Skip to content

Month: June 2018

Trump’s power lies with his effective wielding of the bully pulpit. How surprising…

Published by digby on June 4, 2018

Trump’s power is his effective wielding the bully pulpit

by digby

Jim VandeHei of Axios makes a pretty persuasive case that the bully pulpit has some power after all:

In our lifetime, no president has matched Donald Trump’s ability to summon the power of the pulpit, friendly media, and the tweet-by-tweet power of repetition and persuasion to move minds en masse.

The big picture: You see this in the silence of Republican critics; the instant shifts in GOP views of the FBI, Putin and deficits; and the quick, widespread adoption of his branding efforts around “deep state,” “Spygate” and “no collusion.” We hear so much, so often that we become numb to what Trump is doing. This allows big things (such as fundamental shifts in governing norms) to seem like small things or nothing at all.

Why this matters … Trump and allies are floating untested legal arguments: The president can’t obstruct justice, or can unilaterally shut down probes of himself, or can even pardon himself. If you think he won’t try something unprecedented — and maybe get away with it, at least with Republicans — you aren’t paying attention.

A few data points to marinate in:

For all the drama, “never befores” and controversy, at 501 days into his presidency, Trump has more party support than any president since World War II except George W. Bush after 9/11. The more Republicans see and hear, the more they agree with him.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the second ranking Republican in the House and possible next Speaker, on CNN yesterday became the latest GOP leader to claim “no collusion,” despite Robert Mueller’s ongoing probe. The more they hear his terms, the more they repeat them.

Michael Hayden, a huge Trump critic who’s a former CIA director and National Security Agency director, tells Kara Swisher in a Recode Decode podcast that Republican support is so unmovable that impeachment, regardless of evidence, would be unwise because it’d be seen as “soft coup.”
A case in point on being numb: Trump’s retaliation against Amazon.

He threatened the company behind the scenes, then publicly, while privately pushing U.S. Postmaster General Megan Brennan to double Amazon’s package rates.

This was quickly forgotten even though it’s highly abnormal for presidents to use their voice and power to pick on one specific public company using misleading data points.

Tim Miller, a Republican and the former spokesman for Jeb Bush, nailed the nothing-is-abnormal-when-everything-is-abnormal phenomenon in a tweet about a piece he wrote for Crooked Media:

“Take Romney’s 47% gaffe – or frankly any major political gaffe in history – and dump it into Trumps Nashville speech verbatim. The remark wouldn’t have even made it into the newspaper.”

Then consider this small but telling example of persuasion:

No one in the world was thinking about former Illinois Gov. Rob Blagojevich, who’s serving a 14-year sentence for corruption and soliciting bribes. He was a Democrat brought down by Democrats in a Democratic state.

Suddenly Trump floated the idea of curtailing his sentence, claiming he was guilty of typical politics, not some huge crime. Again, this was not the view of Democrats or the courts.

Then, Fox News’ Judge Jeanine Pirro, a Trump favorite, made her Saturday night show a shockingly safe and sympathetic forum for Blagojevich’s wife, Patti, to kiss up to Trump and paint the president and her husband as victims.

The Trump and Fox formula probably means Blagojevich will be freed — and a lot of Republicans will applaud, if recent history holds.

Remember this: Hayden might be right. It is possible that no matter what Mueller finds, no matter how extensive or incriminating, Trump survives.

The only indisputable way to remove a president from office is for him to be impeached, then convicted and ousted by a supermajority of the Senate.

That means a bunch of Republicans would need to turn on him — and there is scant evidence to date that many, if any, ever would.

He’s right. But that doesn’t mean that Democrats shouldn’t do it anyway simply because a bunch of traitors will call it a “softy coup.” Who gives a shit? They impeached a president over an extramarital affair.

L’etat c’est moi o’ the day

Published by digby on June 4, 2018

L’etat c’est moi o’ the day

by digby

Yes, there is a tweet for everything. And video:

That threat to go after Clinton was real and on Fox news they still pimp it hard every day. Nunes, Hannity and the boys are working hard to get a parallel investigation into The Emails and everything else. Trump still says daily that it’s Crooked Hillary and the Democrats who should be investigated. This was just last November:

The Justice Department’s Nov. 13 letter to GOP lawmakers said Sessions had “directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues” the committee raised, which includes Clinton’s role in approving the sale of Uranium One, and alleged illegal Clinton foundation dealings. (See our explainer on Uranium One here.)

The letter states that prosecutors, who will report directly to Sessions and his deputy, have been told to “make recommendations as to whether any of the matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.”

Now Trump believes that since the president is a monarch who is not subject to the rule of law but rather IS the law, he can order investigations into anyone he chooses and has the absolute power to pardon himself:

I’m sure all the jaded cynics who call me a old Resistance hysteric will dismiss this as just more Trumpian balderdash. But it isn’t business as usual. If it were just him ranting on that would be one thing. But he has a state TV network, a congressional majority and 40% of the voters backing him along with certain foreign actors who understand that he’s a cretinous dotard.

