Skip to content

Month: January 2018

Trumpies want to be subjects

Trumpies want to be subjects
by digby

This really says it all about the immature imbecile we have as president. It also says it all about the kind of people who adore him:

I’m sure that after that exchange Trump fumed about the beta-male president of Siemens. What kind of president doesn’t strut around bragging that he’s a genius with the worlds greatest memory and the planets largest hands? A loser, that’s what. Real leaders tell everyone who’ll listen that he’s their superior.

And weirdly, millions of people eat that up, clearly having a deep desire for a monarch or a demi-God to lead them, even as they blather about freedom and liberty. I don’t get it.

.

Casual Inhumanity by Batocchio

Casual Inhumanityby Batocchio

Today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a date picked because of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in 1945. This year, I wanted to look again at the work of Primo Levi and his great Holocaust memoir, If This Is a Man (Se questo è un uomo), typically known in the U.S. as Survival in Auschwitz. (A 2010 post featured Levi’s accounts of storytelling, human connection and the dread of an impending “selection” that might lead to execution.)
Chapter 10, “Chemical Examination,” ends with what is probably Levi’s most famous image, but it’s more powerful with greater context. (The book is short and well worth a read.) Some background for those who haven’t read it or are unfamiliar with life in the camps/Lagers: Levi, an Italian Jew, was a chemist, and explains that he was lucky (relatively) to be shipped to Auschwitz in 1944 when the Nazis decided to stop killing as many prisoners because they needed them for labor instead. “Kapos” were prisoners charged with overseeing the other prisoners, and were generally convicted criminals rather than political prisoners; they also tended to be cruel. At this point in the book, Levi has explained that the prisoners’ work is physically grueling, they’re fed far too little and live in horrible conditions. But a new assignment may be possible: certain prisoners will be interviewed to work as chemists’ assistants, which could significantly increase their chances of survival. The key figures in this chapter are Primo Levi, Doktor Pannwitz and Alex the Kapo.

Kommando 98, called the Chemical Kommando, should have been a squad of skilled workers.

The day on which its formation was officially announced a meagre group of fifteen Häftlinge [prisoners] gathered in the grey of dawn around the new Kapo in the roll-call square.

This was the first disillusion: he was a ‘green triangle’, a professional delinquent, the Arbeitsdienst [Reich labor service] had not thought it necessary for the Kapo of the Chemical Kommando to be a chemist. It was pointless wasting one’s breath asking him questions; he would not have replied, or else he would have replied with kicks and shouts. On the other hand, his not very robust appearance and his smaller than average stature were reassuring.

He made a short speech in the foul German of the barracks, and the disillusion was confirmed. So these were the chemists: well, he was Alex, and if they thought they were entering paradise, they were mistaken. In the first place, until the day production began, Kommando 98 would be no more than an ordinary transport-Kommando attached to the magnesium chloride warehouse. Secondly, if they imagined, being Intelligenten, intellectuals, that they could make a fool of him, Alex, a Reichsdeutscher, well, Herrgottsacrament, he would show them, he would… (and with his fist clenched and index finger extended he cut across the air with the menacing gesture of the Germans); and finally, they should not imagine that they would fool anyone, if they had applied for the position without any qualifications – an examination, yes gentlemen, in the very near future; a chemistry examination, before the triumvirate of the Polymerization Department: Doktor Hagen, Doktor Probst and Doktor Ingenieur Pannwitz.

And with this, meine Herren, enough time had been lost, Kommandos 96 and 97 had already started, forward march, and to begin with, whosoever failed to walk in line and step would have to deal with him.

He was a Kapo like all the other Kapos.

Alex is established as a bully. Meanwhile, Levi and his fellows are anxious about the coming interview/examination. They’re all underfed and not at their best. And what if this exercise is nothing but false hope?

With these empty faces of ours, with these sheared craniums, with these shameful clothes, to take a chemical examination. And obviously it will be in German; and we will have to go in front of some blond Aryan doctor hoping that we do not have to blow our noses, because perhaps he will not know that we do not have handkerchiefs, and it will certainly not be possible to explain it to him. And we will have our old comrade hunger with us, and we will hardly be able to stand still on our feet, and he will certainly smell our odour, to which we are by now accustomed, but which persecuted us during the first days, the odour of turnips and cabbages, raw, cooked and digested.

