Skip to content

Month: August 2017

Loving the liar

Loving the liar

by digby

This story in the NY Times surveys the history of presidential lying, showing how we are now in a new era of mendacity:

On the theory that politicians who get caught in lies put their reputations at risk, Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College (and contributor to The New York Times’s Upshot) and some colleagues tried to study the effects of Mr. Trump’s misstatements during last year’s presidential campaign.

In a controlled experiment, researchers showed a group of voters a misleading claim by Mr. Trump, while another group saw that claim accompanied by “corrective information” that directly contradicted what Mr. Trump had said. The group that viewed the corrections believed the new information, but seeing it did not change how they viewed Mr. Trump.

“We know politicians are risk averse. They try to minimize negative coverage, and that negative coverage could damage their image over time,” Mr. Nyhan said. “But the reputational consequences of making false claims aren’t strong enough. They’re not sufficiently strong to dissuade people from misleading the public.”

Of course, lying to court voters is one thing, and lying to federal prosecutors quite another. When Rod Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois, was accused of a long list of federal corruption counts related to claims that he tried to sell Mr. Obama’s seat in the United States Senate, he was asked quite directly about lying.

While Mr. Blagojevich was testifying under oath, a prosecutor pressed him on whether he made a habit, as a politician, of lying to the public. They sparred over whether Mr. Blagojevich had fed a misleading story to a local newspaper.

“That was a lie,” the prosecutor, Reid Schar, was quoted as saying.

Mr. Blagojevich refused to fess up. “That was a misdirection play in politics,” he answered.

He was sentenced to a 14-year prison term in 2011.

Joel Sawyer, a Republican strategist in South Carolina, said there were two ways for a politician to deal with deceit.

“One is to never acknowledge it, which seems to have been employed pretty successfully by our current president,” Mr. Sawyer said. “The second is to rip the Band-Aid off and say: ‘I screwed up; here’s why. Give me another chance, and I won’t disappoint you again.’”

Mr. Sawyer worked for a politician — Mark Sanford, then the governor of South Carolina — who took the latter approach. On a June weekend in 2009, Mr. Sanford slipped out of the South Carolina capitol and flew to Buenos Aires to be with his lover, but told his staff that he had gone hiking on the Appalachian Trail. His aides, including Mr. Sawyer, unknowingly passed the lie on to reporters.

Mr. Sanford later apologized profusely. Voters eventually rewarded him; today he serves in Congress.

Many of Mr. Trump’s lies — like the time he boasted that he had made the “all-time record in the history of Time Magazine” for being on its cover so often — are somewhat trivial, and “basically about him polishing his ego,” said John Weaver, a prominent Republican strategist.

That mystifies Bob Ney, a Republican former congressman who spent time in prison for accepting illegal gifts from a lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, and lying to federal investigators about it. “It really baffles me why he has to feel compelled to exaggerate to exonerate himself,” Mr. Ney said.

But other presidential lies, like Mr. Trump’s false claim that millions of undocumented immigrants had cast ballots for his opponent in the 2016 election, are far more substantive, and pose a threat, scholars say, that his administration will build policies around them.

The glaring difference between Mr. Trump and his predecessors is the sheer magnitude of falsehoods and exaggerations; PolitiFact rates just 20 percent of the statements it reviewed as true, and a total of 69 percent either mostly false, false or “Pants on Fire.” That leaves scholars like Ms. Goodwin to wonder whether Mr. Trump, in elevating the art of political fabrication, has forever changed what Americans are willing to tolerate from their leaders.

“What’s different today and what’s scarier today is these lies are pointed out, and there’s evidence that they’re wrong,” she said. “And yet because of the attacks on the media, there are a percentage of people in the country who are willing to say, ‘Maybe he is telling the truth.’”

People believe what they want to believe. On some level many of Trump’s followers know he’s a con man. But he’s their con man. As long as he’s sticking it to the people they hate, they don’t care.

