Skip to content

Month: May 2018

The party of ideas and their Dear Leader

The party of ideas and their Dear Leader

by digby

I wondered on twitter earlier what Trump’s solution to an economic crisis like 2008 would be. Someone reminded me of this from 2014 before he ran:

“You know what solves it?” Trump said of America’s alleged troubles during a 2014 interview. “When the economy crashes, when the country goes to total hell and everything is a disaster. Then you’ll have a [chuckles], you know, you’ll have riots to go back to where we used to be when we were great.”

He would, of course, blame the Democrats and Obama and the Chinese and Mexicans and Hillary and Rod Rosenstein and that would probably be the extent of his reaction.

But this vague idea that there would be riots in the streets is kind of interesting. I guess he’s talking about the people who became his voters?

Update: My twitter feed is full of good possibilities. He would also OBVIOUSLY cut more taxes on the rich, cut spending on all programs that might help people or stimulate the economy,use it a an excuse to crack down on his political enemies, and undoubtedly turn it inot an opportunity for personal looting of he country.

But my personal favorite is “”declare bankruptcy.” Because that’s just what he does….

But are people better off? by @BloggersRUs

But are people better off?
by Tom Sullivan

The official unemployment rate has dropped below 4 percent for the first time in 17 years. There have been 91 straight months of job growth for which Donald Trump will take credit after sitting in the White House for fifteen. The Trump administration boasts (what else?) that 900,000 people have returned to the labor force since Trump’s inauguration and that black unemployment sits at a historic low (meaning since 1994): 6.6 percent in April. Bloomberg reports that figure has been falling at the same rate for the last six years before Trump came to office. Perhaps he gets a little credit for extending it, writes Justin Fox:

Still, back before he was elected in November 2016, Trump repeatedly argued that the unemployment rate was a flawed measure because it ignored those who had stopped looking for work. He had a point. Only those who tell government survey takers that they’ve looked for a job in the past four weeks are counted as unemployed, and the percentage of Americans of working age who neither have jobs nor are actively looking for them has risen a lot over the past couple of decades. Another, possibly better way to gauge the health of the labor market over time, then, is to look at the employment-population ratio for those ages 25 through 54, what is known as prime working age.

The data series in this case only go back to 1994, and they’re not seasonally adjusted, so the lines jump around a bit. But the story they tell is still pretty clear: These aren’t the best of labor-market times for blacks, or for anybody else.

Black unemployment is still higher then the rate for other groups. The unemployment rate was 2.7 percent for Asian-Americans, 3.6 percent for whites and 4.8 percent for Hispanics. Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, finds the figures “shocking“:

Morial, who served as the mayor of New Orleans from 1992 to 1998, also pointed out that nearly two-thirds of all wealth is intergenerational.

The median household income, he said, is lowest among African-Americans. In 2018, the median income for black Americans is $38,555, compared with $63,155 in white families. Hispanic households have a median income of $46,882.

Morial also pointed out the gap in employment among African-Americans in the technology sector. Black Americans make up just 6.6 percent of the workforce in U.S. technology companies.

The 2016 Equal Employment Opportunity report, filed by Google, Facebook and Twitter, showed that in the combined workforce of 41,000 employees, only 1.8 percent, or 758 employees, were black.

But as the rates fall, are people feeling better off?

The New York Times reports that wages have not gone up as the labor market has tightened. In part, perhaps, because workforce participation has slipped:

The population is also older than they used to be, on balance. The baby-boom generation has moved steadily toward retirement over the last two decades. And those still working have not helped push wages up. Generally, workers climb the economic ladder fastest when they are young, and so an older work force may weigh on average wages, economists say.

In 2000, wages for rank-and-file workers rose at an annual rate of around 4 percent. Part of the problem now is that some 60 percent of the jobs added since 2010 have been in low-wage, service-sector jobs, according to Morgan Stanley.

Fifty years ago, there were plenty of factory jobs paying a decent wage, and unions held much greater sway. Manufacturing accounted for one in four jobs; today it’s not even one in 10.

The push for a $15/hr minimum wage struggles against the gig economy, but that is for entry-level and service-economy jobs. The job market is expanding for minimum-wage jobs in warehouses that ship goods purchased online as well as in call centers “to deal with consumers’ complaints about the gadgets they ordered online.”

