Stable genius watch
by digby
Dotardism of the day:
“Today 23 companies and associations are pledging to expand apprenticeships. That’s an interesting word for me to be saying, right? ‘The Apprentice.’”
“I never actually put that together until just now.”
“That was a good experience, I will tell you that. Isn’t that strange? Ivanka, I never associated, but here we are. Can’t get away from that word. That’s a great word.”
He has a very good brain.
.
The right Democratic strategy is not complicated
by digby
This piece by Jamelle Bouie is well worth reading. He notes that Trump is losing some altitude on economics with his own voters because he’s failed to do infrastructure, raise wages and adequately protect the safety net programs as he promised:
But the question remains: Has any of this hurt him?
Judging from his recent approval ratings in predominantly white, blue-collar Midwestern strongholds, the answer is yes. In Ohio and Wisconsin, for example, Trump saw his approval fall 18 points since inauguration for a net rating of minus 4 and minus 12, respectively. In Iowa it fell 16 points to a net rating of minus 7. Trump has also suffered in Michigan, Minnesota, and demographically similar states like Pennsylvania.
So, what are they counting on?
The best hope for Republicans is that the other part of Trump’s appeal to these white voters will take precedence over the lack of economic progress.
Democratic incumbents who once seemed in danger of losing this year, like Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Tina Smith of Minnesota, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan are now considered relatively safe. “In special elections held in the Midwest since Trump’s inauguration,” notes the Washington Post, “Democrats have improved on their 2016 performance by an average of 11 points.” Democratic House candidates have also recovered lost ground, running competitive races in Republican-held districts.
The best hope for Republicans is that the other part of Trump’s appeal to these white voters will take precedence over the lack of economic progress. By now, most observers agree Trump ran on blue-collar identity politics geared toward working-class white communities and vicious racial scapegoating against Muslims and Hispanic immigrants. This wasn’t a separate appeal so much as two sides of the same coin; Trump tied his racist demagoguery to an interventionist economic message, activating racial resentment while promising jobs and assistance. Often, they were part of the same pitch: “When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically,” said Trump in his announcement speech, before making his infamous claim that “when Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.”
Trump didn’t just appeal to Republicans with strongly negative attitudes toward Muslims, immigrants, and black Americans—he reached some white Democrats too. The stark racial polarization of American politics can obscure the extent to which neither party has completely sorted itself according to racial views. In a recent working paper titled “Partisanship in the Trump Era,” Vanderbilt political scientist Larry Bartels finds a substantial number of Democrats with “culturally conservative” beliefs, extending to highly racialized views like “discrimination against whites is as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.”
This echoes findings from the Voter Study Group, which after the 2016 election conducted a survey of 8,000 Americans who had been previously interviewed in 2011 and 2012, as well as earlier in the election year. In his analysis of the data, George Washington University political scientist John Sides found a substantial number of Obama voters with “less favorable attitudes” toward Muslims, illegal immigrants, and black people. These white Democrats, Sides argues, were less likely to hold college degrees and would eventually become “potential or actual Trump voters.”
In 2012, negative racial views weren’t particularly salient to voters’ choices; by 2016, they were highly salient. Indeed, some white Obama voters had defected from the Democratic Party before Trump entered the scene in 2015. That time-horizon suggests backlash against an increasingly visible immigrant rights movement—which eventually pushed then–President Obama to give legal protections to young undocumented immigrants—as well as to Black Lives Matter, the protest movement against police brutality. Writing in the New York Times in 2016, Nikole Hannah-Jones describes a conversation with a Trump voter who supported Obama in the 2012 election. “Obama really turned her off when after a vigilante killed a black teenager named Trayvon Martin, he said the boy could have been his son. She felt as if Obama was choosing a side in the racial divide, stirring up tensions.” After white supremacists marched through Charlottesville last summer, NPR spoke with a voter who saw no difference between white racists and black activists. “I didn’t hear anything from Barack Obama about Black Lives Matter and that was another hate group,” he said. And there’s the fact that, as a candidate, Trump regularly inveighed against protests for criminal justice reform. “The war on our police must end, and it must end now,” he said during a campaign speech in Wisconsin.