His “unfettered” powers are dependent upon that support and, so far, that seems to be holding strong.

.

Emperor of the world

Published by digby on June 4, 2018

Emperor of the world

by digby

Last Wednesday I wrote a piece headlined “Trump’s contempt for the rule of law: It’s deeply troubling, and getting worse.” I laid out some examples of President Trump’s manipulation of the Justice Department and flouting of norms and rules. I noted that on a number of occasions he’s explicitly said that he is not subject to the rule of law, whether in letter or spirit.

For instance, Trump has repeatedly claimed that the president cannot have a conflict of interest and therefore cannot be held liable for corruption. He has said that a president cannot be accountable for passing classified information to whomever he chooses, because he has the power to declassify documents for any reason at all. And he told The New York Times, “I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department,” explaining that as long as he felt the DOJ was being fair he wouldn’t exercise that power. He has since said many times that he is preparing to intervene; indeed, it’s been reported that Trump is still pressuring Jeff Sessions to be his “Roy Cohn” and take back control of the Russia investigation.

Over the weekend, The New York Times reported that the president’s lawyers have made these claims officially in memos to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The documents come right out and say it:

Indeed, the President not only has unfettered statutory and Constitutional authority to terminate the FBI Director, he also has Constitutional authority to direct the Justice Department to open or close an investigation, and, of course, the power to pardon any person before, during, or after an investigation and/or conviction. Put simply, the Constitution leaves no question that the President has exclusive authority over the ultimate conduct and disposition of all criminal investigations and over those executive branch officials responsible for conducting those investigations.

Rudy Giuliani explained in vivid terms that the law does not and cannot apply to the president. He told the Huffington Post, “In no case can he be subpoenaed or indicted. I don’t know how you can indict while he’s in office. No matter what it is.”

Giuliani even suggested that the president could not be indicted for murder: “If he shot James Comey, he’d be impeached the next day. Impeach him, and then you can do whatever you want to do to him.”

Since the Republican Congress is actively engaging in obstructing an investigation into Trump’s possible conspiracy with a foreign adversary and helping to subvert the rule of law at every turn, that is hardly reassuring. And their voters apparently don’t care:

In Giuliani’s imaginary scenario, one can easily imagine that Trump would tweet that he’d had to shoot Comey to defend America and that would be that. After all, he famously said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and not lose any votes. I suspect he’s right about that.

There is a school of conservative constitutional thought that has always argued for a “unitary executive” with expansive powers. But this takes that concept to an entirely new level. If you read the Times article in full, you’ll see that Trump’s attorneys make this argument on shaky ground and ignore many recent opinions. Let’s just say the consensus in the legal profession is that the lawyering in this memo leaves a lot to be desired.

Still, this makes clear that Trump and his minions really do believe that the president is basically an absolute monarch. Which leads us to his other royal decrees in the last few days.

Under a dubious definition of “national security emergency,” Trump is planning to order the Energy Department to force power-grid operators to purchase energy from coal and nuclear plants that otherwise would be forced to shut down because of competition from cheaper sources. Aside from the disastrous environmental consequences of this order, it’s going to cost consumers more money as well. This is being done on behalf of the coal industry, obviously, which was a major supporter of Trump’s campaign.

And the administration dusted off the same “national security” rationale to announce last week that the president will enact aluminum and steel tariffs against America’s closest allies, Mexico, Canada and the EU, sparking fresh fears of a real trade war and causing a major rift with America’s most enduring alliances:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau weighed in as well, stating the obvious, a sentiment undoubtedly shared by other U.S. allies who have just been slapped in the face for no good reason:

Our soldiers who had fought and died together on the beaches of World War II . . . and the mountains of Afghanistan, and have stood shoulder to shoulder in some of the most difficult places in the world, that are always there for each other, somehow — this is insulting to them.

There may be reasons to enact trade barriers and tariffs on certain goods, under a sane program that makes even a little bit of economic and foreign policy sense, but not like this. Even the president of the United Steelworkers has said his union does not support enacting tariffs on Canadian steel.

Trump has been systematically alienating U.S. allies since he took office, reducing our relationship with them to a crude and simplistic economic transaction, without the slightest understanding of the world’s complexities, including those in the economic realm. He reportedly has been screaming at economic advisers for the past year, “I want tariffs, bring me some tariffs!” and apparently just decided that he was going to do it himself.

Former GOP operative Mike Lofgren told the Atlantic’s James Fallows that the stakes here are much higher than people might realize:

Trump’s dangerous moves could very well bring down NATO, fracture the EU, and leave the US alone against two hostile powers (China and Russia), while our biggest force multiplier and a regional bloc which shared liberal democratic values with us, has been irrevocably alienated and possibly destroyed.

Trump doesn’t just believe that as president he has unlimited power to do as he pleases in his own country. He clearly believes the U.S. has unlimited power to dominate the world as he pleases as well.