Paul Krugman observes that employers don’t feel they can cut jobs even when the economy sours. He theorizes this makes them reluctant to raise salaries during an upturn “because they know they’ll be stuck with those wages if the economy turns bad again.” All of which is academic for people struggling to pay their bills.

One thing of which we can be certain, no matter how low the official rate goes, no matter how much employers complain they cannot find workers, no matter how much Trump crows about low black unemployment, his colleagues will vilify those needing public assistance as good-for-nothing losers … whether or not they have jobs. To keep it they will demand the unemployed work harder to find jobs where there are none, even as they demand more government largess for their friends.

* * * * * * * *

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

Friday Night Soother

Friday Night Soother

by digby

Tonight, enjoy some adorable Prairie Dog pups:

Spring means it’s time for Prairie Dog pups! At the San Francisco Zoo, the cute little pups have been popping-up out of their burrows, keeping zoo visitors entertained!

Prairie Dogs (genus Cynomys) are herbivorous, burrowing rodents native to the grasslands of North America. There are five species: Black-tailed, White-tailed, Gunnison’s, Utah, and Mexican Prairie Dogs. They are a type of ground squirrel, found in the United States, Canada and Mexico.

In the United States, they range primarily west of the Mississippi River, though they have also been introduced in a few eastern locales. Despite the name, they are not actually canines. Prairie Dogs are named for their habitat and warning call, which sounds similar to a dog’s bark.

Prairie Dogs are chiefly herbivorous, though they eat some insects. They feed primarily on grasses and small seeds.

Prairie Dogs are highly social and live in large colonies, or “towns”, that can span hundreds of acres and may contain 15-26 family groups.

Family groups are the most basic unit if their society, and members of a family group inhabit the same territory. Members of a family group interact through oral contact or “kissing” and grooming one another, but they do not perform these behaviors with Prairie Dogs from other family groups.

Enjoy! I’m going to sign off and have a nice glass of chianti in honor of Rudy Giuliani’s meltdown.

.

“Out of whack.” Totally by tristero

“Out of whack.” Totally 

by tristero

Ta-Nehisi Coates and Jeff Goldberg talk about the hiring (and subsequent letting go) of a writer for the Atlantic who believes it’s reasonable to consider the question of hanging women for abortion. Coates makes the most salient point right near the beginning:

…we set ourselves up with I think a pretty admirable value that says, OK, we are going to debate different poles of politics in this country. And we want that well-represented, and we want people that can do it effectively, write well. But if one pole is — and again, I’m only speaking for myself here — if one pole is batshit crazy, you’re in trouble. It actually throws the whole endeavor out of whack.

Indeed it does. And to his credit, Coates recognizes this. But then they both fall into the rabbit hole of discussing why the question of hanging women for having an abortion might be a mainstream idea and why it may or may not be a good idea for The Atlantic to consider people who hold such ideas.

But that’s neither an intellectually interesting discussion or of any substantive value. “Batshit crazy” is by definition an incoherent position.

Instead, the really interesting question is:

What do Republicans gain from the deliberate creation and perpetuation of a batshit crazy discourse?

We need a good answer to that. And we need to find a way to stop them. Stat.

More mass deportations. Ho Hum.

More mass deportations. Ho Hum.

by digby

This is just heartbreaking:

The Department of Homeland Security ended temporary deportation protectionfor 57,000 Honduran immigrants on Friday, forcing them to either find another legal way to stay in the country or pack up their lives and leave.

DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen announced that the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program for Honduras will officially end on January 5, 2020. Until then, Honduran immigrants on TPS will either have to change their legal status or leave the country.

Honduras was added to the list of TPS countries in 1999, after Hurricane Mitch devastated the country (along with Nicaragua, which was also added to TPS at the same time). Mitch was the deadliest hurricane in the Western Hemisphere in more than 200 years. More than 11,000 people across Central America died and millions were left homeless in the wake of the storm.

“Since 1999, conditions in Honduras that resulted from the hurricane have notably improved,” DHS said in a statement Friday. “Additionally, since the last review of the country’s conditions in October 2016, Honduras has made substantial progress in post-hurricane recovery and reconstruction from the 1998 Hurricane Mitch.”

