Skip to content

Month: April 2017

He loves him a strongman

He loves him a strongman

by digby

I wrote about Trump and his love for big strong men for Salon today:

Whenever I hear someone on the cable gabfests say that President Trump is an isolationist, I have to wonder if they’ve ever actually listened to anything the man says. It’s true that he has claimed to have been against military action in Iraq and Libya, despite all evidence to the contrary. And yes, he uses an archaic isolationist slogan “America first.” But he is not an isolationist.

He doesn’t care about human rights, as do the liberal interventionists, nor does he share the neoconservative obsession with expanding democracy and capitalism around the world. He does share things in common with the so-called realist school, in that the “national interest” comes first. But Trump’s crude definition of the national interest seems to be “might makes right” and “to the victors go the spoils,” so his level of sophistication in these matters is not very high.

Trump is, as I wrote for Salon earlier, an old-fashioned imperialist. He’s willing to make temporary alliances as long as they serve his needs. But he has no interest in maintaining the post-World War II global order except to the extent it makes it possible for the U.S. to do as it chooses, unencumbered by international norms and laws and limited only by its military capability to enforce its will.

Indeed, this same philosophy can be applied to how he sees domestic affairs as well. He has no pretensions about caring for the Constitution and probably couldn’t name the first three presidents or what’s in the First Amendment if you paid him. He is an authoritarian to his core, as far back as 1980s and his famous cri de coeur in the Central Park Five case, his newspaper ad headlined “Bring Back The Death Penalty. Bring Back Our Police!

Perhaps the best illustration of his authoritarian nationalist worldview is a request he made before the inauguration, with no recognition that he was expressing something fundamentally un-American:

[W]e’re going to show the people as we build up our military, we’re going to display our military. That military may come marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, D.C., for parades. I mean, we’re going to be showing our military.

He had wanted the military to provide tanks and missile launchers for his inauguration parade and was apparently talked out of it, much to the relief of the the Pentagon. According to The Huffington Post, an inauguration planner said, “they were legit thinking Red Square/North Korea-style parade.” No marching bands and elderly VFW troops for Donald Trump! He wants to show off the hardware and see miles of troops parading smartly before him.

This was not surprising since Trump has had nothing but admiration for the dictatorial styles of chauvinist world leaders, notably of Russian President Vladimir Putin. But he has also sung the praises of North Korea’s youthful Kim Jong Un and was impressed by the Chinese government’s “strong” response to the Tiananmen Square protests.

He hasn’t yet had a chance to start the war he clearly wants to start, but we can see the contours of his thinking by the way he’s behaved in state visits by foreign leaders. When German Chancellor Angela Merkel came to the White House a couple of weeks ago, apparently Trump behaved like a petulant child, uninterested, distracted and totally unprepared.

Roger Cohen of The New York Times spoke with members of Merkel’s delegation and was told that Trump “raged about the financial killing China was making from last year’s Paris climate accord and kept ‘frequently and brutally changing the subject when not interested, which was the case with the European Union.’”

According to Cohen’s sources:

Trump knew nothing of the proposed European-American deal known as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, little about Russian aggression in Ukraine or the Minsk agreements, and was so scatterbrained that German officials concluded that the president’s daughter Ivanka, who had no formal reason to be there, was the more prepared and helpful.

Judging by the awkward dual press conference and the mortifying photo op when he refused to shake her hand, one cannot help but suspect that Trump doesn’t think Merkel “looks like a president,” as he used to say often about his female rivals Carly Fiorina and Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign. His behavior toward one of America’s most important allies was obnoxiously dismissive.

In stark contrast, his meeting with Egypt’s Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi on Monday was a veritable lovefest. This was undoubtedly a welcome departure for the Egyptian president, who had not been invited to the White House before since he had seized office in a coup d’état, jailed journalists and political rivals and even ordered the killing of about 800 people on one day in August 2013.

As Middle East expert Steven A. Cook wrote in this piece for Salon in anticipation of the visit, Egypt has had autocratic leaders for a long time, but el-Sissi has taken it to an extreme:

No doubt there is an air of familiarity to Egyptian politics. [El-Sissi’s] Egypt is a reflection of Mubarak’s Egypt, which was a reflection of Sadat’s Egypt, which was inherited from Gamal Abdel Nasser, who built the national security state in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet the combination of [his] violence, his crackdown on expression and the impoverishment of his people sets him apart.

Donald Trump undoubtedly admires el-Sissi for being “strong,” but more civilized leaders would keep some respectful distance even if they were working for a rapprochement. His public embrace of the Egyptian despot has been way over the top:

We agree on so many things. I just want to let everybody know, in case there was any doubt, that we are very much behind President el-Sisi. He’s done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation. We are very much behind Egypt and the people of Egypt, and the United States has, believe me, backing and we have strong backing.