Exactly so, Clausner [a fellow prisoner] confirms. But have the Germans such great need of chemists? Or is it a new trick, a new machine ‘pour faire chier les Juifs? Are they aware of the grotesque and absurd test asked of us, of us who are no longer alive, of us who have already gone half-crazy in the dreary expectation of nothing?’

The examinations take place over three days. Levi’s is delayed, until finally (emphasis mine):

Here is Alex. I am a chemist. What have I to do with this man Alex? He plants his feet in front of me, he roughly adjusts the collar of my jacket, he takes out my beret and slaps it on my head, then he steps backwards, eyes the result with a disgusted air, and turns his back, muttering: ‘Was für ein Muselmann Zugang.’ What a messy recruit! . . .

This time it really is my turn. Alex looks at me blackly on the doorstep; he feels himself in some way responsible for my miserable appearance. He dislikes me because I am Italian, because I am Jewish and because of all of us, I am the one furthest from his sergeants’ mess ideal of virility. By analogy, without understanding anything, and proud of this very ignorance, he shows a profound disbelief in my chances for the examination.

We have entered. There is only Doktor Pannwitz; Alex, beret in hand, speaks to him in an undertone: ‘…an Italian, has been here only three months, already half kaputt… Er sagt er ist Chemiker…” But he, Alex, apparently has his reservations on the subject.

Alex is briefly dismissed and put aside, and I feel like Oedipus in front of the Sphinx. My ideas are clear, and I am aware even at this moment that the position at stake is important; yet I feel a mad desire to disappear, not to take the test.

Pannwitz is tall, thin, blond; he has eyes, hair and nose as all Germans ought to have them, and sits formidably behind a complicated writing-table. I, Hafding 174517, stand in his office, which is a real office, shining, clean and ordered, and I feel that I would leave a dirty stain whatever I touched.

When he finished writing, he raised his eyes and looked at me.

From that day I have thought about Doktor Pannwitz many times and in many ways. I have asked myself how he really functioned as a man; how he filled his time, outside of the Polymerization and the Indo-Germanic conscience; above all when I was once more a free man, I wanted to meet him again, not from a spirit of revenge, but merely from a personal curiosity about the human soul.

Because that look was not one between two men; and if I had known how completely to explain the nature of that look, which came as if across the glass window of an aquarium between two beings who live in different worlds, I would also have explained the essence of the great insanity of the third Germany.

One felt in that moment, in an immediate manner, what we all thought and said of the Germans. The brain which governed those blue eyes and those manicured hands said: ‘This something in front of me belongs to a species which it is obviously opportune to suppress. In this particular case, one has to first make sure that it does not contain some utilizable element.’ And in my head, like seeds in an empty pumpkin: ‘Blue eyes and fair hair are essentially wicked. No communication possible. I am a specialist in mine chemistry. I am a specialist in organic syntheses. I am a specialist…’

Levi does well; his knowledge and intellect have saved him – for the moment, at least – because a man who does not view him as fully human has judged that he can be useful. And then it is time to return to the barracks (emphasis mine):

Here we are again on the steps. Alex flies down the stairs: he has leather shoes because he is not a Jew, he is as light on his feet as the devils of Malabolge. At the bottom he turns and looks at me sourly as I walk down hesitantly and noisily in my two enormous unpaired wooden shoes, clinging on to the rail like an old man.

It seems to have gone well, but I would be crazy to rely on it. I already know the Lager well enough to realize that one should never anticipate, especially optimistically. What is certain is that I have spent a day without working, so that tonight I will have a little less hunger, and this is a concrete advantage, not to be taken away.

To re-enter Bude, one has to cross a space cluttered up with piles of cross-beams and metal frames. The steel cable of a crane cuts across the road, and Alex catches hold of it to climb over: Donnerwetter, he looks at his hand black with thick grease. In the meanwhile I have joined him. Without hatred and without sneering, Alex wipes his hand on my shoulder, both the palm and the back of the hand, to clean it; he would be amazed, the poor brute Alex, if someone told him that today, on the basis of this action, I judge him and Pannwitz and the innumerable others like him, big and small, in Auschwitz and everywhere.

