Skip to content

Month: June 2018

He liked him in the first five seconds

He liked him in the first five seconds

by digby

And I think he genuinely did. He’s a ruthless, vicious dictator who killed his uncle and his brother as well as hundreds of others to consolidate his power. What’s not to like?

A smattering of quotes:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say his people love him. Just a few months ago you accused him of starving his people. And listen, here’s the rub. Kim is a brutal dictator. He runs a police state, forced starvation, labor camps. He’s assassinated members of his own family. How do you trust a killer like that?

TRUMP: George, I’m given what I’m given, okay? I mean, this is what we have, and this is where we are, and I can only tell you from my experience, and I met him, I’ve spoken with him, and I’ve met him. … he wants to do the right thing…

“He trusts me, I believe, I really do. I think he trusts me, and I trust him.”

“Over my lifetime, I’ve done a lot of deals with a lot of people, and sometimes the people that you most distrust turn out to be the most honorable ones, and the people that you do trust they are not the honorable ones.”

“We have developed a very special bond.”

“Anybody that takes over a situation like he did, at 26 years of age, and is able to run it, and run it tough — I don’t say he was nice or I don’t say anything about it — he ran it.”

“I believe it’s a rough situation over there. There’s no question about it.”

Donald Trump on human rights abuses in North Korea: “Rough situation over there. It’s rough. It’s rough in a lot of places, by the way. Not just there.”

I’m not saying that he should have treated Kim Jong Un like an enemy on the scale of a Justin Trudeau or an Angela Merkel. But going out of his way to make excuses for him does seem a teensy bit excessive.

I think he sees himself in this fine young dictator.

.

Trump’s Singapore photo-op

Trump’s Singapore photo-op


by digby

I stayed up half the night to see what Trump came up with in Singapore for my Salon column this morning. I should have gone to bed:

I hope that most of you reading this had the good sense to turn on Netflix or catch up on your reading last evening and night rather than doing what I did and watch the endless, tedious cable news coverage of the North Korea summit in Singapore. Over the course of many hours there were a few photo ops of Trump and Kim shaking hands, smiling, sitting across from each other at a table with staff, eating lunch and walking around the property together. Trump repeatedly said that it was a “great honor” to meet with the brutal North Korean dictator while Kim indicated that it was hard to get there but was glad they were meeting. And from the beginning Trump said he was sure that the meeting was going to be excellent, the relationship was terrific and the summit was going to be a huge success, of course.

Unfortunately, the lack of news meant it was a day full of gaseous punditry punctuated by some circus side shows like former basketball player Dennis Rodman:

But I confess that as I fought the boredom of listening to talking heads make the same observations over and over again, I could not help but be reminded of Trump’s nuclear worldview which he expressed throughout the campaign. Knowing that he has never learned even one new thing in the last three decades, I felt a sense of dread about what was going to come out of this meeting.

Recall this comment in an interview in April 2016 with the Washington Post:

HIATT: Well I guess the question is, does the United States gain anything by having bases [in South Korea]? 

TRUMP: Personally I don’t think so. I personally don’t think so. Look. I have great relationships with South Korea. I have buildings in South Korea. But that’s a wealthy country. They make the ships, they make the televisions, they make the air conditioning. They make tremendous amounts of products. It’s a huge, it’s a massive industrial complex country. And — 

HIATT: So you don’t think the US gains from being the force that sort of that helps keep the peace in the Pacific? 

TRUMP: I think that we are not in the position that we used to be. I think we were a very powerful, very wealthy country. And we’re a poor country now. 

He said this at roughly the same time:

ANDERSON COOPER:So you have no problem with Japan and South Korea having nuclear weapons?

TRUMP: At some point we have to say, you know what, we’re better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea, we’re better off, frankly, if South Korea is going to start to protect itself, we have …

COOPER: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?

TRUMP: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.

COOPER: You would be fine with them having nuclear weapons?

TRUMP: No, not nuclear weapons, but they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us.Here’s the thing, with Japan, they have to pay us or we have to let them protect themselves.

COOPER: So if you said, Japan, yes, it’s fine, you get nuclear weapons, South Korea, you as well, and Saudi Arabia says we want them, too?

TRUMP: Can I be honest with you? It’s going to happen anyway. It’s going to happen anyway. It’s only a question of time. They’re going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely. But you have so many countries already, China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia, you have so many countries right now that have them.

Now, wouldn’t you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons?

Since he became president he has held the same view about withdrawing troops from South Korea.

In one heated exchange between the two men before February’s Winter Olympics in South Korea, Kelly strongly — and successfully — dissuaded Trump from ordering the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula, according to two officials.

So Trump came into this Singapore meeting with ideas of his own — blow up the global security umbrella that has kept the world from nuclear holocaust for nearly seven decades and replace it with rapid, global nuclear proliferation.

