He said once I am the single greatest president in his lifetime, now he’s a young man, so it’s not that much. He actually once said I’m the greatest president in the history of our country. I said, does that include Lincoln and Washington? He said yes. I said, I love this guy.
As you can see below, his minions and sycophants all laughed dutifully:
Trump claims Orrin Hatch told him he's "the greatest president in the history of our country"—which includes "Lincoln and Washington." (via ABC) pic.twitter.com/Eg63zNgth3— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 1, 2018
There is an important bit of context which you’ve probably heard if you’ve been watching cable news but may not have otherwise. This is from The Intercept:
The memo claims that Steele’s dossier is not reliable because an opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, hired Steele after receiving payments from a law firm connected to the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Fusion GPS’s clients for its Trump research, however, were not limited to partisan Democratic Party concerns: The firm began its research into Trump at the behest of the Washington Free Beacon, a right-wing news website that initially opposed Trump’s insurgent campaign.
Nunes’s memo also alleges another funding source for Steele: the document states that he was not only paid for his work by Fusion GPS, but also by the FBI. That means the Trump opposition work was funded by partisans of both parties as well as a federal bureaucracy.
Even if Steele’s work was purely at the behest of the Democratic Party, however, that would not historically exclude it from being used as evidence in court. The context missing from the memo is that the FBI routinely deals in information coming from biased sources. FBI informants, who number more than 15,000 today, are often motivated by revenge, money, or idealism, among other drivers. The FBI collects relevant information, no matter the source, and then exerts extensive effort to corroborate the information — for example, by seeking a wiretap of a campaign official thought to be conspiring with a foreign government.
It’s absolutely true that all of this is dicey when it comes to a political campaign. Indeed, if this were a domestic warrant they might have a better case, depending on the probable cause for the warrant.
But what should be kept in mind about this particular political case is that this man, who’d until very recently employed by the Trump campaign, had been on their radar as a possible Russian agent for years and the campaign was already under investigation for other contacts and potential infiltration by the Russian government. This was after the Russians were found to have hacked into the DNC, the DCCC and the Clinton campaign’s chairman’s emails. There was obviously a legitimate reason for them to issue this warrant on Page under these circumstances and for the intelligence and law enforcement community to be concerned. A foreign government was actively involved in a clandestine program to influence the US presidential election. Maybe no laws were broken beyond the hacking, we don’t know yet. But if the intelligence community turned a blind eye and failed to follow through on at least investigating what was going on, it would have been unprecedented malfeasance.
We don’t know everything. Maybe this whole thing will also turn out to be a “nothing burger” as far as Trump’s direct involvement. But even the idea that there shouldn’t have been a counter-intelligence investigation in the first place because the Steele dossier was partly financed by Democrats is just daft. Information could have come from Russian mobsters, hackers, bankers, anyone — and it might have, we don’t know! — and the government would have been justified in asking for a warrant on Page. Indeed, information was coming from other intelligence agencies all all over the world that had nothing to do with Steele. This whole line of argument is ridiculous.
You knew it had to happen. In this whole Trump Russia mess it was inevitable that some DOJ defender would eventually get around to blaming civil libertarians for Trump’s henchmen’s fatuous “civil liberties” argument. At some point someone always gets around to blaming “the left” when the right distorts its principled arguments and cynically uses them for their authoritarian/racist/warmongering agenda, smirking all the way:
The memo is a shame. But those on the left denouncing its release should realize that it was progressive and privacy advocates over the past several decades who laid the groundwork for the Nunes memo — not Republicans. That’s because the progressive narrative has focused on an assumption of bad faith on the part of the people who participate in the FISA process, not the process itself.
… the prevailing narrative of FISA hasn’t been just that it’s an imperfect system, but that those acting within it routinely lie to the court and that judges can’t be trusted to do their job.
The right has seized on the claim, made in the Nunes memo, that F.B.I. and Justice Department officials hoodwinked the FISA court with false evidence and that the federal judge approving it didn’t bother to dig deeper. In doing so, it has simply co-opted the left’s position on FISA: Don’t bother to have faith in the process, because the rule of law has no meaning even to those who are sworn to uphold it.
