Skip to content

Month: July 2018

Mitch is just smoother

Mitch is just smoother

by digby

Mitch McConnell violated the intent of the constitution when he denied President Obama a vote on his choice for a Supreme Court justice. Then he and Trump cajoled Anthony Kennedy into giving up his seat so they can replace him with another doctrinaire, far right extremist.  It’s all very legal.

In Poland they’ve had to take more drastic steps to accomplish exactly the same goals:

Poland’s government carried out a sweeping purge of the Supreme Court on Tuesday night, eroding the judiciary’s independence, escalating a confrontation with the European Union over the rule of law and further dividing this nation. Tens of thousands took to the streets in protest.

Poland was once a beacon for countries struggling to escape the yoke of the Soviet Union and embrace Western democracy. But it is now in league with neighboring nations, like Hungary, whose leaders have turned to authoritarian means to tighten their grip on power, presenting a grave challenge to a European Union already grappling with nationalist, populist and anti-immigrant movements.

The forced retirements of up to 27 of 72 Supreme Court justices, including the top judge, and the creation of a judicial disciplinary chamber were the latest in a series of steps by Poland’s right-wing Law and Justice Party to take over the justice system.

For years, the party has demonized judges as unreconstructed Communists and obstructionists. After coming to power in 2015, it took control of the Constitutional Tribunal, which is tasked with ensuring that laws do not violate the Constitution, and gave authority over the country’s prosecutors to the Ministry of Justice. Most recently, it asserted new powers to select judges. In recent days, judges who have spoken out against the changes have reported being harassed and intimidated.

Our right wingers are smoother in the way they carry out it all out.  But is it really much different?

.

Are only Republican officials allowed visas to Moscow?

Are only Republican officials allowed visas to Moscow?

by digby

Last year, this is where a bipartisan group of Senators spent the 4th:

This year, it’s a little different:

Here’s the truly disturbing thing about all this — they’re there on the day after the SSCI released a report  which stated unequivocally that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Trump.  They seem completely unconcerned that it might happen again. I wonder why?

Remember, Russia denied Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen a visa 6 months ago and the Republicans scheduled to go with her cancelled their trip. It appears that this time they just didn’t bother with any Democrats.

It seems to be a real love fest.

This is not right.

.

The project is imperfectly realized but it isn’t over yet

The project is imperfectly realized but it isn’t over yet

by digby

Abraham Lincoln, July 4, 1861:

“This is essentially a people’s contest. On the side of the Union it is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance of government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men; to lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life”

There has always been a large faction of Americans who really don’t sign on to that idea and every once in a while it comes to a head and we have it out. We’re at one of those turning points again. There has been progress in fits and starts over time to be sure but there’s no guarantee that we will keep moving forward. It’s a fight.

.

Trump really wanted to invade Venezuela. Probably still does

Trump really wanted to invade Venezuela. Probably still does

by digby

I’ve never understood why anyone thought that Trump, the most violent, bloodthirsty bully ever to run for president was some kind of peacenik. Or how the man who is vowing to spend unlimited sums on the military could be an isolationist? He is an imperialist of the worst kind. He wants to dominate the world militarily — and thinks he can use that military clout to dominate economically as well.

Anyway, in case you need more evidence than just his words every single day, there’s this:

In a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?

The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration. This account of the previously undisclosed conversation comes from a senior administration official familiar with what was said.

In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship, according to the official. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.

But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.

The idea, despite his aides’ best attempts to shoot it down, would nonetheless persist in the president’s head.

The next day, Aug. 11, Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a “military option” to remove Maduro from power. The public remarks were initially dismissed in U.S. policy circles as the sort of martial bluster people have come to expect from the reality TV star turned commander in chief.

But shortly afterward, he raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to the U.S. official. Two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing Trump confirmed the report.

Then in September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump discussed it again, this time at greater length, in a private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies that included Santos, the same three people said and Politico reported in February.

The U.S. official said Trump was specifically briefed not to raise the issue and told it wouldn’t play well, but the first thing the president said at the dinner was, “My staff told me not to say this.” Trump then went around asking each leader if they were sure they didn’t want a military solution, according to the official, who added that each leader told Trump in clear terms they were sure.

Eventually, McMaster would pull aside the president and walk him through the dangers of an invasion, the official said.

Taken together, the behind-the-scenes talks, the extent and details of which have not been previously reported, highlight how Venezuela’s political and economic crisis has received top attention under Trump in a way that was unimaginable in the Obama administration. But critics say it also underscores how his “America First” foreign policy at times can seem outright reckless, providing ammunition to America’s adversaries.

