What We Lose In The Love of Loomer

Crass discussions of sex, or directions of the word snatch, aren’t the way to solve America’s problems. Elevating the current version of MAGA journalism will come to a crashing end

Editor’s Note: Hello and happy Thursday. I’m working on this week’s round-up — curated gossip, news, and musings, conveniently packaged for us to discuss in Housekeeping tomorrow. As well a deep dive into Maxwell’s trial with exclusive details you’ll be shocked to learn, a visual palate-cleanse courtesy of our Navy framed by gorgeous Fleet Week imagery, a flashback to my Palm Beach quarrel with Chris Cuomo, and much more. In the meantime, Aaron is stepping in with a heavy dose of radical common sense to counter new MAGA media ravished by crude expression — a trend I can’t take. X birthed discourse has devolved into dim-witted vulgarity obsessed with two things: debating politicians’ genitalia and accusing other pundits of being owned by foreign entities. I’m bored and disgusted by all of it. Thank you, Aaron, for once again translating shared frustrations into eloquent long-form.

---

ICYMI:

Giuffre ‘Lied About Memoir’ Accusing Andrew & Ghislaine

Bill Clinton’s Affair with Ghislaine Maxwell

“If you haven’t been keeping up with Jessica’s coverage of the Epstein case, you have missed out on the best coverage in any media source. She has worked tirelessly to bring a deeper look into the people, players, and motives behind the entire horror, and when all of this finally comes to light, I think her work will stand out as the best version of what actually happened. It might not be what we like, it might even seem like it’s humanizing some terrible people and their actions, but it will have been much closer to how it all went down than the useless media who drive by, take a glancing blow at the story and try to find the most salacious narrative that will help them get their advertisers clicks.”

Thank you Aaron!

---

Aaron Everitt:

Last night, as I was winding the day down, I found my way into the court documents from the Laura Loomer and Bill Maher defamation battle. If you want some comedy, I highly recommend reading all 250 pages of it. There is a lot in here that makes your eyes open wide in surprise. It is funny at times, vulgar more often than I care to count, and reads like a Keystone Cops comedy sketch. Loomer is a strange character in American politics, but reading on pages 38-42 of the deposition, it is easy to see what really motivates the woman. She believes that President Trump wanted her to be on his campaign as a communications specialist. She insists that Susie Wiles and President Trump himself promised her a job.

From the Deposition:

Lawyer: Did you have a particular position you wanted?

Loomer: “A, Well, I was actually told that I was going to be working for President Trump when he hired me in his office in March of 2023 during a private meeting with him and Susie Wiles at Mar-a-Lago. And this was during the primary. And President Trump had actually instructed Susie to onboard me to do research, and -- research -- yeah -- research for -- and perhaps assist with communications as well, in the primary. And then ultimately, you know, there was a whole big story in the New York Times, and that didn't end up happening. But I had just sent this as kind of like a -- you know, like an official, professional -- in a professional manner to just have, like, a record of my resume and my -- my cover letter. Because you know, it's been widely publicized that President Trump had hired me in March. And that, you know, there was discussions about bringing me on during the campaign when I was traveling, even though I wasn't working for the president. He was just, you know, a fan of my investigative reporting.”

The exchanges in this deposition are ridiculous, and that is being generous. The entire thing makes the Jan Levinson, Michael Scott deposition episode of The Office look realistic. There is so much interruption and chatter, Loomer seems to think the entire thing is a performance. She obfuscates when she answers questions, gives long diatribes about her politics and how Democrats are out to get her because she’s so popular. The exchange about Marjorie Taylor Greene and her supposed jealousy of Loomer is laugh-out-loud funny.

Loomer reading a post from her X account: "Hey, Marjorie. Remember when you destroyed your family so you could have sex with a Zangief cosplayer? Tell me again how you and the Arby's in your pants" -- yeah. That was widely reported. I mean, that's why she got divorced. And that divorce records --

Attorney: “No. No. Read the tweet.”

Loomer continues: "Are representatives of the GOP. You couldn't even run your own family. Don't tell me how to run my free speech."

She goes on to attack Lindsey Graham for being gay, Thom Tillis for being a Rhino, and Kamala Harris for “swallowing her children.” (A reference to her rumored propensity for south of the border activities on males with power to grant more favorable positions in government.) The bottom line is Laura Loomer is gross. Her vulgarity knows no bounds, and she deserves whatever loss of credibility she gets from this entire episode. Her version of “journalism” is nothing of the sort. The atmosphere that social media has created and the way that shock and bombast sell has created fertile ground for a character like Ms. Loomer, and it needs to be heavily examined for its contribution to discourse. Ms. Loomer makes nothing better in our American experiment with self-government. Her tabloid version of events, filled with half-truths, imputations, and vulgarity, is like watching a reality TV show set in a trailer park. It clouds the story and the truth, and makes for honest discussions about real political problems impossible. The more her kind of “journalism” is celebrated, the less likely it is that America will find its way through the challenges that it faces. She’s the embodiment of what the world of Twitter has created: short, incomplete sentences, written to go viral.

