Skip to content

Month: February 2017

Believe him or believe your lying eyes

Believe him or believe your lying eyes

by digby

It’s actually working:

“Better to get your news directly from the president,” Republican congressman Lamar Smith said last month. “In fact, it might be the only way to get the unvarnished truth.”

You may call that sentiment Orwellian, but nine out of ten Republicans would call it common sense: A new poll from Emerson College finds 90 percent of Republicans believe that the Trump administration is “truthful” — while less than 10 percent say the same about the news media.

By contrast, 77 percent of Democrats believe the Trump White House is “untruthful,” while 69 percent think the news media generally tells the truth. Independents tend to think they’re all a bunch of liars, with 52 percent calling the administration untruthful and 47 percent calling the media the same.

Republicans’ nearly unanimous trust in the Trump White House — and contempt for the Fourth Estate — means that, on the whole, voters have more faith in the president: Forty-nine percent call the Trump administration truthful, 48 percent say the opposite; for the media, those numbers are 39 and 53, respectively.

Well, there goes my sleep tonight. I don’t know how we survive if 90% of Republicans believe this lying piece of work is honest.

.

Shameless hucksters

Shameless hucksters

by digby

I get the feeling the Trump people have all just said “fuck it say whatever you want, there’s nothing we can’t get away with.” It is not normal for white house personnel to go on TV and do what amounts to an infomercial for the First family’s personal profit.

“Go buy Ivanka’s stuff, is what I would tell you. I hate shopping, but I am going to go get some myself today. This is just — it’s a wonderful line, I own some of it, I’m just gonna give a free commercial here, go buy it today, you can buy it online.”

Think Progress explains:

In using her official capacity to bolster Ivanka Trump’s business, Conway has plenty of company in the White House — all in reaction to retailers’ announcements that they are are dropping Ivanka Trump’s eponymous clothing line due to poor performance.

President Trump himself lashed out in response — tweeting from his @realdonaldtrump account and retweeting from the official @Potus account, which is passed from president to president.

Since then, Trump’s top advisers — who are all also federal employees working on the taxpayer dime — have been backing up his attack on the company and blurring the already nonexistent line between the Trump administration and the Trump businesses.

“This is a direct attack on [the President’s] policies and her name,” Spicer said.

While touting Ivanka Trump’s business, Conway also talked about Ivanka’s close relationship with the White House, stressing that a role remains open for her whenever she decides she wants it. 

The overarching message from the Trump organization is that messing with a Trump company and messing with the White House are one and the same.

This seems to be fine with the American people.  It’s email server management that really gets them upset.

.

Emboldening the enemy

Emboldening the enemy

by digby

Our president thinks he’s the only one who’s allowed to talk about military matters to the press. Even US Senators are supposed to stifle it.

That’s the president of the United States talking there.

If you haven’t heard, the so-called successful attack he’s talking about (and basically passing off on Mattis which is interesting) was an abject failure that not only missed its target and killed a Navy Seal but killed 9 little children as well.

And Trump might want to STFU about “emboldening the enemy.” It’s hard to calculate how many people have been radicalized by at attack like this in light of the new president’s repeated public comments saying “we have to take out the families.” Who could he ever convince that the US didn’t do something like this on purpose?

In fact, he’s crowing about how successful this botched raid was, so …

.

Which terrorist attacks aren’t being covered again?

Which terrorist attacks aren’t being covered again?


by digby

I wrote about Trump’s bizarre statement that the press doesn’t cover terrorist attacks for Salon this morning:

The brouhaha between the Trump administration and the press has continued all week, with President Trump complaining publicly that the media is refusing to cover terrorist attacks for unspecified reasons:

You’ve seen what happened in Paris and Nice. All over Europe, it’s happening. It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported. And in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that.

Why he thinks the press would hide these stories is completely mystifying. The media go to great lengths to milk every single bloody casualty and tragic death they can. Nothing is as good for ratings as terror porn, as Trump surely knows.

It was natural that the media suspected Trump was referring to the “Bowling Green massacre,” which Kellyanne Conway had been publicly insisting had not been covered by the media. (She was right. It wasn’t covered — because there was no Bowling Green massacre.) But when the White House released a list of 78 terrorist attacks the administration claimed had not be adequately covered, it included Paris, Nice, San Bernardino, Orlando and Brussels, among dozens of others that had received wall-to-wall coverage for weeks.

Then the White House explained that it was really referring to attacks overseas like the machete-wielding man who threatened people in Paris last week and was killed before he could hurt anyone. Such attacks aren’t being given the kind of hysterical reporting that Trump officials apparently believe is necessary for citizens to understand the threat. They want to ensure that Americans think they are in danger of being hacked to death by deranged Muslims at any moment.