I don’t know where this all leads but it isn’t good.

.

Trump’s one true belief

Trump’s one true belief

by digby


This piece by Carol Anderson in the New York Times
about the policies of racism is really important, particularly in light of what the Trump administration is trying to accomplish:

White resentment put Donald Trump in the White House. And there is every indication that it will keep him there, especially as he continues to transform that seething, irrational fear about an increasingly diverse America into policies that feed his supporters’ worst racial anxieties.

If there is one consistent thread through Mr. Trump’s political career, it is his overt connection to white resentment and white nationalism. Mr. Trump’s fixation on Barack Obama’s birth certificate gave him the white nationalist street cred that no other Republican candidate could match, and that credibility has sustained him in office — no amount of scandal or evidence of incompetence will undermine his followers’ belief that he, and he alone, could Make America White Again.

The guiding principle in Mr. Trump’s government is to turn the politics of white resentment into the policies of white rage — that calculated mechanism of executive orders, laws and agency directives that undermines and punishes minority achievement and aspiration. No wonder that, even while his White House sinks deeper into chaos, scandal and legislative mismanagement, Mr. Trump’s approval rating among whites (and only whites) has remained unnaturally high. Washington may obsess over Obamacare repeal, Russian sanctions and the debt ceiling, but Mr. Trump’s base sees something different — and, to them, inspiring.

Like on Christmas morning, every day brings his supporters presents: travel bans against Muslims, Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Hispanic communities and brutal, family-gutting deportations, a crackdown on sanctuary cities, an Election Integrity Commission stacked with notorious vote suppressors, announcements of a ban on transgender personnel in the military, approval of police brutality against “thugs,” a denial of citizenship to immigrants who serve in the armed forces and a renewed war on drugs that, if it is anything like the last one, will single out African-Americans and Latinos although they are not the primary drug users in this country. Last week, Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions put the latest package under the tree: a staffing call for a case on reverse discrimination in college admissions, likely the first step in a federal assault on affirmative action and a determination to hunt for colleges and universities that discriminate against white applicants.

That so many of these policies are based on perception and lies rather than reality is nothing new. White resentment has long thrived on the fantasy of being under siege and having to fight back, as the mass lynchings and destruction of thriving, politically active black communities in Colfax, La. (1873), Wilmington, N.C. (1898), Ocoee, Fla. (1920), and Tulsa, Okla. (1921), attest. White resentment needs the boogeyman of job-taking, maiden-ravaging, tax-evading, criminally inclined others to justify the policies that thwart the upward mobility and success of people of color.

The last half-century hasn’t changed that. The war on drugs, for example, branded African-Americans and Latinos as felons, which stripped them of voting rights and access to housing and education just when the civil rights movement had pushed open the doors to those opportunities in the United States.

Similarly, the intensified war on immigrants comes, not coincidentally, at the moment when Latinos have gained visible political power, asserted their place in American society and achieved greater access to schools and colleges. The ICE raids have terrorized these communities, led to attendance drop-offs in schools and silenced many from even seeking their legal rights when abused.

The so-called Election Integrity Commission falls in the same category. It is a direct response to the election of Mr. Obama as president. Despite the howls from Mr. Trump and the Republicans, there was no widespread voter fraud then or now. Instead, what happened was that millions of new voters, overwhelmingly African-American, Hispanic and Asian, cast the ballots that put a black man in the White House. The punishment for participating in democracy has been a rash of voter ID laws, the purging of names from the voter rolls, redrawn district boundaries and closed and moved polling places.

There’s more. It’s not pretty.

The good news is that racism is dead. It’s such a relief.

Nice try, Mikey

Nice try, Mikey

by digby

He will never forget this. Never. No matter who obsequious, no matter how low you grovel, it will always be in his head that you are conniving behind his back.

Because you are. He knows it, you know it, we all know it:

Vice President Mike Pence on Sunday called rumors that he is working behind the scenes to run for president in 2020 “laughable and absurd.”

