Skip to content

Month: January 2017

A wingnut’s wingnut

A wingnut’s wingnut

by digby

Jeff Sessions of course. Miranda Blue at People for the American Way caught this gem:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut confronted Sen. Jeff Sessions, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be attorney general, during his confirmation hearing today about the Alabama Republican’s association with a number of extremist organizations, including the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the Center for Security Policy and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Sessions declined to disavow these organizations or return the awards he received from them, but his exchange with Blumenthal about the David Horowitz Freedom Center and its founder, David Horowitz, was particularly illuminating.

After Blumenthal read him a number of quotes from Horowitz, Sessions responded that he “didn’t know David Horowitz had made those comments” and that he had been impressed by Horowitz’s “brilliant book” “Radical Son.”

“He’s a most brilliant individual and has a remarkable story,” Sessions said. “I’m not aware of everything he’s ever said or done.”

Blumenthal reminded him that Horowitz’s comments have been “reported publicly and repeatedly over many years” and asked if, when he received an award from Horowitz and publicly praised him in 2014, he had been “unaware of any of the apparently racist comments that he made.”

“I’m not aware of those comments,” Sessions said, “and I don’t believe David Horowitz is a racist or a person that would treat anyone improperly, at least to my knowledge.”

Blumenthal wasn’t cherry-picking a few quotes from Horowitz. Instead, he was illustrating what has been the gist of Horowitz’s public advocacy for years. As we wrote recently:

Sessions’ ongoing connection with Horowitz is troubling, to say the least. Horowitz is a California-based activist who publishes the conservative FrontPage magazine and runs the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He also provides a platform for anti-Muslim activist Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch website.

Horowitz uses these platforms to promote anti-Muslim bigotry; he has claimed that “all Muslim associations are fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood” and promoted smears against Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

Just a few months before Sessions accepted an award from Horowitz in 2014, Horowitz called Nancy Pelosi a “Jew-hating bitch” on Twitter. Earlier this year, Horowitz lashed out at anti-Trump conservative Bill Kristol in a Breitbart article that labeled Kristol a “renegade Jew.”

Horowitz has for years criticized civil rights leaders and lashed out against what he calls “black racism,” notably in his 1999 book “Hating Whitey.” Horowitz hasn’t let up on that refrain, for instance saying in a radio interview last year that President Obama is “racist” because he won’t recognize that it was “white Christian males” who ended slavery. Just a few weeks ago, Horowitz told a radio interviewer that the “racism in this country that is the real problem is black racism” and “certainly not white people.”

Just last week, the David Horowitz Freedom Center named Trump strategist Steve Bannon, infamous for his embrace of the white nationalist Alt-Right, as its “Man of the Year.”

No surprise. Mike Flynn is a huge fan of Milo Yiannopoulos. These guys are all members of the same club.

.

Trump iconography is gonna be great. Yuge.

Trump iconography is gonna be great. Yuge.

by digby

I ran across these items on Amazon today:

A truly ugly throw blanket:

A creepy coloring book:

And this lovely coffee cup which I think truly gets to the essence of Trump’s appeal:

There’s money to be made people. Come up with the perfect Trump tchotchke and you could make a bundle. After all, his followers have already proven that they’ll buy anything.

.

Today’s under-the-radar assault on America

Today’s under-the-radar assault on America

by digby

Salon reported:

After eight years of bashing Obamacare, congressional Republicans still haven’t come up with a plan to replace it. They are, however, essentially unified in wanting to stop the Congressional Budget Office from estimating how much a repeal might cost. 

While the media and most Democrats were focusing on the House of Representatives voting to weaken the Office of Congressional Ethics (a measure that was subsequently retracted), the larger document that the initiative was part of also prohibited the office from analyzing proposals to repeal the Affordable Care Act. 

Almost no one seems to have noticed this. 

Responding to the provision on the floor of the House on Jan. 3, Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., condemned it and the Republicans: 

“They’re admitting in their own rules that their proposal to repeal the Affordable Care Act will be devastating to the federal deficit and the national debt,” he said. 

Two representatives for House Speaker Paul Ryan did not respond when contacted by Salon asking about the Congressional Budget Office restriction. 

Buried on page 25 of the “Rules of the House of Representatives” is language instructing the budget office, a nonpartisan accounting research agency controlled by both houses, to automatically perform estimates on any piece of legislation that might increase federal spending by more than $5 billion over the next 40 years. 

That’s very fine-grained analysis, considering that the federal government spends just under $4 trillion a year. Assuming a static amount of $3.85 trillion is spent annually over the next 40 years (a generous assumption), this means the House GOP is interested in a detailed analysis of spending down to the nearest 0.003 percent. 