Of course his most enthusiastic endorsement of any foreign leader since he assumed the White House would be of a tyrannical strongman. Why would anyone assume otherwise?

Trump refuses to prepare and study and instead relies on his puerile, schoolyard bully Weltanschauung and his crew of oddball advisers like Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka (an actual, real-life Nazi.) It’s still early in the Trump administration but there is no sign that he has any interest in changing. One shudders to think what he will do when the nation faces a serious national security crisis.

.

As you listen to the sanctimonious wailing of the GOP Senators …

As you listen to the sanctimonious wailing of the GOP Senators …

by digby

Remember these comments from last fall. It would be really nice if the news media would remember them too:

“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.” — Senator Richard Burr

“There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.” — Senator Ted Cruz

“I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.” — Senator John McCain

We’re seeing a lot of calling for the smelling salts over the Democratic filibuster.

Please …

L.A. Times: Trump a “wrecking ball” by @BloggersRUs

L.A. Times: Trump a “wrecking ball”
by Tom Sullivan

There are lots of stories to follow in the past few days: the Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch, Susan Rice and “unmasking,” Blackwater founder Erik Prince meeting with a Vladimir Putin ally, and of course the outcome of the NCAA basketball championship.

One story lost among the others is The Los Angeles Times’ unprecedented blistering of a sitting president on its editorial pages. That is a story in itself. But searching the web for mention of it turns up few mainstream news rivals even acknowledging the Times’ 4-part series attacking the “liar in chief” for undermining truth itself:

If Americans are unsure which Trump they have — the Machiavellian negotiator who lies to manipulate simpler minds, or one of those simpler minds himself — does it really matter? In either case he puts the nation in danger by undermining the role of truth in public discourse and policymaking, as well as the notion of truth being verifiable and mutually intelligible.

In the months ahead, Trump will bring his embrace of alternative facts on the nation’s behalf into talks with China, North Korea or any number of powers with interests counter to ours and that constitute an existential threat. At home, Trump now becomes the embodiment of the populist notion (with roots planted at least as deeply in the Left as the Right) that verifiable truth is merely a concept invented by fusty intellectuals, and that popular leaders can provide some equally valid substitute. We’ve seen people like that before, and we have a name for them: demagogues.

Huffington Post mentions the broadside against this “train wreck” of a presidency:

Even after considering Trump’s dismal policy choices ― from ramping up deportations to peddling a health care plan that would leave millions uninsured to planning the erection of a wall along the Mexico border ― the board said it was the president who poses the greatest threat to America.

Part III is “Trump’s Authoritarian Vision.” Trump’s assault on American institutions, the Times explains, is “a culmination of trends that have been years in the making.” From conservative talk radio to congressional gridlock to the aggressive use of presidential signing statements, the country’s normally healthy democratic processes have turned inward, attacking it like an autoimmune disease. The editorial continues:

Trump betrays no sense for the president’s place among the myriad of institutions in the continuum of governance. He seems willing to violate long-established political norms without a second thought, and he cavalierly rejects the civility and deference that allow the system to run smoothly. He sees himself as not merely a force for change, but as a wrecking ball.

Will Congress act as a check on Trump’s worst impulses as he moves forward? One test is the House and Senate intelligence committees’ investigation into Russia’s meddling in the presidential election; lawmakers need to muster the courage to follow the trail wherever it leads. Can the courts stand up to Trump? Already, several federal judges have issued rulings against the president’s travel ban. And although Trump has railed against the decisions, he has obeyed them.

None of these institutions are eager to cede authority to the White House and they won’t do so without a fight. It would be unrealistic to suggest that America’s most basic democratic institutions are in imminent jeopardy.

The Times wrote on inauguration day it was not time yet for “wholesale panic.” But a couple of months into this administration, neither is it time to keep silent. A free press is one of those democratic institutions Trump intends to wreck if he cannot dominate it. It’s good to see there is some fight left in it.

Dear LA Times Editorial People by tristero

Dear LA Times Editorial People 

by tristero

A few comments on your latest series:

Yesterday:

…nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck.

Comment 1: REALLY? You were that naive? No wonder Trump got away with so much during the campaign.

Comment 2: Y’ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Today:

Trump’s easy embrace of untruth can sometimes be entertaining, in the vein of a Moammar Kadafi speech to the United Nations…

Comment 1: REALLY? Trump’s entertainment value is worth commenting upon?