---

"She’s A Free Spirit” — DJT

This week Loomer pulled out all the stops calling Greene a “rabid dog,” a “lying fake Christian whore,” and a “fake Christian Jezebel,” firing off multiple seething monologues on Twitter. In one post, her remarks came paired with a screenshot of a 2021 Daily Mail article about Greene’s alleged infidelity. “MTG isn’t a Christian,” she wrote. “How do you call yourself a Christian when you’re wearing a cross while getting bent over backwards in the gym by every man who isn’t your husband?” Greene fired back, calling Loomer “the most unstable person and worst liability to ever walk in the Oval Office.”

JRK wonders what the president sees in her.

---

One exchange captures the entire depravity of what has become of MAGA Media. You can almost hear Toby Flenderson laughing in the corner because of the absolute ridiculousness of the entire back and forth:

MS. BOLGER (Maher’s Attorney): “Okay. Sorry. The printout has the image on the second page. Okay. Can you read that to me?”

LOOMER: “A ‘I guess you would know a thing or two about trashy Montel Williams, given the fact that you dated and stuck your cock inside Kamala Harris many years ago. I've heard everything her infested snatch touches also dies a miserable, painful death.’ Again. They -- he -- what is on the record is saying that he had sex with Kamala Harris, and they dated. He was accompanied by her when they were dating to some kind of music award --”

MS. BOLGER: It's on the -- well, you and Mr. Klayman thought this was funny; right?

MR. KLAYMAN (Loomer’s Representation): No. I don't think it's funny --

LOOMER: I don't know.

MS. BOLGER: I saw you --

MR. KLAYMAN: -- it's a nervous reaction.

MS. BOLGER: I saw you laugh,Mr. Klayman.

MR. KLAYMAN: I didn't laugh.

MS. BOLGER: And I saw you laugh too, Ms. Loomer.

MR. KLAYMAN: No. I didn't laugh.

MS. BOLGER: So you --

LOOMER: “A Well, what I laugh about is the fact that there's all these, like, white boxes here --

MS. BOLGER: Flip to the next page.

LOOMER: A There's so many printing -- oh. Here it is. Great.

MS. BOLGER: Yeah.

LOOMER: A So then you know. They're -- they're, together.

MS. BOLGER: Where's the reporting that they had sex?

LOOMER: He's admitted it.

MS. BOLGER: Okay. And what --

LOOMER: He's on -- it's like well-documented. He's talked about it before, and he says that he has the utmost respect for her even though they dated. It's well-documented that they were an item.

MS. BOLGER: Right. I didn't ask you whether they dated; I asked you whether they had sex. What is your source for the fact that they had sex?

MR. KLAYMAN: Objection. Relevancy.

LOOMER: They never denied it.

MS. BOLGER: Klayman is cracking up over there.

LOOMER: They never denied it.

MS. BOLGER: And what was the source for your statement that everything --

MR. KLAYMAN: The fact that you say so doesn't mean I'm cracking up.

LOOMER -- "everything Kamala Harris's infested snatch touches also dies a miserable, painful death";

MS. BOLGER: What is your source for the fact that she had an "infested snatch"?

LOOMER: A Well, "snatch" could mean many things, but --

MR. KLAYMAN: Objection. Relevancy.

LOOMER: -- you know, it's a descriptive word to describe Kamala Harris.

MS. BOLGER: You meant her vagina?

LOOMER: A But she's -- but you know --

MS. BOLGER: You meant her vagina; didn't you?

LOOMER: A -- she -- she contributed to four years of our country almost dying a painful, miserable death. And you know, I think Joe Biden is on his way to having a miserable, painful death.

MS. BOLGER: So what you actually said here was -- I heard "everything her infested snatch touches also dies a miserable, painful death"; you were referencing her vagina; were you not?

LOOMER: A I think that's speculative. It doesn't say "vagina."

MR. KLAYMAN: That's --

MS. BOLGER: You said it.

LOOMER: A Well, I didn't say "vagina." I would have said "vagina."

MS. BOLGER: Well, you're saying "you stuck your cock inside at Kamala Harris many years ago. I heard everything her infested snatch touches also dies" --

MR. KLAYMAN: Objection -- continuing.Relevancy.

MS. BOLGER: -- "a miserable, painful death"; isn't it the case that you were making a reference to her vagina?

LOOMER: No. I was just trying --

MS. BOLGER: So what were you using that word for?