These voters appear to have forged a personal connection with Trump, who drew them in with an unambiguous pitch to white racism. They might want the promised benefits and economic programs, but they may stick with Trump regardless of whether he delivers. For them, the symbolic politics of white identity—as well as the concrete actions against Muslims and Hispanic immigrants—may hold more weight than immediate material gain.
For Trump voters, the symbolic politics of white identity—as well as the concrete actions against Muslims and Hispanic immigrants—may hold more weight than immediate material gain.According to the weekly Reuters-Ipsos poll of presidential approval, Trump still wins the majority of noncollege whites—52 percent—and Quinnipiac University shows Trump with 54 percent approval among whites without college degrees. This is a decline from the two-thirds support he won in the presidential election, but it’s still meaningful and well above his support from voters writ large—as of this writing Trump is at 43 percent in Real Clear Politics’ average and 42 percent in FiveThirtyEight’s.
In practical terms, Democrats don’t need to win back every one of these voters who were lost to Trump in the 2016 presidential election. They just need to win a few, in the right places. And while that appears to be happening so far, with Democrats gaining ground in Trump territory, there are still opportunities for Democrats to claw back more of these voters.
If Trump won some white noncollege voters by muddying the waters between his platform and Hillary Clinton’s—where Hillary Clinton proposed a $600 billion infrastructure plan, he floated a $1 trillion one—then Democrats can now sharpen their differences with the president, with clear evidence based on his record. In embracing the radical anti–safety net vision of House Speaker Paul Ryan and budget director Mick Mulvaney, Trump has done some of this work himself, showing voters that he is a typical Republican, with little interest in expanding the welfare state or actually delivering benefits to voters.
Democrats should also embrace proposals to expand Medicare, raise wages, and guarantee employment, without fear that they will be viewed as too left-wing for the Midwest and other Trump-friendly regions. Conor Lamb’s campaign in western Pennsylvania is instructive: He emphasized his support for government programs, winning some Trump voters to his side while activating Democratic voters who may have stayed home in 2016.
Democrats should cut their losses on those who can’t be won back. Maintaining their multiracial, multiethnic coalition is more important than trying to soft-pedal Trump’s politics of cultural rage and white identity. The idea that Democrats should reject “identity politics”—typically defined as the claims of marginalized groups—misses the fact that America already has a party of white grievance and white hegemony; it doesn’t need another.
Had Donald Trump governed as he campaigned, providing the racially exclusive safety net he promised as a candidate, the political landscape would be very different. Trump would have retained his hold on blue-collar and working-class whites, darkening the red tint of the Midwest. Democrats would be in a genuine bind, forced to confront a politically successful president.
As a policy program, Trumpism is a dead letter, and the president now stands for little more than demagoguery, scandal, and profound incompetence. His inability to govern—or even consolidate his political gains beyond his strongest supporters in the evangelical movement—has made him vulnerable to a backlash that might bring his presidency to a screeching halt. His most significant accomplishment has been to offer a foothold to open racists—white supremacists, white nationalists, even neo-Nazis—in mainstream politics. Americans motivated by explicit prejudice and bigotry now have a clear choice for their vote.
President Trump has lost voters and will likely lose more if he stays on his present trajectory. But he can at least count on those who care more about their resentments than they do about their jobs.
I think Bouie has this balance exactly right. The economic argument is obvious. And the embrace of its diverse coalition is also obvious. They are not mutually exclusive, they are complimentary.
.
Duterte finally does something his people don’t like
by digby
There’s a message for Trump in this. I doubt he will make the same mistake:
President Rodrigo Duterte slams his hand lightly on the podium, as if to show exasperation. Speaking in his usual casual tone, he unloads an expletive-laden tirade over what he sees as a bizarre story rife with stupidity. This is the Filipino firebrand’s style — unfiltered, informal speeches littered with sometimes inappropriate jokes, slang and curses that make his audience feel like they’re listening to a friend and not the leader of their country.