None of this should surprise us. He has said over and over that “the world is laughing at us,” and he’s determined to make it pay, one way or another. He doesn’t think he’s a king. He thinks he should be emperor.

.

The “I” word

Published by digby on June 4, 2018

The “I” word

by digby

This seems like something worth recalling as we debate whether or not it’s useful to mention impeachment before an election:

GOP congressmen, asked about impeachment, warn of ‘constitutional crisis’ if Clinton wins
By Andrew Kaczynski, CNN

 Wed November 2, 2016

“You really could have a constitutional crisis here,” said Peter King.

“You put your finger on it: we would really have a constitutional crisis,” said Louie Gohmert. 

(CNN)The outcome of the 2016 election won’t be decided for another six days, but the topic of impeaching Hillary Clinton if she wins is already a topic of discussion on conservative talk radio.

Several Republican congressmen have been asked this week about a potential Clinton impeachment if she were indicted as a result of an FBI investigation into her emails; all of them warned of a “constitutional crisis” if Clinton were to be elected.

Their answers mirror what Donald Trump has being saying on the campaign trail. At a rally Monday, Trump warned of the “very possibility of constitutional crisis” and said if Clinton were elected, she would face criminal investigations and possibly a trial.

Texas Rep. Michael McCaul ‏on Fox News Wednesday explicitly mentioned the possibility of impeachment.

“Assuming she wins, and the investigation goes forward, and it looks like an indictment is pending, at that point in time, under the Constitution, the House of Representatives would engage in an impeachment trial,” McCaul said. “They would go to the Senate and impeachment proceedings and removal would take place.”

“I would hate to see this country being thrown into a constitutional crisis because of Hillary Clinton’s behavior,” he added.

‏Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner told conservative radio host Charlie Sykes Tuesday that there would be a “constitutional crisis” if Clinton was indicted, and when asked about impeachment, answered, “I think that is something that is speculative in nature. I’m speculating, what I can say is that I think Richard Nixon would have been indicted and he would have been impeached. He stopped the impeachment by resigning as a result of Watergate and he stopped the indictment by President Ford pardoning him.”

New York Rep. Peter King offered a similar response when speaking on Long Island local radio Tuesday morning.

“There’s been nothing like this where you can have potential criminal charges,” King said on “L.I. in the AM.” Asked about impeachment, King responded investigations could drag on into Clinton’s term as president.

“You really could have a constitutional crisis here,” King said.

Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show Monday, where he agreed that a potential Clinton administration is heading towards impeachment and investigations.

“You put your finger on it: we would really have a constitutional crisis,” Gohmert said after Hannity said a Clinton presidency would likely be headed towards impeachment. “We’ve never had anyone under this type of investigation at the top of the election. There’s nobody to blame but Hillary.”

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson from Wisconsin also said Clinton could be impeached in an interview Tuesday with a local newspaper, and Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson said in a radio interview over the weekend that she may be headed for impeachment.

They pretended it was an act of nature, something that couldn’t be avoided because of her heinous crimes and corruption. They acted as if they had no agency, would it be necessary to preserve the rule o’ law and protect the constitution. Because they were patriots.

This is one reason why they are so willing to believe that the Russian investigation and everything that goes with it is a hoax — because ginning up a scandal to impeach Clinton is what they had planned to do.

It may have contributed to Trump’s microscopic electoral college win too. There were undoubtedly people who knew they meant it.

And they did.

Update: I saw some reporters on twitter scoffing at this, but of course he’s right:

Former President Bill Clinton said that impeachment hearings would have begun if a Democratic president, instead of Donald Trump, were in power and the Russia investigation was as far along as it is now.

“I think if the roles were reversed — now, this is me just talking, but it’s based on my experience — if it were a Democratic president, and these facts were present, most people I know in Washington believe impeachment hearings would have begun already,” Clinton told “CBS Sunday Morning.”

The former Democratic president added, “And most people I know believe that the press would have been that hard, or harder. But these are serious issues.”

As of last month, the special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation has led to 75 criminal charges, five guilty pleas, and one sentencing.

Asked if the media has been unfair to Trump in its reporting on the Russia probe, Clinton said, “I think they have tried by and large to cover this investigation based on the facts.”

Obviously they would have done it. They were already preparing to before the election.

.

Is this who we are now? by @BloggersRUs

Published by Tom Sullivan on June 4, 2018

Is this who we are now?
by Tom Sullivan


Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) outside former Walmart in Brownsville, TX. Office of Refugee Resettlement facility may house hundreds of children separated from parents at border. Note blacked-out windows.

On Saturday, I wrote about the Trump Department of Justice policy of separating children from their parents when detained at the U.S. border. An unknown number of immigrants with children have fled dangerous conditions in their home countries and arrive at the U.S. southern border to seek asylum. Prosecuting asylum seekers for illegal entry violates U.S. and international law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017 upheld a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that the federal government’s detention policy violated the Flores Agreement on the detention, release, and treatment of children in immigration custody. That case originated under the Obama administration.