Dealing with a nuclear armed North Korea is the problem from hell. They have been signing agreements and reneging on them for more than 20 years as they built their nuclear arsenal and a successful delivery system. They are now members of the nuclear club and have to be dealt with in a new way.

In response to that, President Moon of South Korea ran on a peace platform last year and has been the main driver of the new process of engagement with Kim Jong Un. But seeing those comments from the campaign, it’s terrifying that Donald Trump is president in this moment.

The signing ceremony at the end of the summit was bizarre. Nobody knew what was in the document, nobody in congress or any foreign leaders were given a heads up, everyone was expected to applaud the agreement without having any idea what was in it. And I mean any idea. The president said it was terrific, of course and Kim said they had agreed to leave the past behind and that was it until they released the text hours later. Because regional allies had not been consulted, they were in the dark as well.

It turns out that the so-called “historic” document is nothing new. They agreed hat there should be peace and that they will look for human remains of soldiers lost during the Korean war. The only relevant item was that the North Koreans reaffirmed an agreement with South Korea from April that “commits” to “work toward” denuclearization in the Korean Peninsula.

The president claimed he did all the negotiating himself which isn’t surprising since this was actually a step backwards from earlier agreements such as the one reached from the Six-Party talks in 2005  in which the North Koreans actually agreed to give up “all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs” and then didn’t do it.  In his press conference he said that the US would be suspending war games but wouldn’t withdraw troops just yet.  He declared that the war games are expensive and “very provocative.” Evidently, Kim didn’t have to agree to anything in return for that concession.

Trump basically achieved nothing new. It was an elaborate photo-op. And, as usual, the self-congratulatory press conference he gave after the summit was downright delusional. He calls Kim “very talented” and described the conditions in North Korea as “rough.” He admitted that China has relaxed sanctions and he’s fine with it. The strict terms the North Koreans were supposed to agree to are no where to be found but it’s all good because he’s so much better than all the loser presidents who actually got tougher deals signed. Still,  considering all those comments he made during the campaign, it could have been much worse.

I have written before that any day we are not in a nuclear crisis with North Korea is better than the alternative. In that regard,  the summit was a success. But after Trump’s aggression against US allies at the G7 and then, in his own words, forming “a bond” with the ruthless dictator Kim Jong Un just days later, nobody should be reassured. It looks as though the more consequential of the two big meetings was the first one not the second.

Moving the goalposts, Part I lost count by @BloggersRUs

Moving the goalposts, Part I lost count
by Tom Sullivan


Marco Antonio Munoz committed suicide in police custody after becoming agitated and distraught over authorities forcibly separating him from his family.

All eyes may be on the premiere of Donald Trump’s latest reality show in Singapore, but there are other matters to consider at home.

Fearing death from domestic abuse and gang violence is no reason not to deny asylum to women and children reaching our borders because the United States of America declared they are not refugees; because we declared waterboarding is not torture either; and because we wanted to do both.

Who thinks these actions reflect American values?

U.S. and international law require the country to consider the asylum claims of refugees defined by U.S. law:

(42) The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions told immigration judges Monday to stop granting asylum to most victims of domestic abuse and gang violence:

“Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum,” Mr Sessions wrote in his ruling, which is a binding precedent for US immigration judges and relied largely on the notion that these are “private” crimes and do not qualify a victim for asylum in the US. “The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes—such as domestic violence or gang violence—or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.”

Sessions didn’t like the working definition of refugee so he moved the goalposts. The change will likely prevent tens of thousands of immigrants — mostly women reports the Independent — from finding safety in the United States.

This follows on the heels of the Trump administration’s announced “zero tolerance” policy on asylum claims and border crossings creating an overflow of immigrants in detention centers, with children being taken from their parents and held separately for weeks or months. The crackdown has resulted in a young Guatemalan woman being shot and killed by the Border Patrol. Marco Antonio Munoz, 39, of Honduras committed suicide in a padded cell after authorities forcibly separated him from his wife and 3-year-old son.

New Yorker‘s Jessica Winter observes that the rationale given for punishing children for the actions of their parents echoes the language of domestic abusers:

In a scene from Sunday’s Globe piece, a defense attorney pleads with a U.S. magistrate judge in Texas, Peter Ormsby, to order a group of immigrants in custody to be reunited with their children; Ormsby turns to the defendants and says, “I hope you understand the reason there was a separation is you violated the laws here.” Look what you made me do.

As the sitting president met with North Korea’s leader in Singapore, Now This compiled a series of video clips of how hotly the America right condemned the previous (Democrat) president for even considering speaking with hostile foreign leaders. Now that Donald Trump occupies the White House, the goalposts have moved:

On Monday conservative justices on the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Ohio could purge its voter rolls. The legal fight arose over the method Ohio uses for purging inactive voters from its rolls.