Obviously, terrorism is a danger in this world. There isn’t anyone on the planet who is unaware of that. But this idea that foreign terrorists are the greatest threat to America has been repeatedly debunked in recent years, because the data simply does not back up that claim. Despite the minimal risk they present, after the Paris and San Bernardino attacks Donald Trump seized on the xenophobic paranoia that was setting the right wing aflame. He tied his existing Mexican-immigrant bashing to Muslim-immigrant bashing, and the issue took on a life of its own.

Before Trump burst on to the scene, FBI director James Comey and other top law enforcement officials were making it clear that the danger from ISIS-style attacks in the United States did not stem from foreign immigrants or refugees but rather homegrown “lone wolves,” usually young male misfits who became radicalized online. The authorities told us to keep calm and carry on because it was very difficult to catch such plots in advance, although they were working diligently to do so.

Most Americans accepted this with resigned equanimity. The reason we were all able to take this risk in stride (aside from basic common sense) is because we understand perfectly well that this country is chock-full of such lone wolves, many of them mentally ill, armed to the teeth by loose gun laws and driven by demons that generally have nothing to do with Islam. We have had to learn to live with unbalanced young men entering public places and mowing down innocent civilians for every reason and no reason under the sun. Why should we panic just because some of them are now doing it because they are in the grip of a specific extremist ideology? Whether a killer is motivated by hallucinations, racial hatred or religious extremism, the victims are no less dead.

But Trump showed throughout the campaign that the only violent extremism he finds threatening is Muslim extremism, and has gone to great lengths to gin up irrational fear of it among his followers. And that’s very telling since law enforcement officers have said they are even more concerned about a different ideology: right-wing, anti-government extremism, particularly the “sovereign citizen” movement that evolved out of white supremacist groups. Unfortunately, the Trump administration plans to stop tracking such groups in order to concentrate on the alleged hordes of Islamic jihadis in our midst. No wonder neo-Nazis cheered wildly when Trump was elected.

Donald Trump has still not said or tweeted one word about his fan who walked into a Quebec mosque and mowed down six people a week ago. Dylann Roof, the perpetrator of the Charleston massacre, was on trial during the presidential transition and Trump couldn’t too busy scolding the cast of “Hamilton” and critiquing Alec Baldwin’s performance on “Saturday Night Live” to spare a single tweet.

Of the 78 acts of terrorism which the White House accused the media of refusing to adequately cover, all were perpetrated by Muslims. It didn’t mention the right-wing fanatic currently on trial in New York for plotting to take an assault rifle, armor-piercing ammunition and other weapons, including a machete, to a small Muslim community and murder as many people as possible. They didn’t include this week’s guilty verdict in the trial of a Minnesota white supremacist who went to a Black Lives Matter march and shot five protesters.

They didn’t include Robert Dear, the man who used Republican talking points about “selling baby parts” while conducting a rampage at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic, killing three people. The White House failed to note the story of the “white power” couple in Las Vegas who spent time at the Bundy ranch and assassinated two police officers, covering them with swastikas after the fact. The list also didn’t include the Ku Klux Klan member sentenced to 30 years to life last December for conspiring with another man to build a dirty bomb to “‘take his country back’ from government leaders by forcing them to change government conduct he perceived as favoring Muslims,” according to prosecutors.

That’s just a short list, chosen at random, of terrorist attacks planned by right-wing extremists in the last couple of years, none of which the Trump administration has mentioned even in passing amid its nonstop fear-mongering and demagoguery about Islamic terrorism. Needless to say, they also have nothing to say about the massive death toll from gun violence perpetrated by average Americans every single day.

Donald Trump sees an America that is terrified of foreigners of all stripes, and wants the media to help him stoke that fear for his own purposes. One cannot help but wonder what President Trump would do if a modern-day Timothy McVeigh managed to pull off one of these horrifying terror plots he doesn’t seem to notice or care about. We will have to hope the American people will understand where to lay the blame.

What will Trump’s shiny new police state do about this? by @Gaius_Publius

What will Trump’s shiny new police state do about this?

by Gaius Publius

Recently you read here about Trump’s shiny new police state.

Wonder what he’ll do when this starts back up. Brad Johnson at Hill Heat:

Army Corps Grants Expedited Dakota Access Pipeline Easement

Cancelling an ongoing environmental review, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has given Congress 24 hours notice of its decision to grant an easement for the construction of the final leg of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. The action was directed by one of President Donald Trump’s first presidential memoranda.

In the waning days of the Obama administration, after global pressure built from sustained opposition by Native American tribes to the Bakken shale pipeline in North Dakota, the Army announced it would begin a new environmental impact statement review of the project. Trump’s presidential memorandum of January 24th directed the Army Corps to expedite the approval process for the pipeline by any legal means necessary. In memos issued by Douglas W. Lamont, acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the corps terminated the environmental impact statement process and foreshortened the Congressional notification period from two weeks to one day.

