A few days ago, I had a strange experience. I got trolled—some might say gaslighted—by the person who many think will be Hillary Clinton’s White House Chief of Staff.

Her name is Neera Tanden. Tanden is the head of the Center for American Progress, the Democratic Party think tank that works closely with the Clintons.

Though you may know of Tanden for other reasons. I’ll come back to that.

It began on Tuesday afternoon, when I tweeted this.

Take six minutes to watch Cornel West take on the DNC re Israel/Palestine, while Neera Tanden rolls her eyes. https://t.co/XZkQ5Moe4V — corey robin (@CoreyRobin) June 22, 2016

Cornel West represents Bernie Sanders on the DNC Platform Committee. Tanden represents Clinton. Electronic Intifada had excerpted some clips from the Committee’s public deliberations about, among other issues, Israel-Palestine. The hearings had originally been broadcast on C-SPAN. I was struck by the force of West’s moral witness, and what I saw as Tanden’s visible impatience, which you can evaluate for yourself at the 4:40 mark on the Electronic Intifada video.

The next day, Tanden responded to me on Twitter. Not to challenge my characterization of her response to West, but to, well, read for yourself.

@TyHealey @CoreyRobin I wasn’t there for any discussion of Israel/Palestine. If you have to rely on lies, doing progressivism wrong — (((Neera Tanden))) (@neeratanden) June 22, 2016

@CoreyRobin please correct this tweet. I wasn’t in committee for discussion of Israel Palestine. #facts — (((Neera Tanden))) (@neeratanden) June 22, 2016

Tanden makes three moves here.

First, she claims—twice—that she was simply not there during the Committee’s deliberations on Israel/Palestine. Not for “any” of those deliberations.

Second, she accuses me of lying.

Third, she asks that I correct my statement.

I instantly get nervous. Here I’ve been accused by Clinton’s possible Chief of Staff of lying. This is not a person you want to cross. Especially on Twitter. I’ll come back to that. Could I have gotten this so wrong?

I go back to the video. I watch it again. And there, at the 4:40 mark, just after DNC Platform Committee member Jim Zogby asks if there are any more questions, I can hear, off-camera, Cornel West talking about the Trump-like elements in the Israeli government—Netanyahu, Lieberman—and I can see Neera Tanden, on camera, rolling her eyes.

I go back to Twitter and see that people are starting to point this out to her.

But, maybe, I think to myself, the visuals I’m seeing of her next to Zogby were for another part of the hearings, having nothing to do with Israel/Palestine.

But then someone on Twitter posts a still from that video, from just that moment.

There, in the upper left, it says, “Highlights: Democratic Platform Committee debate on Middle East.” So she was there, right?

But still no word from Tanden.

Then I think to myself: Wait a minute, I don’t know what Neera Tanden actually looks like. Sure, the person on camera is sitting in front of a name plate that says Neera Tanden, but maybe that’s not her? Maybe in DC circles it’s considered the height of cool to have a flunky sit in front of your name plate and pretend to be you? Maybe it’s gauche or Sanders-style old-fashioned—not retro chic, just dorky and dinosaur-ish, like labor unions and Social Security—to sit in front of your own name plate?

These thoughts are running through my head. Because I’m one of those people who, when accused of doing something wrong, instantly assumes my accuser is right. Why else would she say it if it weren’t true? This is someone who, come next January, could be one step away from the most powerful person on earth. She’s not crazy or stupid. She went to Yale. She must be right.

Just as I start feverishly googling images of Tanden—and truth be told, she doesn’t look in this photo the way she does in the other photos of her that I find online, so now I’m really panicking—she speaks. Or tweets.

@ishtaranonymous @CoreyRobin watch the whole hearing. I wasn’t there for Wexler. Q’s on conflict were during Wexler. Was there for Duss. — (((Neera Tanden))) (@neeratanden) June 22, 2016

Wexler is former Congressman Robert Wexler, who for most of the video clip that I watched is giving pro-Israel testimony before the Committee. Duss is Matt Duss, who used to work for the Center for American Progress, and is now at the Foundation for Middle East Peace. So what is Tanden saying? That because she missed Wexler’s testimony, which was about Israel/Palestine, but was there for Duss’s, which was—presumably—not about Israel/Palestine, she wasn’t there for any discussion of Israel/Palestine?