So as a deterrent to immigrants, arresting asylum seekers for prosecution and warehousing their children separately is the new policy of the Trump DOJ. They simply transfer the newly created unaccompanied minors from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody (Department of Homeland Security) to the Office of Refugee Resettlement under the Department of Health and Human Services.

Sunday night, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) visited a warehousing facility in Brownsville, TX. The repurposed Walmart with blacked-out windows houses an unknown number of children. The Department of Homeland Security, Merkley says, has prohibited the press and members of Congress from inspecting its facilities. Merkley posted a Facebook Live video of the attempted visit.

From the Oregonian:

Merkley’s video, which had more than 435,000 views late Sunday night, cast a spotlight on new immigration policy. On May 7, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the U.S. would begin prosecuting anyone trying to enter the country illegally, including asylum seekers.

Families would be split up in such cases, with adults sent to jails and children placed in the custody the Office of Refugee Resettlement, a unit of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The facility Merkley visited is operated by Southwest Key Programs, a nonprofit which according to its website runs 27 shelters for immigrant children in Texas, Arizona and California.

The senator was made to wait at the door, which had its glass panes blacked out, while an employee tried to track down a supervisor. Police arrived just as a supervisor came outside. The supervisor said he was not authorized to discuss the issue, and Merkley was eventually asked to leave.

“The reason why I came is this new policy that the attorney general has in place of families that are waiting for the adjudication of their application for asylum in the U.S., and the children are being separated,” Merkley tells police officers in the video.

Politico reports that the policy change is part of the “shock and awe” tactics preferred by top White House policy aide Stephen Miller. The American Civil Liberties Union has already filed a class-action lawsuit in San Diego on behalf of a Congolese woman whose 7-year-old daughter was being held somewhere in Chicago even before the policy change:

Two DHS officials said they had not seen any legal analysis making the case for the new prosecution strategy before Sessions announced it in May — a standard part of rolling out policy.

“In a normal administration, you make an analysis of the law and the policy change,” said one of the DHS officials. “The notion is to reduce litigation around it.” This person added: “It’s not clear to me that any of that foundational legal work has been done.”

[…]

Shelters for unaccompanied minors, which are overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, historically have been geared more toward teenagers, who came into the country alone, and who can live in dorm-like settings – not to children who need cribs, formula, help getting dressed or going to the bathroom. Advocates worry about the length of time these children could be held in custody away from their parents, as well as the difficulty of reuniting families held in different parts of the country.

A backup plan exists to help with the resources: the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement maintains 1,218 reserve beds and could open temporary facilities, including one in Homestead, Fla. If the department exceeds its $1.3 billion budget to house unaccompanied minors, it may need to transfer funds from other parts of its budget, which it’s done in the past.

“There’s no way HHS has the capability to handle this kind of influx of children, especially small children,” said Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney representing the plaintiffs in the San Diego case. “I think it’s only going to get worse.”

It’s already worse. “This isn’t zero tolerance,” Merkley says in the video, “this is zero humanity.”

* * * * * * * *

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

“Something up our sleeves…”

Published by digby on June 4, 2018

“Something up our sleeves…”

by digby

The Inspector General Report that has the entire right wing on pins and needles wasn’t just about the all important Clinton emails. He was also tasked with seeing if Rudy Giuliani had been working hand in glove with the FBI in New York and knew that the Weiner laptop story was going to blow one way or the other.

I remember seeing this in the moment. Look at the demented childike glee written all over his face at just after the 2 minute mark:

That morning on Fox and Friends he’d said this:

Brian Kilmeade, a Fox News host, asked Mr. Giuliani about the presidential campaign during its last two weeks.

“Does Donald Trump plan anything except a series of inspiring rallies?” Mr. Kilmeade asked.

“Yes,” Mr. Giuliani replied.

Another host, Ainsley Earhardt, jumped in.

“What?” she asked.

“Ha-ha-ha,” Mr. Giuliani laughed. “You’ll see.”

Appearing to enjoy his own coy reply, Mr. Giuliani resumed chuckling: “Ha-ha-ha.”

“When will this happen?” Ms. Earhardt asked.

“We got a couple of surprises left,” Mr. Giuliani said, smiling.

(Here is the liar saying he was talking about some advertising they were doing on the week-end.)

Rudy is almost as loose lipped as Kevin McCarthy

He wasn’t the only one:

Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump, married to middle son Eric, hinted on ‘Fox & Friends’ this morning that the Republican nominee may be holding onto an ‘October surprise’ to drop on Hillary Clinton.

‘Well there’s still a couple days left in October,’ said Lara Trump. ‘We’ve got some stuff up our sleeve.’