I wonder if they are coming to believe that they’d better give Trump a little war so he doesn’t start a big one. Or if John Bolton thinks it’s a pretty good idea too. They both believe that the US has been weak and needs to show strength.

Stay tuned.

.

Look what we are doing

Look what we are doing

by digby

Following up on that poll I posted below about how Americans are not actually hostile to immigration and immigrants, I have to share this viral video. People need to see it:

And they wonder why we aren’t feeling particularly patriotic this independence day.

Here’s a short film by Brave New Films about what this is doing to all those kids:

This story spells out the details

God help us.

.

Some good news about immigration (and humanity)

Some good news about immigration (and humanity)

by digby

This piece by a couple of political scientists in the New York Times should make everyone feel just a little bit better about the trajectory of our country:

But is it true that immigration is always a losing issue for Democrats? There is a consensus among scholars and commentators that an individual’s view on immigration had a bigger impact on how he or she voted in 2016, compared with recent elections. Given that white Americans tend to be substantially more anti-immigration than pro-immigration, one might expect that highlighting a hard-line stand on the issue would have benefited Mr. Trump in the election.

Contrary to received wisdom, however, the immigration issue did not play to Mr. Trump’s advantage nearly as much as commonly believed. According to our analysis of national survey data from the American National Election Studies (a large, representative sample of the population of the United States), Hillary Clinton did better in the election than she would have if immigration had not been so prominent an issue. In fact, a liberal backlash seems to have contributed to Mrs. Clinton’s victory in the popular vote count.
Image

To determine how immigration shaped electoral fortunes, we examined the link between voters’ views on immigration and whether they voted Democratic or Republican in 2016. We then compared the strength of that link with recent elections in which immigration was less visible as a national campaign issue. We estimated whether voters supported the Democratic or Republican candidate on the basis of their preferred level of immigration — “increase,” “keep the same,” “decrease” — taking into account the voter’s party identification, ideology, gender, age and level of education.

We found that Mr. Trump did only slightly better than his Republican predecessors among anti-immigration whites. Among pro-immigration whites, however, Mrs. Clinton far outpaced John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. For example, Mr. Obama received the votes of 50 percent of pro-immigration whites in 2012, whereas Mrs. Clinton won the votes of 72 percent of that group in 2016 — a 22-point difference.

Among anti-immigration whites, by contrast, Mr. Trump improved only marginally on Mitt Romney’s showing, 79 percent to 71 percent. Perhaps most important — given the popularity of the “keep the same” position — is that immigration moderates swung 7 percentage points in Mrs. Clinton’s favor (Mr. Obama received 38 percent to Mrs. Clinton’s 45). The 2016 comparisons with 2008 and 2004 are highly similar.

We can’t know whether this asymmetry across elections is a function of Mr. Trump’s nativism, Mrs. Clinton’s inclusive pronouncements about immigration or both. What we can say is that after Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton repeatedly clashed over the issue during the course of the campaign, Mr. Trump’s electoral gain — relative to the percentages Mr. Romney, John McCain and George W. Bush received on the issue — paled against Mrs. Clinton’s gains over Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama.

Democrats just need to tell the truth as they see it. It’s really all they have. And the truth is that America is an immigrant country and most Americans are happy and proud of that.

.

Grab your guitar. Pack extra avocado toast. It’s on! by @BloggersRUs

Grab your guitar. Pack extra avocado toast. It’s on!
by Tom Sullivan

As Blast Thunderpatch long ago predicted, the #SecondCivilWar is finally on. A dispatch from The Hill explains:

Social media users mocked InfoWars founder and host Alex Jones for predicting that Democrats are planning to start a civil war on July 4.

The conspiracy theorist tweeted his prediction on Monday, accompanied by a video in which he claimed that “elite publications” were calling for a “civil emergency” using civil unrest and “racial strife” to force out President Trump.

And so Twitter user Amanda Blount launched the hashtag #secondcivilwarletters Monday night. An homage to Ken Burns’s Civil War documentary, the tag exploded on Tuesday with tens of thousands joining battle. A running theme in early tweets was troops running short of avocado toast.

Quickly, celebrities enlisted.

Republican apostate Rick Wilson delivered especially withering fire:

Like oysters storming a beach, thick and fast they came at last, and more, and more, and more:

The fighting went long yesterday and promises to continue into Independence Day.

* * * * * * * * *

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

“Either you’re in on it or you’re a liar”

“Either you’re in on it or you’re a liar”

by digby

In politics Jim Jordan is a single-minded creep devoted to winning by any means necessary no matter how destructive. And he seems to be very, very wiling to engage in a cover-up to achieve his goals.