Honduras has one of the world’s highest murder rates outside of a war zone. The country has seen deadly protests since the disputed reelection of President Juan Orlando Hernandez last November. Security forces have used excessive and lethal force against protesters, and shot a majority of the people who were killed in protests, the U.N. human rights office reported.

There is no other reason for this except xenophobia. They could say there will be no more such TPS entries “until they figure out what the hell is going on” or they could change that program for the future. But deporting people who have been here, contributing to the nation, paying taxes, living lawfully in order to prove that we won’t be letting these people from “shithole countries” “take advantage” is just sickening.

.

Rudy’s clarification clear as mud

Rudy’s clarification clear as mud

by digby

Giuliani tried to clean things up. It isn’t impressive:


Think Progress breaks it down:

Giuliani starts by making a a conclusory statement about campaign law. He then says the payment was made to Stormy Daniels to “resolve a personal and false allegation in order to protect the president’s family.” Giuliani claims the payment would have been made whether or not Trump was a candidate for president.

But on Thursday on Fox and Friends, Giuliani had a much different story. “Imagine if that came out of October 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton…Cohen made it go away. He did his job,” Giuliani said.

Giuliani did not explain why, yesterday, he claimed the payment was influenced by the election.

He also did not explain how he knows the purpose of the payment at all. According to Giuliani and others, the payment was made by Cohen without consulting Trump. Giuliani says he has not spoken to Cohen about the payment, so it’s unclear how he would know the actual motivation for the initial payment.

Giuliani’s second point

Giuliani claimed on Wednesday and throughout the day on Thursday that Trump first learned that he reimbursed Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payment a few days ago, even though Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017. This was hard to believe.

Friday morning on MSNBC, advertising executive Donny Deutsch said that he spoke to Cohen on Thursday night and Cohen told him that Giuliani had no idea what he was talking about.

Then, Trump threw Giuliani under the bus and said he was not familiar with the facts.

Now Giuliani is saying his understanding of when Trump found out about the payments might be wrong. But he’s not saying it is wrong or what is right.

In other words, we still have no idea of when Cohen first discussed his payments to Stormy Daniels, or Trump’s reimbursement, with Trump.

Giuliani’s third point

Giuliani strengthened a potential obstruction case against Trump by offering a third, contradictory explanation for why Trump fired Comey. As ThinkProgress reported:

Early in the interview, Giuliani said that Trump fired James Comey as FBI director because “Comey would not — among other things — say that he wasn’t a target of the investigation.” Giuliani said Trump was “entitled to that.”

This rationale was not mentioned either in the official memo explaining Comey’s dismissal or Trump’s statements to NBC’s Lester Holt. Avoiding an obstruction charge requires Trump to present a “a consistent, and legal, explanation for the firing.”

In his statement, Giuliani skirts around the issue by claiming Trump had the ability to fire Comey for any purpose, even if his motives were corrupt. This is a legal argument many experts reject.

I hope they reject it. Otherwise Nixon’s old adage that made everyone in the country gasp — “If the president does it it’s not illegal — is actually true.

I think we may be about to see that tested once and for all.

.

Looks like Rudy’s about to be Mooched

Looks like Rudy’s about to be Mooched

by digby

President Donald Trump told reporters Friday morning that his new lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, knows that the Mueller investigation is a “witch hunt.”

Talking Points Memo:

“He started yesterday. He’ll get his facts straight. He’s a great guy. But what he does is he feels it’s a very bad thing for our country, and he happens to be right.”

During a series of interviews this week, Giuliani said that Trump paid back his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, for a hush money payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels, who has claimed that she had an affair with Trump about a decade ago. 

Before boarding Air Force One to travel to the National Rifle Association convention in Dallas, Trump addressed the Giuliani situation once again. 

“I will tell you this, I will tell you this, when Rudy made the statement, Rudy’s great, but Rudy had just started, and he wasn’t totally familiar with everything. And Rudy, we love Rudy, he’s a special guy. What he really understands is that this is a witch hunt. He understands that probably better than anybody.”

Here’s the transcript of his remarks at the airport:

Q    Mr. President, how’s Rudy doing?

Q    When did you find out?