That seems like the only possible interpretation. I listen to the video again, though, and there, at 4:40 is the shot of Tanden and Zogby, with Cornel West talking about Netanyahu off camera, and then—voila!—at 4:51, Matt Duss appears on camera! Nodding his head as West continues talking, in what seems like a seamless auditory transition from when Tanden is on camera to when Duss is on camera. I’ve got the proof! Right?

Tanden tweets this.

@RealTrevinShu @obvious_humor @CoreyRobin why don’t you watch the whole hearing instead of an edited version — (((Neera Tanden))) (@neeratanden) June 22, 2016

What is she saying now? That the edited video is misleading, making it seem as if she was there when she wasn’t there. Or is she saying it was doctored? That West’s voice was somehow spliced in from a different part of the hearings? Suddenly, I think, maybe she’s right, maybe this is one of those gotcha type videos that people like James O’Keefe on the right specialize in.

She doubles down.

What do I do? I watch the whole hearing.

Well, not the whole hearing, but a major chunk of it.

I go back to the original C-SPAN video, not the edited version on the Electronic Intifada site. I start at the 1:04 mark. What do I see? Sitting next to Zogby is someone different than the person who I (still) think (hope) is Neera Tanden. This non-Neera Tanden person starts introducing Wexler, but then interrupts herself to say that she is not in fact Neera Tanden, that Neera Tanden had to step outside. This non-Neera Tanden person is Carol Browner, she says, and she’s sitting in for Tanden. On the plus side, the name plate in front of her says that her name is Carol Browner. So people in DC do sit in front of their name plates after all. Phew. She finishes introducing Wexler, and he starts.

There’s a long back and forth; other panelists, including West, get in on the discussion; another person gives his testimony; and then, at the 1:37:43 mark, Tanden appears! Next to Zogby! But introducing someone who talks about climate policy.

I start to get nervous again. Maybe Tanden really wasn’t there for any discussion of the Middle East? Maybe the C-SPAN caption on that picture was wrong, maybe the video was doctored, maybe I’ve just embarrassed myself on social media, maybe I’ve just crossed someone whom you don’t want to cross. Especially on Twitter. I’ll come back to that.

But, wait, I remind myself, Tanden has said, a few tweets above, that she was there for Duss’s testimony, right? Duss is the head of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. He writes about Israel/Palestine all the time. So what else could he have been talking about if not Israel/Palestine?

Hmm, I think again, maybe he was talking about Syria, though, or Libya, or the Emirates. With a sense of dread, I keep watching.

At 1:49:59, I finally come to Duss. Zogby introduces him, Tanden’s still there, so that’s good, and he starts talking. About…Israel and Palestine! The importance of peace between the two peoples, ending the Occupation, how the conflict between Israel/Palestine generates resentment in the region of the whole, the importance of Israel’s security and Palestinians’ needs for self-determination. The entire statement he gives is about…Israel/Palestine! And Tanden is there for the entire time! She’s already admitted that, right?

And, then, at the very end of Duss’s statement, as Zogby asks if there are any questions, at 1:54:06, there is Tanden, still right next to him. The camera is on her and Zogby, for a moment of suspended silence, till finally we hear West start to pose his question to Duss—again, about Netanyahu and Trump-like elements in Israel—and Tanden does her thing.

There: I’ve got it, the proof I needed!

I turn back to Twitter. And here’s what I see:

@epizoooxis @CoreyRobin I was gone for Wexler which is most of video. — (((Neera Tanden))) (@neeratanden) June 22, 2016

Huh? She was gone for Wexler. Okay. But who said otherwise? And what does it even prove? Nothing at all. It’s just part of Tanden’s ever-shifting goal posts: She wasn’t there. She was there but only for Duss, with the implication being that he didn’t talk about Israel/Palestine, which he did. She missed Wexler’s testimony, which is neither here nor there.

So let’s recap.

Tanden said she wasn’t there for “any discussion of Israel/Palestine.” That’s not true. She was.

Tanden claimed that I was lying. That’s not true. I wasn’t.

Tanden asked me to correct my tweet. But what was there to correct?

And never once does she say: Sorry. I was wrong. I was there. I apologize for claiming you were lying. Not even one sentence of that.

And now we come to the biggest question of all: Why am I writing about something so stupid and small at 3 in the morning on a Friday night?

Three reasons.

First, notice the amateurishness.

