Month: April 2017

A whirlwind of nothingness

by digby

Trump summoned the entire US Senate to the White House for … nothing:

Donald Trump invited the entire Senate for a briefing at the White House on North Korea and military preparation, but only spent 14 minutes with his fellow leaders.

Based on what those senators are now telling reporters, the entire meeting seems to have been a colossal waste of time.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told the Washington Post, “There was very little, if anything new” in the meeting, adding, “I remain mystified about why the entire Senate had to be taken over to the White House rather than conducting it here.”

A Democratic senator told the New York Times that, during the meeting, Trump did his “ridiculous adjective” bit, and that in response there were “about 80 sets of invisible eyes rolling.”

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), currently chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had a rather lukewarm response for reporters:

CORKER: “It was an OK briefing”

Q: What do you mean, you didn’t really learn much?

CORKER: “I–it was OK…”

One Republican senator told The Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe that, when pressed for details on what U.S. policy towards North Korea is, “the briefers gave us very, very few details,” and noted that the event lacked “even straight answers on what the policy is regarding N. Korea and its testing of ICBMs.”

Another senator told the Post that he was “still unclear what kind of briefing this was,” and was not sure if it was classified or not. He also said, “It’s not like we learned some earth-shaking thing that’s going to happen tomorrow.”

It was a show. And a really stupid one since everyone came out of it and panned it.

They’re really flailing. Trump’s just throwing out everything he can think of to try to get himself top ratings for his first hundred days. And instead it just gets worse. This tax “plan” is some ridiculous talking points that only draw attention to his own unwillingness to release his taxes. He’s even crowing about he intends to give rich people like himself the most generous tax cuts in history. He seems to be declaring a trade war with Canada and then late today they gave a statement that he plans to “withdraw” from NAFTA. That brought responses like this from his own party:

Trump in recent months has labeled NAFTA as a “one-sided deal,” called it a “disaster” for the US and has argued that the deal has led to the loss of millions of US manufacturing jobs.

But many Republicans on Capitol Hill have expressed concerns about Trump’s hardline on free trade deals.

Sen. John McCain on Wednesday urged Trump not to pull the US from NAFTA.

“It will devastate the economy in my state,” McCain said. “I hope he doesn’t do that.”

If anyone thinks that imbecilic, incompetent, grifter will “renegotiate” a better plan for America’s workers they need to wake the fuck up. Even if you hate NAFTA, there is no way in hell that this guy will improve it. What he actually knows about trade deals you could fit in a thimble. He will obviously make it much, much worse. Donald Trump is not a populist or a nationalist or … anything. He’s a moron who is being led around by the nose by a bunch of wingnut weirdos, Generals and Wall Street banksters.

So here we are with a guy who is desperate to “win” something so he’s launched a whirlwind of airstrikes, photo-ops Executive Orders, pronouncements, tariffs and god-knows-what-else. Luckily he’s such an effective manager with such clear ideas about how to accomplish his goals that he won’t drop any of the balls he’s throwing into the air. It’s fine. Nothing to worry about.

.

Justice Gorsuch, please come to the white courtesy telephone.

by digby

I have to wonder if these Republican justices and judges all over he country are ok with this crude, disrespectful partisan language coming from the Department of Justice:

Today, the rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our Nation. Federal law explicitly states that “a Federal, State or Local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” 8 U.S.C. 1373(a). That means, according to Congress, a city that prohibits its officials from providing information to federal immigration authorities — a sanctuary city — is violating the law. Sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, block their jails from turning over criminal aliens to Federal authorities for deportation. These cities are engaged in the dangerous and unlawful nullification of Federal law in an attempt to erase our borders.

Once again, a single district judge — this time in San Francisco — has ignored Federal immigration law to set a new immigration policy for the entire country. This decision occurred in the same sanctuary city that released the 5-time deported illegal immigrant who gunned down innocent Kate Steinle in her father’s arms. San Francisco, and cities like it, are putting the well-being of criminal aliens before the safety of our citizens, and those city officials who authored these policies have the blood of dead Americans on their hands. This San Francisco judge’s erroneous ruling is a gift to the criminal gang and cartel element in our country, empowering the worst kind of human trafficking and sex trafficking, and putting thousands of innocent lives at risk.