It’s a striking image, all the more so because it’s not intentionally, consciously cruel; Levi suffers this indignity because Alex is thoughtless and views Levi as a lesser being, obviously unworthy of basic respect, and thus can be treated like a disposable rag. It’s a gesture of casual inhumanity. And Alex, brute though he is, is not that different from the educated Pannwitz and his dehumanizing gaze. (Levi’s insights and reflections throughout the book make for memorable reading.)

Few injustices can compete with the Holocaust, but it’s always worth remembering that cruelty and dehumanization exist on a spectrum and manifest in different forms, with varying degrees of toxicity. Most fall far short of genocide or even legalized discrimination, but nonetheless should be questioned and challenged.

Sometimes these impulses erupt as angry demonization and obvious bigotry. Other times it’s as casual inhumanity. I’m reminded of the false belief that most poor people live in poverty because of a lack of moral character instead of misfortune. There’s the self-serving notion that I and others of my chosen political tribe deserve government services but those other people not like us that I don’t like are unworthy moochers. We’ve heard arguments that amount to: feeding children or providing them health care doesn’t directly benefit me, so not only should a miniscule amount of my taxes not pay for such programs, but no one should be able to call me selfish or monstrous. And an entire set of beliefs endures holding that, due to race, gender, sexual orientation or ancestry, certain other people are inherently lesser and not worthy of basic respect or even legal rights. A whole range of cruel, punishment-minded or harmfully indifferent mindsets exist. The good news is their corrosive power can be countered with a little reflection and compassion, by fine teaching, human connection and sharing good stories. “Never forget” is a wise adage applying to the past; in the present, maybe that best translates to “never stop listening and learning.”

The GOP credo: win by any means necessary

The GOP credo: win by any means necessaryby digby

You may have heard about the shocking Democratic win in a deep red Wisconsin state senate seat earlier this month. Well, good old Scott “Being There” Walker isn’t going to put up with that sort of thing in the future:

The governor is deliberately denying Wisconsinites representation in the legislature by refusing to call special elections to fill open seats in the State Assembly and the State Senate.

In doing so, he is rejecting the clear intent of Wisconsin’s statutes, which declare: “Any vacancy in the office of state senator or representative to the Assembly occurring before the 2nd Tuesday in May in the year in which a regular election is held to fill that seat shall be filled as promptly as possible by special election.”

It may be that Walker is refusing to schedule the special elections because he is scared.The results of special elections held last Tuesday were disastrous for Walker and his Republican allies. The party lost a State Senate seat in western Wisconsin’s 10th District, as a 26-point Republican advantage in November 2016 shifted to an 11-point Democratic advantage in January 2018. And the GOP came closer than anyone expected to losing an Assembly seat in overwhelmingly Republican Washington County, where a Democrat won 43 percent of the vote. Even the governor admits the loss of the State Senate seat represents a “wake-up call.” And Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling, D-La Crosse, argues that: “Governor Walker is running scared and is playing politics with people’s right to be represented in the State Capitol. He is clearly feeling the heat and scrambling to boost lack luster polls and the Republican brand, but voters are wide awake and aren’t buying it.”

Of course he’s doing it because he’s running scared. Why else? It makes you wonder why he thinks things will be any better during regularly scheduled elections. Maybe he has something else up his sleeve there too …

His right to fight back by @BloggersRUs

His right to fight back
by Tom Sullivan

There is a cheap pot and a wooden spoon still rolling around the back of the car. One never knows when they might come in handy for raising a ruckus. Should the president finally find the stones to reenact the Saturday Night Massacre, they’re ready to hit the street.

The man reeks of guilt. We just don’t know of what. Money laundering, likely, at minimum.

The New York Times Editorial Board asks (in bold type), “Why Does President Trump Fear the Truth?”

For a man who insists he has done nothing wrong, President Trump sure acts as if he has something big to hide. President Trump‘s attempt to fire the special counsel, Robert Mueller, last June which he backed off only when the White House counsel, Donald McGahn, threatened to resign over it – is only the latest in a long string of firings and lies that establish an undeniable pattern:

They have a list.