“You’ll see more red states making it easier to drop people from the voter registration rolls,” said Prof. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine and editor of Election Law Blog. Lower courts had ruled voters could not be purged for failing to exercise the right. Writing at Slate, Hasen explained, “No doubt other Republican states will follow suit and adopt Ohio’s procedures, leading to the removal of a disproportionate number of minority, low-income, and veteran voters from the list of eligible voters.”

Which is the point, of course. Many of those voters (when they do) tend to vote for Democrats:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a separate dissent, pointed particularly to the effect of Monday’s decision on minority and poor neighborhoods. She observed that, in Hamilton County – which includes Cincinnati – African-American neighborhoods in the city had 10 percent of their voters removed due to inactivity, as compared to only 4 percent in the suburban, white-majority neighborhoods.

Ari Berman wrote in January that Republicans have the National Voter Registration Act on their target list for repeal:

In 2013, the Supreme Court weakened a key part of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states with long histories of voting discrimination no longer needed to clear their election changes with the federal government. After winning that fight, Republicans are now going after the NVRA in what voting rights advocates say is a thinly veiled effort to make it more difficult for Democratic-leaning constituencies to register to vote—and far easier for state officials to remove them from the voter rolls. “We’re seeing a coming fight over how voter rolls are maintained,” says Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “It’s a new front in the voter suppression battles.”

Facing slumping GOP registration and a rapidly aging base, Republicans are moving the goalposts … for the opposing team.

Critics describe photo ID bills and other Republican-led “voter fraud” election law changes as a solution in search of a problem. Their Senate leader once argued that making voting easier for all Americans (via the NVRA) was a solution in search of a problem. Sen. Mitch McConnell wrote in 1991 that “relatively low voter turnout is a sign of a content democracy.” (These aren’t the voters droids you’re looking for.) He wasn’t advocating low voter participation, McConnell wrote, but what makes American democracy great is “Americans have the right not to vote.”

There is no set of core beliefs here. No faith and trust in American values or in democracy, only in expediency.

The truth when it gets us what we want; lies when it doesn’t.

The rule of law for thee but not for me.

Democracy so long as our side wins.

Mercy for the rich and powerful. Hardened hearts for the poor and weak because they’re poor and weak.

Who thinks these actions reflect American values? People who are Americans like Fox News is “fair and balanced,” that’s who.

* * * * * * * *

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

Sessions hits the stop button on legal immigration

Sessions hits the stop button on legal immigration

by digby


Meanwhile, back in the states:

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday overturned a grant of asylum to a Salvadoran domestic abuse victim, potentially excluding immigrants seeking refuge from sexual, gang and other forms of violence in their home countries.

The decision to refuse asylum to the Salvadoran woman, whose former husband raped and beat her for 15 years, narrows who can qualify for asylum when they become victims of criminal activity, as opposed to government persecution.

Sessions’ finding followed his unusual move to intervene personally in the case known as the “Matter of A-B-.” The woman, who is only identified by her initials, had won an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which had overturned a lower immigration court judge’s denial of her asylum petition.

“In reaching these conclusions, I do not minimize the vile abuse that the respondent reported she suffered at the hands of her ex-husband,” Sessions wrote in his order.

“I understand that many victims of domestic violence may seek to flee from their home countries to extricate themselves from a dire situation or to give themselves the opportunity for a better life,” he continued. “But the ‘asylum statute is not a general hardship statute,’” he said, citing an earlier immigration case.

An attorney for A-B, Karen Musalo, called the decision “devastating” and said it had been anguishing for her client.

“You have a woman who barely survived more than a decade of horrific violence, who finally feels that she secured safety … and now she’s thrown into total turmoil again,” said Musalo, who directs the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings’ law school.

The woman could still potentially appeal the case again to the Board of Immigration Appeals, then a federal appeals court and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sessions’ decision drew immediate rebukes from dozens of immigration rights advocate groups and lawyers. Some said the decision could have wide-ranging impacts on immigrants fleeing gang violence and gender-based violence, including female genital cutting or honor killings.
[…]

Unlike the federal judiciary system, U.S. immigration courts fall under the Justice Department’s jurisdiction, and the attorney general can intervene.

In immigration court, certain opinions published by the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest immigration court, serve to set national legal precedent. However, as the United States’ chief law enforcement officer, the attorney general can intercede in its decisions to shape law.

Sessions has been unusually active in this practice compared to his predecessors by exercising his intervention authority to make it harder for some people to legally remain in the United States.

In making his determination, he declared that a decision in a 2014 case before the Board of Immigration Appeals, which allowed victims of gender-based violence to claim U.S. asylum, “was wrongly decided and should not have been issued as a precedential decision.”

He remanded the case of A-B- back to Judge Stuart Couch in Charlotte, North Carolina, for further proceedings.

An investigation by Reuters last year found that Couch orders immigrants deported 89 percent of the time.

