A photograph purportedly showing the remains of a man who perished during the volcanic eruption that destroyed the Roman city of Pompeii in 79 A.D. was posted in July 2017 along with the caption “masturbating man”:
Although this is a real — though slightly doctored — image showing a plaster cast of a man who perished in Pompeii, the juvenile caption caused many to second-guess the image’s authenticity.
Calco in gesso di una vittima dell’eruzione.
Ph Direttore Generale Prof. Massimo Osanna
#Pompei #Pompeii #PompeiiTempusVita
Plaster cast of a victim of the eruption.
Ph General Manager Prof. Massimo Osanna
#Pompei #Pompeii #PompeiiTempusVita
The caption did not mention that this man was masturbating in his last moments. In fact, this pose hints at something far more terrifying.
When Mount Vesuvius erupted, it sent a surge of super-heated volcanic material through the city of Pompeii. About 2000 people were killed and the city was buried in a thick carpet of volcanic ash. The heat was so intense that many of the victims suffered sudden muscle contractions and were left frozen in a boxer-like, crouching pose:
The famous lifelike poses of many victims at Pompeii—seated with face in hands, crawling, kneeling on a mother’s lap—are helping to lead scientists toward a new interpretation of how these ancient Romans died in the A.D. 79 eruptions of Italy’s Mount Vesuvius.
Until now it’s been widely assumed that most of the victims were asphyxiated by volcanic ash and gas. But a recent study says most died instantly of extreme heat, with many casualties shocked into a sort of instant rigor mortis.
[…]
And then there are those death postures. About three-quarters of the known Pompeii victims are “frozen in suspended actions” and show evidence of sudden muscle contractions, such as curled toes, the study says.
“Heretofore archaeologists misinterpreted them as people struggling to breathe and believed they died suffocated by ashes,” Mastrolorenzo said. “Now we know that couldn’t be.”
Because of the extreme heat, “when the pyroclastic surge hit Pompeii, there was no time to suffocate,” he said. “The contorted postures are not the effects of a long agony, but of the cadaveric spasm, a consequence of heat shock on corpses.”
The pose is not entirely unique among Pompeii victims. This image, taken in 2013 by Flickr user Paul Kelley, shows another victim in a similar position:
Politics and Reality Radio: Yes, Conspiring to Undermine an Election Is a Crime; Jill Filipovic: Happiness Is a Feminist Cause
with Joshua Holland
This week, we’ll be joined by Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches law at George Washington University, to talk about the many potential crimes that could be charged if it is proven that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to manipulate the outcome of the 2016 election. Campaign finance violations may be the least of it.
Then we’ll speak with Jill Filipovic from Kenya about her new book,The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness.
And finally, a few words about the Republicans’ zombie Obamacare repeal bill, which has been hit hard but just keeps coming.
Trump legal team member Jay Sekulow on Russia meeting: “If this was nefarious, why’d the Secret Service allow these people in?” #ThisWeekpic.twitter.com/8O2N312XQc
Jay Sekulow, one of President Donald Trump’s attorneys, suggested Sunday that the July 2016 meeting between multiple Russians and Trump’s son, son-in-law, and campaign manager was vetted by the United States Secret Service.
Although he claimed that the president did not know about or participate in the meeting — which was attended by Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort — Sekulow suggested on ABC’s This Week that it could not have been really bad or else the agents would have stopped it.
“I wondered why the Secret Service, if this was nefarious, why did the Secret Service allow these people in?” Sekulow told ABC’s Jonathan Karl. “The president had Secret Service protection at that point. That raised a question with me.”
In November 2015, then-Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson approvedSecret Service protection for then-candidates Donald Trump and Ben Carson. The agency protects “[m]ajor presidential and vice presidential candidates and their spouses,” as well as the president, vice president, their immediate families, and visiting foreign heads of state and their spouses. As such, Trump and his wife Melania were being protected at the time of the meeting.
But at that point, the Secret Service was not protecting any of the Trump campaign representatives who actually attended. Only in September 2016 — well after the Russian visit — did agents begin to provided protection for Ivanka Trump. Prior to that, Trump’s adult children were only provided with protection when “physically near the candidate,” according to a contemporaneous ABC News report. Separate protection for Eric Trump and Donald Jr. came sometime after that.
Although the Secret Service is authorized to “make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence,” the Secret Service’s protection detail is to provide for the physical safety of protectees. It is unclear why Sekulow would think their job would include stopping them from “nefarious” activities or ensuring the candidate or his team does not violate campaign finance laws.
