Skip to content

Month: October 2017

Claude Rains, please come to the white courtesy phone

Claude Rains, please come to the white courtesy phone

by digby

I don’t know about you but I am shocked, I tell you , shocked about this:

Following the attack, Slide Fire, a company that manufactures Bump Stocks, posted on its website the approval letter it received from ATF in 2010 allowing it to sell the devices. Since the letter was posted, several conservative outlets — and eventually the NRA — have pushed the fact that the device was approved during the Obama years.

And they’re all correct — but Slide Fire appears to have misled the agency about the intended purpose of producing bump stocks.

In the approval letter, ATF writes, “Your letter advises that the stock…is intended to assist persons whose hands have limited mobility to ‘bump-fire’ an AR-15 rifle.”

Wednesday about the approval of the bump stocks, which he said the ATF approved because they’re “a piece of shit,” but also noted that the inference in Slide Fire’s application was that the device would be used to help disabled veterans.

“[This] has nothing to do with wounded vets,” Chipman said. “It’s a total scam.”

But conservative outlets — and now the NRA — have run with the talking point anyway.

I think we’ve found the answer to this particular issue. As it was always intended, bump stocks will be legal only for veterans disabled with hand injuries.

Can we move along to legalizing silencers and getting reciprocal open carry done now.  After all, the NRA has been ever so cooperative. Don’t they deserve a little something in return?

.

Haven’t we had enough storms recently?

Haven’t we had enough storms recently?

by digby

Looking for trouble

What the hell is he talking about? Did he forget he’s president and thought he was making a promo for The Apprentice? I hope so because otherwise this is extremely worrying.

After discussing Iran and North Korea with U.S. military leaders on Thursday, President Donald Trump posed for a photo with them before dinner and declared the moment “the calm before the storm.”

“You guys know what this represents?” Trump said after journalists gathered in the White House state dining room to photograph him and first lady Melania Trump with the uniformed military leaders and their spouses.

“Maybe it’s the calm before the storm,” he said.

What storm?

“You’ll find out,” Trump told questioning reporters.

Classical music played in the background and tables were set in the nearby Blue Room for a fancy meal.

The White House did not immediately reply to a request to clarify Trump’s remark.

Earlier in the evening, while seated with the top defense officials in the cabinet room, Trump talked about the threat from North Korea and preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

“In North Korea, our goal is denuclearization,” he said. “We cannot allow this dictatorship to threaten our nation or our allies with unimaginable loss of life. We will do what we must do to prevent that from happening. And it will be done, if necessary, believe me.”

During his speech to the United Nations General Assembly last month, Trump said the United States would “totally destroy” North Korea if needed to defend itself or U.S. allies.

The president on Thursday also had tough words for Iran, saying the country had not lived up to the spirit of an agreement forged with world powers to curb its nuclear program.

A senior administration official said on Thursday

that Trump was expected to announce soon he would decertify the landmark agreement.

Trump has filled top posts within his administration with military generals, including his chief of staff, retired General John Kelly, and national security adviser, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster. McMaster, who normally dresses in civilian clothes at the White House, wore his uniform for the meeting.

Without being specific, Trump pressed the leaders to be faster at providing him with “military options” when needed.

“Moving forward, I also expect you to provide me with a broad range of military options, when needed, at a much faster pace. I know that government bureaucracy is slow, but I am depending on you to overcome the obstacles of bureaucracy,” he said during their cabinet room meeting.

What’s he saying? I want a war and I want it now?

Jesus Christ …

.

We are two countries

We are two countries
by digby

I wrote about the latest study on partisan polarization for Salon this morning:

The last five days of horrified shock in the wake of the carnage in Las Vegas last Sunday night have revived the debate over gun safety in this country — at least for a few days, until our attention turns elsewhere. Right now it appears there is some willingness to talk about regulating the “bump stock” device that allowed the shooter to make his semiautomatic weapons fire as fast as a machine gun, which is a modest concession. The NRA stepped up to the plate to suggest that their good friends at the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives write up some new rules. So who knows, maybe it will actually happen.