This case is yet one more example of egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge. Today’s ruling undermines faith in our legal system and raises serious questions about circuit shopping. But we are confident we will ultimately prevail in the Supreme Court, just as we will prevail in our lawful efforts to impose immigration restrictions necessary to keep terrorists out of the United States.

In the meantime, we will pursue all legal remedies to the sanctuary city threat that imperils our citizens, and continue our efforts to ramp up enforcement to remove the criminal and gang element from our country. Ultimately, this is a fight between sovereignty and open borders, between the rule of law and lawlessness, and between hardworking Americans and those who would undermine their safety and freedom.

Apparently, they really think that the system by which laws are challenged in this country is illegitimate. District Court judges have no authority to rule on any order proposed by Donald Trump but it’s unclear what they think should be done about this. Either they believe the judiciary should have no power to question the president, which means we really are living in a police state, or they want to change the way it works so that only certain judges are allowed to do it. Clearly, they can’t have a Mexican heritage or belong to the 9th circuit or live in Hawaii or San Francisco.

Perhaps the most likely answer is that only judges who agree with the president are legitimate. And frankly, that what I expect from Donald Trump. It’s rather unnerving to see such an authoritarian official statement by the Department of Justice, however. Even anodyne norms of respectable bureaucratic speech are now being thrown out the window. Breitbart has taken over the Justice Department.

.
.

DHS must have thought better of the first acronym: VERMIN

by digby

They really missed the boat with their acronym though. This one is much more to the point:

Violent Evil Rapist Mexican Immigrants No! aka: VERMIN

Here’s a little reminder of some unfortunate historical precedents for this:

Adolf Hitler also published a list of crimes committed by groups he didn’t like: 

There’s a reason Trump’s opponents are so worried. This strategy — one designed to single out a particular group of people, suggesting that there’s something particularly sinister about how they behave — was employed to great effect by Adolf Hitler and his allies. In the 1930s, the Nazis used a similar tactic to stir up anger and hatred toward Jews. Professor Richard Weikart of California State University explained that Nazi leaders used different kinds of communication tools to sell the message that “Jews are criminal by disposition,” as a 1943 Nazi directive to the German press put it. “The Jews are not a nation like other nations but bearers of hereditary criminality,” the order said. Germany, in other words, was out of control, and only Nazi anti-Semitic policies could “restore order.”

To spread these ideas, there were books (like the pamphlet pictured above) and films that portrayed Jews as subhuman. “The Eternal Jew,” released in 1940, depicted Jews as wandering cultural parasites, consumed by sex and money. Newspapers such as Der Stürmer printed anti-Semitic cartoons regularly. “By the late 1930s, the increasingly fanatical tone of Nazi propaganda reflected the growing radicalization of the regime’s anti-Semitic policies,” the BBC explained. “The Jewish stereotypes shown in such propaganda served to reinforce anxieties about modern developments in political and economic life, without bothering to question the reality of the Jewish role in German society.”

You’ll notice that the VOICE acronym doesn’t say anything about immigrants being illegal. Neither does Trump’s order.

GOP sneaks Obamacare regulations in their plan. But only for themselves

by digby

Vox has the goods:

House Republicans appear to have included a provision that exempts Members of Congress and their staff from their latest health care plan.

The new Republican amendment, introduced Tuesday night, would allow states to waive out of Obamacare’s ban on pre-existing conditions. This means that insurers could once again, under certain circumstances, charge sick people higher premiums than healthy people.

Republican legislators liked this policy well enough to offer it in a new amendment. They do not, however, seem to like it enough to have it apply to themselves and their staff. A spokesperson for Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) who authored this amendment confirmed this was the case: members of Congress and their staff would get the guarantee of keeping this Obamacare regulations. Health law expert Tim Jost flagged me to this particular issue.

A bit of background is helpful here. Obamacare requires all members of Congress and their staff to purchase coverage on the individual market, just like Obamacare enrollees. The politics of that plank were simple enough, meant to demonstrate that if the coverage in this law were good enough for Americans than it should be good enough for their representations in Washington.

That’s been happening for the past four years now. Fast-forward to this new amendment, which would allow states to waive out of key Obamacare protections like the ban on pre-existing conditions or the requirement to cover things like maternity care and mental health services.

If Congressional aides lived in a state that decided to waive these protections, the aides who were sick could be vulnerable to higher premiums than the aides that are healthy. Their benefits package could get skimpier as Obamacare’s essential health benefits requirement may no longer apply either.

