare an emergency so he can send in troops to seize ballots” is that they are guilty of sloppy reasoning, allowing them to make dire statements that evaporate upon close inspection.

The line of thought usually goes like this:

Assertion: Trump will declare an emergency. Response: Oh, yeah? Under what authority? Not the Constitution. Not any federal statute. Not under any executive order, which can only exercise statutory or constitutional powers previously granted to the president. So, don’t just say, “Trump will declare an emergency.” Name the statute or constitutional provision that gives him the authority to do so. There is none. So, it would have been awfully nice if Himes had started his presentation by qualifying that the “emergency” Himes was positing has no basis in law. But he just blew by that point.

Assertion: Trump will send troops to polling stations. Response: No, he won’t. Federal law prohibits anyone from doing so. See 18 USC 592: Troops at polls. It is a federal crime to order “troops or armed men” to any polling place, punishable by five years in prison and disqualification from public office. Himes did not bother to provide this relevant piece of context.

Assertion: Trump will seize ballots. Response: No, he won’t. He has no authority over elections, even if he suspects widespread fraud. Let me repeat: The president has no authority over elections. Again, that would have been a nice piece of context for Himes to include in his doomsday scenario.

Moreover, Himes and other doomsayers fail to look at the downstream consequences of “seizing ballots.”

First, ballots don’t just include members of the House of Representatives. If Trump were to seize ballots, he would seize ballots that included candidates for US Senate, governor, mayor, sheriff, school board, etc. While Himes was focused solely on Trump preventing Democrats from taking control of the House, seizing ballots would effectively spoil the entire election in the states where the ballots were seized. Long story short, the only remedy would be to re-run the entire election. That would be a morass of enormous proportions with hundreds of unforeseen consequences that make seizing ballots a monumentally stupid, counterproductive idea that makes it highly unlikely that Trump would attempt to do so.

Moreover, if ballots were seized, the courts would act immediately and order their return. Complications would follow, I know, but the courts would bend over backward to ensure that the election proceeded as scheduled, or was cured by a new election.

Finally, here is the pith of Himes’ sloppy thinking: Interfering in an election by using the military to seize ballots by force is a coup. It’s not just “seizing ballots.” It’s an armed military coup.

So, if Jim Himes wants to talk about the likelihood that the US military will participate in an armed coup to overthrow the midterms, let’s have that discussion and quit hiding behind sloppy words like “seizing ballots.” Call it an armed coup, and then discuss the likelihood that an armed coup will happen.

Lawrence O’Donnell should invite Jim Himes back on his show to allow a “do-over.” It may have been a bad night for Himes, and with a few moments of reflection, he might walk back his remarks.

The problem is that for every Jim Himes on a bad night, there are dozens of cable news hosts and guests who are advancing the same sloppy, hyperbolic, unrealistic thinking that ignores the courts and the people as the final bulwark of democracy.

The sheer weight of repetition and elusive logic that can’t be pinned down makes it exhausting to fight back. I know. Believe me, I know. But we must be strong, disciplined, and determined in responding to Trump’s fearmongering and the opportunistic amplification of Trump’s bluffs to increase clicks and grow an audience.

Concluding Thoughts.

My apologies to readers for whom this lengthy detour was unnecessary or annoying. I am certain I will receive emails that say, “Stop reacting to people who are afraid; focus on those of us who are on the front lines every day.” Point taken, but the truth is that tens of millions of Americans are understandably anxious. They show up and fight despite their fears, and we would be lost without them.

The reason I felt compelled to address the bifurcated response to Trump’s speech is that it will happen again in the run-up to the midterms. The doomsayers will keep churning their dire predictions, frightening and demotivating voters by convincing them that voting is pointless because Trump will override the will of the people in the midterms. He won’t—not if we have anything to say about it. And we do. We have a lot to say.

As David Graham writes in The Atlantic,

The greatest defense against subversion, as I wrote last fall, is for Americans to vote. A close election is easier to steal than a decisive one, and Trump’s political failures have produced polling that points in the direction of a strong vote against the Republican Party this fall. . . . Prime-time addresses that spew grievances and obvious falsehoods may drive voters even further away from the GOP. In an ironic twist, last night’s speech really might help protect the integrity of the 2026 election.