“The American people know that I could not be more honored to be working side by side with a president who is making America great again,” Pence said in a statement.

A New York Times report on Saturday said multiple advisers to Pence claimed he has been hinting to party donors that he is ready to run in 2020 if Trump does not.

Pence, the former governor of Indiana, has been keeping up a busy political schedule as vice president.

He has reportedly been courting influential donors, hosting events at his Naval Observatory residence.

The vice president also raised $1 million for his political action committee at an event last month, CNN reported.

“Whatever fake news may come our way, my entire team will continue to focus all our efforts to advance the president’s agenda and see him re-elected in 2020. Any suggestion otherwise is both laughable and absurd,” Pence said in the statement.

A White House spokeswoman shot back at the report that “potentially ambitious” Republican candidates should know “the president is as strong as he’s ever been” in the key election state of Iowa.

Pence’s spokesperson on Saturday dismissed the report, saying it is “noting more than wishful thinking by New York Times.”

The vice president in his statement called the report “disgraceful and offensive.”

“Today’s article in the New York Times is disgraceful and offensive to me, my family, and our entire team,” Pence said. “The allegations in this article are categorically false and represent just the latest attempt by the media to divide this Administration.”

Uh huh.

.

Pravda on the cheap

Pravda on the cheap

by digby

Fox and Friends are too critical so Donald Trump launched his own TV show yesterday:

Former CNN commentator Kayleigh McEnany hosted a flattering news segment on President Donald Trump’s Facebook page on Sunday, one day after she left the cable network.

“Thank you for joining us as we provide the news of the week from Trump Tower here in New York,” McEnany said at the top of a roughly 1.5-minute segment, called “News of the Week,” that was posted to Trump’s official Facebook page.

It’s unclear whether McEnany is being compensated by the Trump campaign, the Trump Organization, or another source. McEnany did not return a request for comment.

During the segment, McEnany touted the most recent jobs report and unemployment statistics, adding, “President Trump has clearly steered the economy back in the right direction.”

It was the second news-style segment posted to Trump’s Facebook page in the past week — the first was spearheaded by Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara. She similarly praised the president throughout her segment, and she ended by saying she had brought the “real news” to the American people.

Since the series launched, it has been compared to state-run media outlets in countries such as Russia and Syria, both notorious for their mistreatment of independent journalists and crackdowns on press freedom.

“Wow. Feels eerily like so many state-owned channels I’ve watched in other countries,” the former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul wrote.

Oh wait. Here’s the real one. Hard to tell the difference:

.

Presidential at last

Presidential at last

by digby

The new sheriff is making such a difference:

(Nicole turned out to be a bot.)

It’s all good now. The grown-ups are back in town.

Billabong’s story by @BloggersRUs

Billabong’s story
by Tom Sullivan

It has not been that long since Montana congressional candidate Greg Gianforte body-slammed journalist Ben Jacobs. So this bit of video from a health care rally at the Capitol Building has been eating at me for a couple of weeks.

The large fellow in the Billabong tee gets angry about The Opposition reporter Jordan Uhl filming him “celebrating a woman who survived cancer losing her health insurance.” But there is a 1st Amendment right to shoot video in a public space and a policeman is looking on. It’s not clear Billabong ever touched the reporter.

“First amendment right to film? Okay,” he sneers. “That’s what you’ve got, dude? Your First Amendment right to film? You’re a f#cking kid that’s never worked a day in your life,” he assumes, as his young son looks on. We too can assume: his young son has never worked a day in his life.

“And [you see] people like you are the reason this country sucks now, dude. Because you never worked in your whole life and you’re here recording me,” he continues. “I pay for all my employees’ health insurance, ’cause they actually work. F#ck you and everybody else here who just wants free sh*t and a free f#cking ride. Seriously. Bunch of lazy f#ckers.”

