Skip to content

Month: May 2018

Classified for thee but not for me

Classified for thee but not for me

by digby

He spilled the beans again:

The White House has tried to avoid discussing a February skirmish between U.S. troops and Russian mercenaries in Syria, but that didn’t stop President Donald Trump from bragging about the Pentagon’s performance at a recent closed-door fundraiser.

The details of the battle remain classified, but speaking to donors in midtown Manhattan last Wednesday, Trump said he was amazed by the performance of American F-18 pilots. He suggested that the strikes may have been as brief as “10 minutes” and taken out 100 to 300 Russians, according to a person briefed on the president’s remarks, which have not previously been reported.

Trump often makes unscripted comments at fundraisers, and he revels in the exploits of the U.S. military. At a Republican National Committee fundraiser last fall, he told the crowd that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had “never lost a battle,” and he has bragged about the country’s nuclear superiority in confrontations with North Korea.

American officials have long feared that a clash with Russian forces in Syria would add tension to the already strained relationship between the two countries, and they intentionally avoided Russian targets last month when they bombed the country in response to Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons. According to The New York Times, which last week provided the first detailed description of the battle, the confrontation lasted four hours and left between 200 and 300 pro-Assad forces dead.

This is the kicker:

White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah declined to comment on Trump’s remarks because information about the Syria strikes remains classified.

Irony, what irony?

Trump has explained many times that just as he cannot have a conflict of interest or obstruct justice he cannot endanger national security by anything he says because as president he has the ability to declassify on a whim if he so chooses. So he routinely impresses his rich pals with classified stories at fundraisers and other gatherings at his golf clubs on the week-ends.

This is all fine. He isn’t that bad. It could have been worse, right? We could have had that criminal emailer for president, the one they still was to see locked up.

The president’s lurid imagination

The president’s lurid imagination

by digby

From his rally last night:

He absolutely loves to share these stories. It’s a window into his mind. He’s twisted.

I know we’re not supposed to use the “F” word, but this is fascist demagoguery, people. There is not other way to define it.

The rally was full of the usual illuminating comments. This one I thought was particularly interesting. He sees himself as a liberator.

Trump is retelling his story about MS-13 as enemy occupying army and Trump as liberator of Long Island: “It’s like they’ve been liberated, like from a war…the people are dancing and they’re waving and they’re looking out their windows and they’re waving at the ICE people.”

They greeted him with flowers …

And then there’s this.

This is not a stable person. But you knew that.

.

Reason to Hope by tristero

Reason to Hope 

by tristero

Recently, the Times published a long, poorly written, and mostly positive article about Franklin Graham, a far-right bigot and, by the way, the son of a famous preacher who was himself caught on tape enthusiastically agreeing with Nixon’s anti-Semitic remarks).

The Times’s letter writers set the paper straight today. A typical letter:

As a contemplative Christian and a progressive, I’m saddened and chagrined to read of Franklin Graham’s stand against California’s “blue wall” and to think of him as the voice of Christianity.

We’re called as Christians not to proclaim who is godless and blacklisted from the exclusive club we deem acceptable and who will join us in Heaven, but to welcome the stranger and to show love and compassion to everyone, even our enemies. Surely, God is bigger than all of us and our proclamations, even Franklin Graham’s.

RUTH LINNEA WHITNEY
PORT TOWNSEND, WASH.

Exactly right. Graham is the voice of a particularly weird Christian sect but the press has let him and his ilk get away for years with claiming they speak for all American Christians.

But now, it appears that finally mainstream Christians are speaking up to hold Graham’s media enablers to account and doing so with a specifically Christian-themed message. All the letters are worth reading.

One of the worst things about the original article was that Graham’s position within American Christianity were taken completely out of context because the author quoted only another evangelical preacher to criticize Graham (he called  Graham’s message “politically toxic”). A truly balanced article would have also solicited and published opinions about Graham’s extremism from Episcopal priests, Methodists, Catholics, and others.

Going forward, let’s see whether the Times takes these letters to heart and stops falling for a right wing religious con job. These mere fact that the letters were published gives me some hope.