But this time, as he spoke in front of a crowd in the city where he was mayor for more than two decades, Duterte was ranting about a story that many Filipinos hold dear. Mumbling at times and weaving between English and Tagalog, Duterte said:
What he did was, Eve eats the apple, then she wakes up Adam.… So Adam eats the apple. Then, malice was born. Who is this stupid God? That [expletive] is really stupid if that’s the case. You created something perfect, and then you think of an event that would tempt and destroy the quality of your work. How can you rationalize.… Do you believe it? … So all of us now, all of us are born with an original sin. The original sin, what is that? Was it the first kiss? What was the sin? Why original? You’re still in the womb and you already have a sin? It’s your mother and father’s doing and you’re not even included, and now you have an original sin? [Expletive]. What kind of religion is that? That’s what I can’t accept.
The backlash was swift, and a few days after the June 22 speech in Davao City, Duterte gave another speech, bristling and on the defensive:
I didn’t say that my God is stupid. I said your God is not my God because your God is stupid. Mine has a lot of common sense. Then now, why do you have to talk about religion? If I choose not to believe in any God, what’s the [expletive] thing about it? It’s a freedom to choose.
Filipinos have looked past the populist president’s attacks on the pope and the Catholic Church, and even his infamous rape joke about a murdered Australian lay minister, to name a few examples. Even the president’s brutal drug war that has killed thousands has substantial support, despite condemnation from the Catholic Church and international human rights groups.
But bellicose rhetoric that not only mocks God, but also questions one of the most fundamental teachings of Catholicism? That may have crossed a line among the deeply religious populace and given the Catholic Church fresh ammunition, said Aries Arugay, a political-science professor at the University of the Philippines Diliman.
These good Christians are fine with ignoring every last tenet of their religion. In fact, they cheer him on. But apparently, they have a big red line when it comes to atheism.
Duterte backed off, by the way. He’s now at Trump levels:
65 percent — down from 71 percent in December — said they were satisfied with the president. Twenty percent — up from 14 percent in December — said they were dissatisfied, leaving Duterte with a net rating of 45 percent, a record low in his presidency.
Humans are horrible.
.
On the same page
by digby
It’s so nice to see the president of the US and the president of our closest ally see eye to eye:
Russian President Vladimir Putin says his first summit with U.S. President Donald Trump was “successful” and is accusing Trump’s opponents in the U.S. of hampering any progress on the issues they discussed.
Putin told Russian diplomats Thursday that U.S.-Russian relations are “in some ways worse than during the Cold War” but that his meeting with Trump on Monday allowed them to start on “the path to positive change.”
He added, “We will see how things develop further,” expressing concern about unnamed “forces” in the U.S. trying to prevent any improvement in relations, notably cooperation in the Syria war or arms control.
Vladimir Putin is obviously Trump’s political mentor. He’s not too bright and he’s very clumsy but he’s on the same page.
.
QOTD: An angry diplomat
by digby
From Spencer Ackerman at the Daily Beast:
One serving diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he was “at a fucking loss” over comments that can be expected to chill American diplomacy in hostile or authoritarian countries – a comment echoed by former State Department officials as well.
“It’s beyond disgraceful. It’s fundamentally ignorant with regard to how we conduct diplomacy or what that means. It really puts in jeopardy the professional independence of diplomats anywhere in the world, if the consequence of their actions is going to be potentially being turned over to a foreign government,”
If you haven’t been following the details, this is the reason:
The White House is facing intense pressure to categorically reject a Russian government request to interrogate Americans, including former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who on Thursday called the White House’s failure to do so “lamentable.”
McFaul, the U.S. ambassador in Moscow under former President Barack Obama, is among the 11 Americans who the Kremlin has said it would like to question in relation to financial crimes it says were committed by associates of Bill Browder, an American-born financier who has lobbied heavily against the Russian government.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, at a news conference with President Donald Trump on Monday, suggested that his government would allow the investigators from the office of special counsel Robert Mueller to interrogate the 12 Russian military intelligence officials it indicted last week if the U.S. would reciprocate by allowing the Russian government to interrogate certain Americans with ties to Browder.