Final construction on the pipeline could thus begin as early as tomorrow.

In other news, Arctic temperatures are nearing 50 degrees above normal, a massive crack is spreading across one of the major Antarctic ice shelves, and a massive tornado hit New Orleans.

Here’s what that confrontation looked like before Trump got his hands on the wheel:

“Undeterred by the recent violent police crackdown that descended upon camps supporting the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe- the #NoDAPL supporters plan to storm a private ranch where the Tribe lays claim to artifacts and a burial ground” (source).

I’ve said it many times — Trump will start a “rolling civil war.” Count on it.

Also, count it as opportunity, as he starts to collapse in on himself. Fortress White House? Could happen very soon.

P.S. If you want to up the ante against Trump and DAPL, CalPERS is voting on DAPL divestment on Monday. You could help them decide what to do by clicking here. Just a thought…

GP

.

You don’t have to spell it out by @BloggersRUs

You don’t have to spell it out
by Tom Sullivan


Camp X-ray, Guantanamo Bay base, now abandoned. David Welna/NPR.

Chris Edelson wonders aloud in the Baltimore Sun what kind of people might carry out President Trump’s detentions and deportations. What kind of people would detain elderly travelers in wheelchairs, handcuff a 5-year old child, and detain others for nearly 20 hours without food? Ordinary ones:

The men and women who work for the federal government completed these and other tasks and then returned to their families, where perhaps they had dinner and read stories to their children before bedtime.

He doesn’t have to spell out what he’s driving at.

The men and women who reportedly handcuffed small children and the elderly, separated a child from his mother and held others without food for 20 hours, are undoubtedly “ordinary” people. What I mean by that, is that these are, in normal circumstances, people who likely treat their neighbors and co-workers with kindness and do not intentionally seek to harm others. That is chilling, as it is a reminder that authoritarians have no trouble finding the people they need to carry out their acts of cruelty. They do not need special monsters; they can issue orders to otherwise unexceptional people who will carry them out dutifully.

The Milgram experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, and others show many quite ordinary people placed in extraordinary situations will follow instructions from an authority figure even if it means harming another, even cruelly. Ask Pfc. Lynndie England. Her experience was no experiment. She went to prison for what Rush Limbaugh brushed off as no worse than fraternity hazing. Others who were as guilty and higher up the chain of command went free. Federal employees as well as state and local ones should take a lesson.

As President Donald Trump prepares to begin re-filling the military detention centers at Guantanamo Bay and “black sites,” and to detain and deport Muslims and Mexicans and any others he deems undesirable, it is not an academic question. We should all ponder in advance just what we might do when placed in situations to carry out instructions from Trump or his underlings. Edelson continues:

The question we need to ask ourselves is: What will we do? This is not a hypothetical question. Most of us will not face the stark choice employees at airports faced over the weekend. But we are all democratic citizens. Ultimately, our government can only act if we allow it to act. Under our Constitution, the people rule. Our elected officials, including the president, are accountable to us. We possess the power to reject actions we see as out of bounds. We are used to doing this in elections, but democratic tools go further. Even once an election is over, we can exercise our First Amendment rights to contact elected officials, speak, write and protest.

Silence is complicity. You don’t have to spell that out either.

Some helpful advice for protesters

Some helpful advice for protesters

by digby

If you, like me, are among the millions of protesters being paid by George Soros, you undoubtedly could use some investment advice. In these turbulent times it’s tough to know what to do with your protest pay.

Harold Pollack has some advice for you:

Finally someone has called attention to this important alternative issue. Paying millions of protesters was bound to be a challenge. Even so, this whole protester pay thing has got to be the most poorly-planned shambolic logistical mess of the Trump era.

As you might imagine, my own inbox is flooded with calls and emails from liberals wondering how to most prudently invest their Women’s March pay, whether they should wait for the 1099 before filing their taxes, whether parking and cardboard signs are tax-deductible, and so on. Apologies to the many RBC readers waiting for my responses.

Everyone’s personal situation is different. Generally speaking, I’d recommend that every protester open an SEP-IRA account for these earnings. You can contribute up to 25% of compensation. But regular protesters should be mindful of the maximum contribution limits: $53,000 for the 2016 tax year, and $54,000 for 2017. Something like the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Admiral fund seems appropriate if your protest pay exceeds $10,000.

I believe the Vanguard site is back online after being crushed with Women’s Marchers opening new accounts with their January 21 paychecks. You might still want to login after midnight when the traffic is a bit slower.

So much of the operational chaos might have been avoided had the Soros people simply allowed direct deposit. Live and learn.