THE PRESIDENT:  I tell you what — Rudy is a great guy, but he just started a day ago.  But he really has his heart into it.  He’s working hard.  He’s learning the subject matter.  And he’s going to be issuing a statement too.  But he is a great guy.  He knows it’s a witch hunt.  That’s what he knows.  He’s seen a lot of them.  And he said he’s never seen anything so horrible.

As an example, 33,000 emails requested by Congress with a subpoena, and they get burned, they get deleted.  And nobody says anything.  Give me a break.

So Rudy knows it’s a witch hunt.  He started yesterday.  He’ll get his facts straight.  He’s a great guy.  But what he does is he feels it’s a very bad thing for our country, and he happens to be right.

Q    When did you find out what the retainer was being spent on?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, you’re going to find out, because we’re going to give a full list.  And people know.  And virtually everything said has been said incorrectly, and it’s been said wrong, or it’s been covered wrong by the press — just like NBC and ABC yesterday covered the story wrong.

But you’ll be finding out.  It’s very — it’s actually —

Q    Mr. President, are you —

THE PRESIDENT:  Wait a minute.  It’s actually very simple.  It’s actually very simple.  But there has been a lot of misinformation, really.  People wanting to say — and I say, you know what, learn before you speak.  It’s a lot easier.

Q    Mr. President, when are these Americans going to be released from North Korea?

THE PRESIDENT:  We’re having very substantive talks with North Korea.  And a lot of things have already happened with respect to the hostages.  And I think you’re going to see very good things.  As I said yesterday, stayed tuned.  I think you’re going to be seeing very, very good things.

And also, the trip is being scheduled.  We now have a date and we have a location.  We’ll be announcing it soon.

Q    Mr. President, have you changed your mind at all about being willing to sit with Robert Mueller?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the problem with sitting is this:  You have a group of investigators, and they say that I am not a target.  And I’m not a target.  But you have a group of investigators that are all Democrats.  In some cases, they went to the Hillary Clinton celebration that turned out to be a funeral.  So you have all these investigators; they’re Democrats.  In all fairness, Bob Mueller worked for Obama for eight years.

If you look at the statements that were made, if you take a look, as an example, at the Rod Rosenstein letter to me, prior to the firing of James Comey, just read it; put it in the air.  Your viewers don’t know about it.  Put that letter on the air.  It very much speaks very loudly, and that’s just one thing.

So I would say this:  If I could be — I would love to speak.  I would love to.  Nobody wants to speak more than me — in fact, against my lawyers, because most lawyers, they never speak on anything.  I would love to speak, because we’ve done nothing wrong.  There was no collusion with the Russians.  There was nothing.  There was no obstruction.

You know, very funny — if you fight back, because you people say something wrong, or they say something wrong, or they leak, which they’ve been doing; if you fight back, they say, oh, that’s obstruction of justice.  If somebody says something wrong, and you fight back, they say that’s obstruction of justice.  It’s nonsense.

So let me just —

Q    Are you —

THE PRESIDENT:  Wait, wait.  Let me just tell you.  So I would love to speak.  I would love to go.  Nothing I want to do more, because we did nothing wrong.  We ran a great campaign.  We won easily.  We won that easily: 306 to — I think, it was 223.  We won it easily.  That was a great victory.  That was a great day for this country.

We just had new jobs numbers out.  You saw we broke 4 — 3.9 percent.  I would love to go.  I would love to speak.  But I have to find that we’re going to be fairly.

Q    Are you sure —

THE PRESIDENT:  Wait, wait.  I have to find that we’re going to be treated fairly, because everybody sees it now, and it is a pure witch hunt.  Right now, it’s a pure witch hunt.  Why don’t we have Republicans looking also?  Why aren’t we having Republican people doing what all these Democrats are doing?  It is a very unfair thing.  If I thought it was fair, I would override my lawyer.

Q    (Inaudible) the jobs report today?

THE PRESIDENT:  I thought the jobs report was very good.  The big thing to me was cracking four.  That hasn’t been done in a long time; you’ll tell me how long.  But it hasn’t been done in a long time.  We’ll full employment.  We’re doing great.  The stock market is doing — I guess it’s up 35 percent since the election.

And now I think, really, they’re waiting to see what’s going to happen on trade, because we’re going to have some incredible trade deals announced.  My people are coming back right now from China, and we will be doing something, one way or the other, with respect to what’s happening in China.