Trump called the idea an “incredible offer” during the news conference. And on Wednesday, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that the president would “meet with his team” on the Russian proposal.
I don’t know what to say about this except … it is appalling.
.
Low ratings for Trump
by digby
Watch this video montage I assembled of Donald Trump saying all of the times he has met Putin and how well he knows him.
Then denying it.
Then saying they know each other well.
Then denying it. pic.twitter.com/6Pia8UvCZr— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) July 16, 2018
Trump’s “reviews” are in. And they aren’t good:
On the economic front back home, 67 percent of Americans think the condition of the economy is good, including one-in-five who say it is very good. These numbers have changed little over the past year.
Most Americans across the political spectrum hold positive views of the European Union, calling those nations allies or friendly to the U.S.
It truly is a testament to Trump’s essential weakness that 67 percent of the population think the economy is good and he is still mired in the low 40s.
Check out how Axios frames their poll which has similar results:
Yeah. They desperately want their horserace.
.
.
From the GOP coward files
by digby
In the wake of his historically disastrous summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Trump is bouncing back and forth like a ping pong ball grudgingly making halfhearted statements in support of the Intelligence Community in one breath and then contradicting them the next. Republicans in congress are desperate for him to clean up the mess he made but he just keeps making new ones.
He issued a ludicrous “walk back” on Tuesday (reportedly drafted by Trump’s unctuous factotum Stephen Miller) insisting that he only made one tiny little mistake in an otherwise bravura press conference performance. He claimed his now notorious line, “I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be” should have been “I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be.” This not only doesn’t make sense but it doesn’t in any way mitigate all the obsequious fawning and obvious willingness to ignore his own government’s findings even as Putin stood there and trolled him so hard he could barely keep from laughing out loud.
Since then, he gave CBS News a muddled account of his discussion about the interference during his 2 hour private conversation with Putin:
Very strong on the fact that we can’t have meddling, we can’t have any of that, now look. We’re also living in a grown up world. Will a strong statement, you know, President Obama supposedly made a strong statement, nobody heard it, what they did hear is the statement he made to Putin’s very close friend. And that statement was not acceptable. Didn’t get very much play relatively speaking. But that statement was not acceptable. But I let him know we can’t have this, we’re not going to have it, and that’s the way it’s going to be.
Then later, when asked by a reporter at a White House photo op if he believed that the Russian government was planning to interfere in the upcoming election he said no. (Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tried to spin it by saying he was responding to something else but when you see it in context it’s clear that he was answering that question.)
This would be a direct contradiction of his Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats who gave a speech on July 13th in which he compared the current situation to the days leading up to 9/11 and specifically called out Russia as the most aggressive foreign actor penetrating American digital infrastructure and undermining US democracy.
It’s possible that Trump thinks Vladimir Putin was so dazzled by his manly strength and charisma at the most successful summit in world history, that when Trump said “we’re not going to have it and that’s the way it’s going to be” Putin immediately put an end to the interference. More likely, he’s just lying about all of it.
And it’s just as probable that he knows the interference is ongoing and appreciates the help. Certainly, you have to start wondering if the Republicans in congress aren’t saying a little prayer of thanks to the Russian president every night. The way the mid-term election is shaping up a little Russian “meddling” may be necessary for them to maintain their majority.
In the immediate aftermath of the Helsinki press conference it was clear that the GOP establishment was discombobulated. This seemed to be more than even they could tolerate. Some of the usual suspects like Sen. John McCain R-AZ and Sen. Bob Corker R-TN criticized the president’s performance in strong words while others expressed their “disappointment” and “concern.” It appeared that a crack in the Trump support wall might be appearing.
But after the White House came up with their fatuous “I meant wouldn’t instead of would” most of them are rushing to say how happy they are that Trump clarified his remarks and expressing their desire to move forward and let bygones be bygones. The relief among many of them is palpable.