This apparently does not sound appealing because the Republican amendment includes the members of Congress and their staff as a protected group who cannot be affected by this amendment.

They’re special, vital people who need those protections. The rest of us don’t. We’re expendable.

This is a very revealing moment and one which would be nice to see blown up in the media. It’s so hard for anything specific to penetrate that it’s difficult to make that happen. But it is a powerful illustration that Republicans know exactly what their plan is going to do to people.

.

Watchdogs

by digby

There is a lot of grassroots energy resisting the Trump administration but I thought I’d just post this for you, in case you were wondering what the liberal professional constitution and ethical watchdogs are doing in the face of the most blatantly corrupt administration in history:

Donald Trump won the presidency back in November, but for many liberal organizations, the battle continues. A loose network of lawyers and watchdogs has dug in to scrutinize issues involving the Trump administration’s ethics and transparency.

Key topics include: the conflicts between Trump’s business interests and his presidential duties; the constitutional questions raised by his foreign profits; and the performance of his appointees, many of whom now run agencies overseeing the industries they themselves came from.

The groups feel their work is essential, given that Trump’s Republican Party controls both the House and Senate. So far, Republican lawmakers have made oversight of the executive branch’s ethics a low priority. A central figure in the opposition network is Fred Wertheimer, of the research and strategy group Democracy 21. He says: “The common understanding in the watchdog community is that we’re going to have to hold the Trump administration responsible, because no one else is going to do it.”

Below is a list of some of the most active groups.

ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Filed Freedom of Information Act requests for records on possible conflicts of interest and emoluments (gifts or payments from foreign, state or local governments or officials). Seeking perjury investigation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions after he failed to disclose meetings with a Russian official during confirmation hearing to be attorney general.

WHAT THEY BRING

The ACLU brings legal savvy and grass-roots clout to the ethics coalition. But it’s busy battling Trump on other fronts as well, such as the travel and refugee bans and deportation of unauthorized immigrants.

American Oversight
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Files FOIA requests at federal agencies so it can monitor their activities. The Audit The Wall project intends to examine plans, contracts and construction of the Southern border wall. With the Environmental Working Group, examining FOIA’d records on EPA administrator’s decision to reverse a ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos.

WHAT THEY BRING

A new group of lawyers, including some who worked at agencies in the Obama administration.

Brennan Center For Justice
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Analyzes laws and standards that keep a president or appointee from profiting on the presidency. Research expected to lead to FOIAs, possibly litigation.

WHAT THEY BRING

Named for progressive Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr. and based at NYU Law School, this legal think tank digs into issues ranging from campaign finance and voter ID to mass incarceration in American prisons and the constitutional rights of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay.

Campaign for Accountability
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Petitioned to unseal divorce records of Trump’s first nominee for labor secretary, Andrew Puzder, who later withdrew. Filed ethics complaint against Republican congressional aides who worked for the Trump transition team.

WHAT THEY BRING

A small D.C. nonprofit working to “expose misconduct and malfeasance in public life,” focusing mainly on state governments.

Campaign Legal Center
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Analyzes and challenges administration actions on ethics, conflict of interest issues; researches long-term solutions.

WHAT THEY BRING

Legal and advocacy group specializing in ethics and election laws: ballot access, campaign finance, political advertising, voting rights, redistricting and related issues. President is former Federal Election Commission Chair (and Stephen Colbert lawyer) Trevor Potter.

Center for American Progress
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Monitors U.S. enforcement of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which controls overseas conduct of American corporations. Tracks lawmakers’ letters to White House concerning ethics issues, and administration responses. Researches and publishes reports on Trump conflicts of interest.

WHAT THEY BRING

The think tank most closely aligned with the Democratic Party establishment; it has expertise in a vast array of issues from governmental to social, plus media, grass-roots and social media operations.

Center for Media and Democracy
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Litigating to uncover EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s email traffic with energy companies, from his time as Oklahoma attorney general. Examining disclosures of Trump agency appointees for potential ethics concerns.

WHAT THEY BRING

Progressive watchdog group in Madison, Wis.; used leaked documents in high-profile investigations of Koch political network and corporate legislative group American Legislative Exchange Council.