Unless the Secret Service thought that the senior Trump or Vladimir Putin himself was going to be at or very near the meeting, Sekulow’s claim that the Secret Service “allowed” the Russians in is what raises the real questions.
I’m not sure what this means. Probably just that Jay Sekulow is a blowhard who doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. But it’s intriguing.
The Trump administration has quietly axed $213.6 million in teen pregnancy prevention programs and research at more than 80 institutions around the country, including Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles and Johns Hopkins University.
The decision by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will end five-year grants awarded by the Obama administration that were designed to find scientifically valid ways to help teenagers make healthy decisions that avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and other top Trump appointees are outspoken opponents of federal funding for birth control, advocating abstinence rather than contraceptives to control teen pregnancies.
Somebody tried to warn the American people about that rotten character. I think she may have thought they would reject someone who has so little of it and is blatantly unqualified, indecent and stupid. Millions did. But millions thought his lack of character was terrific. He really stuck it to the people they hate. And a few more people in a few states voted for him and he won the electoral college.
I would guess that the 4% of people Gallup polled who said they liked Trump because he wasn’t Obama were probably the ones who made the difference.
Oh, and I guess the people who think he’s doing the best he can under difficult circumstances haven’t been in formed that their party has a majority in both houses and the Supreme Court. That’s not usually a difficult circumstance. In fact, his “difficult circumstances” are all self-inflicted. But they love him anyway.
Or Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) office announced last night he had undergone surgery Friday to remove a blood clot above his left eye:
“Senator McCain received excellent treatment at Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix, and appreciates the tremendous professionalism and care by its doctors and staff. He is in good spirits and recovering comfortably at home with his family. On the advice of his doctors, Senator McCain will be recovering in Arizona next week.”
Meaning Senate Republicans’ procedure to remove Medicaid from millions of lesser-insured Americans has been put on a waiting list. From The Hill:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced Saturday night that Senate consideration of legislation repealing and replacing ObamaCare will be delayed while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) recovers from surgery.
McCain had announced earlier on Saturday that he would not be in the Senate next week, depriving Republicans of a key vote.
Without McCain, Senate Republicans likely would not have had the 50 votes necessary to advance the legislation.
Poor Mitch. A further delay will allow opponents more time to pressure fence-sitting GOP senators to vote against repeal. (McCain was not counted among them.) Recovering from surgery outside the crucible of the Beltway, Sen. McCain might even have time to contemplate what the loss of care might mean for his fellow Americans.
Get better soon with your excellent healthcare plan, Sen. McCain, so you can hurry back to D.C. and vote to take healthcare away from others— Stephanie Thompson (@Stefaniya) July 16, 2017
McCain’s absence is a blow to McConnell’s chances of repealing Obamacare. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Susan Collins (R-ME) quickly opposed the revised Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) unveiled last week, albeit for different reasons, leaving McConnell only 50 senators from his caucus to pass the bill (with Vice President Pence casting a tie-breaking vote). Any more defections would give other Republicans leave to break ranks, killing the wildly unpopular zombie bill until it rises once again.
The pressure mounting against the bill is enough to give McConnell a pain behind his left eye. In a rare joint letter sent Friday, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and America’s Health Insurance Plans urged Senate leaders to drop the “Consumer Freedom Option” added by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.* The provision would allow insurers to “refuse offering coverage to certain people, charge different rates based on age and gender,” and to “cherry pick” only the healthy for customers. The plans Cruz would allow would not cover Obamacare’s menu of essential health benefits. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes derides such plans as worthless “subprime insurance.” The insurers wrote McConnell and Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), saying:
It is simply unworkable in any form and would undermine protections for those with pre-existing medical conditions, increase premiums and lead to widespread terminations of coverage for people currently enrolled in the individual market.
They conclude, “As a result, millions of more individuals will become uninsured.”
The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake observes that the Republican bill is “polling about as well as Vladimir Putin,” yet why are they so determined to pass it? He asked Josh Holmes, a former McConnell staffer. Snap polling is less relevant than “a failure to address a conviction among the base of the Republican,” Holmes believes. Plus, failure on repealing Obamacare could negatively impact other agenda items, although passing tax reform could soften the blow. But:
“… the seared memory of a disappointment this significant to the Republican base has a somewhat serious chance of forever damaging Republican political careers. Compounding this problem is the very real notion that without action, the insurance markets may collapse. If that happens and a bipartisan insurance bailout materializes, conservative base voters will never, ever forget it.”