Behind the scenes they’re telling reporters that they’ve held hearings and imposed sanctions and defended NATO and it makes no difference. According to Politico:
Privately, senior-level Republican aides and lawmakers had a second message: what the hell do you want us to do? At the end of the day, senior Republican aides and lawmakers told us yesterday, it’s up to the president to conduct foreign policy. The Hill can — and does — criticize and conduct oversight. So the answer to the media feedback loop is: of course, Congress is not going to do anything substantive. They have no idea what more they should be doing.
They could hold real public hearings, censure the administration, protect Robert Mueller and most importantly, take strong, decisive steps to protect the integrity of our elections. Most importantly they could stop acting as Trump’s accomplices and behave as a co-equal branch of government.
But they aren’t going to do that because they believe doing so would be political suicide which they think is pointless. McClatchy reports that Republicans think they can pick up as many as four Senate seats as long as Trump dominates the airwaves with his endless whining about the “witch-hunt.” They quote GOP operative Josh Holmes:
“Everybody thinks that President Trump is some kind of drag on the Republican Party, [when] in this case, he’s just the essential ingredient,” said Holmes, who’s helped engineer his party’s Senate strategy for the past 16 years as a chief aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
“What the president is doing by continuing to discuss the investigation [into allegations of collusion between his campaign and Russia] and the quote-unquote ‘witch hunt,’ particularly on prime time Fox [News], is doing more to mobilize base voters than any legislative issue we’ve seen,” added Holmes.
In other words, colluding with a foreign country is all part of a cynical strategy to get out their voters in November.
It’s unclear if that will work. According to Jared Yates Sexton in yesterday’s Salon, there is a growing sense of discontent among rank and file Republicans over this Russia business (and I would guess the tariffs will take toll as well.) There may not be quite as many true Trump aficionados as these clever strategists assume.
But they do have one last trick in their bag. The Washington Post reported that today House Republicans will vote on a spending bill that contains no money for election security grants to the states. They say the states have received enough money in the past to get the job done. The fact that the DNI Coates says the “red light” is flashing as it was before 9/11 doesn’t seem to be of concern.
The GOP establishment saw what Trump did in Helsinki and were momentarily shaken. It was a stunning performance to say the least. But it’s pretty clear that after thinking it over they’ve decided that maybe Russian interference in the election isn’t such a bad thing after all. It may be their only hope.
.
A compromised presidency
by Tom Sullivan
“Frequently, individuals on a treasonous path do not even realize they’re on that path until it gets to be too late.” — John O. Brennan, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, May 23, 2017
Is the sitting president compromised? Broadly, as a deeply flawed human being, in too many ways to recount here. That would require volumes and a panel of experts in developmental and behavioral psychology. As a president, the evidence has splashed across our television screens since before Donald J. Trump took the oath of office with his fingers crossed behind his back.
The New York Times Wednesday evening reported that weeks before his inauguration top U.S. intelligence officials showed Trump clear evidence Russian intelligence directed by President Vladimir Putin had engaged in “complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election.” Their evidence included texts and emails between Russian military officials and information from a top-secret source close to Putin himself. Her/his life is at risk unless it is lost already. Intelligence officials and the Times have to know this. One trusts they have made adequate provision.
John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director; James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence; and Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and the commander of United States Cyber Command; and James Comey, then F.B.I. director, attended the January 6, 2017 meeting. The evidence was clear. They were unequivocal in their conclusions.
Comey, as we learned previously, remained after the meeting to advise Trump of the existence of the “Steele dossier” produced by a former British intelligence officer. It contained salacious and unconfirmed information about a Trump visit to Moscow (the rumored “pee tape”).
Trump has denied the rumors. He repeats with obsessive regularity there was “no collusion” between his campaign and Russia. He appears to the most untrained eye to behave as child caught while engaged in mischief. Bart Simpson comes immediately to mind. He, too, goes out of his way to cast a cloud on any suggestion that Putin and Russia executed the campaign of hacking and disinformation his experts assured him occurred.
He did so with Putin standing beside him in Helsinki on Monday. Even in walking back his statements undercutting the entire U.S. intelligence community, after stating he accepted their conclusions on Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, he could not help himself from adding, “Could be other people also. A lot of people out there.”