I wouldn’t hold my breath. If there’s one issue that always exposes the deep divide in his country, it’s guns. In fact, it may be the most polarizing issue of all. According to the New York Times’ Upshot, Americans may be “deeply split along demographic lines, but there aren’t many demographic characteristics that embody America’s cultural divide better than gun ownership.” Polling by Survey Monkey after the election found that:

Over all, gun-owning households (roughly a third in America) backed Mr. Trump by 63 percent to 31 percent, while households without guns backed Mrs. Clinton, 65 percent to 30 percent. … No other demographic characteristic created such a consistent geographic split.

After every massacre that isn’t perpetrated by a Muslim (in which our attention is always focused on the motive, not the act itself) we go through this ritual of pretending as if the latest bloodletting will somehow bridge this cultural chasm. It never does. The gun divide represents deeper divisions that are only getting worse.

The Pew Poll released a new study this week on partisanship and values that suggests the gap between Democrats and Republicans is only getting wider on issues of race, immigration, the role of government and even things as basic as how and where we choose to live. Both parties are developing an acute hostility toward the other and are becoming more ideologically consistent.

The poll first started asking 10 specific questions about political values 23 years ago and at the time there was a 15 point difference between the two parties. In 2014 it was 33 points. Today it’s up to 36. But it’s in the specifics that the survey data is most revealing.

For instance, people were asked to choose which sentence they agreed with more: “The government should do more to help needy Americans, even if it means going deeper into debt,” or “The government today can’t afford to do much more to help the needy.” From the beginning, Democrats have always been more likely to choose the first sentence, but both parties have generally moved together depending on economic circumstances.

In 2007, 77 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of Republicans believed the needy should be helped. In 2011, as the economy was still pulling out of the Great recession, those numbers had fallen to 54 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of Republicans. It was roughly the same divide. But something’s changed in the last few years. In 2017, 71 percent of Democrats think government should help the needy, but Republicans haven’t budged. Even with the improving economy only 24 percent of GOP think the government should do more.

In other words, 23 years ago the gap between the two parties on this issue was 21 points. It’s now 47 points.

This shift is nearly as stark on the question of race. In the current survey, 41 percent say that racial discrimination is the reason African Americans have a hard time getting ahead, while 49 percent say they are personally responsible if they cannot advance. That 41 percent is the highest number recorded in the survey’s history, and that shift is entirely because Democrats views have changed dramatically.

In 1994 when that questions was first asked, the survey found that 39 percent of Democrats believed that racial discrimination was a determinant, while only 24 percent of Republicans agreed. Today that gap has grown from 15 points to 50: About 64 percent of Democrats say discrimination is a primary factor, while just 14 percent of Republicans agree.

The two parties have always differed on economics but today the Democrats are much more aligned, with 82 percent agreeing that our economic system unfairly benefits powerful interests. Among Republicans, 50 percent say the system is fair to most Americans while 46 percent disagree. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans believe that people can get ahead if they work hard, while 49 percent of Democrats agree. Interestingly, college-educated white Democrats are even less likely than African-Americans and Hispanics to believe hard work is no guarantee of success.

The divide between the parties has grown wider over time but it’s accelerated recently — and that’s largely because Democrats are becoming more liberal. (I’m tempted to say that it would be impossible for Republicans to get any more conservative, but that’s clearly not true.) The survey doesn’t address the question of why that’s happening, but I’d guess some of it has to do with the age demographics of the two parties. The millennial generation is much more likely to be Democratic and also much more liberal. Republicans are aging and getting more conservative.

But mostly I think it’s that conservatives and liberals have finalized the realignment that began back in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement and the GOP’s cynical “Southern strategy” changed the two parties’ centers of gravity. Both parties are now more ideologically and culturally homogeneous than they’ve ever been in the modern era.

Whatever the reasons for this deepening ideological division, it will make this political period exceptionally difficult. The American system has a bad track record in dealing with intense polarization, as a look back at the decades before the Civil War will tell you. Many of the fundamental issues that animate the divide today are similar to those that splintered the nation back in the 1850s. Indeed, they have never been fully settled, and one symptom of that is the election of the most openly racist president in a century.