As if health insurance is free and people in the crowd aren’t already paying for it. And for 900 overseas military bases, the world’s premier air force, and 10-11 carrier strike groups, for that matter. But wanting to preserve government spending for health care? Free ride.

What’s striking besides the man’s underlying personal issues (and the upbringing his son is getting) is the presumption that the young reporter’s rights have not been earned. At least, through a work history Billabong recognizes as a work history. One suspects the same standard does not apply to his young son, but only to “takers,” to those insufficiently subservient to their elders, or to “lesser thans.” He’s not alone these days in questioning somebody’s citizenship by her/his perceived relative utility to the economy.

Welcome to the world of homo corporatus, where America’s founding beliefs take a back seat to economic utility. It is a far cry from unalienable rights “endowed by their Creator” to “never worked a day in your life.” In Real America, 1st Amendment rights, voting rights, etc. are provisional, contingent on a street-corner assessment of work history. Among the lowest capitalist castes, one’s work defines your worth. Among the highest, net worth does. Fritz Lang would recognize the culture. Those adapted to dystopia, maybe not.

Richard Eskow worries that “the Democratic Party’s rhetoric has been ‘Uberized’ by a creeping free-market ideology” like this. He writes at OurFuture.org the the party’s new “Better Deal” rhetoric, while an improvement, paints a picture of a future where workers “scrabble like crabs in a barrel for low-paying piece work – or worse, as with Uber, are pressured to go into debt for car loans they must assume in order to ‘compete.'” Ah, freedom. No wonder Billabong is so on edge.

Eskow writes:

Americans are a highly individualistic people in many ways. But we are also a nation with strong communitarian values. Those values can be found in our admiration for those who make sacrifices in times of war. They can be found in our willingness to help one another when disaster strikes. They can be seen in Fourth of July parades, or in clothing drives at the local fire station.

There is a yearning in this country – a yearning to belong to something greater than one’s self. Rather than asking workers to “compete” with each other, the new leaders of the American left should ask them to collaborate – in labor negotiations, in new forms of public service, in acts of selfless devotion to one another and the nation as a whole.

Who knows what Billabong’s story is? Maybe he has a severe case of last-place aversion, feels himself slipping down the socio-economic ladder, and needs someone to look down on to feel better about himself. But if his assessment of his neighbors’ worth is as bottom-line as it appears, no wonder he is so dissatisfied with the America he lives in.

Law? Meet jungle. Dog? Eat dog.

Kinda gets you right there don’t it?

* * * * * * * *

Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

Politics and Reality Radio w/Joshua Holland: Tax “Reform”; Circle’s Closing in on Trump; Medicaid-for-All?

Politics and Reality Radio: Will Tax “Reform” Be Disastrous for the GOP?; The Circle’s Closing in Around Trump; What About Medicaid-for-All?


by digby




This week, we’ll talk to Stan “The Budget Guy” Collender about the upcoming battles over tax reform, a new budget resolution and a debt ceiling hike. Collender, a columnist at Forbes, says that a divided GOP could end up self-immolating over all of this despite having unified control of government.

Then we’ll be joined by Lindsay Beyerstein, an award-winning journo and host of The Breach by ReWire, to talk about Trump’s hilarifying phonecalls to his counterparts in Mexico and Australia, and about the investigative noose that appears to be tightening around his White House.

Finally, we’ll be joined by Nevada Assemblyman Mike Sprinkle, who introduced a bill that would have allowed Nevadans to buy into his state’s Medicaid program. The measure was vetoed by Brian Sandoval, The Silver State’s Republican governor, but Sprinkle is planning on reintroducing it in the future. Well talk about some of the pros and cons of this idea.

Playlist (can you discern a theme?):
Joe Cocker: “Summer in the City”
Alan Jackson: “Summertime Blues”
Shaggy: “In the Summertime
DJ Jazzy Jeff and Fresh Prince: “Summertime”

As always, you can also subscribe to the show on iTunes, Soundcloud or Podbean.