This piece by the late Wayne Barret remains the Rosetta Stone of the Rudy/FBI story:

Two days before FBI director James Comey rocked the world last week, Rudy Giuliani was on Fox, where he volunteered, un-prodded by any question: “I think he’s [Donald Trump] got a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next few days. I mean, I’m talking about some pretty big surprises.”

Pressed for specifics, he said: “We’ve got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn this thing around.”

The man who now leads “lock-her-up” chants at Trump rallies spent decades of his life as a federal prosecutor and then mayor working closely with the FBI, and especially its New York office. One of Giuliani’s security firms employed a former head of the New York FBI office, and other alumni of it. It was agents of that office, probing Anthony Weiner’s alleged sexting of a minor, who pressed Comey to authorize the review of possible Hillary Clinton-related emails on a Weiner device that led to the explosive letter the director wrote Congress.

Hours after Comey’s letter about the renewed probe was leaked on Friday, Giuliani went on a radio show and attributed the director’s surprise action to “the pressure of a group of FBI agents who don’t look at it politically.”

“The other rumor that I get is that there’s a kind of revolution going on inside the FBI about the original conclusion [not to charge Clinton] being completely unjustified and almost a slap in the face to the FBI’s integrity,” said Giuliani. “I know that from former agents. I know that even from a few active agents.”

Read the whole thing if you haven’t. The FBI is under siege from the Trumpies today. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t Trumpies in the FBI. The Inspector General might even be one of them for all we know…

.

Uh oh. A Democrat didn’t get the “don’t make trouble” message

Published by digby on June 3, 2018

Uh oh. A Democrat didn’t get the “don’t make trouble” message

by digby

There were no Democrats on the mainstream Sunday gasbag shows this morning. It’s unknown if they just didn’t want to come on because they might be asked about Trump and prefer to excite their base by explaining their 10 point plan to revive the Volcker Rule when they get back into the White House sometime in the next decade — or if they weren’t invited.

However, Fox had a Democratic challenger on. He didn’t shy away from talking about the single most vital issue that has to be prioritized before we can even begin to think about making positive change:

Crooks and Liars wrote it up:

Fox News host Pege Hegseth on Sunday came out on the losing side of an interview with Virginia candidate for U.S. House Dan Helmer (D).

In a Sunday interview on Fox & Friends, Hegseth confronted the Democrat about one of his campaign advertisements, which compares Donald Trump to Osama bin Laden.

Hegseth began the interview by thanking Helmer, who served in Afghanistan, for his military service. But the pleasantries ended there.

“Obviously an ad like that gets noticed,” Hegseth opined. “We’re talking about it on the highest rated cable morning show in America. The question I have to you is, do you believe that Donald Trump is the moral equivalent of Osama bin Laden?”

Helmer, however, seemed to have the perfect antidote to the Fox News style of interview.

“I actually believe on 9/11 — and my heart goes out to all that we lost that day and their families,” the candidate said. “I was a cadet at West Point and I knew I was going to be spending the next two years preparing to lead soldiers in combat. And I served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I did it for a simple reason, I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic.”

Hegseth interrupted: “Are you saying [Trump] is an enemy?”

But Helmer talked over the Fox News host’s attempt to speak.

“I’m saying that the oath that we took to defend the Constitution, I take seriously,” Helmer insisted. “This president doesn’t. And one of the reasons that I’m excited to be here on a show that I know that the president watches every morning is to make sure we deliver a message that change is coming, that no one, not even our president, is above the law.”

“Hold on,” Hegseth said, but Helmer kept talking.

“It’s time to make sure that we have a Congress that holds him accountable,” Helmer remarked. “I’m tired of people who think we need to wait and see about a president who has violated our Constitution.”

“Let’s be clear,” Helmer said, refusing to let Hegseth finish his question. “The president has violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, he has done actions that obstruct justice.”

“Wait,” the Fox News host pleaded.

“He has tampered with witnesses,” Helmer continued. “He has violated campaign finance laws. He has engaged in conduct unbecoming of a president.”

“A equals B,” Hegseth complained. “[You are saying] Donald Trump is a terrorist.”

Helmer, again, refused to let the Fox News host finish his sentence.

“The greatest threat to our democracy right now is a president who refuses to uphold his oath to abide by our Constitution and defend it,” Helmer stated.

That is the truth. But I guess this means he’s going to lose now?

Little reminder here:

Cleland, you’ll recall, was a disabled Vietnam vet. Trump said his Vietnam was avoiding Venereal Disease.

.

A personal endorsement from me

Published by digby on June 3, 2018

A personal endorsement from me

by digby

Election day here in California is next week and I know that the ballot is full of choices about offices we know nothing of and many of us probably end up just picking the incumbent or the party or whomever has a good sounding name. I have done that myself, I’m embarrassed to say.

But this election I happen to be related to someone on the ballot here on the Westside of LA and I wanted to give her my personal endorsement. Sydne Jane Michel is my cousin by marriage and is running to be a judge for office number 16, a non-partisan position.