Monday’s decision marks Sessions’ latest effort to greatly restrict immigration. Cracking down on illegal immigration and tightening legal immigration were major themes of President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Earlier this year, Sessions declared he would attempt to ensure that every person who crosses the border illegally would be prosecuted, and he has staunchly defended a new policy of separating women and children at the border, including those seeking asylum.

Let’s not kid ourselves, it was always about legal immigration too. Sessions was open and above board about that. I wrote about this for Salon back in 2015:

Jeff Sessions had a lot to say about this in his “IMMIGRATION HANDBOOK FOR THE NEW REPUBLICAN MAJORITY” dated January 2015. It’s a fascinating document and well worth reading. It is the perfect example of right-wing populism at its most traditionally xenophobic.

He sets forth an argument that income inequality is not a result of the tax structure or the concentrated power of wealth but rather the result of immigrants stealing the jobs of natural born Americans:

The last four decades have witnessed the following: a period of record, uncontrolled immigration to the United States; a dramatic rise in the number of persons receiving welfare; and a steep erosion in middle class wages.

But the only “immigration reforms” discussed in Washington are those pushed by interest groups who want to remove what few immigration controls are left in order to expand the record labor supply even further.

The principal economic dilemma of our time is the very large number of people who either are not working at all, or not earning a wage great enough to be financially independent. The surplus of available labor is compounded by the loss of manufacturing jobs due to global competition and reduced demand for workers due to automation. What sense does it make to continue legally importing millions of low-wage workers to fill jobs while sustaining millions of current residents on welfare?

He put it into philosophical and historical perspective:

We need make no apology in rejecting an extreme policy of sustained mass immigration, which the public repudiates and which the best economic evidence tells us undermines wage growth and economic mobility. Here again, the dialect operates in reverse: the “hardliners” are those who refuse even the most modest immigration controls on the heels of four decades of large-scale immigration flows (both legal and illegal), and increased pressures on working families.

Conservativism is by its nature at odds with the extreme, the untested, the ahistorical.

The last large-scale flow of legal immigration (from approximately 1880–1920) was followed by a sustained slowdown that allowed wages to rise, assimilation to occur, and the middle class to emerge.

There’s a lot more. But as you can see, he’s been pushing to end immigration completely.

And you have to either laugh or cry at the contention by President Donald Trump’s Attorney General that “conservativism is by its nature at odds with the extreme, the untested, the ahistorical.”

Conservatism ain’ what it used to be.

This policy is horrifying and getting worse every day. It’s been reported that border patrol officers are removing little children from their mothers and telling them they are taking them away to bathe them and will be right back — and the children are never returned. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you the image that evokes …

.

The best people

The best people

by digby

??????!!!!!

Gorka actually had more influence than people realized. Read this long twitter thread from Colin Kahl, one of the former Obama administration advisers who, it was recently revealed had been the target of a dirty tricks campaign on behalf of the Trump administration, headed by an private Israeli security company with the purpose of discrediting the Iran deal. Gorka was apparently very involved inside the administration in the effort.

Also, he is a legit Nazi. Real deal.

.

Vodka toasts and gun factory tours

Vodka toasts and gun factory tours

by digby


Sure this is perfectly normal:

Several prominent Russians, some in President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle or high in the Russian Orthodox Church, now have been identified as having contact with National Rifle Association officials during the 2016 U.S. election campaign, according to photographs and an NRA source.

The contacts have emerged amid a deepening Justice Department investigation into whether Russian banker and lifetime NRA member Alexander Torshin illegally channeled money through the gun rights group to add financial firepower to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential bid.

Other influential Russians who met with NRA representatives during the campaign include Dmitry Rogozin, who until last month served as a deputy prime minister overseeing Russia’s defense industry, and Sergei Rudov, head of one of Russia’s largest philanthropies, the St. Basil the Great Charitable Foundation. The foundation was launched by an ultra-nationalist ally of Russian President Putin.

The Russians talked and dined with NRA representatives, mainly in Moscow, as U.S. presidential candidates vied for the White House. Now U.S. investigators want to know if relationships between the Russian leaders and the nation’s largest gun rights group went beyond vodka toasts and gun factory tours, evolving into another facet of the Kremlin’s broad election-interference operation.

Even as the contacts took place, Kremlin cyber operatives were secretly hacking top Democrats’ emails and barraging Americans’ social media accounts with fake news stories aimed at damaging the image of Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton and boosting the prospects of Republican Donald Trump.

It is a crime, potentially punishable with prison time, to donate or use foreign money in U.S. election campaigns.

McClatchy in January disclosed that Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller was investigating whether Torshin or others engineered the flow of Russian monies to the NRA; the Senate Intelligence Committee is also looking into the matter, sources familiar with the probe have said. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the inquiries, which are part of sweeping, parallel investigations into Russia’s interference with the 2016 U.S. elections, have not been publicly announced.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said, however, that the FBI has not contacted the group
Several prominent Russians, some in President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle or high in the Russian Orthodox Church, now have been identified as having contact with National Rifle Association officials during the 2016 U.S. election campaign, according to photographs and an NRA source.