Common Cause
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign over untruthful answers in his confirmation hearing. Urged Senate to delay confirmation of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, saying he withheld documents revealing corporate influence in his decisions as Oklahoma attorney general.

WHAT THEY BRING

“Good government” lobbying and grass-roots group with a record reaching back to 1970. Active on voting rights, gerrymandering, other democracy issues. Was a key force in passage of 2002 McCain-Feingold law, other campaign finance and ethics laws.

Constitutional Accountability Center
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Researching U.S. Constitution provisions on foreign and domestic emoluments, to shape legal action by other groups.

WHAT THEY BRING

Primary mission is to promote progressive “textualist” interpretations of the Constitution, versus conservative “originalism.”

CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington)
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

One of several hubs of the network. Sued President Trump on his first full workday, alleging that Trump profited by taking payments from foreign diplomats and others at his hotels and golf courses, violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause.

WHAT THEY BRING

If the Trump ethics network has stars, they are CREW’s Norm Eisen, former ethics counsel for Obama’s White House, and Richard Painter, who did that job under President George W. Bush.

Demand Progress
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Tracking White House activities, including disclosure reports of presidential appointees, nondisclosure of visitor logs, lobbying at Office of Management and Budget.

WHAT THEY BRING

A digital-democracy group that claims 2 million grass-roots supporters.

Democracy 21
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Another hub of the network. Works with CREW on emoluments. Urged New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to investigate the Trump Organization as a possible conduit of foreign emoluments. In letters to administration officials, lays out arguments to comply with ethics laws — e.g., why Ivanka Trump couldn’t do her White House job as a volunteer.

WHAT THEY BRING

Headed by Fred Wertheimer, one of the progressive movement’s leading strategists on ethics and campaign finance laws since the 1980s.

Every Voice
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Uses email, social media to mobilize a large grass-roots base to sign petitions, call lawmakers, go to demonstrations on Trump ethics issues and accountability.

WHAT THEY BRING

Advocacy group for tougher campaign finance laws, now has branched out to support challenges on Trump ethics. Also active on state issues.

Free Speech For People
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Called on New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to revoke the state’s corporate charter for the Trump Organization, alleging the company has long engaged in illegal conduct.

WHAT THEY BRING

FSFP, based in Amherst, Mass., began as a vehicle to fight the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. Unlike most groups battling the Trump administration, it explicitly calls for Trump’s impeachment.

Government Accountability Project
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

“Know Your Rights” campaign aims to raise federal employees’ awareness of legal protections against reprisals from superiors, celebrate “the role of truth and truth-telling” and encourage potential possible whistleblowers.

WHAT THEY BRING

Since 1977, helping governmental and corporate whistleblowers with strategic support and high-profile litigation.

Issue One
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Renewed a push for stronger ethics laws, including more power for the Office of Government Ethics, which oversees compliance with disclosure and conflict of interest laws in the executive branch. Would protect OGE director from being dismissed without cause.

WHAT THEY BRING

Issue One’s primary goal is a reform package that includes more transparency of political money, increased political participation, stronger ethics enforcement. Emphasizes bipartisanship.

People for the American Way
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Looks into possible implications of ethics problems and conflicts of interest. Steers its grass-roots supporters to activities held by allied groups.

WHAT THEY BRING

Founded in 1981 to counter the emerging religious right; has diversified in its mission while maintaining one of the progressive movement’s largest grass-roots networks.

POGO (Project on Government Oversight)
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Another hub. Works with Capitol Hill oversight committees and agency inspectors general and conducts its own investigations. Advises federal employees on legal rights, job protections and whistleblowing. Updating its handbook for federal workers, The Art of Anonymous Activism.

WHAT THEY BRING

Not your usual Washington nonprofit, POGO works down in the gears of governing. Has ties to Republican and Democratic investigators on Capitol Hill, trains Hill staff in how to do oversight of executive branch. Founded in 1981 as a watchdog on Pentagon spending.

Public Citizen
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Also a hub. Has taken action on White House counselor Kellyanne Conway’s violation of ethics rules, presidential adviser Carl Icahn’s potential conflicts of interest. Sued Trump over executive order to undo existing regulations. Chronicles corporate influence with website corporatecabinet.org.

WHAT THEY BRING

The network’s most diversified group with its own litigation team, grass-roots network, plus staff experts in the hot-button issues: ethics, financial policy, environment, trade, health care. Founded in 1971 by consumer activist Ralph Nader.