Republican lawlessness FTW

Republican lawlessness FTW

by digby


My Salon column this morning is about Trump’s continued assault on the rule of law:

Many in the media and Democratic politics are complaining vociferously about the Republican-led House Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform committees and the Senate Judiciary Committee, which they see as lackadaisical in their approach to administration scandals. They are actually way off base. Those committees are committed to do their duty and have simply been waiting for Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz to release his report so they can really dig in and investigate. That report is about to drop, and the committees have already scheduled a number of hearings to obtain testimony from high-level participants in the hopes of getting to the bottom of this whole complicated mess.

I’m speaking, of course, about Obama administration scandals, specifically the ongoing, burning issue of Hillary Clinton’s emails from when she was secretary of state. This particular investigation began in January 2017 with the intention of looking into former FBI Director James Comey’s decision to violate protocol and publicly criticize Clinton, even as he declined to pursue a case against her, and then to reignite the controversy just 10 days before the election.

Horowitz was also going to investigate whether former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe should have recused himself, an issue that has already been discussed when McCabe was fired earlier this year, and also explore Rudy Giuliani’s shenanigans in the waning days of the 2016 campaign, when he signaled that he might be getting information from inside the FBI about the reopening of the email investigation. (Fox News reports that the committees have scheduled a whole bunch of current and former FBI and DOJ officials, but so far Giuliani doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s witness list.)

So never say these Republicans don’t care about oversight. They are actually obsessed with it — as long as it has nothing to do with the current occupant of the White House. We can expect a full-blown rehash of the email scandal, possibly in public, leaving no stone unturned, turned over, rolled down a hill or turned over again.

This is their privilege, of course. They have the power to investigate anyone they choose. But it doesn’t take a very stable genius to know that they are not doing this because they are deeply concerned with national security. If they were, they might be investigating the fact that the president spills classified information constantly and — much as he declares himself immune from all conflict of interest and corruption — insists that he cannot endanger national security since he has the power to declassify anything he chooses.

Even though the one result of the inspector general’s report that’s been made public was actually rushed through in order to deny McCabe his pension by firing him at the last possible moment, Trump evidently doesn’t trust Horowitz to do his bidding. He’s already preemptively attacked him, just in case, making it very clear that he was unhappy when Attorney General Jeff Sessions tasked Horowitz with investigating the supposed scandal about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that’s been cooked up by House Republicans. He tweeted, “Why is A.G. Jeff Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate potentially massive FISA abuse. Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on Comey etc. Isn’t the I.G. an Obama guy? Why not use Justice Department lawyers? DISGRACEFUL!”

That is just one example of Trump attacking his own government in order to create the perception that the FBI and DOJ are part of a “deep state” conspiracy to ruin his presidency. He tweets out endless insults and degrading comments and gives interviews saying that he’s “disappointed.” In another example of his dictatorial mindset, he has said a number of times that he is barely holding back from exercising his constitutionally guaranteed presidential power to force people at those agencies to follow his orders or be fired.

These messages are loud and clear. The president publicly makes it known what he wants, and it’s up to the FBI and DOJ to determine how to deal with it. As with the recent capitulation of FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to reveal highly classified intelligence information to Trump’s acolytes, they often appease him and erode the norms even more. (He is apparently even worse in private. The New York Times reported on Tuesday evening that Trump personally told Sessions to rescind his recusal from the Russia investigation!)

An independent Department of Justice that operates at some distance from the White House is another one of those “norms” we all talk about incessantly. Donald Trump seems to believe that norms were made to be broken. But this pattern does seem to be escalating in a specifically authoritarian way. As I’ve noted, he’s been very clear to exclude himself from the rule of law in any number of ways, with his constant Nixonian insistence that if the president does it, it can’t possibly be illegal.

But lately, Trump has been branching out to attack the rule of law in other circumstances beyond his own. Last week, for instance, speaking of the backlog in immigration courts, he told “Fox & Friends”:

Other countries have what’s called security people. People who stand there and say you can’t come in. We have thousands of judges and they need thousands of more judges. The whole system is corrupt. It’s horrible. Whoever heard of a system where you put people through trials? Where do these judges come from?