That’s an incredible attention to detail that House Republicans are asking for, but there’s one significant exception to the CBO requirements. Under the House rules, which passed on a party-line vote without any Democrats in favor, the budget office is prohibited from analyzing “any bill or joint resolution” that repeals or modifies Obamacare. 

This prohibition probably reflects that Republicans have come to grips with the fact that several provisions within the massive health care law have reduced the federal deficit, thanks to tax increases or payment restrictions on Medicare providers. 

According to an analysis produced by the budget office in June, repealing Obamacare would increase the federal budget deficit by about $137 billion over the next 10 years. Using another method of calculation, the repeal would add $353 billion.

They do not care about deficits. But they’d prefer to keep it on the down low so they can bash Democrats with it when it’s necessary.

This is not the fundamental reason to oppose them on this issue, of course. They are trying to kill and or bankrupt some of their fellow citizens by throwing us back into the heinous health care market that existed before Obamacare. But they’re clearly trying to hide what they are doing and there’s so much going on that they know they can get away with it.

.

Comey and the Russian rumors

Comey and the Russian rumors

by digby

I wrote about it for Salon this morning:

Last Sunday on “Meet the Press” there was a rather odd exchange between Chuck Todd and Sen. Lindsey Graham. The interview had taken place on the previous Friday, after the intelligence agencies had released an unclassified summary of their conclusions that the Russian government had hacked various institutions and engaged in propaganda on behalf of Donald Trump. Sen. John McCain said he simply believed the people in charge while Graham, as is his wont, went on quite a bit more. But this exchange caught my attention:

Todd: Are there still active investigations going on to try to figure out if there was coordination between campaigns and Moscow? . . . Is that currently happening now in other investigative agencies? FBI, a joint task force, anything like that? Is that currently happening and just we don’t know about it? 

Graham: I believe that it’s happening. But you need to talk to them because I don’t want to speak for them.

As it turns out, there was much more to the story.

On Tuesday morning the Senate had scheduled two important hearings simultaneously, one for the confirmation of Sen. Jeff Sessions as the attorney general and the other a hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the Russian hacking allegations, with the FBI’s director, James Comey, making his first public appearance since the election. So it was expected that it would likely be a big news day and it definitely was. The Sessions hearing was interesting but it didn’t really tell us anything we didn’t know about the man. It was the other hearing that raised more questions than it answered.

That hearing started off with a statement from Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., that evoked a question from Todd on Sunday by mentioning the need for an investigation into any “contact between the Russian government and its agents, and associates of any campaign and candidate.” This was strange because Friday’sunclassified report didn’t say anything about contact between any “campaign and candidate” and the Russian government. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., then referenced an interview in which a top Russian diplomat said his government had been in contact with the Trump campaign and asked Comey, “Has the FBI investigated these reported relationships, and, if so, what are the agency’s findings?” What was this all about?

Comey responded by saying, “I would never comment on investigations, whether we have one or not, in an open forum like this. So I really can’t answer it one way or another.” Considering his notorious behavior with respect to the Hillary Clinton email server investigation, this naturally elicited some incredulous reactions, notably from Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who followed up quickly by asking if Comey planned to answer Wyden’s question. And when Comey repeated his statement, King archly replied, “The irony of your making that statement here — I cannot avoid.”

Then Comey attempted to cover his gaffe by saying that he is known to be “politically tone-deaf” and then patted himself on the back, saying that was “how it should be.” But he has given the appearance of a blatant double standard on this ever since it was revealed that the FBI knew about alleged Russian interference and Comey refused to divulge it prior to the election, citing ethics rules barring the FBI from interfering in elections.

Needless to say, Comey had no such scruples when he broke longstanding policy by making dramatic public characterizations of Hillary Clinton’s alleged misconduct after he declined to prosecute, and then days before the election dropping his outrageous announcement about finding more emails on a Clinton aide’s computer — which turned out to be nothing more than duplicates. For a man who is politically tone-deaf, he certainly seems to sing off-key in ways that favor one side over the other.

After the hearing concluded, CNN’s Jake Tapper broke in with a report that explained why everyone has been hinting broadly that there was something else out there about “contacts” between “a campaign” and the Russian government beyond a few vague news stories. It turns out that along with the classified report that the agencies had delivered to the Trump campaign, the White House and certain members of Congress, they had also delivered an addendum which contained some unverified “opposition research” that had been in circulation around Washington for some time. Indeed, it had reached the desk of McCain, who personally passed it on to the FBI.