Mr. Trump may call this behavior “fighting back,” but the federal criminal code would almost surely call it obstructing justice — an offense that has led to the resignation of one president and the impeachment of another.

Fighting back. There’s some white privilege for you. Pursued by law enforcement, Trump believes fighting back is his right. Cult members agree. They elected him because they perceive him as a fighter, an emblem of a day when whiteness conferred privilege on even the poorest white man.

Black men who fight back deserve summary execution.

* * * * * * * *

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

Mr President, Congressman Nunes witness intimidation is illegal

Mr President, Congressman Nunes witness intimidation is illegalby digby

It’s been pretty obvious that this was coming from the White House direct to Hannity and Devin Nunes. But I don’t think we knew before that Trump personally ordered the smear campaign:

President Donald Trump pressed senior aides last June to devise and carry out a campaign to discredit senior FBI officials after learning that those specific employees were likely to be witnesses against him as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, according to two people directly familiar with the matter.

In testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, recently fired FBI Director James Comey disclosed that he spoke contemporaneously with other senior bureau officials about potentially improper efforts by the president to curtail the FBI’s investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Not long after Comey’s Senate testimony, Trump hired John Dowd, a veteran criminal defense attorney, to represent him in matters related to Mueller’s investigation. Dowd warned Trump that the potential corroborative testimony of the senior FBI officials in Comey’s account would likely play a central role in the special counsel’s final conclusion, according to people familiar with the matter.

In discussions with at least two senior White House officials, Trump repeated what Dowd had told him to emphasize why he and his supporters had to “fight back harder,” in the words of one of these officials.

In a brief conversation Friday afternoon, Dowd denied the accounts of administration officials contained in this story as “flat-out wrong,” but he also refused to discuss what details were incorrect. “My advice to the president is confidential,” he told Foreign Policy.

“You don’t know me,” Dowd added. “You don’t how I lawyer, and you don’t know what I communicated to the president and what I did not.”

While Dowd’s private advice to the president would ordinarily be protected by attorney-client privilege, Mueller might be able to probe comments that Trump made to others about that legal advice by asking him directly about it as well as anyone else he shared that advice with.

A person with direct knowledge of the matter said although Dowd explained the risks of senior FBI officials joining Comey in testifying against Trump, that information was part of a broader presentation to the president about Mueller’s investigation. It is not improper, but in fact is a duty, for an attorney to explain to a client how they are at risk, the source said. What may have been improper, however, were actions Trump took upon learning that information.

Since Dowd gave him that information, Trump — as well as his aides, surrogates, and some Republican members of Congress — has engaged in an unprecedented campaign to discredit specific senior bureau officials and the FBI as an institution.

The FBI officials Trump has targeted are Andrew McCabe, the current deputy FBI director and who was briefly acting FBI director after Comey’s firing; Jim Rybicki, Comey’s chief of staff and senior counselor; and James Baker, formerly the FBI’s general counsel. Those same three officials were first identified as possible corroborating witnesses for Comey in a June 7 article in Vox. Comey confirmed in congressional testimony the following day that he confided in the three men.

By coincidence, I’m sure, these three men are reportedly the ones mentioned in Devin Nunes’s famous secret memo. (I mentioned this in my piece earlier this week.)

If there are witnesses who heard Trump say that they needed to “fight back harder” against federal law enforcement officials he’d been told would be witnesses against him — and GOP toadies in the congress took his marching orders actually did it — it’s more evidence that he’s been acting like Tony Soprano in this matter from the beginning.

.

Solutions from Multiple Dimensions for Gun Deaths and Injuries @spockosbrain

Solutions from Multiple Dimensions for Gun Deaths and Injuries


by Spocko

Kentucky lawmakers suggested solution to Tuesday’s school shooting in Kentucky? More guns. In schools.

We know the attitudes of the people aren’t always reflected in the actions of their elected officials. But what action can people take when their elected officials believe the answer to gun violence is more guns in more places?

There are multiple problems with guns. We need multiple solutions. I’m a big believer in multiple strategies in multiple venues carried out by multiple groups at the same time.  We need to think and act in multi-dimensions over time. I see it as playing three dimensional chess with multiple opponents over years.