Eliminating courts would be illegal under both federal and international law, as well as unconstitutional. But then, Trump thinks that immigrants from “shithole countries” are “animals,” so perhaps he believes he’s found a loophole. He has also suggested in recent days that even Americans should be deported if they refuse to stand for the national anthem.

Over and over again, Trump is making the case that he is above the law, and the Constitution is no more than an anachronistic irrelevance. His followers cheer him wildly for making that case, and there’s every reason to believe that this idea is starting to become less shocking and disorienting every day. Trump is marketing this idea as diligently as he marketed his former brand, with arrogance and authority, over and over and over again. The Republicans in Congress are fully subscribed, as are roughly 40 percent of the American people. How can anyone be sure we can put Humpty Dumpty together again after all this?

.

Take a plea he’s a madman don’t you know by @BloggersRUs

Take a plea he’s a madman don’t you know
by Tom Sullivan


Gen. Garcia (Richard Libertini) with “Señor Pepe” (The In-Laws, 1979).

Maggie Haberman of the New York Times drew fire last weekend from Twitter critics for characterizing a blaze of disjointed Trump tweets as “demonstrable falsehoods” rather than lies. Twitter users were not in the mood to split hairs over whether the statements were misinformed, disinformation, spin, etc., and saw the soft-peddling as lack of media courage to what-else to power. But lies implies knowing falsehoods. Haberman wrote, Trump “often thinks whatever he says is what’s real.”

Over at the Washington Post this morning, Dana Milbank backs up that assessment, writing, “With each day it becomes more obvious he can’t distinguish between fact and fantasy.” He’s getting worse, Milbank adds:

I’ve been writing for two years about his seeming inability to separate truth from falsehood: from his claim that he opposed the Iraq War to his belief that his rainy inauguration was “really sunny.” The man who ghostwrote Trump’s “Art of the Deal” marveled at Trump’s “ability to convince himself that whatever he is saying at any given moment is true.”

The Post Fact Checker’s count of Trump’s falsehoods since taking office topped 3,000 weeks ago. The average daily count has been rising, Milbank writes. Really though, to get a fuller picture what we ought to see (to be unnecessarily fair) is a trend line of his truths-to-lies ratio over time. The picture would be worth another thousand falsehoods debunked.

Tali Sharot, professor of cognitive science at the University College London, explains that through “emotional adaptation” the natural discomfort people feel when telling lies declines as they tell more, leading to telling more. By now Trump would produce a flat line on a lie detector.

But emotional adaptation sounds a bit like the Twinkie defense or Rosanne Barr’s blaming Ambien for her racist tweets rather than racism. Milbank believes what he dubs the Propaganda President’s “Trumpery” isn’t symptomatic of his being a liar, but a madman.

Trump’s enablers in Congress and in the White House have no such excuse. What they are doing in claiming up is down and black is white is lying. Trump’s rally crowds luxuriate in the lies and smears as others do in golden showers. That goes beyond political to spiritual corruption.

But whether falsehoods are lies when told to federal investigators poses a problem in proving perjury should Trump ever sit down across the table from special counsel Robert Mueller or his team. An obstruction of justice charge turns not just on intent but actions. The New York Times last night reported that Mueller is now exploring Trump’s attempts to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Trump wanted a loyalist in the post and has heaped ire on Sessions ever since:

Investigators have pressed current and former White House officials about Mr. Trump’s treatment of Mr. Sessions and whether they believe the president was trying to impede the Russia investigation by pressuring him. The attorney general was also interviewed at length by Mr. Mueller’s investigators in January. And of the four dozen or so questions Mr. Mueller wants to ask Mr. Trump, eight relate to Mr. Sessions. Among them: What efforts did you make to try to get him to reverse his recusal?

Even more stunning is this revelation:

Mr. Trump complains to friends about how much he would like to get rid of Mr. Sessions but has demurred under pressure from Senate Republicans who have indicated they would not confirm a new attorney general.