The good news is that there are more Democrats and Democratic leaners than there are Republicans, and they are moving in a more liberal direction. The bad news is that most of them live in metropolitan areas and the most populous states, and our electoral system was constructed to favor rural areas and small states, which are now the geographic centers of the most reactionary elements of the Republican base — including gun culture. American politics are going to be turbulent for some time to come.

.

The Nobama strategy by @BloggersRUs

The Nobama strategy
by Tom Sullivan

For many Republicans in Congress, their antipathy for President Obama’s legacy is strategic, their politics zero-sum. They decided the night of his inauguration to fight every Obama policy. If he was for it, they were against it. For the sitting president, it is personal:

For months, officials in Republican-controlled Iowa had sought federal permission to revitalize their ailing health-insurance marketplace. Then President Trump read about the request in a newspaper story and called the federal director weighing the application.

Trump’s message was clear, according to individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations: Tell Iowa no.

Other states trying to find ways to prop up their insurance markets and save the taxpayers money have been similarly rebuffed, according to the Washington Post report. The Health and Human Services Department has slashed funds to support new applicants and cut the enrollment period in half. Oh, and provided less funds for advertising and scheduled more down-time for the website.

HHS spokesman Matt Lloyd said in an email last week, “Obamacare has never lived up to enrollment expectations despite the previous administration’s best efforts.” Whether or not that is true, the current administration is not lifting a finger to make it easier to enroll.

It is part of a pattern with the legacy of the previous administration. He objects vehemently to the Iran nuclear agreement and threatens now to decertify it. Other UN leaders have tried to dissuade him to no avail, leaving them distrusting the U.S. as a negotiating partner. In his mind, the agreement is an “embarrassment” and “the worst deal ever negotiated,” although he shows little sign of knowing (or caring) what is in it.

Sometimes it is enough for the sitting president to get a symbolic win against his predecessor. Nancy LeTourneau at Political Animal writes:

Two months ago, Congress passed a bill that imposed new sanctions on Iran, as well as Russia and North Korea. As of yet, the administration has taken no steps to implement them. If Trump’s objection to the Iran agreement had anything to do with a policy that embraced the use of sanctions against that country, why has he failed to impose those that Congress has already approved?

At this point, it is impossible to put together a rationale for Trump’s behavior on this issue other than that he simply wants to do whatever he can to destroy this legacy achievement of the Obama administration.

She concludes:

Remember how often Trump critiqued the Bush administration for lying us into the war in Iraq (even though he supported it at the time)? The president is now engaged in an overt strategy that, at minimum, will destabilize the Middle East, isolate us from our allies, and ensure that no country will trust our diplomatic efforts. At worst, it could lead to a military confrontation with Iran. Since he has given us no rationale for why he is doing that, it is clear that Trump is willing to risk it all in order to negate Obama’s legacy. That is the smallness of the man who currently occupies the White House.

I would be remiss not to point to a post from Michelle Goldberg, the new columnist this week at the New York Times. Noting how the sitting president displayed “flagrant incompetence” in relief efforts in Puerto Rico, Goldberg describes him as “a nasty showbiz huckster whose own staffers speak of him as if he were a malevolent toddler.”

In the tradition of the Republican leaders who vowed to make Obama a one-term president, he must break what he cannot build or improve.

* * * * * * * *

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

He was a very, very bad boy

He was a very, very bad boy

by digby

I’m just going to post a bit of Dana Milbanks’ piece today:

See Rex.

Rex is a big dog. Rex is the top dog. Rex has a good job. Rex can fly! Rex has a jet. Fly, Rex, fly. Rex flies to other lands. Rex sits. Rex shakes. Rex speaks. When Rex speaks, Rex thinks he speaks for the U.S.A.

See Donald. Donald owns Rex. Rex is Donald’s dog. Donald is loud. Donald is big. Donald is bigger than Rex. Donald is mean to Rex. When Rex speaks, Donald tweets. Donald tweets like a bird. Tweet, Donald, tweet. Donald’s tweets hurt Rex. Donald says: Bad, Rex! Do not speak, Rex. Rex, you do not speak for the U.S.A. Only Donald speaks for the U.S.A.

Rex rolls over. Roll, Rex, roll. Good boy. Rex tells Donald he will not be a bad dog again. Rex tries. Rex tries hard. Rex tries very hard. But then Rex forgets. Rex thinks he speaks for the U.S.A. again. Donald gets mad again. Donald tweets again. Rex rolls over again.