The contacts have emerged amid a deepening Justice Department investigation into whether Russian banker and lifetime NRA member Alexander Torshin illegally channeled money through the gun rights group to add financial firepower to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential bid.

Other influential Russians who met with NRA representatives during the campaign include Dmitry Rogozin, who until last month served as a deputy prime minister overseeing Russia’s defense industry, and Sergei Rudov, head of one of Russia’s largest philanthropies, the St. Basil the Great Charitable Foundation. The foundation was launched by an ultra-nationalist ally of Russian President Putin.

The Russians talked and dined with NRA representatives, mainly in Moscow, as U.S. presidential candidates vied for the White House. Now U.S. investigators want to know if relationships between the Russian leaders and the nation’s largest gun rights group went beyond vodka toasts and gun factory tours, evolving into another facet of the Kremlin’s broad election-interference operation.

Even as the contacts took place, Kremlin cyber operatives were secretly hacking top Democrats’ emails and barraging Americans’ social media accounts with fake news stories aimed at damaging the image of Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton and boosting the prospects of Republican Donald Trump.

It is a crime, potentially punishable with prison time, to donate or use foreign money in U.S. election campaigns.

McClatchy in January disclosed that Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller was investigating whether Torshin or others engineered the flow of Russian monies to the NRA; the Senate Intelligence Committee is also looking into the matter, sources familiar with the probe have said. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the inquiries, which are part of sweeping, parallel investigations into Russia’s interference with the 2016 U.S. elections, have not been publicly announced.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said, however, that the FBI has not contacted the group.

It might make sense that Putin and his pals enjoy the NRA’s company because are all just like-minded freedom lovers who believe in the right to bear arms. Except for this:

Russian citizens over 18 years of age can obtain a firearms licence after attending gun-safety classes and passing a federal test and background check. The licence is for five years and may be renewed. Firearms may be acquired for self-defense, hunting, or sports activities. Carrying permits may be issued for hunting firearms licensed for hunting purposes. Initially, purchase is limited to smooth-bore long-barred firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules (18 ft⋅lbf). After five years of shotgun ownership, rifles may be purchased. Handguns are generally not allowed. Rifles and shotguns with barrels less than 500 mm (20 in) long are prohibited, as are firearms that shoot in bursts and have more than a 10-cartridge capacity. Suppressors are prohibited. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns (up to five shotguns and up to five rifles) unless they are part of a registered gun collection

That sounds like some commie pinko infringement on out God given right … oh wait.

Yes, he is an effing moron, why do you ask?

Yes, he is an effing moron, why do you ask?

by digby

via GIPHY

From the Economist:

On trade, at one point it seemed as though Mr Trump was in search of some sort of grand bargain, as he called for the end of all subsidies, tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade. But this was more an indication of how poorly Mr Trump understands the global trading system than a serious summons to the negotiating table. Even so, combing through the joint communiqué, signs of genuine co-operation were to be found, including a commitment to agree on new rules regarding “market-distorting subsidies” and state-owned enterprises.

After all that, Mr Trump’s trans-Pacific tweets struck an incendiary note. But his combination of bullying rhetoric and aggrieved victimhood is well-known. His threat to raise tariffs on cars is not new. An official investigation into whether cars are a threat to America’s national security was launched weeks ago. Nor is this the first time Mr Trump has railed against Canadian tariffs on dairy products. Mr Trudeau’s unwillingness to accept a hard sunset clause for NAFTA, or to accept American tariffs on steel and aluminium without retaliation, were also already clear.

It is perhaps more surprising that Mr Trump still faces people who think he can be persuaded by facts. The Cirque du Soleil performers who entertained the G7 leaders on Friday evening were not the only ones tying themselves in knots. At the meeting, Mr Trump’s counterparts brought binders of figures to the session devoted to trade in an attempt to persuade him that his belief that the rest of the world was unfair to America was mistaken. Tellingly, the desk in front of Mr Trump was bare. He later told reporters the others had been smiling at him as if they could not believe they had got away with using America as a “piggy bank” for so long. “The gig is up,” he said.

Then he got on the plane and had an epic meltdown when he saw a picture of Angela Merkel and heard that Justin Trudeau politely responded to those broadsides at a press conference.

And yes, he said gig, not jig.

This piece in the Star, goes into depth about what happened at the meeting. It’s actually worse than I thought:

Based on conversations on background and on-the-record talks with Canadian and other G7 delegation officials over the past three days, the behind-the-scenes dynamic was a tense one.

Coming into the summit, Trump had already angered allies with his decision to slap tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from some of America’s key allies, including Canada.

