Month: June 2017

“They consider him a stupid, unstrategic politician”

by digby

I thought this interview with a top Russian journalist was interesting. His perspective is different than ours, of course, but it’s interesting that he’s come up with a very similar analysis of the relationship between the two presidents that many of us in America have come to as well:

Mikhail Fishman is the editor-in-chief of the Moscow Times, an English-language weekly newspaper published in Moscow. The paper is critical of Vladimir Putin; indeed, it was targeted twice in 2015 by Russian hackers and has been attacked repeatedly by pro-Kremlin pundits.

A Russian citizen and an outspoken critic of Putin, Fishman has covered Russian politics for more than 15 years. For the past year, he has monitored the increasingly bizarre relationship between Putin and Trump, with a particular focus on Putin’s strategic aims.

In this interview, originally conducted in February, I ask Fishman how Trump is perceived in Russia, why Putin is actively undermining global democracy, and what Russia hopes to gain from the political disorder in America.

Sean Illing: From your perch in Moscow, how do you see this strange relationship between Putin and Trump?

Mikhail Fishman: It is strange. It looks a bit irrational on Trump’s part to be sure. Why does he have this strange passion for Putin and Russia? I have to say, I don’t believe in the conspiracy theories about “golden showers” and blackmailing. I don’t believe it exists and I don’t believe it’s a factor. But this, admittedly, makes the whole thing that much stranger.

Sean Illing: You’re obviously referencing the explosive Trump dossier published by Buzzfeedin January. What makes you so skeptical of the claims in that dossier?

Mikhail Fishman: Two things. One, I’ve been a political journalist for 15 years working and dealing with sources in Russia and elsewhere. And frankly, a lot of this appears shallow to me. I’m sure Russia has plenty of dirt on Trump, but I can’t accept without hard evidence much of the what I’ve heard or read.

Second, this still has the ring of a conspiracy theory, this idea that the Kremlin has blackmailed Trump into submission. I’m generally opposed, on principle, to conspiracy theorizing. So I’m just skeptical until there’s concrete evidence.

Sean Illing: Let’s talk about Trump and Putin as individuals. How are they different? How are they similar?

Mikhail Fishman: I would prefer to talk about how they’re different, because those differences are so obvious and extreme. They come from very different worlds. Putin is an ex-Soviet intelligence officer with all that that implies. Trump is a colorful American businessman and showman.

In their habits, they’re radically different. Trump is a posturing performer, full of idiotic narcissism. He appears to be a disorganized fool, to be honest. Putin, on the other hand, is calculating, organized, and he plans everything. He also hides much of his personal life in a way that Trump does not.

Then there’s also the fact that Putin is so much more experienced than Trump. He has more than 15 years of global political experience. He knows how to do things, how to work the system. He makes plenty of mistakes, but he knows how to think and act. Trump is a total neophyte. He has no experience and doesn’t understand how global politics operates. He displays his ignorance every single day.

Sean Illing: What is the perception of Trump in Russia? Is he seen as an ally, a foe, a stooge?

Mikhail Fishman: The vision of Trump is basically shaped by the Kremlin and their propaganda machine — that’s what they do. During the election campaign, Trump was depicted not as an underdog but as an honest representative of the American people who was being mistreated by the establishment elites and other evil forces in Washington.

Sean Illing: The Kremlin knew that to be bullshit, right? This was pure propaganda, not sincere reporting, and it was aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton.

Mikhail Fishman: Of course. All of it was aimed at damaging Hillary Clinton. Putin expected Trump to lose, but the prospect of a Clinton victory terrified him, and he did everything possible to undermine her.

Sean Illing: Why was he so afraid of a Clinton victory?

Mikhail Fishman: Because he knew that would mean an extension of Obama’s harsh orientation to Russia, perhaps even more aggressive than Obama. Putin has experienced some difficult years since his 2014 invasion of Crimea, but he didn’t expect this level of isolation. He saw — and sees — Trump as an opportunity to change the dynamic.

Sean Illing: A lot of commentators here believe the most generous interpretation of Trump’s fawning orientation to Putin and Russia is that he’s hopelessly naïve. Do you buy that?

Mikhail Fishman: That’s a good question. Why does he like Putin so much? I think Trump sees Putin as a kind of soulmate. Let’s be honest: Trump is not a reflective person. He’s quite simple in his thinking, and he’s sort of attracted to Putin’s brutal forcefulness. If anything, this is what Trump and Putin have in common.