This week the focus is on school shooting because it’s in the headlines. As horrific is they are, mass shootings comprise fewer than 2 percent of gun deaths. In the Trace newsletter they note:

Meanwhile, there is one common denominator in many school shootings and the more numerous gun accidents and suicides that receive little public attention: Kids who pull a trigger, in whatever circumstance, often get the weapon from a parent or other adult who left it unsecured.

Yesterday, Trace staffers Mike Spies and Sean Campbell helped a consortium of public radio stations in the Ohio Valley research a segment on child access prevention laws, which are designed to hold grownups accountable for failing to keep their firearms out of young hands. Research has indicated that the laws, if enforced (a big if), can reduce child gun deaths.
Unsecured guns and kid shooting kids is a huge problem. Especially in Kentucky.  Current unconfirmed reports state that gun used in the Marshell Country High school shooting was taken from the closet of the shooter’s parents.  This shocking story by Marcus Dorsey and John Cheves was in the Lexington Herald Leader July 2017.

This was a big headline and an important story. What happened after this story came out?

Last winter, disgusted by the shooting of children in his community, state Sen. Gerald Neal, D-Louisville, sponsored a “child access prevention” bill in the Kentucky General Assembly. 

Neal’s bill — modeled after similar laws that have passed in 18 states and the District of Columbia, with some success, studies suggest — would have made it a crime to “recklessly” store guns in a manner that lets minors have unintended access to them.

Improper firearm storage would have been a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $250 fine. The charge would have risen to a Class A misdemeanor if a minor subsequently used the gun to hurt or kill someone.

Neal said he’s a gun owner himself, but it’s not asking too much for parents to use either a gun safe or a gun lock to keep their kids from harm.

“The statistics for unintentional shootings are staggering and avoidable,” he said. “Studies show that most children know where parents keep their guns, and many have accessed those guns when their parents were not around or the weapon was unattended or unsecured. This is a problem that cries out for common-sense action to protect our children.”

Neal’s bill died for lack of action in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Why don’t these laws pass?  I can site a number of reasons, including the power of the NRA gun lobby, but the Dorsey Cheves story is important beyond the horrible statistics because it describes the attitudes of many people toward guns in their homes.

The story shows how people’s behaviors with guns lead to dead and injured children.

“The norm in Kentucky is to keep guns in the home, and a lot of people don’t think it’s abnormal to keep them out around their children,” Dr. Susan Pollack, a pediatrician at Kentucky Children’s Hospital and director of the Pediatric and Adolescent Injury Program at the Kentucky Injury and Prevention Research Center.

In a recent poll, 12 percent of Kentucky parents admitted they keep at least one loaded, unsecured firearm at home with their underage children.

Parents told police they kept loaded guns at home “for safety” and “to protect my family.” The majority stored their guns in their bedroom closets, mistakenly assuming their kids never looked in their closets. In a couple of cases, parents said they usually locked their guns in a cabinet, but they failed to this one time, or else their kids apparently discovered the keys. Otherwise, nobody reported using gun safes or gun locks.

In this environment, given these attitudes, people like Dr. Pollack wonder what can be done. Changing laws can make a difference, but how do you change attitudes? Punishment after the fact? The article points out grieving parents often aren’t prosecuted.

According to the Giffords Law Center, 27 states and the District of Columbia have enacted some sort of Child Access Prevention law, though they vary considerably in strength. Kentucky’s is one of the weakest. Parents or guardians in the state are breaking the law only if they provide a firearm directly to a child when they know there is a good chance that the kid will use the gun to commit a crime.


Corbin Wiederholt, 9 months, was fatally shot in the head by his 5-year-old brother, who found his grandfather’s loaded .22-caliber revolver at his home in Elmo, Missouri, on January 19, 2015. When the gun went off, the older boy, who retrieved it from a locked cabinet, said to his mother, 26-year-old Alexis Wiederholt, “I’m sorry, Mom. I shot Corbin.” Wiederholt said she didn’t know her father kept a loaded gun in his home. “I told the boys they weren’t supposed to be in my bedroom where I keep the gun cabinet,” Porter said. “But like I said, boys will be boys.”