That Republican governors and legislatures around the country engineered the damage to the insurance markets by refusing the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare is not part of that career calculation. Nor is the impact on the lives of millions of Americans who might lose their coverage (or worse) if the BCRA passes. We hope Sen. McCain recovers well this week from his surgery, but perhaps he will take the down time to ponder the health of fellow Americans for whom he spent so many years in a North Vietnamese prison having his permanently damaged.
* “Freedom Freedom Option” must already have been taken.
Is it really mid-July already? For those of us who have a tendency to obsess over the inexorable decline of Western civilization, it’s easy to lose track of the “little things” sometimes like, you know, the time-space continuum. Take a breather, fergawdsake. Grab a little beach time, or a loll in the grass. Barbeque something, enjoy a cold drink. And don’t forget the tunes. Here are my picks for the 25 best summer songs. You’ve heard some of them a bazillion times; others, I’m guessing, not so much. Crank it on up.
First Class – “Beach Baby” – UK studio band First Class was the brainchild of singer-songwriter Tony Burrows, who also sang lead on other one-hit wonders, including “Love Grows Where My Rosemary Goes” (The Edison Lighthouse), “My Baby Loves Lovin’” (White Plains), and “United We Stand” (The Brotherhood of Man). This pop confection was a Top 10 song in the U.S. in 1974.
Don Henley- “The Boys of Summer” – Don Henley’s most durable post-Eagles hit also features his finest lyrics. I really like this stripped-down live rendition.
Jade Warrior- “Bride of Summer” – Here’s a summer tune you’ve never heard on the radio. This hard-to-categorize band has been around since the early 70s; progressive jazz-folk-rock-world beat is the best I can do. Sadly, original guitarist Tony Duhig passed away in 1990. His multi-tracked lead on this song is sublime.
Bananarama- “Cruel Summer” – A more melancholy take on the season from the Ronettes of New Wave. I seem to recall a rather heavy rotation of this video on MTV in the summer of ’84. The video is a great time capsule of 1980s NYC.
Pink Floyd- “Granchester Meadows” – This is from one of Pink Floyd’s more obscure albums, Ummagumma. Anyone who has ever sat under a shady tree on a summer’s day strumming a guitar will “get” this song, which is one of David Gilmour’s most beautiful compositions. I love how he incorporates nature sounds.
Joni Mitchell- “The Hissing of Summer Lawns” – The haunting title cut from Joni’s 1975 album, co-written by drummer John Guernin (who also plays moog). The song also features Victor Feldman on keyboards and James Taylor on guitar.
Sly & the Family Stone- “Hot Fun in the Summertime” – A quintessential summer song and an oldies radio staple. And don’t forget…I “cloud nine” when I want to.
Walter Egan- “Hot Summer Nights” – A memorable cut from Egan’s 1977 album Fundamental Roll, which was produced by Lindsay Buckingham. Buckingham contributes the guitar licks (and backing vocals, with Stevie Nicks).
Ray Charles- “In the Heat of the Night” – This sultry, swampy main title theme for the eponymous 1967 Best Picture winner (composed by Quincy Jones, with lyrics by Marlilyn and Alan Bergman) is a perfect marriage of music with a film.
Mungo Jerry- “In the Summertime” – It wouldn’t have worked without the jug.
The Dream Academy- “Indian Summer” – If there are five stages of summer, here’s acceptance: When August and September just become memories of songs/to be put away with the summer clothes/and packed up in the attic for another year.
Chris Rea- “Looking for the Summer” – Wallet, keys…summer? Couch cushion?
Marshall Crenshaw- “Starless Summer Sky” – In a just world, this power pop genius would have ruled the airwaves. Here’s one of many perfect examples why.
The Isley Brothers- “Summer Breeze” – Yes, I know Seals and Crofts did the original version, but the Isleys always had a knack for making covers their own.
The James Gang- “Summer Breezes” – Not to be confused with the previous tune, this is an original song written by the late, great Tommy Bolin, who replaced Joe Walsh in 1973. Catchy, melodic rock with great slide work by Bolin.
The Lovin’ Spoonful- “Summer in the City” – All around, people lookin’ half-dead/walkin’ on the sidewalk, hotter than a match head. Written by John Sebastian, Mark Sebastian and Steve Boone, this 1966 hit is a clever portmanteau of music, lyrics and effects that quite literally sounds like…summer in the city.