Comment 2: Kadafi was never entertaining. He was an insane murderer.

Comment 3: There is a substantial difference between entertainment that simulates dangerousness (say, Homeland), and real danger. Trump is real, there is nothing entertaining about him, and he is far more dangerous than Kadafi.

Comment 4: Y’ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

“I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you”

“I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you”

by digby

They sell t-shirts with this image

Words Matter Trumpie:

President Donald Trump may have incited violence at a campaign rally and can be sued for it, a federal judge has ruled.

According to the Associated Press, a lawsuit says three protesters were roughed up by Trump supporters at a March 1, 2016, event in Louisville, Kentucky. Two women and a man say they were punched and shoved because Trump encouraged his audience to use violence.

The incident was captured on video and showed Trump pointing at the protesters, repeating “get them out.”

Lawyers for Trump argued a free speech defense on behalf of the then-Republican presidential candidate. They argued that Trump didn’t intend for his supporters to use force.

This particular event didn’t feature the worst of it. In Nevada he said,

Oh, I love the old days, you know? You know what I hate? There’s a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches, we’re not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks. 

You know, I love our police, and I really respect our police, and they’re not getting enough. They’re not. Honestly, I hate to see that. Here’s a guy, throwing punches, nasty as hell, screaming at everything else when we’re talking, and he’s walking out, and we’re not allowed — you know, the guards are very gentle with him, he’s walking out, like, big high fives, smiling, laughing — I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you.”

On NBC he said he might pay the legal fees for a North Carolina man who assaulted a protester:

The Republican presidential frontrunner has said he is looking into the possibility of paying legal fees for a man who punched a protester at one of his rallies last week. John McGraw, 78, was caught on video sucker-punching a protester who was being led out of an arena in Fayetteville, North Carolina. When questioned on NBC’s Meet the Press Trump said he has ‘instructed his people to look into’ footing McGraw’s legal bills.

Whether or not he will ultimately held liable is another story. Probably not. But he definitely egged on his crowds and it’s lucky that somebody didn’t get badly hurt.

.

They just can’t quit her

They just can’t quit her

by digby

Some of my wingnut trolls have been sending me this piece from Townhall and I thought it was a nice representation of the kind of thing I see popping up all over the place among right wingers as the pressure mounts against Trump:

She feels safe enough to “come out of the woods,” exactly the time for a Trump administration special prosecutor to launch a broadside.

Mentally strong people don’t need five months to overcome setbacks. Thomas Edison famously said: “I have not failed 10,000 times. … I have succeeded in proving that those 10,000 ways will not work.” Instead of dwelling on setbacks, true leaders are resilient and persistent. Their passion for their mission—or goal—is independent of external circumstances.

Hillary says she’s been licking her wounds in the woods since November. Why can’t she pull herself together?

On the campaign trail, Trump promised supporters he would “lock her up” for what he considered to be criminal activity. He even told Clinton to her face: “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation. Because there have never been so many lies, so much deception.” If he were president, he added: “You’d be in jail.”

I realize the Trump and Clinton families have a history of amity, including the public friendship of Trump’s eldest daughter Ivanka and Hillary’s daughter Chelsea. Which may explain why Trump has withdrawn his campaign promise to prosecute her, telling New York Times reporters she already “suffered greatly.”

Hear me out: The most loving act President Trump can do for Clinton is give her the professional and institutional help that will uphold justice—and prevent her from further hurting herself or others.

Borderline Personality Disorder

Nearly nine in 10 Americans did not find Hillary to be “honest and trustworthy” going into the 2016 presidential election. While we can’t assess Clinton’s mental state, we do know that uncontrollable lying (mythomania) is common among individuals suffering from borderline personality disorder (BPD).

Individuals with BPD may also sustain romantic relationships solely for utility (think Hillary’s choice to cling to an unloving and unfaithful man in order to climb the political ladder). Another BPD trait can be difficulty with interpersonal relationships (think WikiLeaks revelations that Clinton staffers advised her to develop a sense of humor and learn to smile).

President Trump will keep his campaign promise—while still doing right by Chelsea—if he helps Hillary get the mental help she needs in an appropriate establishment. Meanwhile, Clinton will do propitiation for her unlawful deeds that endangered our country’s national security and President Trump will send the message that no one is above the law in America.

The Woman Who Sold 20% of U.S. Uranium to Russia

Ever heard of the Uranium One deal? If not, don’t beat yourself up. It’s not like the media let you know about it.

It’s amazing to see President Trump get pummeled by the press for alleged conversations with Russia about alleged inappropriate topics when we know—for sure—that, as Secretary of State, Clinton brokered a deal on behalf of the Obama administration that released control of at least 20%, and up to 50%, of American uranium production to the Kremlin.