The obstruction case is building as is pressure inside the Oval Office. But as two-tier and corrupt as our system of justice is, whatever he tells investigators it is unlikely the propagandist-in-chief will face perjury charges even after he leaves office. Even if charges appear, he is far too arrogant to plead insanity even if he is a madman.

* * * * * * * *

For The Win 2018 is ready for download. Request a copy of my county-level election mechanics primer at tom.bluecentury at gmail.

The genesis of the probe

The genesis of the probe

by digby

As I wrote earlier today, Giuliani is throwing out a lot of nonsense right now, trying to taint the jury pool in case this goes to impeachment which they are obviously preparing for.

But if you want to untangle the details of what the right is claiming, this Philip Bump WaPo piece goes a long way toward explaining that Giuliani, Hannity and Trump are full of it:

It seems increasingly clear that former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani’s new role as defender of President Trump may be more significant in a public relations sense than a legal one.

Giuliani is an experienced lawyer, and he may be providing specific guidance to Trump behind the scenes, but his forays into the media have been a prominent effort to shape the boundaries of the investigation from a political perspective. Trump sees the investigation as invalid, and Giuliani is doing everything he can to bolster that point of view.

On Friday, that effort involved a conversation with the Associated Press’s Jonathan Lemire and Eric Tucker.

“If the spying was inappropriate, that means we may have an entirely illegitimate investigation,” Giuliani said, referring to Trump’s allegation that information provided by a Britain-based informant constituted “spying.” “Coupled with Comey’s illegally leaked memos,” he added, “this means the whole thing was a mistake and should never have happened.”

This point about the genesis of the investigation into possible ties between the Russian government and Trump’s 2016 campaign has been recurrent. Over and over, different things have been posited as the true genesis of the investigation, generally because those things are presented as disqualifying in the way that Giuliani appears to be ready to argue.

It raises an interesting question, though: What was the genesis for the investigation into possible ties between the campaign and Russia? What’s more, is that even the proper way to ask the question?

October 2016? Let’s work backward. Earlier this year, there was a political fight over a memo prepared by a staffer for Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) which argued that an application for a warrant to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was based on politically biased information. That information came from what’s generally referred to as the “dossier,” a collection of reports written by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele on behalf of the firm Fusion GPS, which was being paid to dig into Trump’s business ties by a law firm working for the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

When Nunes’s memo was released, it was quickly undercut by a competing memo from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee and by outside observers. Setting aside those concerns, it’s clear that the warrant wasn’t the origination of the Russia investigation. The Nunes memo makes clear that an investigation into Russia’s interaction with the campaign had begun before that warrant being granted in October 2016.

July 2016? “The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok,” the memo reads, referring to information the FBI received focused on another Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos. That information, it seems, was a tip from the Australian government that one of its diplomats, Alexander Downer, had been in contact with Papadopoulos in May. Over drinks in London, Papadopoulos allegedly told Downer that he’d been told the Russians had collected emails incriminating Clinton. When WikiLeaks began releasing emails stolen from the DNC in late July 2016, the Australians informed the American government about what Papadopoulos had said.

An investigation was launched on July 31, according to the Democratic response to the Nunes memo. The New York Times reported earlier this month that the investigation was code-named “Crossfire Hurricane.” According to various reports, including the Times’s, Papadopoulos was one of at least four people involved with Trump’s campaign who were at some point investigated by the FBI. The others were Trump’s eventual national security adviser Michael Flynn, campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Page.

Now we come to the “spy” claim that has been the focus of recent attention by the president and Giuliani. It’s a reference to outreach by an informant named Stefan Halper, a professor emeritus at the University of Cambridge. In 2016, he reached out to both Page and Papadopoulos, apparently prying them for information about any contacts with the Russian government.

His conversation with Papadopoulos, though, occurred in September, well after it’s understood that the FBI started looking at Papadopoulos’s contacts. Halper spoke with Page in mid-July 2016, before “Crossfire Hurricane” launched and shortly after Page had returned from a speaking engagement in Moscow. Was that the origin of the investigation?