LOOMER: A I was just talking about Kamala. Like, everything she touches -- as President Trump says, everything they touch turns to shit; right? The -- President Trump says that a lot too in his speeches. Everything these Democrats do with DEI and woke turns to shit. So it's all --

MS. BOLGER: So you're making -- you're being hyperbolic -- speaking figuratively?

LOOMER: A Well, I mean --

MR. KLAYMAN: Relevancy.

LOOMER: It's obvious that Kamala Harris has contributed to a lot of destruction in our country. It's why President Trump won the election.It's why everybody who worked in the Biden administration is not writing tell-all books because everything she's involved with dies a miserable, painful death, including her failed campaign.

MS. BOLGER: Well, you were either saying she had an "infested snatch" as a statement of fact, or you were speaking rhetorically about the fact that she had what you're now characterizing this as an infested snatch --

MR. KLAYMAN: This is --

MS. BOLGER:-- that denies the -- that destroyed the country; so which one was it? Are you saying she has an infested snatch, or are you expressing your opinion about her?

MR. KLAYMAN: This case is not about Kamala Harris's alleged infection -- infested snatch.

MS. BOLGER: You guys are -- think it's so funny.

LOOMER: All right. So he --

MR. KLAYMAN: No. I'm thinking you're funny. You're funny because you're the one that wants to do this.

MS. BOLGER: Please keep laughing.

MR. KLAYMAN: I'm laughing at you.

THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time for the record. Do not let the record suffer.

LOOMER: I -- I will say I do think it's funny because --

MR. KLAYMAN: I'm laughing at you.

LOOMER: -- this has nothing to do with Bill Maher, who donated to Kamala Harris, by the way. So again, it's a conflict of interest. I think people should be aware of that.

MS. BOLGER: So it's a joke? You told a joke; right?

LOOMER: It's not a joke. I'm telling it's a fact that Montel Williams had sex with Kamala Harris.It's --

MS. BOLGER: I'm talking about the --

LOOMER:-- just like it's a fact that --

MS. BOLGER -- "infested snatch" line.

LOOMER: Willie Brown had sex with Kamala Harris. It's a fact.

MS. BOLGER: Right. The "infested snatch" line, you're making a joke; right?

LOOMER: No. I'm just saying --

MS. BOLGER: Okay. Then what's your source for the fact that she has an "infested snatch"? Because it's either a statement of facts --

LOOMER: Well, it depends on what your definition of the word, "snatch" is.

MR. KLAYMAN: What --

MS. BOLGER: What's yours? You wrote it.

MR. KLAYMAN: What she said has nothing to do with --

MS. BOLGER: What's yours? You wrote it.

MR. KLAYMAN: What she said has nothing to do with what Bill Maher said.

MS. BOLGER: You wrote the words, "infested snatch"; what did you mean by that?

MR. KLAYMAN: This is not a case about Kamala Harris or any of her alleged physical properties. It's not a case about that. This is irrelevant.

MS. BOLGER: You wrote a sentence saying she had an"infested snatch"; what is your basis?

LOOMER: I don't know what I was referring to, honestly. I could be referring to Kamala Harris, herself.

MS. BOLGER: What? Of course, you're referring to Kamala Harris.

LOOMER: Yeah. I'm talking about Kamala Harris herself.

MS. BOLGER: You're talking about her body; you're talking about her vagina?

LOOMER: No. I'm just talking about Kamala Harris.

MS. BOLGER: Well, a snatch is a vagina; isn't it?

LOOMER: It's up for interpretation.

MR. KLAYMAN: You know that for a fact?

MS. BOLGER: What is another possible word -- definition of the word, "snatch," that you've ever heard as a human being on Planet Earth?

LOOMER: I don't know. It's up for interpretation.

MS. BOLGER: You wrote it. What did you mean when you wrote --

LOOMER: I don't know what I meant by it, honestly.I just -- I've just said that everything that I --

MS. BOLGER: Ms. Loomer, you're a First Amendment warrior.

LOOMER: I'm saying that's everything that Kamala Harris touches --

MR. KLAYMAN: Objection. Relevancy.

LOOMER: -- dies a miserable, painful death.

---

If that’s what passes for political discourse in America, I’ll take a hard pass.

Ms. Loomer is a part of the MAGA world that I have a great disdain for. It clouds our ability to discuss anything meaningful. Remember when Bill Clinton was parsing the conversations around the word “is?” At least in that deposition about Oval Office blow jobs, we weren’t arguing about the definition of the word snatch. It’s entirely exhausting to think that this is what passes for 21st-century politics. Most of this deposition had overtones of a sexual nature, and it was a crass and disgusting discussion. Herein lies the problem with most of the MAGA media. It needs to monetize itself, so it has to elevate the bawdiness of everything in order to keep the clicks clicking. It is a root in the MAGA tree that is a poisonous cancer. It discredits everything that politics accomplishes. If we spend time having to defend the actions of people like Loomer, the energy that could be placed towards solutions is lost in the degenerative dissections of what a snatch is.