Sydne is a person of high integrity, intelligence and compassion who will balance the needs of the community while respecting the rights of the individual. Yes, she’s a prosecutor which probably makes some of my liberal friends worry. But I’ll let you in on a secret about Sydne. She started her political life as a serious animal rights activist. She’s not a cookie cutter prosecutor. She’s an independent thinker who cares about justice for everyone.

Anyway, here’s the link to her web-site and a smattering of the endorsements she’s received:

“Michel is a seasoned Redondo Beach prosecutor who has the presence to command a courtroom while still respecting the lawyers appearing before her. She is a better choice than [the other two candidates for judicial office No. 16]” – Los Angeles Times, Judicial Endorsements, May 12, 2018

“Sydne Michel will be a true asset to the bench. Based upon her extensive experience as a civil attorney and prosecutor, I am proud to endorse her and to give her my vote.” — Hon. Steve Cooley – Former District Attorney for Los Angeles County

“Redondo Beach Senior Deputy Prosector Sydne Jane Michel stands out in this race. Intelligent, poised, and straight-to-the-point, she would excel as a judge.” – Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Los Angeles, May 16, 2018

.

The US says bow down: or else

Published by digby on June 3, 2018

The US says bow down: or else

by digby

He’s just tearing it all up. The macho folk in this country, young and old, who fail to understand that exploding everything without a plan to replace it will likely lead to disaster, are cheering him on mindlessly. Whee! All those establishment people all over the world are getting so owned!

President Trump appears prepared to unravel 70 years of pain­staking effort that the United States has led to build an inter­national system of trade based on mutually accepted rules and principles.

Ever since an agreement on trade emerged in 1947 from the ashes of World War II, presidents of both parties have pushed this system as a way to strengthen alliances and promote the expansion of democracy and prosperity in Europe and Asia.

But with Trump’s decision last week to enact aluminum and steel tariffs against U.S. allies in Europe and North America, he is subverting previously agreed-­upon trade pacts. The result is a brewing trade war with Canada, Mexico and Europe, which are expressing shock and bitter frustration while enacting tariffs of their own on a bevy of American products.

The measures announced last week went beyond Trump’s previous actions, such as pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a recently forged trade agreement among 12 nations, and his efforts to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada.

Now, he has imposed restrictions on aluminum and steel imports in the name of national security, even though almost all trade and national security analysts agree that it strains credulity to say it is risky to source metals from allies with whom the United States routinely shares sensitive intelligence information.

Veterans of trade policy worry that tensions will further escalate, putting existing trade agreements in peril and the future of World Trade Organization, the group that the United States helped establish in 1995 to adjudicate the rules of global trade, in doubt.

“Trump’s actions create a feeling of chaos and lawlessness. America is no longer abiding by basic due process and commitments made to other nations,” said Jennifer Hillman, a former commissioner at the U.S. International Trade Commission.

It would be one thing if Trump were making decisions based upon an economic philosophy that goes beyond “my way or the highway” but it doesn’t. This is purely a strongarm move to force other nations to kow tow to his big beautiful hands. His ideas are playground ideas and trade is a complicate issue. Sure, there might be good reasons for the government to become protectionist or choose certain industries over others but there should, at least, be an understanding of the trade-offs.

This is what Trump was screaming at his cowardly sycophants all last year:

The scene: The Oval Office, during Gen. Kelly’s first week as Chief of Staff. Kelly convened a meeting to discuss the administration’s plans to investigate China for stealing American intellectual property and technology. Kelly stood beside Trump, behind the Resolute desk. In front of the desk were U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, senior trade adviser Peter Navarro, top economic adviser Gary Cohn, and Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Trump, addressing Kelly, said, “John, you haven’t been in a trade discussion before, so I want to share with you my views. For the last six months, this same group of geniuses comes in here all the time and I tell them, ‘Tariffs. I want tariffs.’ And what do they do? They bring me IP. I can’t put a tariff on IP.” (Most in the room understood that the president can, in fact, use tariffs to combat Chinese IP theft.)

“China is laughing at us,” Trump added. “Laughing.”

Kelly responded: “Yes sir, I understand, you want tariffs.”

Gary Cohn, who opposes tariffs and the protectionist trade measures pushed by the Bannonites, had his shoulders slumped and was clearly appalled by the situation.

Staff secretary Rob Porter, who is a key mediator in such meetings, said to the president: “Sir, do you not want to sign this?” He was referring to Trump’s memo prodding Lighthizer to investigate China — which may lead to tariffs against Beijing.

Trump replied: “No, I’ll sign it, but it’s not what I’ve asked for the last six months.” He turned to Kelly: “So, John, I want you to know, this is my view. I want tariffs. And I want someone to bring me some tariffs.”

Kelly replied: “Yes sir, understood sir, I have it.”

At one point in the meeting, Navarro pulled out a foam board chart. Trump didn’t pay attention to it, saying “I don’t even know what I’m looking at here.”