March 2016? Probably not. We know from the Democratic memo that the FBI talked to Page about possible contacts with the Russian government in March2016 — even before Papadopoulos was told about the emails and the same month that Page was named as an adviser to the Trump campaign. Page had been on the FBI’s radar since 2013, when the agency obtained a recording of a Russian agent who had mentioned targeting Page as a potential Russian asset. Whether there was an active FBI investigation into Page in March 2016 isn’t clear.

It’s unclear, too, if there were multiple investigations into the four Trump-campaign related individuals that eventually merged into one investigation or if they all began formally in late July. The nature of the investigation toward the end of the campaign isn’t clear, either: Was it an investigation into the campaign broadly or into those four individuals?

Late 2015? The Guardian reported in April of last year that foreign intelligence agencies — including the British GCHQ — had begun to gather suspicious communications between “figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents” beginning in late 2015. Those communications were shared with American intelligence agencies into mid-2016. At the Observer, former NSA analyst John Schindler explored the question of when the investigation began and points to those communications as being the possible original trigger for its investigations.

But who could those “figures” have been? None of the four people under investigation by the FBI were associated with the campaign in late 2015. Flynn joined in February 2016; Manafort, Page and Papadopoulos in March. In December 2015 — a period that overlaps with the Guardian’s report — Flynn attended a dinner in Moscow for the Kremlin-backed media outlet RT. It’s not clear whether that raised red flags for American intelligence officials, but it seems possible that Flynn, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency until August 2014, dining with Russian President Vladimir Putin might attract someinterest.

When he first acknowledged the existence of the investigation during testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017, former FBI director James B. Comey said that it had begun in July of the year before. It’s possible that we’re conflating several things into one: The investigation into possible collusion triggered by the Papadopoulos news in July and separate investigations into people associated with the campaign that began at other points. It’s hard to say with certainty.

The trigger for Mueller’s investigation was an order from Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein signed in May of last year. It specifically authorizes Mueller to pick up the investigation referenced by Comey in March 2016, an investigation that at the time Mueller took it over was a bit under 10 months old (“a fairly short period of time” for a counterintelligence investigation, Comey told the House committee).

Giuliani’s claim that Mueller’s probe was predicated on biased or improper information cherry-picks particular points of complaint with the obvious goal of smearing the entire effort to figure out what contacts might have existed as politically biased. Memos shared with a friend by Comey to tip off the Times about his conversations with Trump had nothing to do with the existence of what Mueller was investigating. In fact, it seems clear that Mueller’s appointment was an effort to protect the investigation from political interference, given what Comey alleged he had been told by Trump. Take out that concern about interference, and the investigation would still have moved forward within the FBI.

The full nature of the investigation or investigations isn’t clear, for obvious reasons. What is clear is that the public explanation of the main effort to determine if there were contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russian actors predates Mueller and is derived to some substantial degree from what Papadopoulos told Downer in May 2016 — a year before Mueller joined the effort.

Meaning that it is also clear that Giuliani’s presentation of the genesis for the investigation is obviously flawed.

I know it’s complicated but it’s important to recall that the intelligence community has been looking at Manafort for years and Carter Page was on their radar since 2013. We’ve known for a while that there was a lot of “chatter” about Trump and Russia going back to 2015. You can imagine that by 2016, when it became clear that there were Russian connections coming up all over the campaign, they grew concerned that something really weird was happening.

The wingnuts are throwing this stuff out there to sow confusion and create the illusion that there’s some kind of controversy over what the IC did. There really isn’t. They did what one would expect when they see a foreign adversary apparently trying to infiltrate a presidential campaign. And keep in mind that they kept it totally close to the vest, never said a word and the man was elected. We don’t know what would have happened if Trump hadn’t immediately started talking about lifting sanctions, created back channels, refused to deal with the election interference and then threw a hysterical tantrum over the investigation every five minutes ever since. But if he hadn’t, there likely would have been a whole lot less suspicion about his involvement in the interference.

.

At least she didn’t kneel, amirite?

At least she didn’t kneel, amirite?


by digby

It seems like a good day to look at a time when Roseanne wasn’t a right wing icon:

The crotch grab and spit at the end was a nice touch.