Wyoming was home to one of Uranium One’s biggest uranium mine holdings. Clinton’s deal, negotiated via the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States, ensured that Wyoming uranium is now being exported and Uranium One changed from a public company to a private corporation in which Russian President Vladimir Putin’s company ARMZ owns 100% of the stock.

Uranium, when enriched, can be used to create nuclear weapons. It also can be used to power atomic energy plants. No worries.

Inventory Count

Hillary is innocent until proven guilty. That said, President Trump could fill a warehouse with files of evidence on her misdeeds for which he would be warranted in enlisting the aid of a special prosecutor.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions agreed to recuse himself from any Clinton-related probes. But Sessions could appoint someone else to investigate Clinton for these reasons:

Email Scandal: Why did she use a private, non-secure email address and server to send and receive classified information while Secretary of State? Why do WikiLeaks emails indicate that Hillary’s husband, Bill Clinton, colluded with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the results of the DOJ’s probe into her private server use when they met on June 29, 2016?

Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi Terror Attack: Why did Clinton mislead Americans as to the cause of American death? (She blamed an obscure online video, even though virtually no one in Libya—or anywhere in the world—watched the video.) Why was she unprepared for and unhelpful during the attack? What role may her proposal to smuggle arms to Syrian rebels have had in this attack?

Uranium One: Why did Clinton broker a deal that gave the Kremlin ownership of 20-to-50% of American uranium production, while the Clintons and Clinton Foundation purportedly profited to the tune of $130 million?

Campaign Crookedness: What was Clinton’s role in fixing the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination in her favor over Sen. Bernie Sanders? Why did she receive help from CNN commentator Donna Brazile on presidential debate questions?

And that’s not even a complete list of Hillary’s alleged crimes. Bottom line, President Trump should pursue his campaign promise to investigate Hillary. He may feel she’s suffered greatly, but the American people have suffered far more. Besides, she appears to need serious psychological aid. She will only hurt herself and others by “coming out of the woods” to resume her old ways.

Who knows, Hillary Clinton might look great in orange pantsuits.

The writer may think this has a satirical tone but I am sent other things by readers who say the same things. They fervently want to see this.

I don’t know how desperate Trump will get. But this is the kind of conspiracy stuff he reads every day and stokes with his manic tweet storms. If he gets backed into a corner it’s always possible that he could decide that going after Clinton might just be the ultimate distraction. I doubt it. But this stuff is all over the internet, fueled by God knows who and for what reason. Never say never — Trump is president after all and i don’t anyone could have believed that a couple of years ago either.

*If you haven’t heard the facts on the uranium thing, Politifact just fact checked it again last week after Trump tweeted it out to his millions of deluded cult followers.

.

Keeping up the fight

Keeping up the fight

by digby

The Democrats showed some strategic smarts for a change. They realized that there is no margin in helping Trump. They are going to filibuster Gorsuch knowing that he is going to be confirmed anyway once McConnell blows up the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. Bipartisan comity on anything under Trump — and specifically on Supreme Court nominations after they stonewalled Garland — has been dead for some time and they’ve simply been propping up the corpse.

The only thing Democrats should think about at the moment is winning back one house of congress in 2018 and the only way to do that is to ensure that their base is energized. It’s good to know they understand that.

I’m re-upping this piece by Paul Waldman at the American Prospect as a reminder of what they need to keep doing:

Reporters who traveled to Melbourne, Florida, on Saturday for the first rally of President Trump’s re-election campaign—and let’s be honest, he deserved a break from all that presidenting he’s had to do for four whole weeks—found something shocking. A bunch of people who waited in line to see Donald Trump, it turns out, like Donald Trump and think he’s doing a great job.

This remarkable development was delivered in the form of breaking news, but we’ve also seen one story after another of late in which a journalist travels to some Trump stronghold to touch base with the people who voted for the president and reports back that they haven’t abandoned him yet. Alongside those are think pieces telling Democrats that if they want to climb out of their pit of electoral despair, they need to start being nicer to people who voted for Trump; in this glorious article in Sunday’s New York Times, for example, we hear from Trump voters complaining about how mean liberals are to them, including one young man lamenting how difficult things have gotten for him on Tinder. Apparently, single women are weirdly reluctant to hook up with men who supported a candidate who bragged about his ability to sexually assault women with impunity. Go figure.

Nevertheless, “reaching out” to Trump voters seems on its face like sound advice. After all, Democrats lost, and if they had won over some of those voters, they would have won. So isn’t that the simplest path to a different outcome next time around?