And let me say this:  I have great respect for President Xi.  That’s why we’re being so nice.  And we have a great relationship.  But we have to bring fairness into trade between the U.S. and China.  And we’ll do it.

Here’s the other one:

THE PRESIDENT: I want to just tell you something. General Kelly is doing a fantastic job. There has been such false reporting about our relationship. We have a great relationship. He’s doing a great job as Chief of Staff. I could not be more happy. So I just want to tell you that.

The New York Times has falsely reported. They’ve said things that are absolutely false. So I just want to tell you that. And, General, you may have something —

GENERAL KELLY: Well, I would just say it’s an absolute privilege to work for a President that has gotten the economy going. We’re about to have a breakthrough, I believe, on North Korea. The jobs report today. I mean, everything is going phenomenally well. Attacking the opioid crisis. It’s nothing less than brilliant what’s been accomplished in 15 months, I believe.

Q Mr. President, why did you change your story on Stormy Daniels?

THE PRESIDENT: I’m not changing any stories. All I’m telling you is that this country is right now running so smooth. And to be bringing up that kind of crap, and to be bringing up witch hunts all the time — that’s all you want to talk about. You’re going to see —

Q But you said —

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me —

Q — on Air Force One that you did not know (inaudible).

THE PRESIDENT: No, but you have to — excuse me. You take a look at what I said. You go back and take a look. You’ll see what I said.

Q You said, “No,” when I asked you, “Did you know about the payment?”

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, you go take a look at what we said. But this is a witch hunt like nobody has ever seen before. And what they should do is look at the other side, where terribly bad things have happened, where terribly bad things have been done.

But what I do want you to do is look at our economy. Today, we broke 4 percent; 3.9 percent we hit today for the first time in many, many years. We’re really proud of it, and we’ll talk to you folks later. But I will tell you — I will tell you this, I will tell you this: When Rudy made the statement — Rudy is great — but Rudy had just started, and he wasn’t totally familiar with every — you know, with everything. And Rudy — we love Rudy, he’s a special guy. What he really understands is that this is a witch hunt. He understands that probably better than anybody.

Q When did you know —

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. But Rudy — Rudy understands this better than anybody. But when he made a certain statement — he just started yesterday. So that’s it.

So bottom line is — bottom line is: I want to talk to the people in charge, if they can prove that it’s a fair situation. The problem we have is that you have 13 people — they’re are all Democrats, and they’re real Democrats; they’re angry Democrats. And that’s not a fair situation.

Thank you very much.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: We have a chance of bringing — we have a chance — we’re doing very well with the hostages. We’re in constant contact with the leadership. We are in constant contact with North Korea. We’ve actually worked out a time and a place which will be announced shortly and very soon.

Q Where?

THE PRESIDENT: I figured you would ask that question.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: But — wait a minute —

Q (Inaudible) or South Korea, are they on the table?

THE PRESIDENT: Not really. Not at this moment, certainly not.

Q You’re not planning to withdraw (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: No. No. And we haven’t been asked to. Now, I have to tell you, at some point into the future, I would like to save the money. You know, we have 32,000 troops there. But I think a lot of great things will happen. But troops are not on the table. Absolutely.

Thank you very much.

Oh god. I’m going to have to start drinking early today, I can tell.

Coupla aging wise guys sittin’ around plotting

Coupla aging wise guys sittin’ around plotting


by digby

My Salon column today about the Trump and Rudy show:

Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s new personal lawyer, went on Sean Hannity’s show and “Fox & Friends” this week, giving dense and baffling interviews about his client’s legal issues that nearly blew up the capital. And nobody in the White House except for the president knew he was going to do it. Evidently, Giuliani and Trump cooked this strategy up all by themselves, bringing to mind one of those movies where the aging crooks sit in the diner and plan their last big heist, which. naturally enough, goes terribly wrong because their skills aren’t as sharp as they used to be.

You’ll recall that at one time it was assumed that Giuliani would be in the cabinet, perhaps as attorney general. But gossip at the time held that Trump noticed that Giuliani was dozing off in meetings and didn’t think he was sharp enough for a big job. So he put him in charge of some cyber-security program, which Giuliani promised to get right on as soon as he figured out how to set the clock on his brand new VCR. That was the last we heard about it.