CNN reported that a former operative for the British intelligence agency MI6, who had proved to be a credible source in the past, had produced some reports alleging that the Russian government said it had compromising information on Trump and that there had been contacts and deals made between Trump campaign associates and Russian agents. (BuzzFeed subsequently, and perhaps rashly, published the alleged contents of these reports or some of them. It’s quite likely you’ve heard about that.)

Allusions to this matter had already bubbled up in various places over the past few months, notably in this article by David Corn in Mother Jones and Sen. Harry Reid’s scathing letter accusing Comey of holding back “explosive” information about Trump’s Russian ties in the days before the election. (These stories were all dismissed after what now appears to be a false story fed to The New York Times by the FBI, declaring that there were no connections between Trump and the Russian government.)

But the reason this became breaking news yesterday was the fact that the intelligence services thought it important enough to pass along to Trump, the Obama White House and designated members of Congress.

It must be acknowledged that the information in the addendum has not been independently verified, at least as far as we know. Presumably an investigation is ongoing. According to a comprehensive article in the Guardian, the FBI sought a secret warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for permission to conduct surveillance on certain Trump associates last summer and originally was turned down. (There have been additional reports that such a warrant was granted in October.)

So a healthy dose of skepticism is called for, as always, when it comes to this fast-spreading new Trump scandal. There are many reasons why a foreign government might say it had compromising information and illicit ties to a presidential candidate, even if it’s not true. But according to the Guardian article, at least some of the early reports did turn out to be true. It’s also true that some of Trump’s mysterious campaign behavior, or the odd circumstances under which pro-Russian language was injected into the GOP platform, might make more sense in light of this timeline of events. This is far from the end of this story, and we’ll undoubtedly know more in the coming days.

All we can say for sure right now is that this is a perfect illustration of the way Comey improperly inserted himself into the election. These scandalous rumors connecting Trump to the Russian government information are unproven and unverified, and the FBI director was right not to reveal this material prior to the election. He completely ignored that principle when it came to Clinton, and there can be no doubt that it made a difference in the outcome. The fact that Comey clearly knew at the time it was at least possible that Trump had been compromised by a foreign government makes his decision even more shameful.

.

Trump’s “trust”

Trump’s “trust”

by digby

He’s turning it over to the boys who won’t talk about it with him. But he hopes it will make a big profit so that when he comes back in eight years (assume much?) he wil be sitting on a big pile of money.

This is not a blind trust. It isn’t even a trust. He’s just bumped himself up to Chairman of the Board of his company while he’s running the world.

What the hell?

Moscow on the Hudson by @BloggersRUs

Moscow on the Hudson
by Tom Sullivan


Moscow Kremlin and Bolshoy Kamenny Bridge in the late evening. Photo by Andrey Korzun via Wikimedia Commons.

President-elect Donald Trump has a press conference scheduled for 11 a.m. EST today at Trump Tower in New York. Likely, he would rather the world talk about his assets or his “assets,” but not his being an asset of Russian intelligence. But his Russian connections made headlines again after CNN broke news last night that President Obama and President-elect Trump were briefed on documents collected by a former MI6 official that detailed efforts by Russia to gather “compromising personal and financial information” about Trump:

The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump.

David Corn reported on the existence of such documents in October for Mother Jones. CNN reports that the memos “were circulating as far back as last summer.” CNN reports that Senator John McCain presented a copy of the memos to FBI Director James Comey on December 9, but that the FBI had received its own copy from the former MI6 agent in August.

In its review of the still-uncorroborated contents, The Guardian reports:

One report, dated June 2016, claims that the Kremlin has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years, with the aim of encouraging “splits and divisions in western alliance”.

It claims that Trump had declined “various sweetener real estate deals offered him in Russia” especially in developments linked to the 2018 World Cup finals but that “he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.”

Most explosively, the report alleges: “FSB has compromised Trump through his activities in Moscow sufficiently to be able to blackmail him.” The president-elect has not responded to the allegations.

The allegations were sufficient that the FBI applied to the FISA court over the summer for a warrant to monitor four members of Trump’s team. That request was rejected as too broad (a rare event for the FISA court). The Guardian cites an unconfirmed report that the FBI eventually got its warrant in October, but could not confirm that the FBI had initiated a full investigation.

Since the memos contain salacious allegations about a Trump stay in a Moscow hotel, one presumes their release at this time is an attempt by U.S. intelligence officials to neutralize their effect on an incoming Trump administration. Trump himself took the embarrasing allegations seriously enough to tweet last night in all caps: “FAKE NEWS – A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!”