I’ve actually watched the hearings where gun laws are discussed, passed or blocked. It’s astonishing to watch the feeble constructs used to oppose some gun laws. Laws that could saves the lives of children.

Now imagine you are in a state like Kentucky, with weak Child Access Prevention Laws. You also live in a state that has passed “super preemption laws” meaning that your local city council is forbidden from passing laws banning guns in city parks and city owned buildings.What other solutions besides the law can you use to protect yourself and others from death and injuries from guns?

1) Work on changing the attitude and behavior change among your friends and family. Get peers to talk to peers.

This guy needs to be on a speaking tour at gun shows, NRA meetings and at gun clubs.

“I’m a redneck,” he said. “I’m a hillbilly. I grew up in southern Kentucky. I’m not anti-guns. I’ve owned guns. But I don’t have guns lying around everywhere. Use common sense! If you’ve got kids in the house, lock up your guns. The gun store where you buy your guns? You can get gun locks there. You can buy a gun safe there. Lock up your guns so another child does not get shot. Why is this so hard for people to understand?”
– Gary Hamblin, whose 6-year-old daughter nearly died from an accidental shotgun blast near Greenup this year

2) Look for new tools to secure guns
I want to see progress in smart gun technology, so that they can only fire when activated by an authorized user.  I believe in multiple security layers, gun locks, safes. Here’s a new device that provides another layer of security. It alerts parents if kids or others get unauthorized access to guns.

This product was just launched and is available now. The founder, Brady Simpson, went to Virginia Tech. 

People need to understand the world as it is, not how we wish it would be. Kids are curious. I know I used to be one.

No solution perfect, that’s why we apply multiple ones. But one thing that science and technology is good at is looking at points of failure in a system and systematically making changes to reduce accidents and catastrophes. I’ve worked with lots of technology execs and I would ask them how their customers use their products. “Does your product save lives? Yes? Then tell that story. People like that.”

 3) Ensure someone pays for the damage caused by guns everywhere laws

When states like Kentucky pass gun preemption laws, local city elected officials can’t pass any ordinances banning guns in their community. These laws become an unfunded mandate for the city. The state declares: “There will be more guns carried by people with unknown levels of training in your public venues. You can’t pass a law to stop them. Deal with it.”

State laws have created an environment where it is legal to carry guns in more places. State law does not require concealed carry gun owners to carry liability insurance to cover the costs of a gun accident. However, municipalities must have liability insurance.

Now imagine you are the risk manager for a city. A whole new level of liability has been forced on you. Suppose someone legally carrying a gun in your building, park, community center, music venue or convention center has an accident and shoots someone else. Are you covered? Are you prepared for the multi-million dollar lawsuits? 

Recent Johns Hopkins study on a average medical costs for a gun shot wound? $275,452 
Who pays? The costs come back to the community. Two thirds of the people treated for gunshots have no insurance or medicaid. Private insurance pays only a fraction of the costs.

If city administrators can’t reduce the risk of a gun accident, by banning guns on their properties, they have to reduce their financial risk. 

Elected officials have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the city, the need to be informed and prepared for gun accidents.  Are the laws on the books serving or hurting the local communities? State lawmakers might listen to the officials who are paying the price for these laws.

In the mean time, city officials  in states with super preemption laws need to be asked if they are prepared to deal with the financial impact of guns everywhere laws states passed.  These states include: Arizona, Indianapolis, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont and Utah.

Looking at a problem from multiple dimensions allows for multiple solutions. Different solutions need people with skills in multiple areas. Not everyone knows how to block or pass laws. Maybe you skill would be to get Gary Hamblin speaking at the NRA convention in Las Vegas. Maybe you can make sure your local community is prepared to manage the financial costs of more gun accidents.  Please don’t give up working on this problem. There are lots of people counting on you so they can live long and prosper.

Will he say “you’re fired!”

Will he say “you’re fired!”by digby

The GOP congress

Neal Katyal served in the Clinton Justice department and wrote the DOJ rules on special counsels and then as Obama’s solicitor general. He spoke with Terry Gross on NPR about Trump’s claim in his NY Times interviews over the holiday about his power over the Justice Department:

“I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department,” he said, echoing claims by his supporters that as president he has the power to open or end an investigation. “But for purposes of hopefully thinking I’m going to be treated fairly, I’ve stayed uninvolved with this particular matter.”