Indeed, the former New York mayor and prosecutor hasn’t been heard from much at all during this presidency until Trump decided to bring him on as one of his personal lawyers in the Russia probe. It’s clear that these two guys are happy to be back in the saddle doing what they do best: Working the tabloid media to get their names in the papers. The problem is that this particular talent is irrelevant at best, and likely counterproductive, when it comes to the problem they face today.

In a nutshell, Giuliani confirmed that Trump had paid the Stormy Daniels hush money by “funneling” it through Cohen’s law firm in the form of monthly retainers paid out over the course of 2017 — while Trump was president, mind you — in the amount of $470,000. Giuliani explained that this covered the Daniels payment and that Cohen would “get a little profit” and some money to pay taxes. Giuliani further claimed that this was entirely personal and Trump knew nothing about it until after the raid on Cohen’s office, thus explaining why he had denied paying Daniels when asked about it on Air Force One a few weeks ago.

The upshot seems to be that Trump routinely “funnels” large sums of money to Cohen to use as a slush fund to pay off people as necessary. Giuliani says that many wealthy people have such an arrangement and it’s all perfectly legal and had nothing to do with the presidential campaign. Essentially, it’s all just part of the Witch Hunt! Giuliani also suggested that Attorney General Jeff Sessions should “step in” and put a stop to the Cohen probe immediately, as if that would settle it.

One of the main problems with this story is that it involves Donald Trump, who personally signed every check for the Trump Organization even during the 2016 campaign and believed he could continue to do so as president. He has never left a nickel on the sidewalk. It is not credible that he gave Michael Cohen almost half a million dollars a year to “fix” things for him, with no questions asked.

Furthermore, nobody has exactly nailed down where Cohen got the original $130,000 to pay Daniels (which was later allegedly paid back by Trump through these “monthly retainers.”) Cohen has claimed that he took out a home equity loan through his bank, and if he did that he must have lied about it. It seems unlikely that he told the lender he needed some temporary cash to pay off a porn star on someone else’s behalf. If he did lie to the bank about the purpose of the loan, that is a crime. What makes this more curious still is that Cohen is clearly a wealthy man and presumably could lay his hands on that amount of money without much trouble. That’s just one of the many mysteries that presumably will be unraveled in due course.

The most common assumption among the political analysts has been that Giuliani and Trump are trying to finesse the campaign finance issue for both Cohen and the president. That may be true, but if so it represents a failure to grasp the bigger picture. It seems highly improbable that the FBI and the U.S. attorney in New York were able to persuade a judge to issue search warrants for the president’s lawyer, as they did, if all they were searching for was a single improper campaign contribution.

No, the likeliest scenario is that Giuliani and Trump were sitting around in the Oval brainstorming about the best way to keep Cohen from flipping, and this is what they came up with. The president’s good friend David Pecker had thrown Cohen to the wolves on the front page of the National Enquirer and Giuliani probably convinced Trump that they needed to do a little fence-mending. This is definitely not the kind of strategy you’d talk about with your real lawyers or the White House communications shop.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace spoke with sources close to Trump who said that the dynamic duo’s “ultimate goal, ultimate prize is to provide some cover, politically, legally, psychically, cosmically, emotionally for Michael Cohen.” The Washington Post’s Ashley Parker reported on Wallace’s show that there were three camps in the White House on this subject. The first camp thinks the two duffers were chewing the fat and just decided to “do something” and there really wasn’t much of a strategy at all. Another camp believes the Cohen campaign finance story was the real motivation. Then there’s the third camp, which suggests that all this is really about Trump’s emotional needs:

All along, the president has craved someone out there being aggressive and it’s sort of the emotional strategy and emotional response that the president desires. It may not be great politically and it may create a lot of headaches for his staff but it’s nice to have someone finally out there defending him and it sort of scratches that itch that he has and often exhibits on Twitter.

I suspect that last has a great deal to do with it. But that doesn’t mean Giuliani and Trump aren’t trying to respond to a very serious problem. According to an unnamed source quoted by Josh Marshall in Talking Points Memo, who identifies himself or herself as “steeped in anti-corruption enforcement,” this little scam about Cohen’s “retainer” speaks to a system for getting money to people “while insulating and giving deniability to the ultimate payor of the bribe.” Using a “dirty lawyer as a bagman provides a number of advantages,” the source explains. Bribe or blackmail money can be laundered as “legal services” and businesses can write them off as expenses, which would be tax evasion. Needless to say, attorney-client privilege provides the perfect mechanism to conceal such an illegal arrangement.