Pretty stark headline on CNN's homepage right now: pic.twitter.com/X6E3RtuxC7— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) July 19, 2018
An unnamed close Trump aide told the Times that any admission by Trump that Russia helped him win the election raises questions about his legitimacy.
Why Trump is so obsequious around Russian president Vladimir Putin is a question yet unresolved. But the events of the last week demonstrate again that why he behaves as he does is a side issue. That he behaves as he does is a national security crisis.
Nonetheless, since the GOP leadership seems unlikely to act to end it, I am going to speculate.
First of all, Trump is a coward. He is a tough-guy wannabe. He idolizes strongmen because he wants to be in their fraternity, but they will not let him in. Perhaps flattery would work? That explains his praise for Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines or Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader, but there is something more with Vladimir Putin.
One theory (repeated above) is that Trump is reluctant to criticize Putin because if Russia helped elect Trump the legitimacy of his presidency is in question. Trump’s ego can never admit that. Indeed, Trump the Insecure is sensitive about his win. He relives it at every opportunity and hates that he lost the popular vote to that woman Hillary Clinton. He claims millions of votes cast for her were illegal. But Trump was reluctant to criticize Putin long before he won. In fact, Trump was praising Putin over a year ahead of the election.
Trump praised Putin in September 2015, giving him an ‘A’ for leadership and disparaging Barack Obama. In December that year, Trump called him “brilliant and talented.” Putin described Trump as “an outstanding and talented personality,” “the absolute leader in the presidential race.” Also from December 2015:
Reminded that Putin is accused of ordering the murder of journalists, Trump effectively said he doesn’t care. “Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also,” the Republican candidate responded.
Unless Trump and Putin struck a deal to put him in the White House over a year ahead of the election Trump seemed surprised to have won, there would be no election-related reason for their bromance so early.
Another theory for Trump’s fawning is kompromat, perhaps the “pee tape” mentioned in the Steele dossier. It may or may not exist. But Trump has so little shame as to be unmeasurable. While he has paid women to keep quiet about sexual affairs, it was not out of shame but perhaps to protect himself from larger financial losses in divorce. He weathered news that adult film actress Stormy Daniels spanked him. He weathered humiliation at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ dinner; it may only have motivated him to get back at Barack Obama by overturning his legacy programs. But the rumored Russian pee tape would be reason for Trump to mention Putin as little as possible, not to lavishly praise him.
It’s something else. Recall this scene from Casablanca:
Rick: And remember, this gun is pointed right at your heart.
Captain Renault: That is my least vulnerable spot.
Donald Trump’s flaws and motivations are multifarious. But if Putin has Trump compromised, it is not the pee tape. Shame is not leverage against Trump. His heart, if he has one, is not his vulnerable spot. His wallet is.
Trump has been singularly averse to allowing anyone to look into his finances. He is the first president since the tradition began not to release his taxes. Trump’s most vulnerable spot is his wealth. Putin’s ability to threaten Trump’s wealth, perhaps even to wipe it out, is real leverage.
That or else a threat to have the coward killed. But as the old Jack Benny skit goes, when the stickup man says, “Your money or your life,” twice before Benny finally replies, “I’m thinking it over,” even threatening Trump’s life may not shake him to his core. Now a U.S. president, he’ll have Secret Service protection for life in addition to whatever he can afford to hire. A threat to his life may not be what scares Trump most.
No, a mortal threat to Trump’s vulgar empire is real leverage. He would do anything to protect it. Perhaps launder money for Russian organized crime or throw his son-in-law to the wolves. Maybe sell out his country.
Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???— John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) July 16, 2018
When John Brennan testified in May last year about individuals treading “a treasonous path,” there was room to think he may have been referring only to Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Flynn had stepped aside in February 2017 after lying to the F.B.I. about his conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016.
But Brennan prefaced those remarks by warning of the thread posed by the collaboration between Russian intelligence and organized crime:
And that collaboration between Russian intelligence and Russian organized crime, I think, is more and more of a concern so that they can promote their respective interests. So this is something that I think the Russians are looking for new opportunities to partner with whomever they can in order to do what they want to do.