They’re not directives. They’re just his hopes and dreams.

They’re not directives. They’re just his hopes and dreams.

by digby

Wingnut porn

Oh good:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Sunday said President Donald Trump has not given the Justice Department orders to investigate specific people of his choosing.

Asked on “Fox News Sunday” about Trump’s call on Thursday for federal prosecutors to investigate Hillary Clinton, Rosenstein said, “I can assure you that we are going to do the right thing and follow the rule of law.”

During a rally in West Virginia on Thursday night, Trump suggested that Clinton should be the one under investigation instead of his campaign.

“What the prosecutors should be looking at are Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 deleted emails,” Trump said.

“When he says, ‘here’s what prosecutors should be doing, they should be looking at Hillary Clinton,’ do you view that as an order?” Fox News’ Chris Wallace pressed Rosenstein.

“No, Chris. I view what the President says publicly as something he said publicly,” Rosenstein replied. “If the President wants to give orders to us in the department, he does that privately, and then if we have any feedback we provide it to him.”

“I can tell you the President has not directed us to investigate particular people,” he added. “That wouldn’t be right. That’s not the way we operate.”

Well that’s good. I’d hate to think that anyone would take this monster seriously.

NRA anti-elite “populism” is nothing new

NRA anti-elite “populism” is nothing new

by digby

Yes they have.  But it’s not new.

I wrote this some months ago:

Sixteen years ago when Al Gore won the popular vote but was denied the presidency due to the anachronism known as the Electoral College, Democrats tried to figure out how they could prevent such a weird anomalous result from happening again. As early as the day after the election, The New York Times was already laying the groundwork for describing Gore’s failure (although it would be many weeks before the result of that contested election became clear).

Vice President Gore had failed to spend enough time in his home state of Tennessee, it was said, opting instead to put resources into other toss-up states like Michigan and Wisconsin. But the real reason he lost was a grand geographical shift, according to the Times:

While Tennessee has moved to the right in national politics, Mr. Gore has moved to the left since his days as a congressman, particularly on issues like abortion and gun control that have put him at odds with many Southern voters.

Two years later when The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber addressed the question again, conventional wisdom was sealed. Scheiber reported that on the eve of the 2000 Democratic convention the Gore team had realized they had a big problem:

“The entire target of communication was Pennsylvania, western Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa. That’s the world Gore was trying to reach,” [pollster Stan] Greenberg recalls. Since these areas were chock-full of gun-toting union members, Team Gore decided that gun control would hurt the vice president in the states he needed most.

(It’s always something in those states, isn’t it?)

After the election, the Gore campaign’s hunch became Democratic gospel. Sure, Gore had won the Rust Belt battleground states, but the Democrats had lost their third straight bid to retake Congress — and many in the party believed gun control was to blame. In particular, they pointed to the election’s regional skew. In famously anti-gun California, the Dems knocked off three incumbents. But throughout the rest of the country, they defeated only one. “Of all the issues,” insists one senior Democratic congressman, gun control “had the greatest net [negative] effect.”

That “regional skew” is a real problem. By 2004 candidate John Kerry was running around in a hunting vest with a gun slung over his shoulder bragging about always eating what he killed — not that it did him any good. The fact that he was against the sale of assault-style weapons was assumed to have been the kiss of death when those white rural voters rejected him.

The need to move away from “culture war” issues like gun control, abortion and marriage equality was considered gospel during that period in the Democratic wilderness. Then came the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina and a teetering economy that caught up to the Republicans, and Democrats won big in 2008. The assumption then was that Barack Obama had managed to put together a new Democratic coalition that was not dependent on those rural whites who feared the loss of their guns so much they would vote against anyone who favored commonsense gun safety regulation.