Sean Illing: Has Putin made a puppet of Trump?

Mikhail Fishman: Of course. This is certainly what the Kremlin believes, and they’re acting accordingly. They’re quite obviously playing Trump. They consider him a stupid, unstrategic politician. Putin is confident that he can manipulate Trump to his advantage, and he should be.

Sean Illing: In other words, Trump’s a useful idiot to them?

Mikhail Fishman: Exactly. The Kremlin is limited in their knowledge about what’s going on in Washington, but they see the chaos and the confusion in Trump’s administration. They see the clumsiness, the inexperience. Naturally, they’re working to exploit that.

Sean Illing: What’s the long geopolitical play for Putin? What does he hope to gain from the disorder in America?

Mikhail Fishman: The first thing he wants and needs is the symbolic legitimization of himself and Russia as a major superpower and world player that America has to do deal with as an equal. He wants to escape the isolation of Russia on the world stage, which was what the campaign in Syria was all about. Putin has grand ambitions for himself and for Russia, and nearly every move he makes is animated by this.

Sean Illing: How much of this, from Putin’s perspective, is about discrediting democracy as such?

Mikhail Fishman: He didn’t believe Trump would win, so he was preparing to sell Clinton’s victory as a fraud. And this is part of his broader message across the board, which is that democracy itself is flawed, broken, unjust. Putin actually believes this. He doesn’t believe in democracy, and this is the worldview that he basically shares with Trump: that the establishment is corrupt and that the liberal world order is unjust.

Sean Illing: But Putin’s interest in undermining democracies across the globe is about much more than his personal disdain for this form of government. He wants to point to the chaos in these countries and say to his domestic audience, “You see, democracy is a sham, and it doesn’t work anywhere.” That serves as a justification for his own anti-democratic policies. In the end, it’s about reinforcing his own power.

Mikhail Fishman: That’s true. But again, this what Putin really believes. He does not believe a true and just democracy exists anywhere. This is the worldview they’ve been spinning for years and they’ve really internalized it.

For Putin, this is very much a zero-sum game. The West is the enemy. America is the enemy. Whatever you can do to damage the enemy, you do it. The more unrest there is in America, the better positioned Russia is to work its will on the world stage. He wants to divide democratic and European nations in order to then play those divisions to his advantage.

Sean Illing: A pervasive concern in this country is that Trump admires Putin’s strongman authoritarianism, and seeks to replicate it in America. Do you think this concern is well-founded?

Mikhail Fishman: I think it is. Again, it comes to back what Trump and Putin have in common. They’re both male chauvinists. Trump probably admires the fact that Putin is the kind of guy who feels the need to ride horses shirtless; it appeals to his authoritarian instincts. But this is about much more than imagery.

They are both illiterate people in a way. They’re not widely educated. They do not believe in institutions. They see democratic institutions as burdens, impediments to their will. They don’t believe that social and political life should be sophisticated; they think it should be simple.

And this sort of thinking naturally concludes in one-man rule. I think Trump will fail, but there’s no doubt that he shares these authoritarian impulses with Putin.

Creepy. And keep in mind that if this authoritarian cretin accomplishes anything, it will have been done with the help of the entire Republican party.

.

Recovering from the cult
by Tom Sullivan

.

Hullabaloo alum David Atkins this morning examines the fever breaking in Kansas, writing that “‘conservatism’ has in some parts of the world taken on all the aspects of cult dogma, little different in its own way from Leninism or any other totalizing political ideology.” That frames it as an expression of the will to power. I prefer to call it the Midas cult. To my mind that focuses more on the pathological, greed-driven, moral rot behind it. But whatever.

Republican moderates joined Democrats this week to override Brownback’s veto of a bill rolling back his tax cuts. After five, long years of waiting for Brownback’s supply-side economic miracle to manifest itself, and after five, long years of a tanking economy, Kansans had had enough of America’s least-popular governor. Even some Republicans are leaving the cult. With billion-dollar budget shortfalls projected through 2019, Sophia Tesfaye writes at Salon, even GOP lawmakers in adjacent states are mocking Brownback:

But the real joke is that Kansas’ failed tax experiment was crafted and endorsed by the most influential conservatives in the country and closely mirrors President Donald Trump’s tax reform plan. In fact, both plans were designed by the same right-wing economists.