The Webb Brothers- “Summer People” – Christaan, Justin, and James Webb started out with a pretty good pedigree-they’re the sons of songwriter Jimmy Webb. This catchy, Who-ish number is taken from their 2000 album, Marooned.
Chad and Jeremy- “A Summer Song” – The biggest hit for this British pop duo (it made the Top 10 in 1964). I always thought it had a Simon and Garfunkel vibe to it.
XTC- “Summer’s Cauldron/Grass” – A mini-suite of sorts, all about summer romance, lazy days, and the uh, things we did on grass. Produced by Todd Rundgren.
Ella Fitzgerald- “Summertime” – This classic George Gershwin song (from his 1935 opera Porgy and Bess) has been covered by many artists (allegedly there are 25,000 recordings), but I feel that Lady Ella’s version is pretty damn close to definitive.
Blue Cheer- “Summertime Blues” – Eddie Cochran wrote and performed it originally, and the Who did a great cover on Live at Leeds, but for sheer attitude, I’ve got to go with this proto-punk (some have argued, proto-metal) classic from 1968.
The Kinks- “Sunny Afternoon” – This poor guy. Taxman’s taken all his dough, girlfriend’s run off with his car…but he’s not going to let that ruin his summer: Now I’m sittin here/ sippin’ at my ice-cooled beer/ lazin’ on a sunny afternoon…
The Drifters- “Under the Boardwalk” – Kenny Young and Arthur Resnick wrote this iconic 1964 Top 10 hit, and Johnny Moore sings the lead tenor vocal. The group has a very strained and byzantine history (over 60 members since 1953), but its legacy is assured by the likes of this tune, “On Broadway”, “Save the Last Dance for Me”, “This Magic Moment”, “Dance With Me”, “Up on the Roof”, and many others.
Central Line- “Walking into Sunshine” – This jazz-funk outfit hailed from the UK and produced three albums from 1978-1984. This 1981 tune was a U.S. club hit.
The Beach Boys- “The Warmth of the Sun” – This song (featuring one of Brian Wilson’s most gorgeous melodies), appeared on the 1964 album Shut Down Vol 2. Atypically introspective and melancholy for this era of the band, it had an unusual origin story. Wilson and Mike Love allegedly began work on the tune in the wee hours of the morning JFK was assassinated; news of the event changed the tenor of the lyrics, as well as having an effect on the emotion driving the vocal performance.
An expert explains how The Meeting could have been an overture for an influence operation.
Rolf Mowatt-Larssen is the director of the Intelligence and Defense Project at Harvard’s Belfer Center. He served for three years as director of intelligence and counterintelligence at the Department of Energy and for 23 years as a CIA intelligence officer in domestic and international posts.
Donald Trump Jr. is seeking to write off as a nonevent his meeting last year with a Russian lawyer who was said to have damaging information about Hillary Clinton. “It was such a nothing,” he told Fox News’s Sean Hannity on Tuesday. “There was nothing to tell.”
But everything we know about the meeting — from whom it involved to how it was set up to how it unfolded — is in line with what intelligence analysts would expect an overture in a Russian influence operation to look like. It bears all the hallmarks of a professionally planned, carefully orchestrated intelligence soft pitch designed to gauge receptivity, while leaving room for plausible deniability in case the approach is rejected. And the Trump campaign’s willingness to take the meeting — and, more important, its failure to report the episode to U.S. authorities — may have been exactly the green light Russia was looking for to launch a more aggressive phase of intervention in the U.S. election.
Let’s start with the interlocutor: Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. When arranging the meeting, music promoter and Trump family acquaintance Rob Goldstone referred to a “Russian government attorney.” Both Veselnitskayaand the Kremlin have subsequently denied any association. What’s beyond dispute is that she has lobbied for the United States to repeal Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russian officials, that she regularly represents the interests of the Moscow regional government and that her clients include the vice president of state-owned Russian Railways.
My read, as someone who has been part of the U.S. intelligence community for more than four decades, is that Veselnitskaya is probably too well-connected to have independently initiated such a high-level and sensitive encounter. If she had, her use of known Trump and Kremlin associates (Aras and Emin Agalarov) to help make introductions and the suggestion, in Goldstone’s account, that she wanted to share “official documents and information” as “part of Russia and its government’s support” for Trump could have gotten her into significant trouble. Her efforts to meet Trump associates would have surely come to the attention of Russian authorities at some point, given Russian government email monitoring and other means of surveillance. The Kremlin would look harshly on someone going rogue in a manner that would surely damage ongoing Russian intelligence efforts related to the campaign.