You are incorrect madame. “Progressives” and “the left” (also known as “civil libertarians” or “patriots”) have criticisms of the government surveillance powers which were not been based upon the idea that everyone in the government using the FISA court is a liar acting in bad faith. It’s that the government had been intent upon sweeping up communications of average Americans,using a variety of backdoors and other secretive measures, under a variety of programs, to have access to their communications without probable cause. It is not too much to ask that the government adhere to the constitution in both spirit and practice.
The right will grasp at any straw and use any slim pretext to attack its enemies generally, and Trump’s enemies in particular. A year ago, Devin Nunes and the rest of the Fox News right were pursuing a phony “unmasking” scandal, in which it was argued that Obama administration officials improperly learned the identities of Americans who’d appeared in surveillance reports on foreigners. The right didn’t pick that up from left-wing critics of the intelligence community — conservatives thought that one up all by themselves. Nor did the “Uranium One” pseudo-scandal originate on the left — that came from an anti-Clinton book written by a Breitbartnik who’d been financed by Robert and Rebekah Mercer. It’s safe to assume that if there’d never been a left-wing critique of the FISA approval process, right-wingers would have figured out how to concoct one all by themselves.
And even if you believe that the left gave Nunes and his defenders dangerous ideas, should liberals walk on tiptoe to avoid riling up the right? Is it the fault of Blacks Lives Matter and other defenders of black civil rights that conservatives created repurposed their rhetoric as “Blue Lives Matter” or “All Lives Matter” — or, worse, as white nationalism? Should the LGBT community stop pursuing rights because homophobes then use a rights framework to defend anti-gay cake bakers or anti-LGBT conscience clauses for medical professionals? Is every bit of right-wing rhetoric that boils down to “I’m rubber, you’re glue” the left’s fault?
And I would add that the criticisms coming from “the left” have resulted in some better practices while the newfound libertarians on the right are just acting in their normal hypocritical fashion to protect one man — Donald Trump. (No, they do not care about Carter Page’s civil liberties, thanks for asking.)
Blaming those who actually engage the government in good faith for the bad faith of Devin Nunes is is not just insulting, it’s intellectually lazy both-sideism that’s always simple-minded but never more than it is now. The left has many faults but it is not responsible for Trump and his loyal henchmen.
Ok, so maybe it happened or maybe it didn’t. But there’s a reason why people might believe it happened:
In private conversations, Trump has told advisers that he doesn’t think the 2018 election has to be as bad as others are predicting. He has referenced the 2002 midterms, when George W. Bush and Republicans fared better after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, these people said.
Yes, it seems absurd that anyone would suggest that a war or a terrorist attack would be electorally helpful.And maybe this particular comment never actually happened.
But anyone who thinks that Donald Trump and his top advisers Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro wouldn’t discuss it isn’t paying attention. Of course they are talking about it. And of course Trump would do it if he could. Honestly, there cannot be any question about that by now.
For those still laboring under the illusion that the Tea Party Patriots was a group dedicated to constitutional principles and fiscal rectitude:
The “Tea Party” name is not longer operative. They are the Trump Party. In truth they are the All-American reactionary, authoritarian, racist party and they just have to “re-brand” every few years because they are so awful. They will always be among us.
The Devin Nunes memo released yesterday reminded me of a MAD magazine(?) parody of criticisms of the Warren Commission Report. That is reaching back long before digital records, but “1,001 Things Wrong With the Warren Report” included criticisms such as: the pictures are fuzzy; there’s a smudge on pg. 47; and pages 342-343 stuck together in our copy.
Yet over material such as this we have President Trump’s supporters calling for heads to roll at the FBI the way Trump’s rallies chanted “Lock her up!” The Republican allegations center on whether a FISA surveillance application against Carter Page in October 2016 relied in any way on contents of an allegedly anti-Trump “Steele dossier” funded in part by the Clinton campaign.
Last night on MTP Daily, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) tap-danced the soles off their shoes trying to undermine the FBI investigation into Carter Page and Russian interference in the 2016 election. How dare the FBI use allegedly tainted material to surveil a member of the Trump campaign who was — at other times — neverreally a member of the Trump campaign.