She’s always been controversial. But at some point it shifted into winuttery, conspiracy theories and grotesque bigotry. The network knew it when they hired her. It was a feature not a bug — they wanted Trump’s bigot following. In the long run it wasn’t worth it.

It remains to be seen if the United States will come to the same conclusion.

.

Evil Chauncey Gardner

Evil Chauncey Gardner

by digby

This piece by McKay Coppins called “Trump’s Right-hand Troll” about the odious Stephen Miller is a must read. I particularly liked the part about how Trump makes decisions:

When President Trump needs to learn about an issue, he likes to stage his own cable-news-style shout-fests in the Oval Office. In lieu of primped pundits, he has to make do with White House staffers, but the basic concept is the same: Two people with conflicting points of view whacking away at each other as forcefully—and entertainingly—as possible. Trump seems to process information best in this format, according to people who have worked in the administration. Often, when the debate lacks a voice for a position the president wants to hear articulated, he will call Miller into the room and have him make the case.

Miller “can play both sides for the sake of the argument,” Gidley told me. “He can come in and play the staunch conservative or the Democrat, because he understands both.” What’s more, he often wins. “You can pull a debate-club argument out of a hat and Stephen can argue it convincingly,” a former administration official said. “It’s not that he knows everything in the world—it’s that he understands Trump. He’s been dealing with him a long time, and he understands how he inputs information.”

Miller told me that while there is sometimes a need for a devil’s advocate, he spends most of his time pushing for positions that he believes in. Indeed, a review of his record thus far leaves little doubt about the agenda he’s trying to advance, from more aggressive law enforcement to a conservative-nationalist economic policy. Notably, he’s emerged as one of the most strident immigration restrictionists in an administration known for such draconian measures as forcibly separating children from their parents at the border.

He is an evil troll who is much smarter than the president and knows how to activate his inherent bigotry and hate.

Also, the president is a cretinous moron. It’s not enough that he can’t read anything. Apparently, he also can’t understand a verbal briefing. He needs to have his people act out “issues” in “Crossfire” format and then picks the one who “won” which undoubtedly means he chooses whomever is the biggest asshole.

It’s “Being There” except Chauncey is a neighborhood thug.

.

Freeway blogger FTW

Freeway blogger FTW

by digby

The Freeway blogger has been putting up signs on California freeways for a decade and a half now. I thought this tweet was particularly hilarious:

Up for 4 days over 12 lanes of #California’s slowest, densest traffic. Entirely unreachable by Republicans: Not only do you have to go through a mixed-race #homeless camp, it’s SolarPowered as well.

lol.

.

He threw some paper towels at their heads and left

He threw some paper towels at their heads and left

by digby

I think we all knew it was bad. But these numbers represent a whole lot of people who didn’t have to die if the government had put the kind of effort into recovery that it put into other hurricane disaster areas:

Experts who work in disaster death toll assessment also raised red flags early on about the Puerto Rican government’s lack of clarity on how it was determining what was — and what was not — a hurricane-related death.

Puerto Rico’s Department of Public Safety told BuzzFeed News in October that it was not using any specific guidelines for deciding what was counted as a hurricane-related death.

Tuesday’s report reiterates that the lack of clear direction about how to record and report hurricane-related deaths led to a significant undercount by officials.

“Although direct causes of death are easier to assign by medical examiners, indirect deaths resulting from worsening of chronic conditions or from delayed medical treatments may not be captured on death certificates,” the researchers wrote.

John Mutter, a professor of earth sciences and public affairs at Columbia University who studied how the death count was handled after Hurricane Katrina, said that the methodology used in the Harvard study was “very sound.”

“That is an astonishing undercount,” Mutter told BuzzFeed News. “Something has gone terribly wrong here if they have a 70-times-higher death rate.”

President Donald Trump, during his visit to the island in October, used the relatively low official death toll — which was then at 16 people — as a measure of how Puerto Rico had not experienced a “real catastrophe” akin to what New Orleans suffered following Hurricane Katrina.

He was so proud of “his” hurricanes not killing as many people as George W. Bush’s did.

But that was just another lie.

.