Sunlight Foundation
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Monitors government websites to detect and catalog information that is deleted. Tracks open-government practices and FOIA compliance in Trump administration.

WHAT THEY BRING

Created in 2006 to increase disclosure of governmental and political records and make government more transparent. Pushed for enactment of FOIA Improvement Act, which establishes a presumption of openness for data.

United To Protect Democracy
WHAT THEY’RE DOING

Examines constitutional and legal concerns stemming from White House and agency actions — e.g., legal justification for Syria missile strikes, political hiring for attorney positions in DOJ civil rights division.

WHAT THEY BRING

New group created by lawyers from the Obama White House.

His corruption is being normalized so quickly that it’s already obvious that many of the issue that would have initiated massive scandals and investigations are already being ignored.And the congressional oversight is a joke.  But there are professionals out there trying to keep track, if only for the record. And that’s something.

The good news is that the Villagers are working night and day to keep Chelsea Clinton in her place so you can at least rest easy about that.

.

Belief is truth
by Tom Sullivan

Photo by Christopher Daniels via Creative Commons.

Sociologist Nick Rogers just introduced me (via the New York Times) to a term I’d never heard. I’d never heard it because it is slang used by professional wrestlers. He uses it to explain why listeners eat it up when Alex Jones rants that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged by the government or that Hillary Clinton runs a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor. It explains why no amount of fact-checking or voter education will correct their misapprehension.

The word is “kayfabe.” Oxford added it to the dictionary in 2015:

kayfabe
Syllabification: kay·fabe
Pronunciation: /’ka?fab/

noun

1. (In professional wrestling) the fact or convention of presenting staged performances as genuine or authentic:
“a masterful job of blending kayfabe and reality”
“he’s not someone who can break kayfabe and talk about the business”

Oxford believes the term originated in American traveling carnivals. (You see where this is going, right?)

Rogers writes:

Although the etymology of the word is a matter of debate, for at least 50 years “kayfabe” has referred to the unspoken contract between wrestlers and spectators: We’ll present you something clearly fake under the insistence that it’s real, and you will experience genuine emotion. Neither party acknowledges the bargain, or else the magic is ruined.

To a wrestling audience, the fake and the real coexist peacefully. If you ask a fan whether a match or backstage brawl was scripted, the question will seem irrelevant. You may as well ask a roller-coaster enthusiast whether he knows he’s not really on a runaway mine car. The artifice is not only understood but appreciated: The performer cares enough about the viewer’s emotions to want to influence them. Kayfabe isn’t about factual verifiability; it’s about emotional fidelity.

Alex Jones gets that. Ann Coulter gets that. Donald “truthful hyperbole” Trump gets that. Hollywood gets that every time it presents a multi-million dollar kayfabe that allows paying customers for two hours to immerse themselves in an alternate reality in which good triumphs, hope returns, the music swells, and you walk out of darkness back into the light. Horror fans pay good money for a good, safe scare. Trump rallies are free.

Hence, Rogers writes:

Ask an average Trump supporter whether he or she thinks the president actually plans to build a giant wall and have Mexico pay for it, and you might get an answer that boils down to, “I don’t think so, but I believe so.” That’s kayfabe. Chants of “Build the Wall” aren’t about erecting a structure; they’re about how cathartic it feels, in the moment, to yell with venom against a common enemy.

Push audiences only so far and it’s entertainment, spectacle. Push them too far and you have a violent mob. In wrestling, the American hero taking on the “foreign menace” is a staple; the Iron Sheik or Ivan ‘The Russian Bear’ Koloff, for example. At Trump rallies, the “foreign” menace is Hillary Clinton. (“Lock her up!”) Barack Hussein Obama is still the foreign menace.

In certain Christian circles, it’s just not church without a preacher who can whip up a congregation until they feel the holy spirit and a cathartic release. Today’s radio carnies have harnessed daily spectacles in the tradition of the evangelical altar call. Ostensibly to spread the conservative gospel, they provide fans with their daily fixes, a kind of “two minutes hate” that lasts three hours at a stretch. Good for your daily vent at the Other and good for selling penis pills and incontinence treatments. The rules of kayfabe are that no one acknowledges the line between sincerity and salesmanship.