At talks on the economy Friday afternoon, one official from a European G7 delegation said Trump aired a string of “grievances” about trade. The others responded in kind, the official said.

All leaders in their final news conferences referenced that afternoon’s trade talk as “frank” and direct.

U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May told reporters that the other six leaders had expressed their opposition to Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs. “We had some difficult conversations and some strong debate.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Trump it was unacceptable that after two generations of alliance where they had worked to integrate their economies, Trump would sandbag his G7 allies with steel and aluminum tariffs “without talking to anybody,” said one official.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe tackled Trump’s threatened tariffs against the auto industry, arguing Japanese cars are not a national security threat to the U.S.

Those frictions on trade continued into the Friday evening bilateral meeting between Trump and Trudeau, one that started off cordially.

Trudeau offered the U.S. president a small token of friendship, a framed photo of Trump’s grandfather’s hotel in Bennett, B.C., which Trump’s press secretary tweeted as a “great moment” between the two.

As Canadian officials tell it, Trudeau went over all of Canada’s arguments in opposition to Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs, even though the Canadians had the feeling the American team had already “done some homework about how the Canadian public had reacted” to tariffs, and were surprised by the backlash.

Trudeau told Trump directly what he said in American television interviews the week before: that Canadians felt Trump’s declaration that Canadian steel and aluminum is a national security threat was “kind of insulting” — as Trudeau described it in his news conference Sunday.

An official said Trudeau used the example of the Canadian airbase where Trump’s Air Force One had touched down for the summit about an hour north.

“Why is Bagotville there? Bagotville is there to protect aluminum smelters that were building American warplanes in the Second World War,” Trudeau told Trump.

Trump’s trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, protested about Canada’s tariff markups on foreign dairy imports.

“The Prime Minister said, ‘Look, here’s the essence of our trading relationship. We sell you a lot of oil and energy and you sell us a lot of food and manufactured goods. It is a trillion dollar relationship. We could pick any one of those things and argue over the numbers. But shouldn’t we be talking about the relationship as a whole, which is an unmitigated positive for both of us?”

Canadian officials believed at the time Trump “got that.” They agreed to accelerate NAFTA talks, but there was no clear path as to the next steps with the tariffs in place.

After their meeting, Trump and Trudeau attended the G7 leaders working dinner on peace and security in the world, a topic where all leaders could find some common ground.

Abe’s spokesperson, Noria Maruyama, said half the discussion around the table was about North Korea, with Trump having the unanimous support of his allies. The rest of the talk centred on Russia, which he said prompted a lot of “vivid” and “frank” discussion.

En route to the summit, Trump had shocked everyone in calling for Russia to be readmitted to the G7. The others said no. Rookie Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte had first supported Trump, but later dialled back his enthusiasm.

After dinner Friday night, the leaders moved outdoors to watch a cultural entertainment show, complete with a bonfire and Cirque de Soleil performers.

Maruyama said the show put everyone in a “friendly” mood and, when it was all over, the leaders continued to talk.

Trudeau and Trump had been talking separately, then urged everyone to come into a leader’s lounge off their meeting room in the sprawling Manoir Richelieu so the leaders could try to reach agreement on a final statement.

The Americans, led by Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow, said they couldn’t agree to language that supported the global rules-based trading system because they were trying to reform the system, said a source, but agreed to a nod to the World Trade Organization. Trudeau argued that the two were linked.

The leaders went back and forth for up to an hour. The Americans could agree to language on the WTO, and “a rules-based global system” not “the rules-based global system,” said the source. All agreed to “commit to modernize the WTO to make it more fair as soon as possible.”

After that, the task of fine-tuning the statement was handed off to their “sherpas” or summit aides, and senior officials, who met until 2:30 in the morning.

But by the next morning, before the G7 leaders were to meet with a gender advisory council for breakfast, it appeared the consensus had unravelled.

And other sticking points remained, said the official. The Americans didn’t want to agree to a declaration on climate change that referenced the Paris Accord, nor did they want to sign on an oceans charter, which contained targets on plastics, with similar language.

Word came Trump was unexpectedly going to hold his own closing press conference before leaving. So there was a scramble to get the leaders together again to haggle over those issues.

It was the last chance to forge compromises.

Photos of the group of G7 leaders and their top officials, including one posted by Merkel’s office that went viral, show an intense debate that was going on over the final communiqué’s language on trade and oceans, with Trump seated in the middle.

No one expected Trump would sign on the climate change piece, but they’d hoped the U.S. would agree to take joint action to tackle plastic pollution in the world’s oceans.

In the end, it didn’t.

Trump held a news conference in which he promptly appeared to reject even the ideas on trade embodied in the communiqué he had agreed to, threatening to cut trade ties with any country who didn’t agree to a “zero tariffs” approach, telling reporters “the gig is up.”

“We’re like the piggy bank that everybody’s robbing, and that ends.”