Deep Throat said it best.
* * * * * * * * *
For The Win 2018 is ready for download. Request a copy of my county-level election mechanics primer at tom.bluecentury at gmail.
Recognizing Reality
by tristero
President Trump just directly contradicted his Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats regarding whether Russia was still actively targeting the US.
What Trump said: Asked if Russia was still targeting the US, Trump said, “No.”
I truly want to be wrong about this, but… please consider:
The president’s behavior has been called treasonous by far cooler heads than mine. He has just publicly signaled to Putin that he will not be paying much (or no) attention this fall to reports of Russian interference.
Think of this from Putin’s point of view. Considering the success of 2016, Putin will certainly be doubling down, increasing his intelligence agencies’ budgets for attacks this summer and fall. The intent is sure to create a perfect storm all fronts — social media, ratfucking, machine tampering, and undercover payments to Republican candidates.
I think we need to recognize that we are likely living in a post-democratic United States. The hedge word “likely” represents as much optimism as I can muster right now.
He’s got Hannity. That’s all he needs
by digby
This piece from the former White House stenographer is an excellent piece of evidence about Trump’s criminal mentality:
On Friday, at a news conference with Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain a reporter asked President Trump about disparaging comments he had made about her to The Sun newspaper. He denied ever having said them and declared that recordings of the interview would vindicate him. “We record when we deal with reporters,” he said. “We solve a lot of problems with the good old recording instrument.”
Do we?
“We have a problem,” my colleague announced in our office the Monday after Mr. Trump’s inauguration. “Trump doesn’t like microphones near his face.”
She had just returned from the West Wing, where she’d tried to do her job the way stenographers had since Ronald Reagan. As White House stenographers, we were among the handful of staff members who remained at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue when the administration changed. This was my first transition, but my boss had said every new administration she’d worked in since the 1980s was grateful for our help.
We weren’t powerful, but we were respected; George W. Bush used to call out, “I love the stenos!” whenever he saw my boss, Peggy, or her colleagues. Our job, after all, was to provide a first line of defense against the press by being present whenever a reporter was in the same room as the president.
We carried a microphone and two recorders at all times, and let them run until the last reporter had left the room, just in case somebody yelled a question over his shoulder with one foot out the door. Should the press actually misquote the president, we were there, armed with an official transcript of what the president did or did not say.
But now, we were faced with a president who didn’t want to be recorded. Perhaps he didn’t fully understand the role of the stenographer. That would make sense, since his administration had rebuffed every invitation from the Obama transition team during an inherently stressful time, including to learn how to keep the lights on.
My colleague had ventured over to the West Wing three times before that first Monday to introduce herself. But she had been able only to meet a 22-year-old press wrangler.
Finally, my colleague met with Stephanie Grisham, the deputy press secretary, who would soon move on to an illustrious career as the first lady’s spokeswoman — the job that never ends because it has yet to really begin. It was Ms. Grisham who told my colleague we would need to keep our microphones far away from the president’s face. She also surmised we would not be needed often because “there would be video,” which is why the Trump press office did not have a stenographer present when the NBC News anchor Lester Holt interviewed him.
Weeks later, when I recorded the president’s interview with Bill O’Reilly, I watched with disbelief as the White House communications director Hope Hicks summoned Mr. O’Reilly to the Oval Office so he could speak with Mr. Trump privately. In my five years with President Barack Obama, off-the-record discussions with reporters happened after work hours — not for an hour in the middle of the work day, and certainly not before an interview. When a president spoke on the record with a reporter, his staff made sure to have a stenographer present so there could be an official White House transcript, just in case the reporter came out with an inaccurate quotation.
But that was then, and this was the Trump era.
Nixon was out last outright criminal president. And he made the mistake of thinking that presidents should keep a record of their behavior and paid the price. Trump won’t make that mistake. And, in fairness, Nixon was an amateur criminal by comparison. Trump’s been grifting and stealing for decades on a very different level than Nixon ever did. He’s got a built in consciousness of guilt.
.