Kayfabe, Rogers insists, is not satire. Satire involves a nod and a wink that the audience is in on the joke. Kayfabe is just the opposite:

Kayfabe isn’t merely a suspension of disbelief, it is philosophy about truth itself. It rests on the assumption that feelings are inherently more trustworthy than facts.

That feels about right. Of course, it does. Truthiness satirizes kayfabe. But kayfabe packs more emotional punch. And that’s what fans return for each week.

Back when professional wrestling was more of a local auditorium and high school gymnasium event, I went once for the hell of it. But what I recall more from the days of “Nature Boy” Rick Flair is from a coffee table book of black and white photos of Greenville, SC from the 1970s when this happened. The image burned into my brain is of an older woman at Monday Night Wrestling, standing at ringside screaming and shaking her fist, the gold cross on her chest blazing as the flash caught her. They pay money for that experience. They know it’s fake and they don’t care. And they’ll vote for it. Donald Trump knows. He used to own a piece of WWE.

“Don’t make them feel dumb for spending their money to see you.” Al Snow Explains “Kayfabe” to trainees.

About that Russian thing

by digby

The White House is refusing to cooperate with the congressional probe into the Flynn matter and it’s very odd unless they have something to hide, don’t you think? It’s not like the guy still works there.

Anyway, it is probably a good thing if it pushed congress to appoint and independent commission since neither the tainted House probes or the slow-walking Senate probe are going to get the job done.

The people are already behind it:

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they want an independent, non-partisan commission instead of Congress to investigate Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Seventy-three percent of respondents prefer the independent investigation, versus 16 percent who pick Congress. 

Still, a majority of Americans — 54 percent — believe that Congress should investigate whether there was contact between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, which is essentially unchanged from February’s NBC/WSJ poll.

But they don’t have much faith in the outcome:

There’s good reason for this. The congress is investigating very haphazardly. Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was a member of the Trump transition and he talks a good game but he’s doing as little as possible so I wouldn’t get my hopes up:

The Senate’s main investigation into allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election is equipped with a much smaller staff than previous high-profile intelligence and scandal probes in Congress, which could potentially affect its progress, according to sources and a Reuters review of public records.

With only seven staff members initially assigned to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s three-month-old investigation, progress has been sluggish and minimal, said two sources with direct knowledge of the matter, who requested anonymity.

A committee aide, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said two more staff members were being added and a few others were involved less formally.

“We need to pick up the pace,” Senator Martin Heinrich, a committee Democrat, told Reuters on Monday. “It is incumbent on us to have the resources to do this right and expeditiously, and I think we need additional staff.”

While some directly involved in the investigation disputed characterizations of the probe as off track, the appearance of a weak Senate investigation could renew calls by some Democrats and other Trump critics for a commission independent of the Republican-led Congress to investigate the allegations.

The intelligence committees of the Senate and House of Representatives have taken the lead in Congress in examining whether Russia tried to influence the election in Republican Trump’s favor, mostly by hacking Democratic operatives’ emails and releasing embarrassing information, or possibly by colluding with Trump associates. Russia has denied such meddling.

With the House intelligence panel’s investigation for weeks stymied by partisan squabbles, the Senate committee’s parallel probe had appeared to be the more serious of the two, with Republican Chairman Richard Burr and top Democrat Mark Warner promising a thorough and bipartisan effort.

Burr, a member of Congress since 1995, last month called the Russia probe one of the biggest investigations undertaken in Congress during his tenure.

Previous investigations of national security matters have been much larger in terms of staffing than the one Burr is overseeing, according to a review of official reports produced by those inquiries, which traditionally name every staff member involved.

A House committee formed to investigate the 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans had 46 staffers and eight interns.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s years-long study of the CIA’s “enhanced” interrogation techniques during President George W. Bush’s administration had 20 staff members, according to the panel’s official report.

A special commission separate from Congress that reviewed the intelligence that wrongly concluded former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq involved 88 staffers.

A special Senate committee’s 1970s investigation into Watergate-era surveillance practices tapped 133 staffers.

A joint House-Senate probe of the 1980s Iran-Contra affair during Ronald Reagan’s presidency involving secret sales of arms to Iran to try to win the release of American hostages, with proceeds going to Nicaraguan rebels, had 181 staffers.

Spokeswomen for Burr and for Warner declined to comment on the staffing levels.