Never mind that the FBI had Page under surveillance as a possible Russian asset as far back as 2014. Never mind that a FISA filing might be 70 to 100 pages of corroborating documents reviewed by multiple federal judges over multiple renewals. Never mind that Counsel to the President Don McGann in his cover letter acknowledges the “Memorandum reflects the judgments of is congressional authors,” and is thus an opinion piece. The memo is for Trump’s palace guard proof of something. As they watch it draw closer to the president, Republicans are desperate to abort the Mueller investigation, thinking, as former congressman Todd Akin said in another context, they have “ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”
The phoniness and cultish levels of unprincipled bad faith have reached toxic levels among the president’s supporters on and off Capitol Hill. The experience is akin to watching humans turn into pod people in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” Humans with whom we may have had political disagreements have been replaced with, what, pod Republicans? Where once there were public servants there are now servants of whom or what?
In a short statement ahead of the memo’s release, Arizona Sen. John McCain wrote:
“In 2016, the Russian government engaged in an elaborate plot to interfere in an American election and undermine our democracy. Russia employed the same tactics it has used to influence elections around the world, from France and Germany to Ukraine, Montenegro, and beyond. Putin’s regime launched cyberattacks and spread disinformation with the goal of sowing chaos and weakening faith in our institutions. And while we have no evidence that these efforts affected the outcome of our election, I fear they succeeded in fueling political discord and dividing us from one another.
“The latest attacks on the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests – no party’s, no president’s, only Putin’s. The American people deserve to know all of the facts surrounding Russia’s ongoing efforts to subvert our democracy, which is why Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation must proceed unimpeded. Our nation’s elected officials, including the president, must stop looking at this investigation through the warped lens of politics and manufacturing partisan sideshows. If we continue to undermine our own rule of law, we are doing Putin’s job for him.”
All well and good, but as with the few other sane-ish members of the Republican caucus left, McCain’s statement is too little, too late. The breakdown has been a long time coming, as Chris Hayes reminded Twitter last night:
To people saying “This isn’t the GOP I know!” a gentle reminder that the GOP Chair of House Government Oversight in the 1990s ****shot watermelon with a pistol**** to reenact what he said was the president’s assasination of Vince Foster.— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) February 3, 2018
Hang up the phone.
* * * * * * * *
Request a copy of For The Win, my county-level election mechanics primer, at tom.bluecentury at gmail.
Perth Zoo’s new Nepalese Red Panda cub was given its first health check, just as an Australian conservation organization helped rescue six Red Pandas being trafficked across international borders.
Perth Zoo Keeper, Marty Boland said, “We were very excited to welcome a new cub to the Zoo family, however it coincides with the rescue of six Red Pandas from wildlife traffickers, emphasizing just how perilous it is out there for these animals.”
The rescued Red Pandas, destined for the illegal wildlife trade, were taken into the care of one of Perth Zoo’s conservation partners, Free the Bears, after being seized on the border of Laos and China. Tragically, only three of the six survived their first night due to severe stress and potential exposure to disease.
“The recent rescue in Laos highlights how vital coordinated zoo breeding programs are for the survival of this endangered species. It ensures we have an insurance population in place to fight extinction.”
Including the new cub, Perth Zoo has successfully reared 19 Nepalese Red Pandas since 1997.
The two-month old Red Panda was born to 9-year-old mother, Anusha, who was also born at Perth Zoo, and 6-year-old father, Makula, who was born in Canberra.
“Today our veterinarians gave our furry new arrival a quick health check of its body condition, eyes, teeth, ears and weight,” Marty said. “The Perth Zoo team are also consulting with Free the Bears, providing advice on appropriate diets and how to reduce heat stress for the rescued pandas.”
Nepalese Red Pandas are found across the Himalayan Mountain and foothills of India, China, Nepal and Bhutan. Deforestation and illegal poaching continue to be significant threats to remaining populations. Less than 10,000 are thought to remain in the wild.
Apart from coordinated breeding programs, Perth Zoo is committed to saving wildlife and has several conservation partners, including Free the Bears, and an ongoing partnership with TRAFFIC, the international wildlife trade monitoring network. Jointly we help fund a Wildlife Crime Analyst position to fight wildlife trafficking and poaching.