In just one of the snarky tweets flying around last night riffing on the Moscow hotel section of the documents, David Waldman offered a free headline to New York tabloids:

If politics “is always about perception,” Trump has used perception effectively both to his advantage and his opponents’ disadvantage in winning the White House. But live by perception, die by perception. Let’s see how well he manages being on the receiving end. His angry, all-caps tweet last night suggests not very well.

A soft, sensual inaugural

A soft, sensual inaugural

by digby

Uhm:

President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration planners perhaps raised more questions than they answered Tuesday when they dished some details on the president-elect’s upcoming inauguration festivities. Politico’s Tara Palmeri reported Trump’s inauguration won’t include the usual “circus-like celebration” with celebrities, but, rather, well, something else.

I’m not sure what a softly sensual inauguration would be but it might include giant parrots.

L’état c’est Trump

L’état c’est Trump

by digby

I guess this is just fine with people but it makes me feel crazy. I don’t even see lefties who railed until they were hoarse about Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street saying much of anything about this.

Trump plays by different rules and I guess everybody kind of respects him for it. It’s bold, it’s manly, it’s strong:

Donald Trump is already making money from the presidency, a post-election bump to the value of his brand that highlights the inextricable ties between his famous name, his business interests and the powerful public office he is about to assume.

Since his surprise November win, the value of Trump’s name has risen to all-time highs, coinciding with a surge in demand for everything from his condominiums and hotel rooms to his golf courses and men’s suits, according to experts in marketing, real estate and other industries who have been tracking the Trump brand since long before the launch of his political career.

“It’s the most incredible culmination of a country built on a capitalist economy, that the presidency should be fused with a branding machine and with this global corporation,” said Trump biographer Gwenda Blair.

But as Trump now prepares to take the oath of office, the president-elect’s team must manage the gush in popularity and ensuing earnings while facing critics who are already accusing Trump of using the presidency for profit.

During a Wednesday news conference, Trump and his advisers are expected to roll out their plans for the president-elect to shield himself and his family from conflict of interest charges. While Trump has resisted a complete divestiture from his company, as some ethics experts are urging, he is taking steps to address the controversy, including scrubbing his image off billboards and other advertisements tied to projects from India to Uruguay and imposing restrictions against selling any memorabilia with the presidential seal or White House logo inside his hotels or golf course pro shops.

“His focus is not going to be on the company or the brand,” Alan Garten, the Trump Organization’s general counsel, told POLITICO.

But Trump and his business allies have not hesitated to bank on the boom in interest: His adult sons have been traveling the world since the November election drumming up business for the brand their father spent decades building, and just last week, Eric Trump visited the beach side Uruguay Trump condominium that’s reportedly seen a 20 percent surge in business during construction over the past year. Trump’s new Washington, D.C., hotel also recently raised the prices on the “romanesque revival,” a bourbon cocktail that at $24 is the least expensive option at the bar.

The president-elect boasted in a New York Times interview shortly after defeating Hillary Clinton that his company is in better shape than ever, noting hotel occupancy “will be probably a more valuable asset now than it was before.”

“The brand is certainly a hotter brand than it was before,” Trump told the newspaper. “I can’t help that, but I don’t care.”

For the Trump brand, this reversal is something of a redemption after the negative publicity it endured during a bruising 2016 presidential campaign that produced an endless series of headlines about its founder’s brash and often offensive political style. Now, its namesake is going where no other corporate CEO has ever gone before in American history, a move that continues to boost the value to his brand even when just standing still.

“It’s a golden brand. There’s never been a Rockefeller or Disney who’s been president,” said Robert Dankner, president of a New York real estate brokerage that has dealt in Trump properties.

There was a time when this would have been completely shocking. In fact, it would have been unthinkable. It is obvious, open corruption on a level we have never seen. The man refuses to show his tax returns, refuses to divest his business, is openly empowering his family and cronies to do business on the side on his behalf and is happily selling his “brand” as president of the United States for profit.

I wonder what former presidents think of the idea that they would have been allowed to make as much money selling influence, access and their name while in office as long as they say they “don’t care” about the money.

I am gobsmacked that this is not the biggest story in the world. But it isn’t. I’m not sure anyone cares about this much at all and I honestly cannot figure out why.

Meanwhile, in case you were wondering, GOP House Oversight chairman Jason Chaffetz says he’s going to pursue Hillary Clinton but doesn’t think Trump has any conflicts because the president is exempt. Apparently, he thinks that makes sense.

.