Trump left, skipping the climate change and oceans sessions, but Trudeau took the stage Saturday evening to proclaim all G7 leaders had reached a joint statement, calling the summit a success and outlining his own talks with Trump.

It drew Trump’s wrath. Referencing Trudeau’s account of pushing back at the U.S., he tweeted Trudeau made “false statements.” He scorned Trudeau as appearing “meek and mild” in their meetings, but was “dishonest and very weak.”

Canadian officials insist, and Trudeau’s spokesperson tweeted, that Trudeau said nothing he hadn’t already said in public or in private to Trump.

On Sunday, Trudeau wouldn’t directly respond to Trump’s comments, only tweeting that the meaningful work the G7 had done was all that matters.

Canadian government officials were equally careful.

One called Trump’s actions rude, another said the U.S. president had personally insulted the prime minister and he would not engage on that level, adding that Trudeau was mindful of Trump’s concern — stated through Kudlow — that Trump was angry he’d been made to look weak in advance of the North Korea summit.

In the end, a summit meant to patch trade rifts ended with a deeper acrimony and questions about the Canada-U.S. relationship and how it could recover in the crucial weeks ahead.

Wonderful.

QOTD: James Madison

QOTD: James Madison

by digby

Federalist 63:

A FIFTH desideratum, illustrating the utility of a senate, is the want of a due sense of national character. Without a select and stable member of the government, the esteem of foreign powers will not only be forfeited by an unenlightened and variable policy, proceeding from the causes already mentioned, but the national councils will not possess that sensibility to the opinion of the world, which is perhaps not less necessary in order to merit, than it is to obtain, its respect and confidence.

An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: the one is, that, independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy; the second is, that in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can be followed. What has not America lost by her want of character with foreign nations; and how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her measures had, in every instance, been previously tried by the light in which they would probably appear to the unbiased part of mankind?

He never met Mitch McConnell…

h/t AG

Trump’s G7 debacle

Trump’s G7 debacle

by digby

Well, that was fun, wasn’t it? I’m speaking, of course, of the frolics over the weekend between our president and the rest of the world. If you wanted a president who would tell his friends to go pound sand, then Donald Trump fulfilled your every wish. He went to Quebec for the G7 summit meeting with the intention of putting American allies in their place. They were to understand who was in charge and who makes the rules: The Trump States of America. On the White House lawn prior to taking off in Marine One for the Canadian summit he made it clear:

We’re going to deal with the unfair trade practices. If you look at what Canada, Mexico, the European Union, all of them have been doing to us for many, many decades, we have to change it. And they understand it’s going to happen . . . European Union treats us very unfairly. Canada, very unfairly. Mexico, very unfairly.

(If you don’t understand why this is nonsense, read this from Paul Krugman, who won his Nobel Prize for his work on international trade.)

Trump showed up late and left early and declared victory over his allies in a rambling press conference on his way out the door:

The European Union is brutal to the United States. They don’t — and they understand that. They know it. When I’m telling them, they’re smiling at me. You know, it’s like the gig is up. It’s like the gig is up. They’re not trying to — there’s nothing they can say. They can’t believe they got away with it. Canada can’t believe it got away with it . . . But a lot of these countries actually smile at me when I’m talking. And the smile is — we couldn’t believe we got away with it. That’s the smile. So it’s going to change. It’s going to change.

They have no choice. If it’s not going to change, we’re not going to trade with them.It was an astonishing press conference, with Trump pretty much rubbing America’s allies’ faces in the dirt while strutting around figuratively pounding his chest and proclaiming his dominance. He warned the other countries not to “retaliate” against his attacks or they would be sorry. Nobody knew at that moment if he was going to sign the usual allied communiqué or not. It was impossible to tell. When the word came that the administration planned to sign it, a sense of relief was felt around the the world.

And then all hell broke loose. This picture was released on Twitter and Trump went nuts:

It’s impossible to know if that’s what triggered Trump into a vituperative rage and a refusal to sign the G7 communiqué, but it doesn’t make sense that it was Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s anodyne press conference in defense of his nation. After all, Trump had trash-talked Canada in his press conference on his way out of town. If he expected Trudeau to simply say, “Yes, sir, may I have another?” he was mistaken. Trudeau has voters too.

No, it was the picture. It was Angela Merkel looming over Trump, with his arms crossed and a smirk on his face, looking all the world like a five-year-old, that made him lose his mind. Like the cowardly sandbox bully he is, he turned on his closest ally:

Everyone probably would have just chalked that up to Trump being Trump, which is to say an embarrassment and a fool. But instead of letting it go, his team decided that this was their chance to give Rudy Giuliani a run for his money as the most unhinged sycophant of the Trump administration.

