A candid conversation with Seth Abramson

America’s most dogged pursuer of the Trump-Russia story.

Seth Abramson. (Wiki photo)

And so it goes: “BREAKING NEWS: The Biggest Hole in the House January 6 Committee Final Report Has Been Found—and It Could Hold the Key to All Future Investigations of Donald Trump’s Insurrection”

I ran into this on Thursday and without looking it was clear who wrote it. Seth Abramson does Sentence Case clickbait like no one else, and the request to “RT” or “read and share” is also a signature. For years, the UNH professor has made his name prophesizing about the comeuppance for Donald Trump. But when that comeuppance never seems to come, Abramson’s name starts to mean wolf-crier or (my favorite) BlueAnon.

People have been telling me not to read Seth’s work for years. Some have said they could only stand to participate in Post — a Twitter successor service that many journalists now use — when it offered a chance to block him. But I read Seth and I don’t block him — and the fact that his books are huge bestsellers makes me think I’m not alone. Not only is he a compelling storyteller but he rarely if ever makes errors of fact. Seth’s general tone — and the glaring problem that Trump, far from being comeupped, is still at large and eligible to run for office — is admittedly a sticking point. He is best consumed with whatever a “grain of salt” is, whatever helps you not take it all straight. Truthfully I feel this way about Rachel Maddow too. I watch MSNBC in very small doses for its BlueAnon feelgood effect. Like Seth, the channel doesn't get things factually wrong very often, but it models for listeners a kind of hyperarousal, indignation, and vindictiveness that I can only stand in small doses. The comfort I take in people who share my most violent antipathies is not something I love about myself.