Now as Trump attempts to pass the same failed plan through a Republican-controlled Congress, Republicans in Kansas are finally willing to bite the bullet and pass the largest tax increase in state history; they need to fund a public education system that the state Supreme Court recently ruled is inadequately funded.

NPR reported earlier this week that while some Republican legislators are ready to change course, not all ready to admit their mistakes:

Senate Majority Leader Jim Denning said lawmakers had known since May 2014 that the tax cuts were leading to fiscal woes and not playing out as intended. He said while he voted for the 2012 changes, he believes in cleaning up one’s messes in life and planned to cast his vote accordingly.

“I’m going to mop it up,” he said.

Conservative Republican state Sen. Dennis Pyle drew on the nursery rhyme Humpty Dumpty in his appeal that colleagues uphold the veto. He suggested some lawmakers might think Brownback is like the main character in that poem, but it is in fact the spend-happy legislators who are shattered.

“They continue to want more and more,” he said. “They want to interfere in people’s lives.”

Getting what they wouldn’t pay for

Brownback’s crew has taken a wrecking ball to the Sunflower State. The state Supreme Court ruled in March that school funding was inadequate to meet constitutional standards and ordered a new funding plan by the end of June. With the rollback of Brownback’s tax cuts, perhaps, Kansans are coming around to the idea that they’d rather have the politicians they hire make their lives better rather than worse. Why else hire them? What else is government for?

Atkins writes at Washington Monthly:

So it’s heartening in a way to see that Kansas, which has long been ground zero for the most extreme version of tax-cut orthodoxy in America and has suffered mightily for it, is finally coming to its senses somewhat. A new wave of more moderate Republicans have joined with Democrats to raise taxes enough to fill in some of the deep gaps left in Brownback’s “cut taxes for the rich and let everything else crumble” budget.

True believers will be undeterred, of course. Americans for Prosperity promises retaliation. Brownback’s secretary of state, Kris Kobach, is running in the primary for governor. He’s not ready to leave the cult:

“This state does not need more money, and the people of Kansas do not need to keep feeding the government monster with year after year of increased taxes,” Kobach told supporters in a speech announcing his candidacy. “Kansas does not have a revenue problem. Kansas has a spending problem.”

In other words, gimme that old time religion.

Friday night soother

by digby

Via the Dodo

A Connecticut woman was in her kitchen baking brownies when she heard a thump against her screen door — and turned around to find a very unexpected visitor trying to get in.

A young bear was standing on her porch, peering through the glass, hoping to be invited inside. The bear probably smelled the brownies being prepared and decided to see if the woman might be willing to share some with him.

The woman was of course a little scared of the overly eager bear, and eventually got her neighbor, Bob Belfiore, to see if he could come and help her gently scare the bear away.

“He actually left the kitchen area and went to the second set of doors off the deck,” Belfiore told WFSB. “And tried those and then went to the third set of doors into the living room and attempted to get into those.”

Eventually, the bear realized no one was going to invite him in for a snack, and so he went on his way, unfortunately without any brownies.

Bears are very food motivated and have an incredible sense of smell, so it’s important not to leave food out in areas where bears may be present, as they will absolutely try to come and find it, and may come back for more in the future, too.

You oldies will surely remember this:

.

Illogical arguments for dummies

by digby

Joe Conason did a nice job of breaking down the Republican arguments in defense of Trump in the Comey matter. An excerpt:

Senator James Risch (R-ID) made the most amusing attempt to exculpate Trump. According to Risch, Trump couldn’t be charged with a crime for telling Comey that he “hoped” the FBI director would “let Flynn go,” rather than prosecute the ex-national security adviser.

“Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice, or for that matter any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome?” demanded Risch. Unable to name a case offhand, Comey patiently explained, “I took it as a direction. This is the President of the United States with me alone saying, ‘I hope this’. I took it as this is what he wants me to do. I didn’t obey that but that’s the way I took it.”

But in fact, defendants who expressed that kind of “hope,” under such highly suspicious circumstances, have not only been charged with obstructing justice but convicted of that same crime.