This is the head of a major DC think tank who could well be Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff. What is she doing on a Tuesday morning firing off salvoes at a Brooklyn College professor about a matter of not terribly great importance—and getting it completely wrong? And then, in response to evidence-laden refutations, either doubling down on the accusations or throwing up a lot of chaff? Tanden doesn’t go silent, which is what I thought people in these positions do in these situations (why she even got into it in the first place is an even greater mystery). She doesn’t issue a carefully worded correction. She doesn’t graciously apologize. She just flails around, hoping we won’t notice all the bullshit that’s flying around her.

One of the great mistakes I consistently make in political combat is to presume the basic competence of my opponents. But we’re not talking here about the amateur hour I’m used to dealing with. We’re talking about the, well, potential next Chief of Staff of the White House.

As someone said to me, it’s like Veep come to life.

Tanden’s actually been called out for her erratic behavior on Twitter. Here’s her response:

You know… I know, I think I probably tweet too much. [Laughs] Just to be 100 percent candid about it, I worked for Hillary for a really long time and I feel protective of her. I feel protective particularly when progressives attack her as some kind of right-wing caricature. I feel like that’s ridiculous. I started working for Hillary in the ’90s. People called her a socialist before being a socialist was cool.. I will plead guilty to wanting to defend her and defend her strenuously on Twitter. But I’m willing to concede I should tweet less.

You think?

But in this instance, Tanden wasn’t tweeting in defense of Clinton. She was tweeting in defense of herself. Which brings me to…

…my second point.

Actually, it’s not mine. It’s Astra Taylor’s. Astra is a documentary filmmaker.

When someone commented on Facebook that they couldn’t understand why a powerful player in DC would be so obsessively monitoring her mentions on Twitter, particularly in response to a not terribly important person like me, Astra made a shrewd observation:

This election has really shown the people who feel entitled to rule the country to be deeply narcissistic and not busy doing anything of actual importance — this is the liberal version of Trump reading all his press/mentions every morning and sending “corrected” copies back to the journalists.

Exactly.

Never underestimate the narcissism—or amateurishness—of America’s ruling classes. While people like Tanden are in meetings with other important people, where God knows what or whose fate gets decided, they’re keeping their eye on their Twitter mentions, making sure no one’s looking at them cross-eyed, making sure they’re someone whom you don’t want to cross. Especially on Twitter. I’ll come back to…no, actually, I won’t come back to that. Now I can come, at last, to that, my third point.

So Neera Tanden jumped to fame in my little world exactly five weeks ago, when she and blogger Matt Bruenig crossed swords. (You can read all about the substance of that spat in the various links regarding the incident that I’ve scattered throughout this piece.) Within 24 hours, Matt was fired from his position as a blogger at Demos. Since then, we’ve not heard a word from Matt, save one piece he wrote for Jacobin. A prolific blogger and social media presence, whose voice was everywhere, all the time, particularly on Twitter, has gone silent.*

Tanden has repeatedly claimed on Twitter that she had nothing to do with Bruenig’s firing. Until this weekend, I was inclined to believe her. Though Matt Yglesias had reported that someone or ones had in fact tried to contact Bruenig’s employer in the federal government (his main gig) to get him fired from that position in addition to the Demos position, I figured Demos preemptively did it, perhaps for fear of antagonizing Tanden. And behind her, the Clintons.

But here’s the thing. Tanden made up a story about her not being at the DNC platform hearings for “any discussions” of the Israel/Palestine conflict. She made up that story when there was publicly available and easily accessible evidence to the contrary. When she was challenged about her made-up story, she doubled down. She suggested that the edited video gave a misleading impression about her presence there. She accused me of being a liar and demanded that I retract my lie. She never once admitted that it was she, not me, who was not telling the truth. She never once apologized to me for claiming to her 25,000 followers that I was lying.

So I leave you with this question (and it really is a question): If Tanden can act this way in the face of verifiable evidence that’s plain as day, and there for everyone to see, when the stakes are so low, is it completely implausible that she would act in a roughly similar fashion when the evidence is not so publicly available and not so easily accessible and when the stakes are much higher? When she has an even stronger and more self-interested reason for covering her tracks?

But there I go again, presuming the basic competence of my opponents.

______________________

*Tragically—I am reluctant to say this, lest I be misunderstood or thought to be sensationalizing this case; I only mention it for the sake of full disclosure, so that no one thinks I was trying to hide this information in order to make my point about Matt’s silence—Matt’s 29-year-old sister was stabbed to death in Arlington, Texas last weekend.