Words to the wise. I have a call in to find out if I can deduct my pink yarn and sharpee expenses. I’ll keep you posted.

.

Don’t fall for this

Don’t fall for this

by digby

People for the American Way alerts us to the fact that some people are passing around a little tid-bit about Judge Gorsuch saying he’s demoralized by Trump’s attacks on the judiciary and using it as evidence that Gorsuch will be “independent.”

Not bloody likely:

Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch were atwitter today about reports that in a meeting with Senator Richard Blumenthal, Gorsuch had called President Donald Trump’s attacks on the federal judiciary “disheartening” and ‘”demoralizing.” Is Gorsuch distancing himself from Trump? As we say on the internet: LOL. 

To be clear: Donald Trump’s pattern of attacks on federal judges is more than demoralizing—it’s a threat to the separation of powers and our constitutional system, and it’s hard to imagine a more tepid response than to call them “disheartening.” 

Given Trump’s disregard for the Constitution, we need a Supreme Court willing to take a strong stand in support of the rule of law. Faint disapproval doesn’t cut it. 

Nor should Gorsuch’s vague disagreement paper over the very real concerns about how independent he’d be on the Courts. Just yesterday, Gorsuch “avoided answers like the plague” when Senator Chuck Schumer pressed him on important issues like the Emoluments Clause. In his current position on the 10th circuit, Gorsuch tried to greenlight the governor of Utah’s clear abuse of executive authority in an attack on Planned Parenthood. And, of course, we can’t forget that Gorsuch was hand-picked by far-right organizations that have long supported the agenda being pushed by the Trump administration—and the excessive executive authority he’s counting on to implement it. 

Americans don’t need a rubber stamp for Donald Trump on the Supreme Court. They need someone who will vigorously defend the rule of law. 

Judge Gorsuch’s comments about Trump’s attacks on the judiciary are not even the slightest indication that he’s the independent judge we need.

I’m sure Gorsuch said what was reported. Knowing full-well it would be shared …

The Republicans are past masters at getting extremist wingnuts on the court. It’s all they’ve done for the past 25 years.

.

Resist. Persist.

Resist. Persist.

by digby

You have no doubt heard by now that Mitch McConnell shut down Elizabeth Warren from reading Coretta Scott King’s letter from 1986 criticising Jeff Sessions’ racist history on the floor of the Senate last night. His comment about it was:

“She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless she persisted.”

When men speak about women as if they are 5 year olds refusing to obey their daddies, women get very … angry.

There are many layers of odiousness about what he did, but this was certainly part of it.

While Republican senators would, naturally, try to diminish any attempt, by either a male or female Democrat, to re-examine Sessions’s unsavory history on matters of race, I have my doubts whether they would have chosen the blunt-force method of silencing used against Warren had she been a man. I also wonder over the lengths to which they would go to erase Coretta Scott King’s letter had it been written by one of the eminent male civil rights leaders of the day. They know they’d have a much harder time getting away with such displays of contempt were their targets of the male persuasion. Institutional misogyny is so ingrained in the fiber of American culture that people of every stripe often fail to see in such attacks on women leaders the particular markers of that disease. But in our hearts, women know. Elizabeth Warren was effectively told, in the words of Politico’s Seung Min Kim, to “sit down—and shut up.” Any domestic violence expert will tell you that those are the sort of words that often precede the connection of a male fist to a female face…

Make no mistake: McConnell’s bullying of Elizabeth Warren for reading the words of Coretta Scott King was intended to convey to women—white, black, and of every other color and identity—just who’s boss.

That’s from a longer, must-read piece by Adele Stan in The American Prospect. It will make your blood oil.

Resist. Persist.

.

Are we positive Trump doesn’t drink?

Are we positive Trump doesn’t drink?

by digby

Because this pattern suggests drunk dialing to me:

President Donald Trump spent much of a recent phone call with French President Francois Hollande veering off into rants about the U.S. getting shaken down by other countries, according to a senior official with knowledge of the call, creating an awkward interaction with a critical U.S. ally.

While the Hollande call on Jan. 28 did touch on pressing matters between the two countries — namely the fight against the Islamic State — Trump also used the exchange to vent about his personal fixations, including his belief that the United States is being taken advantage of by China and by international bodies like NATO, the official said.

At one point, Trump declared that the French can continue protecting NATO, but that the U.S. “wants our money back,” the official said, adding that Trump seemed to be “obsessing over money.”

“It was a difficult conversation, because he talks like he’s speaking publicly,” the official said. “It’s not the usual way heads of state speak to each other. He speaks with slogans and the conversation was not completely organized.”

Well,  his mind is not organized and he thinks in slogans. He said it himself many times: “I am what I am.”

What you see is what you get,  world. A cretin.

.