Just last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the conviction of a Dallas police officer on four federal obstruction counts. He was found guilty of trying to suppress evidence that he had exchanged law enforcement intelligence with a prostitute for sexual favors. When the FBI was closing in, the crooked cop had told the young lady in a recorded conversation: “I’m just hoping you haven’t told anyone anything.” The appeals court opinion said that such circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove that the cop had “acted with the intent to impede that investigation.” (As an attorney, Risch should have been able to look up this and similar cases before posing his silly question.)

With equally compelling logic, the Republicans hinted that Comey should have arrested Trump for obstruction of justice in the Oval Office — as Attorney General Jeff Sessions loitered outside, after being invited to leave so Trump could make his pitch to Comey. Having failed to do so, they argued, Comey must not have thought that Trump did anything wrong.

Of course, the FBI director made careful notes of those improper conversations and reported them to his subordinates and other Justice Department officials because he knew Trump’s pressure on him was improper at best. Still, as Comey admitted, he might well have pushed back harder. But it is ridiculous for the Republicans to suggest that because he didn’t instantly report Trump’s improper conduct as a potentially impeachable offense, to either the Attorney General or the Congress or both, then the president must be innocent.

This argument is raging on cable today and I’m going to guess it will continue to rage for quite some time. Republicans are going right down this rabbit hole and it’s going to hard to climb back out.

The smart move is for all of them, including the president, to say that the investigation is in the hands of Prosecutor Mueller and they don’t think it’s wise to comment while that’s going on. That’s what Bush did during the Scooter Libby scandal and it was very effective. But this is Trump and his clown car and they cannot keep their mouths shut about anything.

.

YOU would do that, Trumpie

by digby

Trump in his deposition over the Trump hotel restaurants alleged breach of contract

This is not very … convincing:

Trump: “I hardly know the man, I’m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. Who would do that?” https://t.co/m1wbZYvEDD

— Hardball (@hardball) June 9, 2017

He also said that he would testify under oath for Robert Mueller. I’m sure he thinks he has nothing to fear because it’s he said/he said. But those contemporaneous notes and discussions are key to such a case as well as all the other obvious consciousness of guilt. No lawyer worth his salt would ever let this moron testify under oath in such a case and I doubt he will ever do so.

.

This executive privilege nonsense

by digby

In case you were wondering whether Trump and his lawyers have a case against Comey for allowing his memos to become public — no. Consider that Comey has been up close and personal in every presidential scandal since the mid-90s and is a former Senate Whitewater committee counsel, Acting Attorney General, US Attorney and FBI director. He’s pretty well-informed on these issues.

But be that as it may, the wingnuts are screeching about how they’re going to put him in jail for what he did. Or something. This WaPo piece explains:

A few hours after former FBI director James B. Comey finished testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, President Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, suggested that Comey had violated the law. By causing memos about conversations between Trump and Comey to become public, Comey had committed an “unauthorized disclosure of privileged information,” Kasowitz claimed. On a day characterized by hubris remarkable even for Washington, the blatant wrongheadedness of this “privilege” claim still stands out. In fact, executive privilege almost certainly does not cover the Comey memo. And even if it did, disclosing it without authorization isn’t illegal.

Let’s take these in reverse order. As the Supreme Court has recognized, executive privilege derives from the president’s constitutional authority. The privilege serves as a powerful protection against compelled disclosures of internal, confidential executive branch communications — whether in response to court orders, congressional subpoenas or both. It is meant as a defense in those contexts, providing a valid justification for a government officer’s refusal to comply with a demand to testify or produce documents. And even then, it’s a qualified — not absolute — privilege, meaning that it can be overcome in cases in which there’s a sufficiently good reason to compel the disclosure at issue.

Executive privilege is an important shield to protect the president’s power. It is not a sword, though. So where a current or former government employee wants to cooperate and turn over the requested information, the privilege itself won’t — and can’t — stop him or her. For current employees, the threat of losing their job, their reputation or both from disobeying the president will often serve to keep them in line. But for former employees, there’s no such specter (and sometimes, quite the opposite, as Comey’s case underscores). This is why Trump could not have invoked executive privilege to stop Comey from testifying, something the White House tried not to acknowledge by putting out word that he “chose” not to do so. It is not a “violation” of executive privilege to voluntarily disclose materials that could be protected by the privilege, no matter what Kasowitz says.

Look at it this way. If this privilege existed the way they are saying it does, there would be no White House  memoirs written by anyone but the president himself.