The Post’s Ruth Marcus explains why Donald Trump Jr. is in legal jeopardy. Hint: stupidity is not a legal defense. (Adriana Usero, Kate Woodsome/The Washington Post)
A better explanation is that Veselnitskaya is far enough removed from Moscow’s halls of power to make her a good fit as an intermediary in an intelligence operation — as a “cut-out” with limited knowledge of the larger scheme and as an “access agent” sent to assess and test a high-priority target’s interest in cooperation. She may have had her own agenda going into the meeting: to lobby against the Magnitsky Act, which happens to affect some of her clients. But her agenda dovetailed with Kremlin interests — and it would have added another layer of plausible deniability. Russian intelligence practice is to co-opt such a person. News Friday that she was accompanied by Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian-American lobbyist who is reportedly suspected of having ties to Russian intelligence (which he denies), further bolsters this reading.
Trump Jr.’s assertion that Veselnitskaya didn’t deliver the promised dirt in that meeting is also consistent with how Russian intelligence operates. So, too, is Akhmetshin’s account that Veselnitskaya presented a document that she said suggested illegal payments to the Democratic National Committee, but told Trump Jr. that supporting evidence would require more research. Russia would have wanted to feel out the campaign before sharing its most prized material. Intelligence officers prefer to dip their toes in the water before taking a plunge. And it’s too risky to attempt a blunt approach to an extremely sensitive target (such as the son of the Republican front-runner for president), especially on hostile (in this case, American) soil.
Moreover, Russian intelligence presumably would not have risked passing high-value information through Veselnitskaya. As an untrained asset or co-optee — not a professional intelligence officer by any account — she would not have been entrusted with making a direct intelligence recruitment approach, including the passage of compromising information. Formalizing a relationship with the Trump campaign would be left for another day. If and when that day came, the pitch would be carried out by an experienced intelligence officer in favorable circumstances, with the right Trump associate and on friendly turf.
But even at the soft-pitch stage, standard Russian intelligence practice would require making clear what was on offer. The point is to test the target. Are they open to entering into a compromising relationship? Will they rebuff the mere suggestion of such impropriety? Will they alert authorities and thus stand in the way of Russian efforts?
And here, the deal should have been obvious to everyone. Moscow intended to discredit Clinton and help get Trump elected, and in exchange it hoped the Republican would consider its interests — in sanctions relief and otherwise. The Russian government appears to have signaled its direct involvement and real intention in advance of the meeting, presumably to avoid the possibility that its offer might be misconstrued, perhaps naively, as an innocent gesture of support and nothing more.
From the Russian perspective, the fact that Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting would have been the first promising sign. That veteran political operative Paul Manafort and senior adviser Jared Kushner showed up with him would have furthered the impression that there was strong interest in Russian assistance (and vulnerability to compromise) on the part of the campaign. But, according to standard espionage tradecraft, the most notable achievement of this encounter lay in the campaign’s failure to report it to the appropriate U.S. authorities — as Russia would have realized when there was no immediate, dramatic increase in U.S. counterintelligence scrutiny of its election-related operations.
We should be cautious about overestimating the significance of this episode in isolation. Russia may have extended other feelers to other Trump associates at other points in time. Indeed, the Steele dossier suggests that the Kremlin was trying to cultivate the Trumps as far back as 2011. But, based on the publicly available information, the June 2016 overture seems to have been a win for Russia. It helped set the stage for the possibility of subsequent contacts between Trump associates and witting agents of the Russian government. (Some of these contacts are now known; others, perhaps not.) And it would have allowed Russian intelligence to be comfortable initiating the next phase of its operation — systematically leaking information on Clinton and trying to penetrate the U.S. voting process — with the knowledge that the Trump campaign was interested in such Russian government assistance.
Although the Kremlin could have meddled without active or tacit approval from the campaign, having the campaign on board would have made the meddling more effective. For example, Russia could be sure that its actions would fit with Trump campaign strategy. Even Trump Jr.’s initial thought to drop the Clinton information later in the summer would be valuable for the Kremlin to know in terms of best timing.
Russia also would have wanted an implicit if not explicit agreement that intelligence assistance would be rewarded by a grateful Trump administration willing to relieve sanctions and embark on a more constructive relationship. The president presumably would not be nearly as willing to shift the long-standing, hard-line U.S. approach toward Russia — or its position on Ukraine, NATO and other issues — if he didn’t have a full appreciation for the Russian contribution to his election victory.