Perth Zoo’s Red Panda cub is expected to emerge from the nest box in April.
Those wanting to help Red Pandas are encouraged to donate to Perth Zoo’s Wildlife Conservation Action program, which supports organizations including Free the Bears and TRAFFIC, helping protect animals beyond the Zoo’s borders.
More information can be found at: https://perthzoo.wa.gov.au/get-involved/donation-conservation
DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR, and we’re speaking with Ronen Bergman. He’s a veteran investigative reporter in Israel. His new book is “Rise And Kill First: The Secret History Of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations.”
You know, you’ve written that the United States and the Israeli intelligence services have developed a very close set of joint operations and exchange of information. And of course earlier this year, there was a huge controversy when President Trump apparently revealed information in a meeting with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador which betrayed some Israeli sourcing. Where do things stand with these relationships between American and Israeli intelligence in the Trump administration?
BERGMAN: Well, Dave, just a year ago, I published a story that created a lot of controversy. I said – and I was surprised to hear that from my sources in the beginning – that a group of American intelligence officers, in a regular meeting with the Israeli counterparts, just before Trump was elected and before the inauguration, they suggested that the Israelis stop giving sensitive material to the White House. They said we are afraid that Trump or someone of his people are under leverage from the Russians. And they might give sensitive information to the Russians who, in their turn, would give that to Iran. They said we have evidence that part of the material that Edward Snowden stole from the CIA and NSA – and was not yet published – found its way to Iran. And we believe, of course, that he gave everything he had to the Russians.
And the Israelis were shocked. They have never been in such an occasion. They have never heard Americans say something of that kind about their chief and commander – about the president. And when, just few months after that, it turned out that everything – all the predictions that the Americans have made to the Israelis as warnings – not because they knew it was going to happen but they thought it might – everything came to be true. And President Trump apparently gave secret information. And I know the nature of that information. It is indeed delicate and very, very secret.
It just instilled a sense of miscomfort (ph) inside Israeli intelligence. And I think, if I recall something that I heard just recently, they feel – Israeli intelligence feel that the American administration is in chaos – is in havoc. It’s not function properly – not intentionally, but that lead to further leaks. And they are very hesitant with sharing everything they have, as they did in the past, with their American counterparts.
DAVIES: So if I understand it, you know of specific information that the U.S. shared with the Russians that has not been revealed publicly and that you are not revealing publicly?
BERGMAN: The nature of the information that President Trump revealed to Foreign Minister Lavrov is of the most secretive nature. And that information could jeopardize modus operandi of Israeli intelligence.
DAVIES: And this is different from what was publicly reported at the time. There were some question about, you know, plans for, I think, laptop computers on airlines. This – you’re referring to something that we don’t yet know.
BERGMAN: Most of it, we don’t yet know. And there were conflicting reports. I cannot – in order not to be part of disclosing secret information and jeopardizing Israeli and the U.S. ability to track down terrorists and proliferate, I prefer not to go into the details of that.
[B]y all indications, the president is less amenable to the concerns of his own FBI than those shared by a less formal, more bombastic adviser.
That adviser is Sean Hannity, who has been hyping the so-called Nunes memo all week, and with whom the president continues to speak regularly.
According to three sources with knowledge of their conversations, Trump has been in regular contact with Hannity over the phone in recent weeks, as the Fox News prime-time star and Trump ally has encouraged the prompt release of a controversial four-page memo crafted by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee. Hannity has gone to the wall to push for the public release of the memo, which the intelligence panel and its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), authorized this week in a party-line vote despite the classified information therein.
Sources say Hannity’s persistent advocacy reinforced Trump’s already growing determination to get that memo into the public realm—despite huge potential fallout within the law enforcement and intelligence arms of his own administration.
In their conversations, Trump and Hannity discussed the Nunes memo’s supposed bombshell-level significance, and how it could shed light on the alleged anti-Trump bias and “corruption” at the FBI. On these calls, Trump has directly referenced specific recent Hannity segments related to #ReleaseTheMemo, according to one of three sources with knowledge of their conversations.