This is one reason why Trump made a big mistake in firing Comey. It freed him to talk in a way that he couldn’t when he was the FBI director. And the way they did it made an enemy of him in a big way. This was very, very stupid. But when you have people who have zero experience and instinct for bureaucratic politics this is what happens.

Trumpie ran a nice little family business using money he inherited from his daddy and borrowed from mobsters. His experience is basically useless as president. (Well, I should amend that to say that his experience as a conman and TV reality star did help him win over some uninformed voters. So, that’s something.)

.

by digby

I don’t know if this is true but that fact that it is so believable is shocking enough:

Brian Williams on @MSNBC says a source tells him and @NicolleDWallace they’re not sure Trump knew there were Americans stationed in Qatar.

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 8, 2017

Raw Story reported:

Trump on Monday praised the decision by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain , Egypt, Yemen, Libya and the Maldives to cut off ties with the Doha, a move reportedly sparked by a fake news story Qatar officials have emphatically denied. 

The president appeared to champion the severed diplomatic ties in a series of tweets on Tuesday: 

That tweetstorm prompted a rapid escalation as Qatar feared a military incursion from Saudi Arabia. In a phone call Wednesday, Trump reached out to the Qatari Emir to offer the administration’s assistance in smoothing out relations with other Middle Eastern nations. As CNN reports, the olive branch came as US officials warned Qatar was placing its police force on the highest level of alert.

This is the real reason why Trump is dangerous. Yes, he has fascist tendencies. But it’s his ignorance combined with recklessness that’s going to get people killed. And it could be a lot of people.

 .

Trump vs his bestie Jeff Sessions

by digby

I wrote about Comey and his tantalizing hints about Jeff Sessions for Salon this morning:

President Donald Trump may have been a D-list reality TV celebrity, but former FBI Director James Comey is a genuine political star. Trump has met his match when it comes to creating political drama. Comey teased the testimony with his written statement on Wednesday and then appeared in the hearing room on Thursday, sitting alone facing the Senate Intelligence Committee and casually calling the president of the United States a liar.

This is not something you normally hear from a career bureaucrat, and it was riveting political theater in a way that Trump’s chaotic cartoon circus will never be. For all the drama of past similar televised testimony, like that of the individuals called during Sen. Joseph McCarthy hearings or the Ken Starr inquiry of the Lewinsky scandal, or the appearances of John Dean and Alexander Butterfield during the Watergate investigation or Oliver North during the Iran-contra scandal, never before have we had a case when the president himself was under suspicion in a counterintelligence investigation. This is unprecedented.

Yesterday people all over the country gathered in bars, coffeehouses and conference rooms to watch Comey’s testimony. People were tweeting that everyone in airports was watching in rapt silence. Indeed, the only person who apparently didn’t watch was Donald Trump. His staff had hurriedly scheduled a last-minute speech before an adoring audience, most likely to keep him away from his Twitter account.

Republican officials were uncharacteristically subdued. House Speaker Paul Ryan was asked about Comey’s testimony about Trump’s requesting loyalty and making it clear that he hoped Comey would let Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser, off the hook. Ryan claimed that Trump was just naive to the ways of politics. One couldn’t help but recall that Trump seemed quite sure of proper legal and ethical protocol when he criticized former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton for their private meeting on the airport tarmac, even suggesing that Clinton had offered Lynch a bribe.

Comey’s story was straightforward: He testified that the president wanted a personal loyalty oath and had directed him to drop the case against Flynn. Trump also repeatedly insisted that Comey publicly exonerate the president himself. When Comey didn’t come through, Trump fired him in order to change the direction of the Russia investigation. Comey memorialized all his conversations with the president on paper because he was concerned Trump might lie about them.

It’s the story of a president frantic to stop an FBI investigation into his campaign and panicked at the possibility his former national security adviser might be legally vulnerable. This behavior may very well signal a consciousness of guilt, and terror that Flynn might make a deal and turn against him out of self-preservation. Trump may be a novice politician but he has observed many a mob trial in New York and he knows how this works.

As dramatic as the hearing was, Comey’s story is just one piece of the bigger case that Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating. That case has to do with hacking, election meddling and propaganda, financial connections, collusion and possible espionage. It’s a comprehensive investigation and it’s expanding every day.