Trump made sure the meeting ended with no confusion as to what he wanted.

“John, let me tell you why they didn’t bring me any tariffs,” he said. “I know there are some people in the room right now that are upset. I know there are some globalists in the room right now. And they don’t want them, John, they don’t want the tariffs. But I’m telling you, I want tariffs.”

Kelly broke up the meeting and said the group would work things out and reconvene at the appropriate time.

He doesn’t know what “globalist” means except that Bannon told him it meant someone who doesn’t believe that the United States should bend everyone else in the world to its will. Right now he’s doing it by trearing up virtually every agreement we’ve had

But he’s doing it. And we’ll have to see if this is a proverbial “red line” for the GOP. , myselfI doubt it. We already knew that their blathering about small government and “honor and decency” were a crock. Why not this too?

So much winning.

Trump and his strongman bffs

Published by digby on June 3, 2018

Trump and his strongman bffs

by digby

As Chris Hayes pointed out on his show on Friday, it was odd to see the president giving the ruthless, bloodthirsty dictator Kim Jong Un big props on the same day he slapped onerous tariffs on all of our closest allies.

But he’s always loved the strongmen. I looked back to see when I started to write about his authoritarian bent and it was pretty early on in the presidential campaign. In fact I wrote about it for Salon on August 21, 2015 — and quoted Hayes who saw the same thing I did:

Donald Trump’s campaign of terror: How a billionaire channeled his authoritarian rage — and soared to the top of the polls


Democrats have been having a good laugh at Trump’s expense this summer. Here’s why we shouldn’t be laughing


Ever since The Donald descended that escalator at Trump Tower a couple of months ago to announce his entry into the presidential race, Democrats have been laughing. Watching the Republicans squirm and Fox News jump through hoops has made the GOP presidential primary a delightful entertainment for their rivals on the other side of the aisle. I don’t know how many of them had it in them to watch the whole Trump Town hall extravaganza in Derry, NH, on Wednesday — but those who did were unlikely to be laughing by the end of it.

There was the standard braggadocio and egomania that characterizes his every appearance and weird digressions into arcane discussions of things like building materials (for The Wall, naturally.) He complained about the press and politicians and declared himself superior to pretty much everyone on earth. But after you listen to him for a while, you come away from that performance with a very unpleasant sense that something rather sinister is at the heart of the Trump phenomenon.

Trump was still talking when Chris Hayes opened his show that night with this comment:

I want to talk about what we are seeing unfold here because I think what we are seeing is past the point of a clown show or a parody. I believe it is much more serious and much darker…You have someone now who is getting huge crowds, who is polling at the top of the GOP field, who polls show is beating Jeb Bush by 44 to 12 percent on the issue of immigration, going around the country calling little children, newborn babies, anchor babies saying that he’s going to use that term which I find a dehumanizing and disgusting term. Talking about giving the local police the ability to “do whatever they need to do to round up” the “illegals”. Building a wall, talking about basically chasing 11 million people out, talking about deporting American citizens to “keep families together”, talking about what would essentially be the largest most intrusive police state in the history of the American republic to go about this task, that is the person that is right now at the head of the Republican party’s presidential contest.

And the delirious crowd applauded all those those things just as they loudly cheered this reference to Bowe Bergdahl, the American soldier held by the Taliban for more than five years:

“We get a traitor like Berghdal, a dirty rotten traitor, who by the way when he deserted, six young beautiful people were killed trying to find him. And you don’t even hear about him anymore. Somebody said the other day, well, he had some psychological problems.

You know, in the old days ……bing – bong. When we were strong, when we were strong.”

It’s that pantomime of him shooting Berghdahl dead and saying “when we were strong, when we were strong” that appeals so much.

Trump repeatedly paints a picture of America in decline — weak, impotent and powerless, in terrible danger of losing everything unless we get a leader who will cast off all this “political correctness,” this effete insistence on following the rules. He promises to “make America great again” by cracking down on the “bad people” and being very, very strong.

When talking about Iraq, he characterized the the Iraqi people as cowards, “running whenever the bullets are flying.” He said “the enemy has our best equipment, we have the old stuff” and that the country is a mess because of all the “years of fighting unsuccessfully — because of the way we fight.” (The implication is that we didn’t take the gloves off.) He said, “the problem is that as a country we don’t have victories anymore. When was the last time we had a victory?” And he declared, “I believe in the military and military strength more strongly than anybody running by a factor of a billion… We are gonna make our military so strong and so powerful and so incredible, so strong that nobody’s gonna mess with us, folks, nobody. And we don’t have that right now.” This garnered huge cheers from the crowd.

