Chait bait? NY Mag’s ‘collusion’ pusher mocked for doubling down on his Russiagate conspiracy theory
A writer for New York Magazine has rehashed his most outlandish theory that US President Donald Trump could have been a Russian asset since the 1980s — and has been mercilessly mocked on Twitter for his efforts.
Proving that Russiagate is the conspiracy that just won’t die — even in light of the Mueller report which found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia — New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chait has revisited a piece he published in July 2018 in order to see how well it holds up today.
The article in question — which made the magazine’s front cover — extravagantly contended that Trump could have been compromised by Moscow as far back as 1987. That claim holds up “extremely well” today according to Chait, who doubled down on Twitter on Tuesday, insisting that Russia holds “secret leverage” over Trump.
This is embarrassing— Tuco's Twin (@dozierm25) April 2, 2019
Well, doubling down is certainly one strategy— The Phonycian (@mywifecameback) April 2, 2019
But Chait must have read a different summary of the Mueller report than everyone else. In his new piece, he asserts that rather than his “collusion” theories being debunked by the report, his “most important predictions and claims” were actually “vindicated.” Indeed, the clairvoyant Chait claims that he was in fact “ahead of the interpretive curve” last summer and everyone else was just catching up.
Unsurprisingly, Chait was instantly ridiculed on Twitter. Journalist Glenn Greenwald joked that he should “make room for the Pulitzer,” while Russiagate critic Aaron Mate wondered if the Mueller report had made any use of his “damning evidence” against Trump.
LOL (literal)!!! Jonathan Chait declares that his article suggesting Russia has been grooming Trump as a Russian asset since 1987 has been vindicated and "proven right." Congrats to Jon Chait and NY Magazine! Make room for the Pulitzer! Also: someone tell Bob Mueller ASAP! https://t.co/h9BoJmvAfv— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 2, 2019
With this explosive news, the question becomes: did Mueller just copy and paste @JonathanChait’s @NYMag article into his report, or simply quote his damning evidence extensively? I guess we’ll find out soon enough: https://t.co/78RQSmhc4s— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) April 2, 2019
Delusional— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) April 2, 2019
When NY Mag tweeted out the piece, it faced an onslaught of mocking responses. One Twitter user suggested that Chait’s latest rant was probably ready to publish on Monday, but the editors held off “because it would cause too much April Fool’s confusion.”
I’ll bet this article was ready to publish yesterday but you held off because it would cause too much April Fool’s confusion.— mind_is_moving (@mind_is_moving) April 2, 2019
One commenter dubbed Chait “the Alex Jones of NY Mag” while another urged the magazine to fire him, given that he has “no familiarity with facts or burden of proof.”
Holy shit. He’s the Alex Jones of NY Mag. Wow.— MRBIV (@MRB_IV) April 2, 2019
Fire him now. The man has no familiarity with facts or burden of proof.— Tom Hillgardner🌻🌹 (@Tom4CongressNY6) April 2, 2019
Chait also insists in his new piece that journalists skeptical of Russiagate have not managed to debunk his “major conclusions” from last summer — but then again, it’s difficult to debunk crazy theories that exist only in the minds of their hosts, as another Twitter user pointed out.
Summary. No one could disprove my conspiracy theory because it's all speculation and you can't disprove his opinions. It's like calling the writer of the story a possible child molester because some kids sat on his lap in a picture and his smile was weird. Cant prove he isn't.— Whiskey jug Philosophy (@JugWhiskey) April 2, 2019
The secret “leverage” Russia has over Trump is “so amazingly hidden, it doesn't even really exist!” one person wrote.
In fact the leverage is so amazingly hidden, it doesn't even really exist!— Regs (@r3gulations) April 2, 2019
“Strange definition of vindication,” another said.
You guys have a very strange definition of vindication— A Famous Historian (@yruadik) April 2, 2019
...and others just let gifs do the talking.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!