One intriguing detail in Comey’s testimony was his obvious mistrust of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He told the panel that he didn’t tell Sessions of the president’s asking about dropping the Flynn inquiry because Comey believed the request to be of “investigative interest.” Clearly Comey thought Sessions would alert the White House about these concerns.

Comey also indicated that he and other FBI officials decided not to inform Sessions about various issues related to the Russian probe because they assumed the attorney general would have to recuse himself from that investigation. Comey explained that he couldn’t tell the Senate panel why in a public context:

Our judgment, as I recall, was that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. We also were aware of facts that I can’t discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia-related investigation problematic.

This discussion happened in mid-February but Sessions didn’t follow through with recusing himself until March 2, after it was reported that he’d failed to mention two meetings with Russia’s Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in his confirmation hearing. After Comey testified in a closed session Thursday, CNN reported that he had told the committee there had been a third meeting with Kislyak that Sessions had not revealed. (Presumably, this third meeting is the same one that has been previously reported about in the press.)

The Justice Department disputed some details of Comey’s testimony about Sessions and issued a statement saying that the attorney general had merely recused himself because he had been involved with the Trump campaign. But that doesn’t fit with our previous understanding of his decision. It was the revelation of meetings with Kislyak, which Comey and other FBI officials obviously knew about, that appeared to be the catalyst.

Comey’s testimony about Sessions comes after many stories over the past few days suggesting that for months Trump has been livid with the attorney general over his recusal. The president has also publicly insulted the Justice Department over its handling of his proposed travel ban, blaming the agency for being “politically correct” for following court orders.

Evidently, Trump felt blindsided by Sessions’ decision to recuse himself and believes that’s the reason the president now has to deal with a special prosecutor. The New York Times reported recently that the relationship between Trump and Sessions became so strained that the latter offered to resign at one point, telling the president he needed the freedom to do his job. Several days ago reporters asked the White House press office if Sessions still had the confidence of the president and only on Thursday was that question finally answered in the affirmative.

This is strange for many reasons. If there is one genuine Trump true believer in the president’s Cabinet, it’s Jeff Sessions. Treating the attorney general with the same disdain that Trump dishes out to everyone else in his orbit is not only abusive; it’s very foolish. Sessions is the only effective Cabinet member the president has who is truly loyal to him personally. It’s yet another example of Donald Trump being his own worst enemy.

.

While you were busy watching James Comey …
by Tom Sullivan

… all hell was breaking loose in England. But first Comey.

Former FBI chief James Comey gave stunning testimony under oath yesterday before the Senate Intelligence Committee. He described in detail his conversations with Donald Trump before and after Trump became president, prior to Trump firing him. Comey explained for the first time in his career he felt compelled to document their conversations because of “the nature of the person.” That’s Comey-speak for saying his lawman’s gut told him the president is an unprincipled, manipulative liar. “I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting so I thought it important to document.”

The New York Times editorial board describes those encounters as “a clash between the legal principles at the foundation of American democracy, and a venal, self-interested politician who does not recognize, let alone uphold, them.”

The Republican response to Comey’s testimony reflected Speaker Paul Ryan’s: What do you expect? He’s a noob. Others chimed in on that theme:

“The Comey memo paints a picture of a political neophyte frustrated with and unaware of the way Washington works,” Matthew Continetti, editor of the Washington Free Beacon, wrote on Twitter. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat offered a variation of this argument: “Trump’s weird behavior re: Comey seems to reflect a man accustomed to being a boss, unprepared to be a president.”

That’s their idea of a defense.

There are volumes of commentary on that hearing and what they might mean for the Trump presidency. Not to mention what Comey’s closed session in the afternoon might mean for Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, the other notable elephant not in the room. There was clearly more story to tell on Sessions.

But yesterday was also a busy news day outside the Senate hearing room. While we were watching the Comey hearing, Republicans inside the Capitol were busy killing off Dodd-Frank:

The House of Representatives pushed through a bill Thursday that would gut many of the key banking reforms implemented after the financial crisis.

In a primarily partisan vote, the House passed the Financial Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs Act, a highly controversial measure that stands virtually no chance to pass the Senate.

Among the most significant provisions are measures that allow banks to escape heightened regulatory requirements and cut stress tests back from their current annual schedule, while the bill also eviscerates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

That sets up a showdown with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the original force behind the bureau. Where Comey chose his words carefully, Warren will forcefully excoriate colleagues who try to dismantle her agency with what Charlie Pierce called the Let’s Let The Bankers Steal What’s Left Act of 2017.