Last week I noted that Giuliani seemed to be under the influence of Red Bull and Limoncello in his Great Israel Adventure, but he was as sober as Oliver Wendell Holmes compared to Larry Kudlow on the Sunday morning shows. It’s hard to know what was afflicting the president’s top economic adviser, but something was. Kudlow’s performance on CNN’s “State of the Union” will be remembered for decades.

Kudlow slurred and rambled in defense of his boss in a thoroughly unconvincing manner, trying to say that the G7 had negotiated in bad faith because Trudeau said in a press conference that the Canadians would not be pushed around. In fact, he pretty much had a hysterical fit over it on national television. Trump’s extremist trade adviser, Peter Navarro, got down and dirty, suggesting “there’s a special place in hell for Justin Trudeau.” They seemed to be competing for how far up Trump’s royal robes each of them could get.

Kudlow, who should know better but seemed somewhat “under the weather,” didn’t recognize the total absurdity of such pearl-clutching in light of the thuggish threats his boss has been issuing for months. But somewhere in the middle of his bleary tantrum he opened a new front, indicating to Jake Tapper that the G7 countries had been expected to kowtow to Trump and allow him to dominate their industry and trade, as a way to impress North Korean leader Kim Jong Un with Trump’s manly superiority. He portrayed their unwillingness to sacrifice their own voters to make Trump look like a Real Man as a betrayal of world peace.

Kim may have led a cloistered life, but he’s not that dumb. He has already shown that he largely has Trump’s number, and what he didn’t know before, Chinese President Xi Jinping has surely shared with him in their meetings leading up to this summit. All Trump has done is degrade the alliances between the U.S. and its closest allies for reasons that only he knows.

I didn’t even bring up the fact that aside from Trump’s trade war against U.S. allies, the one big thing about which he was most adamant was his desire for Russia to be readmitted to the G7 because, as he said, “We have a world to run.” I don’t know who voted for Trump and Vladimir Putin to run the world, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a majority of Americans.

.

You need an analyst, a psychoanalyst by @BloggersRUs

You need an analyst, a psychoanalyst
by Tom Sullivan


Manual reconstruction of Stasi documents. Source: BStU.

But. Her. Emails.

Among the bizarre behaviors of the sitting president, this one stands out. Donald Trump has claimed repeatedly Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted for destroying emails she “acid washed” from her personal server’s hard drive (her staff used a free app called BleachBit). Politico reports Trump destroys official documents personally:

Armed with rolls of clear Scotch tape, [Solomon] Lartey and his colleagues would sift through large piles of shredded paper and put them back together, he said, “like a jigsaw puzzle.” Sometimes the papers would just be split down the middle, but other times they would be torn into pieces so small they looked like confetti.

It was a painstaking process that was the result of a clash between legal requirements to preserve White House records and President Donald Trump’s odd and enduring habit of ripping up papers when he’s done with them — what some people described as his unofficial “filing system.”

Under the Presidential Records Act, the White House must preserve all memos, letters, emails and papers that the president touches, sending them to the National Archives for safekeeping as historical records.

Donald Trump’s habit when he is finished with documents is to tear them up and throw them in the trash or onto the floor. To prevent violations of law (if willful destruction of presidential records is not), staffers learned to collect the fragments and ferry them to the records office across the street to be reassembled by hand by Lartey (54, earning $65,969 per year) and his team.

Lartey said the papers he received included newspaper clips on which Trump had scribbled notes, or circled words; invitations; and letters from constituents or lawmakers on the Hill, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

“I had a letter from Schumer — he tore it up,” he said. “It was the craziest thing ever. He ripped papers into tiny pieces.”

The story comes out now after a reporter approached Reginald Young Jr., 48, another senior records management analyst, to ask about his abrupt dismissal after decades in government service. The White House fired Lartey in March and Young in April, forcing them to sign pre-written resignation letters. Both have no idea why they were “stripped of their badges with no explanation and marched off of the White House grounds by Secret Service,” Politico reports. Lartey corroborated Young’s account of their dismissal. The White House would not comment.

I keep hearing this little ditty from an Allan Sherman record my dad brought home when I was a kid:

If you’re always tearing paper into teeny weeny bits,
You need an analyst, a psychoanalyst

Since the president is in Singapore to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, let’s hope someone is collecting those bits and brought lots of good, old American scotch tape. Kim brought a squadron of three planes to confuse observers over which he was in. These two are made for each other:

First to arrive in Singapore was an IL-76 transport plane carrying food and other essentials for Kim as well as his bullet-proof limousine and a portable toilet that will deny determined sewer divers insights into to the supreme leader’s stools.

Someone on Trump’s staff will be out of a job for not thinking of that. Lartey and Young can take comfort that toilet tissue is not a presidential record.

Speaking of bodily functions, Trump has an 8-inch height advantage on Kim. Maybe “the two dictators” should just find a tree and see who can pee higher up the trunk. Trump can declare himself the winner and go home without doing any more damage.

* * * * * * * *

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