Basically he said that he wouldn’t fire anyone as long as he’s given a pass. It really couldn’t be clearer.

Katyal and Gross take up the question of how it could be done:

GROSS: So I’m going to ask you the question I’m sure you’re most often asked which is, does President Trump have the power to fire special counsel Robert Mueller?

KATYAL: I think the answer to that is yes. And I think he can do it in, you know, either directly or indirectly. Some people think it can only be indirect. But I think, either way, there’s a way in which it can get done. So these regulations are Justice Department regulations. They can be removed by another attorney general or an acting attorney general potentially. So the president could theoretically order Sessions to remove these regulations as a whole.

GROSS: Even though Sessions is recused from this investigation, he can be ordered to remove the regulations?

KATYAL: Well, possibly. I mean, I think it will get into a dicey question which the courts have never actually dealt with. But there is the possibility that the special counsel regulations are – I think the argument would go bigger and not just about any one special counsel but in general. I think the more prudent course of action – the administration hasn’t been taking many prudent courses of action, but if they were to take the, you know, nuclear step of getting rid of the special counsel regulations, it would probably be wise for them as a belt-and-suspenders move to have – to order both Rosenstein and Sessions to remove the regulations.

Now, doing so – and this is something we struggled with from 1998 to 1999 in the drafting the regulations all the time. We knew this was a possibility. And, you know, as I said, there was one kind of key concern, which is the fear of a government cover up. And so you knew that there was a theoretical possibility the president could do it and not just a theoretical possibility, but we actually had that happen in our lifetimes because that’s what President Nixon effectively did.

He said we’re going to fire the special prosecutor Jaworski. And he ordered Justice Department officials to do so, and they refused. And he had to go down the line of succession until we got to the solicitor general at the time who allowed for the firing to take place. So you have that. But, you know, Arch’s study, in conclusion, was actually the system worked pretty well. That was a horrible anti-democratic, anti-truth seeking, un-American thing to do, but it led to President Nixon’s downfall. He had to take the heat – the political heat for ordering that step.

And similarly here, with the special counsel regulations – yes, to answer your question again, the president has the power to remove the special counsel. But if he does so, he will trigger a constitutional apocalypse the likes of which we have not seen since Watergate.

GROSS: What does that mean? People say it would trigger a constitutional crisis, but what exactly does that mean?

KATYAL: What that means is that the president, by firing the one entity that is empowered to fully investigate him free of ordinary political interference – if he short circuits that and he takes a step that is so fundamentally anti-truth, that I don’t think that there’s a way a president could survive that. And remember, you know, it’s not as if a special counsel has the power to throw someone in jail by themselves no matter who they are.

And, you know, I would love to talk about who this special counsel is, Robert Mueller and his credentials, in a moment. But let’s just say you had one that – an attorney general appointed a bozo. The bozo wouldn’t be able to, you know, put someone in jail. The bozo first has to work with a staff and is supervised by the acting attorney general of the United States. Now, who’s the acting attorney general of the United States – the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. And who put Rod Rosenstein in power? It wasn’t Barack Obama. It was President Trump. This is – Rosenstein is Trump’s guy. He’s the guy he put there.

GROSS: So if President Trump asked the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to fire the special counsel Robert Mueller and Rosenstein refused, then he could – then Trump could fire Rosenstein, and his replacement would be asked to fire Robert Mueller and that could go on for a while. But the other possibility – or at least another possibility that President Trump could use would be to fire Rod Rosenstein and to replace him with somebody who would have a very favorable eye toward President Trump. So is that a scenario that you could see playing out and working under the guidelines for the special counsel as you wrote them?

KATYAL: So it is possible for the president to try to fire Rosenstein. Rosenstein is a presidential appointee. As I say, he’s Trump’s guy, and he can be removed by Trump. He’d have to be replaced in some way in order for the deputy attorney general to have any function. So you’d have to put someone else in place. Normally, that requires Senate confirmation to put that person in place.