We saw Democrats find their voices on the issue after a horrific spate of mass killings, particularly the horrifying 2012 Newtown tragedy, in which classrooms full of tiny children were mowed down by a disturbed young man with a semi-automatic weapon. It became a defining cause of the party, with President Obama taking the lead in pushing the issue and elected Democrats holding an unprecedented sit-in on Capitol Hill last spring to protest GOP inaction on guns.

During the George W. Bush years as well as the Obama years, the National Rifle Association was as active as ever. In 2000 when Bush finally prevailed in the vote, they were happy to help push the idea that his support for their cause was the defining issue of the election. The organization bragged that it would be working out of President Bush’s office in the White House and NRA influence grew throughout his tenure as the group put money and organizing behind gun-friendly politicians at all levels of government.

But perversely or otherwise, the NRA actually experiences more growth when a Democrat is in the White House and the organization has become more powerful than ever during the Obama years. As the gun-tracking news organization called the Trace has pointed out, the NRA did this with a “populist” PR approach that perfectly dovetailed with Donald Trump’s anti-establishment campaign. One might even suggest that Trump stole a lot of his shtick from the NRA.

In 2008, the NRA’s visionary leader Wayne LaPierre declared war on establishment elites saying that they “believe the same elite conceit — you shouldn’t protect yourself. Government should. But we know there’s a little problem with that. They don’t give a damn about you!” The Trace reported on LaPierre’s agenda:

Four years later, LaPierre expanded on the threats the elite posed to encompass free speech, religious liberty, even the ability of people to start small businesses or choose for themselves what kind of health care they want. Drug dealing illegal immigrants were being allowed to pour over the Southern border, he railed. Criminals in big cities were free to prey on innocents because judges were so lenient. “Not our issues, some might say.” He paused, and then countered: “Oh, but they are.”

In fact, the NRA has been pushing an anti-establishment message in one form or another since the mid-’90s. When candidate Trump came along, LaPierre understood that unlike what was the case for with the patrician Mitt Romney, Trump’s sometime apostasy on guns would be outweighed by his ability to sell pitchfork-wielding populism and thinly veiled calls for vigilantism.

So the NRA went all in for Trump and spent millions on ads bashing Hillary Clinton in places like Columbus, Ohio; Greensboro, North Carolina; and Scranton, Pennsylvania. (I wrote for Salon about the NRA’s first ad this past summer.) According to the Center for Public Integrity, nearly 1 out of 20 TV ads in Pennsylvania was paid for by the NRA, and the group ran nearly 15,000 spots in the crucial swing states that Trump narrowly won, deciding the election.

LaPierre has released a new video, taking a victory lap in which he fatuously declares, “Our time is now. This is our historic moment to go on offense.” First on the agenda is demanding that the federal government enforce “concealed-carry reciprocity,” whereby states would have to recognize permits to carry concealed weapons issued by other states, as if they were as benign as driver’s licenses. So much for federalism.

Most election postmortems have concluded that Democrats failed with non-college educated and rural white voters this time because of their economic message rather than guns or other culture-war issues. But perhaps that’s just the other side of the same coin. LaPierre and the NRA have a powerful understanding of what moves this constituency and they’ve been moving it in their direction for many years. The NRA has been selling anti-establishment Trumpism long before Trump came on the scene. It’s Wayne LaPierre’s win as much as Donald Trump’s.
Here’s what the NRA has been saying since the election:

.

Meanwhile in bizarroworld

Meanwhile in bizarroworld

by digby

From National Review:

From the moment Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, a plan was hatched to blame Russia for her historically epic loss and use it to hamstring Donald Trump’s presidency.

Always a hive-mind, Democrats in and out of the media could be counted on to do their parts, and they’ve done just that. But what started out as a few near-riot protests to keep their base angry has morphed into a slow-rolling coup.

The book “Shattered” documented how the Clinton campaign was not interested in an autopsy, it had a plan:

That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

From that, the idea that horrified Democrats during the campaign – that one of the participants would refuse to accept the election results – became an accepted, forgotten fact and the first salvo in what would become a sustained war against the duly-elected president.