Rudy Giuliani was once the New York U.S. attorney himself, so he must know this could be a red flag for criminal behavior. But he’s deep into Trump’s alternate reality today. They are two of a kind, close in age, scrappy New Yorkers who have become vulnerable to paranoia and conspiracy theories in their later years. They are both clearly in over their heads but are too egotistical to admit it. Giuliani’s display this week could be a lethal blow to this White House.

.

Were you lying then or are you lying now? by @BloggersRUs

Were you lying then or are you lying now?
by Tom Sullivan

If the Fourth Estate insists on debasing itself every day at White House briefings, the least reporters can do is ask Sarah Huckabee Sanders one simple question. Every. Single. Day. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

It is the courtroom question Charles Laughton so famously put to Marlene Dietrich in Billy Wilder’s Witness for the Prosecution (1957).

“The question is whether you were lying then or are you lying now… or whether in fact you are a chronic and habitual LIAR!“

Pretty much anytime an official from the Trump administration takes questions from the press, the question is appropriate. The question is appropriate for citizens entitled to better from officials sworn to put the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law before their personal interests. Integrity may be hard to measure, but a modicum is not unreasonable to ask.

The press should by now be tired of being Trump’s chumps. But it has taken decades of chronic and habitual lying by those now in power to be laid low by their own lies, and with little help from a national press in a defensive crouch against strategic charges of bias. Now that “fake news” is a meme, perhaps “fake president,” “fake CEO,” and “fake billionaire” ought to be next?

How pathetic is it that Fox News, the infotainment network, is the one pushing back against the flood of lies?

Meagan Flynn writes at the Washington Post:

Fox News host Neil Cavuto ripped into President Trump’s trail of conflicting and false statements in a monologue on Thursday, targeting Trump for everything from the Stormy Daniels payment to his exaggerations about illegal voting during the 2016 election.

Speaking directly to the president on his show, “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” he questioned why Trump lambastes the news media for “fake news” when his own statements are often contradictory.

“Now, I’m not saying you’re a liar,” Cavuto said. “You’re the president. You’re busy. I’m just having a devil of a time figuring out which news is fake. Let’s just say your own words on lots of stuff give me, shall I say, lots of pause.”

Charles Laughton he’s not. But when Fox News is no longer a safe space for Trump and his lackeys, they are “in a heap of trouble.”

“Let me be clear, Mr. President,” Cavuto said. “How can you drain the swamp if you’re the one who keeps muddying the waters?

“You didn’t know about the $130,000 payment to a porn star, until you did,” he continued. “Said you knew nothing about how your former lawyer handled this, until you acknowledged today that you were the guy behind the retainer payment that took care of this. You insist that money from the campaign or campaign contributions played no role in this transaction. Of that you’re sure. The thing is, not even 24 hours ago, sir, you couldn’t recall any of this.”

Trump is a symptom, albeit the most obvious one, of a party habituated to lying to the public without fear of consequence. Nancy LeTourneau points to yesterday’s statement by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on judicial appointments. He was speaking to Hugh Hewitt:

“Well, we’re going to continue to confirm judges all year. You know, the Congress doesn’t stop with the elections. It goes until the end of the year. We’re going to do six more next week, which will bring us to 21. I’m processing them as quickly as they come out of the Judiciary Committee, and the administration’s sending them up rapidly. I don’t know what the final number is, but my goal, Hugh, is to confirm all the circuit and district court judges that come out of committee this calendar year. All of them.”

That is McConnell now. This was McConnell then, during the final year of the Obama administration:

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” McConnell said in a statement.

This morning the New York Times Editorial Board calls out two more Republican luminaries for admitting now what they lied about then:

Marco Rubio, the senator from Florida and former presidential candidate, told The Economist recently that the big corporate tax cut that he voted for late last year was passed under the false pretense that businesses would use their tax windfall on their employees. As Mr. Rubio accurately said in the interview, “There’s no evidence whatsoever that the money’s been massively poured back into the American worker.” Mr. Rubio later walked back his assessment of the tax bill, writing in National Review that he thinks it “has been good for Americans.” But it was refreshing to see him clearly acknowledge, even once, what many economists and voters have long known. Sure enough, what we have seen so far is that companies are buying back stock, which benefits a small group of well-heeled investors, while giving their workers modest bonuses at best.