And I would suspect that there would be incredible blood on the floor of the U.S. Senate – I mean, just the most divisive debate possible if someone was being confirmed to replace Rod Rosenstein who, by all accounts, has done a good job supervising the Mueller investigation. So I think, yes, there’s the theoretical power that Trump has, but it’ll be constrained by, in practice, the problem that he couldn’t confirm a new person to that post.

You would think there would be blood on the floor of the US Senate, but they are full-fledged cult members now:

One of the first Senate Republicans to call for legislation protecting special counsel Robert Mueller has stopped actively pushing that effort, sources on Capitol Hill say.

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican in his first term, made headlines over the summer when he signed on to legislation with Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) that would have shielded Mueller from being fired. But Tillis has largely abandoned the push to move that legislation forward while conceding that the bill doesn’t have the support to get through Congress. His office says he still supports the bill, but that the matter isn’t urgent since Trump says he doesn’t plan to fire Mueller.

“[T]he chatter that the administration is considering removing Special Counsel Mueller has completely come to a halt,” Tillis spokesperson Daniel Keylin said in an email to The Daily Beast. “In fact, the president and his administration have spoken favorably of Special Counsel Mueller’s professionalism and integrity, and recent reports indicate the investigation may soon come to an end.”

On Thursday night, The New York Times reported that Trump tried to fire the special counsel last summer. Keylin told The Daily Beast that despite the revelation, Tillis continues to trust that the president isn’t planning to fire Mueller, who is leading an investigation into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 election.

Keylin noted that his boss didn’t start pushing for a bill to protect the special counsel until after Trump reportedly tried to fire him. Tillis introduced his bill with Coons in August, while Trump tried reportedly to fire Mueller in June. Those who are arguing that a firing is imminent, Keylin added, were trying to score political points.

Sure, Democrats would wail if Trump fires Mueller. And there would be some half-hearted hand wringing by a few Republicans. But nothing would be done about it. If he wants to do it, he will do it.

I think people think that Nixon lost most Republicans. He didn’t. He didn’t even lose all the Democrats, some of whom were right wingers themselves in those days. It’s just that the Democrats had a good majority and there were enough decent Republicans who cared about the integrity of the government to ensure that an impeachment trial would not go his way. That’s no longer true. This Republican party is an outlaw party and they just don’t give damn about integrity or even reality.

.

The Secret Society revealed

The Secret Society revealedby digby

Colbert:

That’s the thing about those text messages. They sound like the casual conversation of most people in America. Well, except they are even more hostile to Hillary Clinton. They called Trump “an enormous douche” once which, it seems to me, is a simple observation of the facts.

They also mentioned something about “calendars” which had the wingnuts in a tizzy on the assumption that this was part of the “secret society’s” “plan” to overthrow Trump.

Here’s the real story:

One text that Page sent Strzok early on the morning of Nov. 9, 2016, has dominated the conservative media world this week, serving as a springboard for a Republican conspiracy theory suggesting that the nation’s premier law enforcement organization was plotting a coup against Trump within hours of his stunning victory.

“Are you even going to give out your calendars? Seems kind of depressing,” Page, a FBI lawyer, wrote in the text to Strzok from her FBI-issued phone. “Maybe it should just be the first meeting of the secret society.”

Republican lawmakers seized upon the “secret society” reference this week, claiming to see sinister motives, and it started popping up all over cable news chyrons. But, in fact, it was almost certainly a joke, a bit of gallows humor after an election that featured Russian interference.

So what was that “calendars” reference all about? Out of context, it’s a bit confusing. But the backstory is actually kind of funny. The New York Times first reported that the “calendars,” which the Times said had a “Russia theme,” were a gag gift for those working on the early Russia probe.

A source familiar with the text messages filled HuffPost in on the details. It turns out that, as a joke, Strzok had purchased calendars featuring “beefcake” photos of Vladimir Putin doing manly, tough-guy things like riding a horse.

It’s unclear precisely which Putin calendar Strzok bought for the team or whether it was from 2016 or 2017. A 2016 calendar featured photos of the Russian president in camouflage, lighting a candle for Christmas, standing next to a horse, smelling a flower, working out in a gym, hugging a dog and fishing without a shirt. A 2017 calendar, per a CNN report, was available by mid-October 2016 at kiosks around Moscow.

Trump doesn’t have one of those, sadly. He does have this, though:

.