Since that meeting, the media dutifully has gone over and above its duty to the cause. After eight years of slumber, print and cable news “journalists” became “woke” to the cause and blew past reporting to a level of propaganda activism that would make Leni Riefenstahl tell them to pump the brakes.

There has been enough embarrassment to go around, but none have beclowned themselves more than CNN’s Jim Acosta. He spent a month whining about not having the cameras on in the press briefing room to capture his antics and add to his sizzle reel so he could get his own show. Then, he showed himself to be the Forrest Gump of the press pool when he equated a poem written to raise money to build the base of the Statue of Liberty with actual law. He then proceeded to congratulatehimself, repeatedly, for his performance.

But the media isn’t just a clown show of correspondents fumbling basic facts and shunning logic in its progressive pursuit of a new Nixon. It’s the PR wing of the Democratic Party’s “resistance.” No story is too absurd, no leak too damaging to the nation’s security not to publish. After years of repeating Obama administration spoon-fed talking points, they media now gleefully reports anything that might damage the Trump administration for that sake alone.

The Washington Post published complete transcripts of President Trump’s phone conversations with the president of Mexico and the prime minister of Australia. There was no news value in them; they simply took out portions to present out-of-context to embarrass the president. That was enough for the Post to stop its presses, but it is a decision that will do real damage to the presidency and the country.

What world leader would have a candid or sensitive conversation with any president if there’s a possibility, and in the case of Trump a probability, of their words appearing in print at some point? Information will not be conveyed thanks to the Post, which couldn’t care less because it got clicks.

There has been a wiping aside of journalistic standards in the pursuit of Trump, with many stories needing corrections and even retractions. All that’s missing is the shame, but that’s nowhere to be found.

On top of all this, the former FBI Director James Comey leaked information to the media for the express purpose of damaging the president. Even if you think he didn’t deserve to be fired for his job performance, that he is the type of person who would do that is evidence he should’ve been shown the door.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, kindred spirit and close friend of the former FBI director, has picked up where Comey left off in investigating the president and, apparently, anyone ever associated with him.

With a small staff of only a few dozen lawyers and FBI agents, this man, routinely described by journalists and DC insiders as having the highest integrity, is overseeing an office leaking like a popped water balloon. He could stop them, if he wanted to, but information about his office not being in the news doesn’t hamper the president, so…

Meanwhile, every news outlet repeatedly covers every rumor as if it a.) matters, and b.) is true. How many times have you seen Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff on TV? His existence is to imply the hell out of wrongdoing by the White House, then retreat to his safe space of “I can’t comment on that” when pressed for specifics or proof. He literally brings nothing beyond narrative-enforcing spin, and the media treats interviews with him as important and his words like he’s a burning bush.

All of this is done to hinder President Trump’s ability to get anything done.

In typical fashion, spineless Republican leaders are keeping their distance and shying away from calling garbage what it is.

Republicans have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to pass legislation they’ve sworn they ran for office to pass – on health care, taxes, immigration, regulatory reform, shrinking government, the budget, you name it. And they’ve done next to nothing – aside from playing along with the attacks on Trump or remaining silent.

It makes you wonder what the point of winning was. Because it sure wasn’t to stand idly by while the left-wing political and media machine pinned down the president.

I don’t know what Mueller may or may not find. It’s impossible to know what people with virtually unlimited means can find when they set their minds to finding something no matter what.

And I don’t know what the next media story will be – it’s impossible to predict the future when people are less bound by reality than a narrative. Whatever ends up happening there, one thing is for sure – the “resistance,” as it likes to call itself, is conducting a coordinated, slow-rolling coup against President Donald Trump.

The story won’t be that Trump was forced from office so much as it will be that Republicans let it happen. Which is just what the Democrats were counting on.

There you have it.

Lock her up.

.