The answer is no. To understand why, we have to get a few things straight about both Trump voters themselves and the different kind of electorates the parties face in different election years.

Let’s start with the fact that Hillary Clinton actually spent an extraordinary amount of time reaching out to Republicans. Although Clinton didn’t make very many mistakes in 2016, this was one of the worst: She decided that instead of mounting a purely partisan attack on Trump, she would try to define him not as the distilled and rancid essence of Republicanism, but as outside of Republicanism, in the hopes that a significant number of Republicans would conclude that Trump was unacceptable and they could vote for Clinton and still consider themselves loyal to their party.

But it failed. According to exit polls, Trump got the votes of 88 percent of Republicans, nearly as well as the party’s other recent nominees, and no worse than Clinton did among Democrats. Might that argument have succeeded for a different Democrat? Perhaps. But despite the endless profiles of working-class white Republicans, there are actually a number of different kinds of people who voted for Trump. Some were those die-hard fans, in their “Make America Great Again” hats and “Trump That Bitch” T-shirts. For some reason, these people, the ones who love Trump the most and hate Democrats the most, are the ones Democrats are most often instructed to reach out to.

Then there were the loyal Republicans, those who decided that whatever Trump’s weaknesses, the most important thing was having a Republican in the White House who would fill the executive branch and the courts with Republican appointees and sign whatever bills the Republican Congress sent to him.

And last are those who essentially decided, “What the hell, let’s try this.” They didn’t like the way things were going in their communities or their lives, and figured that unlike Clinton, Trump represented change. Some of them had even voted for Barack Obama before. Maybe they bought the ludicrous idea that Trump is a businessman so he knows how to “get things done,” or maybe they wanted Washington to change in some way, or maybe they believed Trump when he said he’d take on the elites and bring terrific jobs pouring back into America. But one way or another, they decided to give him a shot.

If Democrats want to reach out to anyone on the other side, it’s that group that can provide the most fruitful ground for grabbing some votes. But they don’t need to do it yet.

If Democrats want to reach out to anyone on the other side, it’s that group that can provide the most fruitful ground for grabbing some votes. But they don’t need to do it yet.

That’s because their immediate electoral task (granting that they have even more pressing policy tasks, like stopping the repeal of the Affordable Care Act) is preparing for the 2018 midterm elections. And what matters in a midterm election isn’t who you’ve “reached out” to, it’s how your own constituents are feeling.

Right now, the Democrats’ constituents are feeling horrified, terrified, and generally pissed off. Which is just what produces the kind of midterm election they need.

That’s because midterm elections are all about enthusiasm—which almost always means anger. It’s the reason the president’s party usually loses seats in midterm elections: because the people who are angry enough to increase their turnout are the ones who dislike the president. Turnout in recent midterms has been in the 30s, meaning that nearly two-thirds of voters decide to stay home when there’s no presidential race. So it’s all a question of which voters get to the polls.

That’s why right now, if Democrats want to win in 2018, they need to highlight the things that will get their own voters as worked up about Trump as possible: his scary appointees, his retrograde executive actions, his constant lies, his self-dealing and corruption, and the tremendous damage he and Republicans in Congress are preparing to do. In other words, Democrats need to be as partisan as possible, and forget about “reaching out.”

And what about those approachable Trump voters, the ones who took a chance on him even if they had some doubts? The most important time to talk to them will be after the midterms are over. There’s a strong chance that by then, they’ll begin to realize that Trump didn’t fulfill the promises he made them. He didn’t bring back all the well-paying (and unionized!) jobs mining coal and making steel. He didn’t transform their communities back to the way they were decades ago. He didn’t convince China to give us back our jobs (not that Americans want to do most of the jobs Chinese factory workers do). He didn’t give us “so much winning if I get elected that you may get bored with the winning.”

If that happens, some of those voters will choose the Democrat in 2020—once again to try something different—and some of them may just stay home. It will be essential to make the argument that has worked in the past, and that Clinton didn’t emphasize as much as she should have, that for all the mayhem he creates Trump is working hard on behalf of moneyed interests, just like Republicans always do.

But in the meantime, Democrats need to encourage the kind of sustained passion, participation, and yes, anger that will give them a chance to win in 2018. Already there has been an organic outgrowth of grassroots energy on the left unlike anything we’ve seen in decades. Washington Democrats didn’t create it, and there’s only so much they can do to keep it going. But they can’t forget that it creates the best hope they have of taking back a house of Congress next year, which would enable them to minimize the damage Trump does. The “reaching out” can wait.