Rex is so sad. Rex wants to cry. Rex was a big boss once. He dug for oil. Dig, Rex, dig. Rex made a lot of bones. But Donald said: Do not dig, Rex. Come be my dog.

Rex began to think. I will not dig for oil, Rex said. I will not make so many bones. I will be Donald’s dog.

Now Rex is sorry. Sad, sad, Rex.

Rex flies to China. Rex speaks. Rex says the U.S.A. will talk to Rocket Man. “Would you like to talk?” Rex asks. “We can talk to them. We do talk to them.” Talk, Rex, talk.

Oh no! Donald is mad at Rex. Donald tweets. Donald says Rex is “wasting his time.” Donald says he will not talk “with Little Rocket Man.” Donald tweets, “Save your energy, Rex.” Rex has been bad! Rex does not speak for the U.S.A. Rex whimpers. Rex is in the doghouse.

[…]

Donald likes other dogs better than Rex. Donald lets them work with him in the White House. They are small dogs. They laugh at Rex. Rex says people in the U.S.A. should “sleep well.” Rex says they should not worry about Rocket Man. The other dogs yip. They yap. They say: Rex does not speak for the U.S.A. Roll over, Rex, they say. Rex rolls over.

What did you say, Donald? Donald will send Rex to a farm? Donald will put Rex to sleep?

See Rex run. Run, Rex, run!

Poor Rex.

.

A goofy little doodad

A goofy little doodad

by digby

The molded piece of plastic or metal — a ‘bump stock,’ as it has become known to assault-rifle enthusiasts — harnesses a gun’s natural recoil, allowing it to bounce back and forth off a shooter’s trigger finger and unleash up to 100 rounds in seven seconds, according to an ad for one of the devices.

“It’s a goofy, little doodad,” said Rick Vasquez, the former firearms official who first signed off on a recommendation that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives need not regulate the devices.

As Vasquez reasoned, the invention did not technically alter a gun’s trigger mechanism, as earlier attempts had, with springs, hydraulics or electric current. So it did not infringe on a law that bans the sale of machine guns manufactured after 1986 and restricts the sale of those made before then.

Police found 12 weapons with bump-fire stocks in the shooter’s hotel room. These devices can be used to make semi-automatic weapons perform like machine guns.

Functionally, however, weapons experts say, the increasingly popular bump stock has allowed even novice gun-owners to easily modify a legal semiautomatic rifle into one that resembles a battlefield machine gun.

“It’s for those guys who want to look like super ninja when they’re out on the range — they’re the people my peer group makes fun of,” Vasquez, a former Marine, said Wednesday, returning from a firearm instruction course he conducted in South Carolina. “If you want a machine gun, join the Marines.”

Federal law enforcement officials said that gunman Stephen Paddock fired weapons outfitted with bump stocks, a dozen of which were found in his hotel suite. Audio of the attack, experts said, makes clear that the shooter unleashed a torrent of bullets faster than he could have fired manually.

[…]

The National Rifle Association declined to comment on the use of the devices in the Las Vegas attack, or on Feinstein’s proposed legislation. Two attorneys for the most prominent bump stock manufacturer, Slide Fire, which received the favorable 2010 ATF decision, also declined to comment.

The Slide Fire website on Wednesday said the device was out of stock “due to extreme high demands.”

Of course. Gun stocks are way up this week too.

Bang, bang, shoot, shoot By Dennis Hartley

Bang, bang, shoot, shoot

By Dennis Hartley

(In light of the tragedy in Las Vegas, I am re-posting this piece from February 16th of this year).

Oh, boy. From The Washington Times:

Congress on Wednesday approved the first gun rights bill of the new Republican-controlled Washington, voting to erase an Obama administration regulation that would have forced Social Security to scour its lists and report some of its beneficiaries to the firearms no-buy list.
The Senate approved the bill on a 57-43 vote. The House cleared the legislation earlier this month.
If President Trump signs the bill into law as expected, it will expunge a last-minute change by the Obama administration designed to add more mental health records to the national background check system that is meant to keep criminals and unstable people from obtaining weapons. 