Then there’s Tom Price, Mr. Trump’s first health and human services secretary, who was ousted from the administration for blowing tax dollars on private plane trips. Last year he said, contrary to available evidence, that the provision in the A.C.A. that requires people to be insured was driving up the cost of health insurance. On Tuesday, Mr. Price did a 180 in a speech at a health care conference in Washington, noting correctly that, in fact, it was Congress’s decision to eliminate the health insurance mandate that “drives up the cost” of insurance. This is hardly a bold statement — most experts agree — but it was newsworthy coming from Mr. Price, who was a key supporter of Mr. Trump’s efforts to repeal the A.C.A. What was less surprising was that Mr. Price reverted to the party line a day later, saying that getting rid of the mandate “was exactly the right thing to do.”

But these admissions are but glimmers of truth, momentary flickers of humanity before the demons inside regain control. There is no Dana, only Zuul.

American voters should be especially wary, the Board warns, of election-year promises from politicians with long histories of lying to the public. The tragedy is the American public has been complicit in the emergence of lying as the default mode of governance, as well as a press acting as carriers of the contagion, rather than as antibodies against its spread.

Ryan Cooper observes at The Week that an American government “being suffocated under a tsunami of cash” now enjoys corruption on par with Brazil and Romania. But that corruption is as much a product of ideology as it is money and rank dishonesty:

Almost all of this is about individual corruption, but it also has a sharp right-wing political complexion. It involves de facto bribery of government employees of both parties (in the form of future jobs, consulting gigs, speaking engagements, etc) by the wealthiest institutions in the land. Virtually all of those are seeking conservative political outcomes: deregulation, legal loopholes, tax subsidies, and so on. Only a few left-leaning institutions (like unions) can even promise that kind of payoff, and none are remotely in the same league as big business money-wise.

But it is the American people, us, who bear the ultimate responsibility for tolerating the daily spew from the propaganda arms of the right and the regurgitated falsehoods the “access” press presents as news. Unless we demand the truth, we settle for far, far less.

* * * * * * * *

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

Dear Deplorables by tristero

Dear Deplorables 

by tristero

Dear Deplorables,

I get it. You won’t reject a politician because he’s a racist. Nor will you reject a politician because he likes to talk trash about women being worthless except to grab between the legs. Nor will you reject a politician if he openly mocks the disabled or if he treats the most powerful office in the world as an opportunity for grand-scale grifting.

But as I said, I understand. Valuing diversity, being respectful and honest in business and in my personal life? Those are my moral values. They’re not yours. Fair enough. There’s no reason we have to share the same moral values and we simply don’t. Instead…

You, my dear Deplorables, cherish family values. And by family values, you’ve been very clear. You mean, for example, not condoning the character of a man who sleeps with another woman just after his wife has given birth. Sounds reasonable, but…

There’s just one problem: you don’t live up to your own values. Because if you did, then this admission that your president had an affair with a director and actress in pornographic films would be a deal breaker. But I’m absolutely certain that next week I’ll look at my favorite poll, Trump’s approval ratings among Republicans, and it will still hover between 80% and 90% (right now it’s 89%).

But what about abortion? Every commentator says that that’s your bottom line, that that’s what got so many of you to accept Trump. He can do what he wants as long as he makes it impossible for women to have a legal abortion, for whatever reason, even rape.

Oh, yeah? I’ll bet good money that even if an abortion clinic produced a medical Permission-to-Abort form from one of Trump’s sexual companions, even if that form was signed by Trump himself and even if that form was notarized… yeah, even then you’d still slobber your approval and pump your fists and wear your MAGA caps.

Now, do you get it? It’s not by my moral standards that you’re so thoroughly deplorable, my friends, but by your own. Liberals like me aren’t judging you morally bankrupt, you’re judging yourselves.


A long time ago, a rather extraordinary young man ran up against his own Deplorables. He said:

 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Good question.

Love,

tristero