Exactly. One House on congress in 2018. They have to do everything they can to make that happen. It’s a tough uphill climb but it’s all they’ve got.

.

Why he lies. (And why it’s important for elites to say it out loud.)

Why he lies. (And why it’s important for elites to say it out loud.)

by digby

The second part of the LA Times’ editorial board series on Trump follows. This morning, the New York Times’ David Leonhardt devoted his AM email to the series which is unusual to say the least.

I can’t tell you much I appreciate this series so far. The gaslighting that continues to go on about Trump and what he “really is” and what his voters really care about, all in some effort to normalize this pathological monstrosity of a presidency and excuse the hideous impulses that drive it, is exhausting. When a mainstream editorial board takes it upon itself to speak in plain language about what is going on it’s reassuring:

Why Trump lies

By The Times Editorial Board|Apr. 3rd, 2017

Donald Trump did not invent the lie and is not even its master. Lies have oozed out of the White House for more than two centuries and out of politicians’ mouths — out of all people’s mouths — likely as long as there has been human speech.

But amid all those lies, told to ourselves and to one another in order to amass power, woo lovers, hurt enemies and shield ourselves against the often glaring discomfort of reality, humanity has always had an abiding respect for truth.

In the United States, born and periodically reborn out of the repeated recognition and rejection of the age-old lie that some people are meant to take dominion over others, truth is as vital a part of the civic, social and intellectual culture as justice and liberty. Our civilization is premised on the conviction that such a thing as truth exists, that it is knowable, that it is verifiable, that it exists independently of authority or popularity and that at some point — and preferably sooner rather than later — it will prevail.

Even American leaders who lie generally know the difference between their statements and the truth. Richard Nixon said “I am not a crook” but by that point must have seen that he was. Bill Clinton said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” but knew that he did.

He targets the darkness, anger and insecurity that hide in each of us and harnesses them for his own purposes. ”

The insult that Donald Trump brings to the equation is an apparent disregard for fact so profound as to suggest that he may not see much practical distinction between lies, if he believes they serve him, and the truth.

His approach succeeds because of his preternaturally deft grasp of his audience. Though he is neither terribly articulate nor a seasoned politician, he has a remarkable instinct for discerning which conspiracy theories in which quasi-news source, or which of his own inner musings, will turn into ratings gold. He targets the darkness, anger and insecurity that hide in each of us and harnesses them for his own purposes. If one of his lies doesn’t work — well, then he lies about that.

If we harbor latent racism or if we fear terror attacks by Muslim extremists, then he elevates a rumor into a public debate: Was Barack Obama born in Kenya, and is he therefore not really president?

An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that @BarackObama‘s birth certificate is a fraud.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 6, 2012

Libya is being taken over by Islamic radicals—-with @BarackObama‘s open support.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 31, 2011

If his own ego is threatened — if broadcast footage and photos show a smaller-sized crowd at his inauguration than he wanted — then he targets the news media, falsely charging outlets with disseminating “fake news” and insisting, against all evidence, that he has proved his case (“We caught them in a beauty,” he said).

If his attempt to limit the number of Muslim visitors to the U.S. degenerates into an absolute fiasco and a display of his administration’s incompetence, then he falsely asserts that terrorist attacks are underreported. (One case in point offeredby the White House was the 2015 attack in San Bernardino, which in fact received intensive worldwide news coverage. The Los Angeles Times won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the subject).

If he detects that his audience may be wearying of his act, or if he worries about a probe into Russian meddling into the election that put him in office, he tweets in the middle of the night the astonishingly absurd claim that President Obama tapped his phones. And when evidence fails to support him he dispatches his aides to explain that by “phone tapping” he obviously didn’t mean phone tapping. Instead of backing down when confronted with reality, he insists that his rebutted assertions will be vindicated as true at some point in the future.

Trump’s easy embrace of untruth can sometimes be entertaining, in the vein of a Moammar Kadafi speech to the United Nations or the self-serving blathering of a 6-year-old.

“He gives every indication that he is as much the gullible tool of liars as he is the liar in chief. ”

But he is not merely amusing. He is dangerous. His choice of falsehoods and his method of spewing them — often in tweets, as if he spent his days and nights glued to his bedside radio and was periodically set off by some drivel uttered by a talk show host who repeated something he’d read on some fringe blog — are a clue to Trump’s thought processes and perhaps his lack of agency. He gives every indication that he is as much the gullible tool of liars as he is the liar in chief.

He has made himself the stooge, the mark, for every crazy blogger, political quack, racial theorist, foreign leader or nutcase peddling a story that he might repackage to his benefit as a tweet, an appointment, an executive order or a policy. He is a stranger to the concept of verification, the insistence on evidence and the standards of proof that apply in a courtroom or a medical lab — and that ought to prevail in the White House.