---

“Arrogance is, as it were, a solicitation on the part of one seeking honor for followers, whom (s)he thinks (s)he is entitled to treat with contempt.” —Immanuel Kant

---

Ms. Loomer and her actions are thankfully predictable, and over time, that predictability will make her less and less interesting. I hope that her inaccuracy and bombast grow tiresome to her audience as well. You can hear it in her deposition. There’s a desperation in her words that clearly showcases her need to be front and center in the MAGA world. She seems like a woman on the outside looking in, and that seems to terrify her.

Conversely

The antithesis to Ms. Loomer’s version of “journalism” is happening all over the internet and on podcasts that are trying to explore the more complex conversations in America. If you haven’t been keeping up with Jessica’s coverage of the Epstein case, you have missed out on the best coverage in any media source. She has worked tirelessly to bring a deeper look into the people, players, and motives behind the entire horror, and when all of this finally comes to light, I think her work will stand out as the best version of what actually happened. It might not be what we like, it might even seem like it’s humanizing some terrible people and their actions, but it will have been much closer to how it all went down than the useless media who drive by, take a glancing blow at the story and try to find the most salacious narrative that will help them get their advertisers clicks.

I had the opportunity to participate in one of those podcasts of meaningfulness yesterday that was an attempt to deepen the discussion about public health and its interface with the MAHA world, which is the remnant of the Kennedy campaign. It was a difficult conversation to have. Several of the people were government workers who felt like all of this is a much-needed conversation, but one that is being tackled the wrong way. Several worked for NIH or CDC and have lost funding or their jobs, even though they thought that what they were doing was in line with the Kennedy version of public health. It is not easy to listen to people who are on the other end of the politics that you voted for, tell you that they are disappointed. In a very broken system, people will always be on the wrong side of things. Those of us who have been activated in the medical freedom world during Covid were ostracized and demonized for years by the expert class. The conversation we had on “Why Should I Trust You?” demonstrates that broken things need serious discussions, not bloviation and feigned outrage.

Reminiscing

After we finished the conversation yesterday, I was reminded of the old Kennedy campaign days and the lessons we all seemed to learn from them. I said it at the time, but I genuinely felt like the people whom I met during those two years were the most rational and thoughtful people whom I had ever encountered in politics. They were a group of people from all walks of life, all political persuasions, and they found a way to agree on the majors and set aside their differences on the minors. It was truly a profound experience. As I listened to my fellow Kennedy folks speak with kindness, compassion, and genuine criticism of the current state of affairs in Washington, I thought about what the campaign had given us: an ability at civil discourse. I found the people within the Kennedy world to be the most rational and thoughtful about all subjects. For those who were not involved in it from the beginning, or were not paying attention to his scant coverage in the media, what we had to figure out with each new controversy or topic that came up was how to talk about it. There were major departures on Israel, on guns, on bitcoin, and a multitude of other hot-button topics that would rile up individual opinions and then have to be distilled through a process of discussions and debates. Every time it happened, there would be people who would stake out their stance and then listen to others. In the end, what they learned to do was hear the other point of view. They didn’t have to agree on the solutions, but they could find meaningful areas of agreement and begin to work towards solving them.

As I listened yesterday to the people working in public health, who had genuinely been impacted by a broken system, I remembered what it was like to listen to people I disagree with about the solutions. To call the medical system dysfunctional is to be kind. It is not working for anyone. The costs are too high, the care is too rapid and pharmaceutically centered, and the solutions are covered in a mercantilism that makes fixing it through mandate or congressional edict almost impossible. I was jarred back into my Kennedy attitudes yesterday, and it was a beautiful reminder that we must find a way to have these discussions in a way that matters.

So, Back to Loomer

Perhaps that’s why I am so fixated on Laura Loomer. She is the opposite of what America needs at the moment. More punching and grandiloquence will solve nothing that needs to be solved. Certainly, it can be entertaining to talk about Arby’s in your pants or Kamala’s rumored approximation to the village bicycle, but it solves nothing. It makes Laura Loomer wealthier and our brains poorer for having participated in her rodomontade. The sooner we realize that the way to fix all of this is not by anger and “winning,” the sooner we will have the chance to try and solve the real issues that plague our streets and the halls of our institutions. I want fewer Loomerisms and more discussions. Her version of the world is a paranoid one, clawing and scraping for attention. It’s grown tiresome and dumbs down the conversations. Wrestling in the gutters of gloom and innuendo is awful, and it feels like I’m back in the halls of Junior High, hearing the teased hair blondie at the locker next to me discuss how much she hates the popular crowd. It was boring when I was fourteen; it’s even more loathsome now. I will be rooting for a world filled with Kennedy sensibilities towards the topics of trouble in America, not the version found in the deposition of Ms. Loomer.