Proving once again their skill at demolishing things, Republicans in the Senate now have plans to fast-track their version of the American Health Care Act, having first frowned upon the version forwarded by their House brethren. But, Josh Marshall wrote:

The fix seemed to be in when Sen. Cassidy of Louisiana signaled that he was going the direction of the purported ‘GOP moderates’ in the House. Cassidy had been making a big show of how he wouldn’t accept a bill that injured people in various ways. But when Senate GOPs a few days ago rolled out the framework for a bill which was substantively similar to the House bill, Cassidy’s response was more or less: ” Okay, cool.”

The pattern is the same one from the House. The GOP moderates always cave. In this case, Cassidy was the moderate or spoke for them. So he’s signaled what’s coming.

That being Mitch McConnell invoking Rule 14 to bypass the committee process and bum’s rush the Obamacare repeal onto the floor for a vote before the July 4th recess. (Your senators are just waiting to hear from you on that. I like e-faxing them, myself. I get a warm feeling knowing a physical piece of paper someone has to handle and log spits out in their offices.)

Across the Atlantic, British Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservatives lost their parliamentary majority. With the vote still coming in last night, exit polls showed an unexpected tilt toward Labour when pundits expected a drubbing. In the snap election called by May three years ahead of schedule, Corbyn’s Labour Party picked up 31 seats, in part on the strength of turnout by younger voters. BBC commentators last night called May’s decision a political disaster. May had hoped to strengthen her hand ahead of Brexit negotiations, but now faces a hung parliament. (I don’t pretend to understand the intricacies of the British system, but there is an explainer here.)

“It will be seen as a triumph for Jeremy Corbyn,” YouGov pollster Marcus Roberts told CNN. Bettors are putting odds on Corbyn being the next prime minister, according to Business Insider:

While everyone else was making assumptions, Corbyn’s machine went directly to its core constituency: Young people and former Labour voters who were alienated by Tony Blair. He went direct to them on Facebook and Twitter, gathering audiences that vastly exceed those who watch the BBC or read the Daily Mail. (One million people alone follow his Facebook page.)

And while the newspaper editors inside the Westminster Bubble just assumed that the man wearing a John Lennon hat and riding a bicycle couldn’t possibly appeal to ordinary voters, Corbyn’s Momentum activists were busy registering new voters.

Turnout by young, disillusioned voters gave a big boost to Corbyn, who was opposed from his ascendance in 2015 as too far left by many in his own party. Business Insider continues:

Corbyn often stood alone. A huge majority of his own MPs voted no confidence in him. The polls — which are based on real voters, after all — painted him as a loser. But he stood firm, and stuck to his principles.

It’s a new dawn. The public has had quite enough of austerity and are “voting for hope, hope for the future,” Corbyn told supporters upon winning reelection last night.

Corbyn’s party ran on this:

Let Democrats inside the Beltway take note.

“That thing”

by digby

I think Comey was right about this:

McCain: You talked about the April 11 phone call, and he said, “Because I’ve been very loyal to you, very loyal, we had that thing, you know.” Did that arouse your curiosity as to what, quote, that thing was?

Comey: Yes.

McCain: Why didn’t you ask him?

Comey: It didn’t seem to me to be important for the conversation we were having to understand it. I took it to be some — an effort to communicate to me that there is a relationship between us where I’ve been good to you, you should be good to me.

McCain: But I would think it would intensely arouse my curiosity if the president of the United States said we had that thing, you know. I’d like to know what the hell that thing is, particularly if I’m the director of the FBI.

Comey: Yeah. I get that, senator. Honestly, I’ll tell you what. This is speculation, but what I concluded at the time is in his memory he was searching back to our encounter at the dinner and was preparing himself to say I offered loyalty to you, you promised loyalty to me and all of a sudden his memory showed him that did not happen and I think he pulled up short. That’s just a guess. A lot of conversations over the years.

Trump is a pathological liar and bully. He reflexively reminded him of some sort of nefarious “deal” and then half way through realizing that he didn’t really have the goods and just bluffed his way out of it. It’s even possible that Trump thought he did have the goods although the fact that he fired Comey shortly thereafter suggests that he knew he didn’t.

Trump is a cheap thug without brains and he is way outmatched by Comey. And every other world leader.

.