There have always been those who accept the intellectually bankrupt notion that people are entitled to invent their own facts — consider the “9/11 was an inside job” trope — but Trump’s ascent marks the first time that the culture of alternative reality has made its home at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If Americans are unsure which Trump they have — the Machiavellian negotiator who lies to manipulate simpler minds, or one of those simpler minds himself — does it really matter? In either case he puts the nation in danger by undermining the role of truth in public discourse and policymaking, as well as the notion of truth being verifiable and mutually intelligible.

In the months ahead, Trump will bring his embrace of alternative facts on the nation’s behalf into talks with China, North Korea or any number of powers with interests counter to ours and that constitute an existential threat. At home, Trump now becomes the embodiment of the populist notion (with roots planted at least as deeply in the Left as the Right) that verifiable truth is merely a concept invented by fusty intellectuals, and that popular leaders can provide some equally valid substitute. We’ve seen people like that before, and we have a name for them: demagogues.

Our civilization is defined in part by the disciplines — science, law, journalism — that have developed systematic methods to arrive at the truth. Citizenship brings with it the obligation to engage in a similar process. Good citizens test assumptions, question leaders, argue details, research claims.

Investigate. Read. Write. Listen. Speak. Think. Be wary of those who disparage the investigators, the readers, the writers, the listeners, the speakers and the thinkers. Be suspicious of those who confuse reality with reality TV, and those who repeat falsehoods while insisting, against all evidence, that they are true. To defend freedom, demand fact.

This is the second in a series.
Our Dishonest President
Why Trump lies

.

In case you were wondering what Dick Morris is up to

In case you were wondering what Dick Morris is up to

by digby

In case you forgot, he’s the political editor for the National Enquirer (which is owned by Trump pal David Pecker.)

The claim that “Trump catches Russia’s White House spy” — clearly an attempt to smear Mike Flynn — actually got me to drop the $4.99 for a copy of the National Enquirer to read the hit job. And it’s actually more than a contrived effort to claim Flynn is a Russian spy: it’s a four-page spread, implicating Hillary and Mike Pence, too.

The story about Flynn is, instead, mostly a story about Jack Barsky, the former Russian spy who has gotten a lot of press of late tied to the release of his book. Just Thursday, CNN published an interview with him claiming, “What is clear is that email accounts of Democrat operatives were hacked and those hacks originated in Russia. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.” But amid a two-page story of Barsky’s life (as if the details of his life — and Barsky himself — were newly discovered), NE includes two quotes. A “national security intelligence source” warns of other Russian spies:

Jack Barsky is a Russian spy that was caught. But what is really frightening is that there are others out there like him embedded deep into Washington D.C. … Barsky being tracked down will greatly help the president smoke out other rats in his ranks.

And amid a four paragraph discussion of Mike Flynn, NE quotes an “administration source.”

The revelations [about Barsky] come as still-unfolding details continue to worm their way into the public eye about Trump’s own White House “turncoat” — now-ousted national security adviser and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn.

Flynn was booted from Trump’s cabinet after intercepted phone calls exposed how he had colluded with Russian officials — and then had the chutzpah to lie about it when questioned by Vice President Mike Pence. 

“He was, in essence, the Russian spy in Trump’s midst,” said an administration source who spoke to The ENQUIRER on the condition of anonymity. “Trump was lucky to root him out when he did.” 

The unfolding Russian spy drama will overshadow the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee hearing investigating alleged ties between Trump’s campaign and Putin, source said.

Of course, Trump transition official Devin Nunes has already canceled the next hearing into ties between Trump’s campaign and Putin, but perhaps Trump plans on magnifying this hit job in upcoming days, replete with spooky language — “embedded,” “smoke out other rats,” “worm their way,” “turncoat,” “root him out,” — to shift the focus on disloyalty within the Trump Administration.

Which brings us to the other main story in this four-page spread.

Click over to see how Julian Assange’s alleged deep connections to Russian intelligence give credence to his claims. It features Baywatch’s Pamela Anderson and Paul Ryan! (Seriously.) Emptywheel points out that this was clearly placed by the White House, which is very interesting.

.

Chaffetz makes a small pivot

Chaffetz makes a small pivot

by digby

For Salon this morning I wrote about the camera hogging chairman of the House Oversight Committee committing a small act of oversight last week:

One of the sourest moments of Donald Trump’s damp inauguration ceremony had to be this comment after the fact, proudly shared on Instagram by House Oversight Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz.