The listed sizes of various investigations may be an imperfect comparison because not all staffers listed may have actually had a substantial role, congressional sources said. Investigations often grow in size over time, and a committee aide said the panel had secured $1.2 million in additional funding for the Russia election investigation.

But the numbers are still broadly “relevant as indicators of a commitment to an investigation,” said Steven Aftergood, a secrecy expert with the Federation of American Scientists.

“For this investigation to be successful, the committee must recognize the enormity of the job and provide the resources to tackle it,” Senator Ron Wyden, another committee Democrat, said in a statement.

Wyden sent a letter last month to Burr and Warner requesting that the probe include a thorough review of any financial ties between Russia and Trump and his associates.

None of the staffers possess substantial investigative experience or a background in Russian affairs, two of the sources said.

Apparently interference into American elections is no big deal to the Republican party. Well, as long as the Russians are trying to help them win. I guess they feel they’re kindred spirits, which they are: authoritarian kleptocrats are the new right. So, it makes sense.

By the way, this piece by NBC from last week about that weird RT dinner is interesting. Flynn and Jill Stein were the American stars seated right there at the big table with President Putin for the event. Flynn was very enthusiastic.

This new story about Flynn’s Turkish connection is also startling. It turns out the Turkish contact is also heavily connected to Russia. What in the hell was he thinking?

.

And now for the good news

by digby

A little pre-emptive nuke strike might be just what the doctor ordered

by digby

At least according to Fox News. John Amato caught this alarming little tid-bit from yesterday:

There was a lot of nervous chatter today in the Beltway after it was reported that the White House is hosting all one hundred Senators for a private briefing.

Some thought Trump was using this as a photo-op for his first 100 days benchmark since he’s come up so short, but others were particularly nervous because of the administration’s hard line stance on North Korea.

During the final round table of Fox News’ all star panel on Special Report with Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer believes that if North Korea gets the capability to launch a nuclear weapon, Trump with preemptively strike North Korea with our own nukes.

Charles Krauthammer sent this chilling message close to the end of the program..

Charles said, “I think this is a full-court press, we do have a plan. I think it’s a mistake to say we’re going into this blind.”

Krauthammer responded to Sec. Kelly’s remarks to CNN when he said that when North Korea is capable of putting nukes on missiles, “the instant that happens, this country is at grave risk.”

Charles continued, ” What General Kelly just said, what we saw was a declaration that we’re through kicking the can down the road.”

“If they acquire an ICBM ballistic missile that can hit the U.S. with a warhead on top of it, this is a new world and we’re not going to allow it, that’s an amazing statement…” he continued.

He said this is all aimed at China, but the “fuse is lit.”

Baier said we could shoot down their missiles and Mara Laisson asked, “What is it that the U.S. is going to do?” “If we make a preemptive strike?”

Krauthammer replied that if we come to the final point, “where they have a nuke on top of an ICBM, yes, a preemptive strike.”

He continued, ” We can’t live in a world where Kim Jung Un can push a button and obliterate Seattle. That’s what you just heard General Kelly say.”

Click over for the video. It will make your stomach lurch just a little when you realize that Donald Trump refuses to read briefing books and is getting most of his information from Fox these days.

.

Paul Wolfowitz has high hopes for Donald Trump

by digby

I wrote about the neocon dreams being rekindled for Salon this morning:

It was entirely predictable that as soon as President Donald Trump decided to drop some bombs on a Middle Eastern country, the neoconservative claque that had rejected him during the election would slither back into the GOP orbit. It’s true that Trump himself had nixed the appointment of Elliott Abrams, the man the Republican establishment had chosen to be Rex Tillerson’s right-hand man. That rejection had some people hopeful that Steve Bannon (whom Abrams blamed) would at least prove useful in keeping architects of the GOP’s tragic adventures in Central America and the Middle East out of this White House.

Bannon, of course, is the nationalist enemy of neoconservative global crusaders like Abrams and former George W. Bush administration official Paul Wolfowitz. But it’s always struck me how much they actually have in common in terms of temperament, if not ideology. Bannon is well-known from his propaganda filmmaking and Breitbart days as a trafficker in conspiracy theories. And Wolfowitz for years insisted that 9/11 had been a collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, largely based on a discredited book called “Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack and Saddam Hussein’s War Against America” by a crank named Laurie Mylroie. They are both well-read and erudite conspiracy mongers who found their way into the most powerful offices on Earth.