The previous administration had proposed requiring Social Security to search its records and report people receiving disability benefits or supplemental income payments and who had someone else managing their finances, deeming them “mental defectives” who shouldn’t be able to buy firearms. Republicans said that trampled on Second Amendment rights by casting too wide a net.
“It results in reporting people to the gun ban list that should not be on that list at all,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican and chief sponsor of the effort to repeal the Obama rule. “It deprives those people [of] their constitutional rights and, in a very important way, violates their constitutional rights without even due process.”

Oh, I see…it’s just those “compassionate conservatives” selflessly looking out for the interests of Americans with disabilities; standing up for their rights. At least when the Second Amendment is in peril. Because, as you know, they’ve always been there for those folks:



Good times!

This development strikes me as particularly odious, coming as it does hot on the heels of PBS’ February 14 broadcast premiere of Tower, a harrowing documentary recounting the 1966 mass shooting at the University of Texas. Over an agonizing hour and a half period, a deranged sniper who had stationed himself on the observation deck of the UT Tower, methodically picked off nearly 50 people-killing 16 and wounding 3 dozen. He still had plenty of ammo left when two Austin policeman and a hastily deputized civilian were able to make their way to the top and take him out.

Last June, in a piece I wrote about the Orlando nightclub mass shooting, I pointed to the 1966 incident as a sad marker for America:

But there is something about [Orlando] that screams “Last call for sane discourse and positive action!” on multiple fronts. This incident is akin to a perfect Hollywood pitch, writ large by fate and circumstance; incorporating nearly every sociopolitical causality that has been quantified and/or debated over by criminologists, psychologists, legal analysts, legislators, anti-gun activists, pro-gun activists, left-wingers, right-wingers, centrists, clerics, journalists and pundits in the wake of every such incident since Charles Whitman perched atop the clock tower at the University of Texas and picked off nearly 50 victims (14 dead and 32 wounded) over a 90-minute period. That incident occurred in 1966; 50 years ago this August. Not an auspicious golden anniversary for our country. 50 years of this madness. And it’s still not the appropriate time to discuss? What…too soon?

All I can say is, if this “worst mass shooting in U.S. history” (which is saying a lot) isn’t the perfect catalyst for prompting meaningful public dialogue and positive action steps once and for all regarding homophobia, Islamophobia, domestic violence, the proliferation of hate crimes, legal assault weapons, universal background checks, mental health care (did I leave anything out?), then WTF will it take?
(sigh) I have to ask again. WTF will it take? BTW, here is what it “took” for President Obama to lobby for the regulation that has just been overturned:

But thank God the 2nd Amendment got through all this unscathed!

Dennis Hartley

Meanwhile, the crusade against women continues

Meanwhile, the crusade against women continues


by digby


Amanda Marcotte gets us up to speed on the latest assault on women’s fundamental human rights. I’m fairly sure most people don’t care but it will be a big deal for women who are forced to endure pregnancy and childbirth to deliver children with fatal anomalies or harm their own health, all to appease people who believe that potential humans are always more important than the full humans within whom they gestate.

Anyway, here’s the latest:


In the endless chaos of the Trump-era news cycle, reproductive rights activists owe a small debt of gratitude to Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania. Not because he did anything good, mind you. Murphy, like most of the Republican delegation to Congress, has no regard for the well-being of any humans outside of the GOP donor class. No, it’s because Murphy’s behavior has been so outrageous that it helped bring attention to congressional malfeasance that might not have otherwise caught much media attention. 

Murphy is one of the co-sponsors of a bill that would ban abortions after the 20th week that House Republicans, 98% of whom are men, passed on Tuesday night. This was mere hours after the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Murphy’s former mistress, Shannon Edwards, castigated him for posting anti-choice messages on Facebook shortly after encouraging her to abort a possible pregnancy that resulted from their extramarital affair. 

The story helped draw much-needed media attention to the fact that Republicans are once again trying to deny women the kind of health care that allows women to have the kind of sex that Republican men clearly enjoy. The word “hypocrite” got a lot of mileage in subsequent coverage, an understandable choice under the circumstances. 