On economics, it’s all about other countries taking advantage of the US. He said, “They’re up here, we’re down there. I don’t blame China or Mexico or Japan. Their leaders are smarter and sharper and more cunning — and that’s an important word, cunning — than our leaders. Our leaders are babies…our country is falling apart.” He explains the problem:

China is killing us. They’ve taken so much of our wealth. They’ve taken our jobs. They’ve taken our business, they’ve taken our manufacturing, [audience member screams out “our land”] Our land? The way they’re going they’ll have that pretty soon.Think about it, we have rebuilt China — somebody said to me “that’s a harsh statement” — it’s the greatest theft in the history of the United States. Now I have great respect for China and their leaders. The largest bank in the world is from China. They’re a tenant of one of my buildings. I love China I think it’s great. But we don’t have the people that know what they’re doing so … they’re killing us. You know what that is? They call it a sucking action. They’re sucking the jobs and the money right out of our country.That’s what they’re doing. We’ve rebuilt China. They have bridges, they have airports so do other countries and we’re like a third world country…They’re taking our jobs, they’re taking our money.They take our jobs they take everything and we owe them money. How does that happen? It’s magic. That’s not gonna happen with Donald Trump.

If a person feels as if this country isn’t what it used to be, that they’ve lost their place, that their future isn’t promising, Donald Trump is telling them right up front that foreigners are to blame. It isn’t the government being unwilling to collect taxes from people like Donald Trump so we can build infrastructure — we’re rebuilding China instead of our own country. It isn’t that we spend vast sums of money to maintain the world’s only superpower military, it’s that people from other countries are stealing us blind. And Trump will fight all these foreigners to take our country back from them wherever they are.

Of course, there is no foreigner who is wrecking this once great country more than the undocumented immigrant and he plans to cleanse our culture of their evil influence:

…we have crime all over the country, we have … the borders, the southern border is a disaster…The other night a 66 year old woman, a veteran, raped sodomized, brutally killed by an illegal immigrant. We gotta stop we gotta take back our country. We’ve gotta take it back! [huge applause]

I love this country and I know that I can make it great again.

We have to build a wall, we have to get the bad people out. A lot of the illegals, if you look at Chicago with the gangs,… you look at Baltimore, you look at Ferguson, a lot of these gangs, the most vicious, are illegals. They’re outta here. The first day I will send those people … those guys are outta here. [cheers] They talk about guns, I’m a big second amendment person, I believe in it so strongly [cheers]. Big. But they talk about guns and you look at Chicago, Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the US by far, and people are being shot with guns all over the place. You need enforcement but you also have to get the bad people out, the people that aren’t supposed to be here and we’re gonna get em out so fast, so quick — and it’s gonna be tough. It’s not gonna be “oh please will you come with us please will you please come with us.” Because you know these law enforcement people, and I know the guys in Chicago, the police commissioner’s a great man. They can do it, if they’re allowed to do it. I know the guys, I know em, New York, they’re great. Bratton, great. They can all do it. They can all do it. But they have to be allowed to do their job, they have to be allowed to do their job. [Cheers]

It isn’t just liberals like Chris Hayes who are becoming alarmed by this. Republican strategist Alex Castellanos sees the attraction of Trump in similar terms:

When a government that has pledged to do everything can’t do anything, otherwise sensible people turn to the strongman. This is how the autocrat, the popular dictator, gains power. We are seduced by his success and strength… As our old, inflexible government grows beyond its capacity to service a complex and adaptive society, and its failures deface our landscape, it creates demand for efficiency. Who can bring order to this chaos? Who has the guts and the strength to make the mess we have made work? 

Then, the call goes out for the strongman. Who cares what he believes or promises? And with the voice of the common man, though he is anything but, the strongman comes and pledges to make America great again.

Castellanos agrees with Trump that America is going to hell in a handbasket largely due to liberal failure, but doesn’t think that consolidating power in the hands of a single billionaire is a great way to deal with it.

It’s easy to dismiss Trump’s ramblings as the words of a kook. But he’s tapping into the rage and frustration many Americans feel when our country is exposed as being imperfect. These Republicans were shamed by their exalted leadership’s debacle in Iraq and believe that American exceptionalism is no longer respected around the world — and they are no longer respected here at home. Trump is a winner and I think this is fundamentally what attracts them to him:

I will be fighting and I will win because I’m somebody that wins. We are in very sad shape as a country and you know why that is? We’re more concerned about political correctness than we are about victory, than we are about winning. We are not going to be so politically correct anymore, we are going to get things done.

But his dark, authoritarian message of intolerance and hate is likely making it difficult for him, or any Republican, to win a national election, particularly since all the other candidates feel compelled to follow his lead. (Those who challenged him, like Perry and Paul, are sinking like a stone in the polls.) And while Trump’s fans may want to blame foreigners for all their troubles, most Americans know that their troubles can be traced to some powerful people right here at home. Powerful people like Donald Trump.

Still, history is littered with strongmen nobody took seriously until it was too late. When someone like Trump captures the imagination of millions of people it’s important to pay attention to what he’s saying. For all his ranting, you’ll notice that the one thing Trump never mentions is the constitution.

I was so young and naive two years ago…
.