And after Russia’s overtures to the Trump campaign and the Trump campaign’s public denials that it had ever interacted with Russians, Vladimir Putin may have had the kompromat he needed to indirectly influence the Republican Party (such as the GOP platform on Ukraine) and Trump if he made it to the White House. The worst outcome would be that Trump would lose the election and, as a billionaire with global interests, still be a very useful ally for Putin.
Had this Russian overture been rejected or promptly reported by the Trump campaign to U.S. authorities, Russian intelligence would have been forced to recalculate the risk vs. gain of continuing its aggressive operation to influence U.S. domestic politics. Russian meddling might have been compromised in its early stages and stopped in its tracks by U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies before it reached fruition by the late fall.
So the suggestion that this was a nothing meeting without consequence is, in all likelihood, badly mistaken.
Obviously we have no idea if that’s what happened. But it’s plausible.
16 Things You Must Believe to Buy the ‘Witch Hunt’ Russia Narrative
One column cannot accommodate the list of things you must believe if you trust that Donald Trump is truly the victim of a baseless witch hunt. Consider this a mere stab.
That Donald Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner did nothing wrong by meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian offering dirt on Clinton. The emails requesting the meeting specifically mentioned a “Russian government attorney” and added that the requested meeting concerned “very high level and sensitive information” that “is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” That doesn’t prove a willingness to collude.
That concern about Paul Manafort’s extensive links with Putin’s former puppet in Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, including at least $12.7 million in payments, is, to quote Manafort’s words, “silly and nonsensical.”
That Jared Kushner’s attempt, during the transition, to secure a back channel with the Russian government using their secure communications equipment in the Russian embassy was not alarming/inexplicable.
That Donald Trump’s stubborn refusal ever to breathe a critical word about Vladimir Putin, even as he has freely criticized U.S. allies, or acknowledge Russian meddling in our election, is not strange.
That Michael Flynn’s firing after less than a month on the job was really just because he had misled Mike Pence.
That Donald Trump’s pressure on Comey to go soft on Flynn was purely a measure of loyalty/friendship from a person who has rarely shown those traits before.
That James Comey’s firing, at least according to evolving White House accounts, was due to his mishandling of the Hillary file, no wait, due to poor management of the FBI, which was suffering from low morale, um, no because of two factual errors Comey made in congressional testimony.Finally, that it was over the “Russia thing” but this only shows that Trump was an innocent man frustrated by Comey’s unwillingness to clear him publicly.
That it was irrelevant that Trump told the Russian ambassador and foreign minister in the Oval Office the day after Comey’s sacking that the FBI director was a “nut job” whose removal had relieved “great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” It’s pure coincidence that one of the only foreign-policy advisers on the Trump campaign was Carter Page, who was under FBI investigation for Russia ties. In Moscow, he gave a speech denouncing U.S. policy, saying, “Washington and other Western capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change.” Anti-anti-corruption isn’t disturbing. That White House objections to sanctions against Russia, which passed the Senate 98–2, are purely procedural.
That former Manafort partner and Trump surrogate Roger Stone, who boasted about links to WikiLeaks founder and America hater Julian Assange, and accurately predicted in August 2016 that John Podesta would be next “in the barrel,” was just lucky.
That statements by Eric and Donald Jr. about Russian financial ties are not revealing. Golf writer James Dodson quoted Eric as explaining in 2014 how the Trump organization was able to get financing for various golf courses even after the Great Recession. “Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia. We’ve got some guys that really, really love golf, and they’re really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time.” Donald Trump Jr., who also traveled to Russia frequently, spoke at a 2008 real-estate conference and noted that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” When Donald Trump stated that “I have zero investments in Russia,” he did not say that Russia had zero investments in him, but we should believe his other claim that “I have nothing to do with Russia.”
That Mr. Trump’s failure to release his tax returns, despite repeated promises to do so, is because he is under audit.
That it’s unremarkable that presidential spokeswoman Sarah Sanders refuses to say whether Russia is an adversary, a friend, or a nation about whom we should be wary.
That Donald Trump is the first president since 1949 to cast doubt on America’s commitment to NATO, but this is overdue and good for the U.S.
That Donald Trump’s obsessive attacks on “fake news” are not an attempt to inoculate himself against future revelations but just good old-fashioned, right-wing hatred of liberals.
That’s not from some bleeding heart liberal. It’s from Mona Charen in National Review.