But the grim truth is that what Murphy and other Republicans are doing with this 20-week ban is far uglier than garden-variety hypocrisy. This bill is, at its core, about promoting a vicious and misogynist stereotype about sexually active women: That they’re dumb, lazy or oversexed and therefore don’t deserve either health care or sympathy.

Sadly, this view of women is entirely consistent with Murphy’s treatment of his former mistress, a woman he talked down to as if she were dumb. In the text messages to her that have been released, Murphy tries to play off his anti-abortion Facebook message as if it were some kind of staff error, as if he didn’t have a long and easily verifiable history of undermining women’s reproductive rights

To be clear, Republicans are smart enough to pretend that the 20-week ban is not about demonizing women. The official excuse for this bill is some fake science about “fetal pain” that persists despite repeated debunking, in no small part because it wasn’t offered up in good faith in the first place. 

The real value in these 20-week abortion bans is propagandistic. Getting the phrase “20-week abortion” into the news cycle helps perpetuate the notion both that these kinds of abortions are common and that women who get abortions are lazy or thoughtless. This notion is flat-out false and downright defamatory. 

“It’s important for people to understand that people aren’t just having late-term abortions because they feel like it. There’s usually a very good reason for it,” Missouri resident Rachel Goldberg told Salon. 

Goldberg should know: She had an abortion at 26 weeks after enduring multiple medical tests and weeks of waiting to determine that the fetus growing inside her had serious defects that also threatened her own health.
“They had trouble finding his stomach,” Goldberg said of her ultrasound. “There were other organs they had trouble finding or that were underdeveloped.”

“The only reason I would continue the pregnancy was because I wanted the baby and not because I felt like my son would have a good quality of life,” she continued. “I felt like I was just going to ask my son to suffer for my own selfish reasons, and that was something that we couldn’t really ask him to do for us.”
The reality is that abortion after 20 weeks is not common at all. More than 98 percent of women who get abortions have the procedure done before that point — and 89 percent of women get the abortion in the first 12 weeks. Many women who abort that late, like Goldberg, have serious health reasons for doing so. Others are enduring difficult or even traumatic situations that cause them to show up at the doctor’s office halfway through a pregnancy. 

A 2013 study published in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health by researchers Dr. Diana Foster and Dr. Katrina Kimport found that women who abort that late often had logistical problems — frequently financial in nature — that prevented earlier abortions, or had mental health issues or were in high-stress and often abusive relationships. 

When women need an abortion around 20 weeks but can’t get one, they often end up “tethered to violent men, and they’re also more likely to be in poverty,” Dr. Sarah Roberts of the University of California, San Francisco, explained to Salon. more …

Yeah well, they obviously deserve it.

As with unfettered gun rights the anti-abortion crusaders will never give up. They are engaged in a hundred year war if that’s what it takes. I don’t even think they know why they’re doing it anymore. It’s just what they do.

This issue is considered “identity politics” at the moment so it’s unlikely that we’ll be seeing the kind of opposition that’s required to beat these incremental degradations of fundamental human rights. Unfortunately, this is one issue which economic determinism is inadequate to address.  If your fetus has a fatal anomaly, money can’t fix it. If your husband beats the crap out of you, income redistribution is probably not going help. There is more to the human experience than greed and avarice.

Hopefully we will find room on our list of concerns to beat this back. The gratuitous misery it’s going to cause for women and their families who are already in terrible distress is just cruel and inhuman.

.

“Collusion is still an open question”

“Collusion is still an open question”

by digby
Yesterday President Trump flew to Las Vegas to meet with victims and first responders to the massacre on Sunday night and didn’t make a total fool of himself. As awful as the occasion was, it was actually his best day in quite some time. At the very least, he was undoubtedly happy to be out of Washington, where the big news of the day was that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had reportedly called him a “fucking moron” after a meeting last summer at the Pentagon, where the brass had to give their commander in chief remedial lessons on geography and elementary American history. Tillerson raced before the cameras to assure the nation that the president is “smart,” but did not deny his previous remarks. Trump dismissed it all as fake news, but on some level he surely knows it wasn’t.