A post shared by Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) on Jan 20, 2017 at 12:31pm PST

This churlish comment wasn’t the only time Chaffetz had promised to continue his relentless crusade against Hillary Clinton. He had said previously that “just because there was a political election doesn’t mean it goes away,” claiming that the emails on Clinton’s server represented “the largest breach of security in the history of the State Department.” Actually, the State Department’s own servers have been hacked by foreign agents multiple times. But who’s counting? (And Chaffetz himself has a history of revealing classified information in public.)

He told Fox News in December:

We can’t simply let this go. If the president or the president-elect wants to pardon Secretary Hillary Clinton for the good of the nation, that is their option. But I have a duty and an obligation to actually fix the problems that were made with Hillary Clinton.

One can understand how hard it must be for Chaffetz to let go of his dream. After all, the Utah congressman had planned his entire political future around riding Clinton scandals all the way to the Senate and possibly beyond. Having to become one of a dozen mealy-mouthed Trump toadies instead just doesn’t present the same opportunities for a man with Chaffetz’s towering ego and ambition. If there’s any political fame or fortune to be gained by taking the apologist position, House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes has it all locked up.

At a forum last Thursday hosted by the right-wing “watchdog” group Judicial Watch, Chaffetz insisted that he’s still looking into the “Fast and Furious” scandal. That was the odd controversy in which the Republican Party — which believes in unfettered gun rights even, for the mentally ill — turned into gun control advocates when it came to a federal government operation to sell firearms to middlemen in order to trace them to cartel leaders. Apparently some of the guns got into the hands of criminals who killed some innocent people, including a border patrol agent. (Imagine if they showed the same concern for the tens of thousands of other people who are killed by gun violence every year.)

Chaffetz also reminisced about his frustrations with the Obama administration over Benghazi. In what seems to be an attempt to one up the intrepid midnight adventures of Rep. Nunes, his rival Trump handmaiden, Chaffetz once more recounted the stale story of a National Guard soldier who came to him with information about Libya that was so secret they had to meet in a a Secured Compartmented Intelligence Facility, or SCIF, in Utah. Chaffetz knew he had to see this supposedly explosive evidence for himself, so he hopped on a plane to Libya to check it out. He told the audience, “It was not the safest decision I ever made.” What a hero.

Up until now, Chaffetz has resisted any attempts to investigate Trump. When the Atlantic’s McKay Coppins read off a long list of Trump conflicts of interest and asked if Chaffetz had any intention of having the House Oversight Committee look into them, he replied:

He’s already rich. He’s very rich. I don’t think that he ran for this office to line his pockets even more. I just don’t see it like that.

Apparently, Chaffetz believes that wealthy Republicans cannot be corrupt because they have so much money. That’s lucky for Donald Trump — the billionaire who just settled a $25 million lawsuit for fraud, went bankrupt four times and spent the last decade hawking ugly ties and cheap cologne as if he were desperate for cash. Not to mention the fact that for some unknown reason he refuses to release his tax returns.

Chaffetz’s talk at the Judicial Watch forum, however, suggests that he’s starting to reckon with the fact that the Trump administration is floundering, and believes it may be time to take advantage. If he’s joining up with Judicial Watch, it’s a sign that some of the GOP’s most tenacious opportunists have decided that their fortunes lie with the Trump opposition.

The day before the forum, Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton had attended a meeting of conservative groups and White House officials hoping to find a way forward after the health care bill debacle. According to the New York Times, Fitton demanded that the Trump administration release all its documents pertaining to the Russian interference in the election and commit to a policy of “extreme transparency.” This is a departure for Fitton, who, like Chaffetz, has until now been docile and accepting when it comes to the mountain of corruption, conflicts and possible foreign collusion of the Trump administration.

The next day, Chaffetz echoed Fitton’s comments. He said that he’s been letting the new administration settle in, but that it’s clear now becomie clear that Trump officials are not being cooperative with committee requests for documents. He didn’t specifically mention Russia and tried to blame the problems on Obama holdovers, but the fact that he appeared at a Judicial Watch event and criticized the administration didn’t go unnoticed by Breitbart News, which means it didn’t go unnoticed by the White House.

You may recall that during the campaign Chaffetz ostentatiously withdrew his endorsement of Trump after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape only to come crawling back a couple weeks later. So it’s probably safe to say that he’ll go whichever way the wind blows. Right now there’s a gale force hurricane bearing down on the White House and he’s got to figure out whether the smart move for his future is to hunker down with Trump or head for high ground. You can be sure that whatever he decides, the calculation will be purely based on whatever he thinks is best for Jason Chaffetz.

.