Despite the obvious fact that Donald Trump is a torture-loving, “bomb the shit out of ’em” and “take the oil” kind of guy, his opportunistic distancing of himself from the Iraq War (despite evidence that he actually supported it) gave many people the impression that he wouldn’t support military intervention. That included members of the neocon establishment, who were leery of him. But now they’re back in the public eye, and one of the main architects of the Iraq War is once again making his presence known. According to Susan Glasser of Politico, Wolfowitz can take some credit for the action. In an interview with him she said:

Paul, you’ve jumped back into the fray as it were with what appears in hindsight to be an extremely well-timed intervention in the Wall Street Journal, saying Donald Trump should go ahead and do something in Syria, should intervene militarily in some way to respond to the chemical weapons strike. Miraculously enough, perhaps, he surprised much of the world by going ahead and taking your advice and doing so.

Wolfowitz modestly replied that he’s not sure Trump took his advice but he’s awfully glad he did bomb Syria because the U.S. is back in business:

I don’t think anyone would deny that he’s opportunistic, and I don’t think anyone would deny that he would like to be “the greatest president in modern times” or “huge” or you pick your adjective. And I think to achieve a Dayton-like peace settlement in Syria would not only be something that would be widely acclaimed, it would be hugely in the interest of the United States.

That does show a certain understanding of how to appeal to this president. But it’s mind-boggling to believe he could ever be capable of brokering the kind of complicated agreement that Wolfowitz goes on to describe, in which every country, faction and religious sect in the Middle East would be involved (except Iran and Russia, which makes no sense at all.) Apparently Wolfowitz doesn’t know that Donald Trump can’t even hammer out a deal between Republican congressmen who voted for him.

Wolfowitz places a great deal of faith in Trump’s generals, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, to run foreign policy and guide Trump to the right conclusions. He is impressed that Tillerson told Vladimir Putin that lining up with Syrian president Bashar Assad is “lining up with a loser.” Said Wolfowitz: “It may not get through any better than telling him that what he’s doing is criminal and immoral, but I think at least may resonate a little bit better with people around him.” Apparently, Wolfowitz thinks Putin is Russia’s Donald Trump, which is probably a wrong assumption.

The scariest part of the interview, however, involved Wolfowitz’s views on Iraq. He seems eager to get right back into the quagmire and stay there. Mentioning in passing that comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan in the post-World War II period had been the wrong comparison, he said it should have been compared to Korea — where we still have 30,000 troops stationed 60 years later and war is threatening as we speak! Wolfowitz recalled the period after the Iraq “surge” with great nostalgia as a sort of golden era:

[W]e do have a model there. I think it’s a model that worked dramatically. When Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker was Bush’s last ambassador to Iraq and General Petraeus was there commanding the U.S. forces, the two of them — they had offices, I think, in the same building deliberately. I think every night they would go to [Nouri al-]Maliki when he was, I think the way they put it, too tired to fight back.

Wolfowitz said Petraeus and Crocker would tell him things about his own country he didn’t know and would instruct him to fire this or that general and “stop these corrupt practices” that were going on in places around the country and it worked perfectly. If we don’t go back in there and repeat that, Wolfowitz said, “the alternative is to let a very important, critical part of the world go to hell literally and lose American influence.”

This is a man who says in the same interview that “if we give up the Western idea of freedom, we’re giving up one of the most important diplomatic tools in our arsenal.” It doesn’t sound a great deal like freedom and democracy if a foreign government puts its generals in offices next door to the president so they can conveniently whisper orders in his ear when he’s tired.

In other words, Wolfowitz didn’t learn a thing from America’s disastrous experience in the Middle East. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the neocons seem to think the Iraq War is a “model that worked.” The smoldering wreck that’s left in the region can be fixed up promptly with a few thousand troops and some savvy military leadership.

There’s no reason to think that Trump is going there just yet. But with Bannon on the wane as an influence and Jared Kushner (who is more in sync with the neoconservative worldview) on the rise, that could change. These old neocon hands certainly have Trump’s number anyway. On the day after the Syrian airstrikes, Elliott Abrams wrote in The Weekly Standard that the president had “finally accepted the role of Leader of the Free World.”

They have good reason to be confident. After all, they got one president to invade a country that hadn’t attacked us. Why wouldn’t they believe they can do it again?