Another unpleasant event, from Trump’s point of view, unfolded Wednesday on Capitol Hill, where the Senate Intelligence Committee called a press conference to give a “progress report” on the Russia investigation. Politico reported that GOP agitation has been building over the fact that there are three separate investigations, and leaders have been leaning on the committee chairs to wrap it up. The article quoted a number of Trump loyalists complaining about Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell’s lax discipline in failing to rein in congressional probes which they saw as hampering the president’s ability to get things done. These Republicans believe the investigations offer Democrats platforms to raise questions that strike at the legitimacy of the 2016 election, which is absolutely true. This is, of course, because the investigations keep turning up new evidence that strikes at the legitimacy of the 2016 election.

Needless to say, this sort of complaint is pretty rich coming from the Republican Party, which spent years and many millions of dollars investigating the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, despite each one of those eight investigations turning up little evidence of anything nefarious. By way of comparison, there have only been seven investigations of terrorist attacks against Americans over the past 20 years and zero investigations into the numerous attacks on embassies over the same period. Yet from 2012 to 2015, five different committees held dramatic televised public hearings that were clearly designed to damage the reputation of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as she prepared to run for president.

Recall House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy letting the cat out of the bag:

Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.

He couldn’t have made their strategy any plainer.

But the real issue with the Russia probes has little to do with the Democrats. This is part of Steve Bannon’s ongoing crusade to take down the GOP leadership and prove his king-slayer bona fides to the GOP base. In an interview on Fox News, Bannon explicitly framed the investigations as personal assaults on the president, saying, “Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan have allowed three investigative committees on Capitol Hill with full subpoena power, they’re going after President Trump every day.”

So far, most GOP officials are counting on their fellow Republicans to protect the president from harm, but some are frustrated that the committees haven’t used that subpoena power to go after Clinton or further probe former FBI Director James Comey for what they see as his protective behavior toward her. (I’m not kidding.) They seem to think that Democrats would never be a party to investigating a Democratic president because, as one congressman said, “My friends on the other side of the aisle, they view almost everything through a political lens and Republicans don’t seem to do that as well.” It’s possible he actually believes that.

But as much as this sounds like just more GOP intrigue, The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent reported that Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr was taking this criticism seriously. Apparently Burr is even feeling the pressure from his own base in North Carolina and had proposed that his committee issue an “interim report” on its findings so far, in hopes of quelling some of the party’s nervousness. Democrats successfully talked him out of that, and they settled on holding the press conference to update the public and take questions. It turns out to have been a mixed bag for the president.

Burr appeared with his Democratic ranking member, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, and contradicted the president, saying that Russian interference in the election was very serious. He implored the government at all levels to launch an urgent effort to prevent it from happening again. Burr said the committee was closing the book on James Comey and referred all further questions to special counsel Robert Mueller. He also claimed the investigation had “hit a wall” with the infamous “Steele dossier,” because they had been unable to question its author, former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. (He has refused to speak with partisan investigators.) Burr also said that the issue of collusion is still an open question, which is surely the area of greatest danger for Donald Trump and his inner circle.

Burr signaled his loyalty to the president, on the other hand, by refusing to contradict Trump’s insistence that the scandal is a hoax or acknowledging that Russian interference may have affected the election results. Most absurdly, he would not admit that the Russian effort was clearly designed to help Trump, insisting that it was only an operation to sow chaos. Apparently it’s just a coincidence that none of the ads, social media campaigns or hacking operations disadvantaged Trump in any way.

Warner pointedly said that the committee would love to wrap things up but that evidence about Donald Trump Jr.’s infamous meetings with Russians, or news that Trump sought Russian government cooperation to build a hotel in Moscow while he was campaigning for president, made that difficult. Burr, standing next to him, ruefully nodded. It’s hard to close out an investigation when new information comes over the transom almost every day.

In the end, Burr’s gambit failed. It put nothing of importance to bed and instead brought the Russia investigation right back into the news cycle. Luckily for Burr, Trump can’t fire him.

.

How we got to Vegas

How we got to Vegas

by digby

I wrote a long read for DAME magazine on this latest horror called Trump Will Always Be the NRA’s Guy. Please click over to give it a read.

I’m so tired of having to write about bloodbaths and massacres in America because of all these fucking guns. It’s just crazy to me. Nuts. Lunacy. Suicidal.

But then that describes … everything right now.

.