So I don’t find this at all hard to believe:

Former Ohio State wrestlers are accusing Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) of turning a blind eye to rampant sexual abuse by the team doctor while he was coach twenty years ago, according to a Tuesday NBC News report.

Officials at Ohio State reportedly announced that they were investigating the conduct of Dr. Richard Strauss, who died in 2015 but served as team doctor from the 1970s to the 1990s.

Per NBC, Jordan worked as assistant coach from 1986 to 1994.

The congressman has vehemently denied any awareness of the systematic abuse. “Congressman Jordan never saw any abuse, never heard about any abuse, and never had any abuse reported to him during his time as a coach at Ohio State,” his spokesperson told NBC.

Jordan’s former players reacted strongly to Jordan’s denial.

“It’s sad for me to hear that he’s denying knowing about Strauss,” former wrestler Dunyasha Yetts said. “I don’t know why he would, unless it’s a cover-up. Either you’re in on it, or you’re a liar.”

John Amato has more:

One of Trump’s favorite henchmen in the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Jim Jordan is now being accused by former wrestlers who he coached at Ohio State for failing to stop a team doctor from sexually abusing them in the 90’s.
If you can’t protect your own players from a disgusting team doctor, WTF are you good for? 

NBC News breaks this story.

Three former wrestlers told NBC News that it was common knowledge that Strauss showered regularly with the students and inappropriately touched them during appointments, and said it would have been impossible for Jordan to be unaware; one wrestler said he told Jordan directly about the abuse.

Rep. Jordan has denied knowing anything about this, but one of his former wrestlers, Mike DiSabato, whose allegations kicked off the investigations called Jordan a “liar.”

“I considered Jim Jordan a friend,” DiSabato said. “But at the end of the day, he is absolutely lying if he says he doesn’t know what was going on.” 

Not only is he being called a liar, but DiSabato informed him that he was going public this year and Jordan asked him to keep his name out of it. 

A wrestler named Dunyasha Yetts, who has a criminal past told NBC News that he and others informed Rep. Jordan about the abusing doctor. 

Another, who asked to not be named was perplexed that Jordan would deny knowing anytime now.

“I love Jimmy to death,” the ex-wrestler said. “It was a head-scratcher to me why he would say he didn’t know anything. Doc used to take showers with the team even though he didn’t do any workouts, and everybody used to snicker about how you go into his office for a sore shoulder and he tells you to take your pants down.” 

It’s not shocking for Jordan [allegedly] to now try and cover up what he knew then and why he did nothing to stop the sexual assault of young men under his care.
My question is why did he stay silent when his players were screaming about a pervert in his own hen house?

He wouldn’t be the first conservative Republican House leader wrestling coach in the middle of a sex abuse scandal on their team, would he? What is up with that?
.

The Dotard reassures the cult

The Dotard reassures the cult

by digby

This is a perfect example of what Timothy Snyder calls “schizo-fascism:

Up is down, black is white:

Evidence newly obtained by U.S. officials points to preparations to deceive the United States about the number of nuclear warheads in North Korea’s arsenal as well as the existence of undisclosed facilities used to make fissile material for nuclear bombs, officials told The Post.

The findings support a new, previously undisclosed Defense Intelligence Agency estimate that North Korea is unlikely to denuclearize.

Trump has offered exuberant assessments about progress with North Korea for weeks, declaring in a previous tweet that “there is no longer a nuclear threat” from North Korea. At a recent rally, he also said he had “great success’’ with Pyongyang.

Holy Family Caged Just Like In ICE Detention @spockosbrain

Holy Family Caged Just Like In ICE Detention 

by Spocko

“We will not stand by while children are being taken from their parents, and families are being taken from our communities and congregations,” explains @CCCathedralIndy Dean Rev. Stephen Carlsen. #EveryFamilyIsHoly #CadaFamiliaEsSagrada

Christ Church Cathedral, is an Episcopalian church in Indianapolis. It got me thinking. What would a border interview be like for The Holy Family? I think it would go a little something like this:

Border Agent: So his first name is Hey-Zeus. How do you spell that?

Middle initial? What does “H” stand for? Could you spell that?

Last name? Spelling?

Look Lady, if you don’t want us to lose your kid, tell us his real name and yours too. “The Virgin Mary” seems like a fake name.

Father’s name?

That’s not what I have. I’ve got Joseph T. Carpenter.
Oh, the husband’s not the Father. Got it.

What happened, did He Ghost on you? Okay, so eh, who’s the baby daddy?

Could you spell that? YHWH? No vowels? Is that some kind of Middle Eastern name? What do you mean you don’t know?

Look Lady, if this kid was born in [checks paperwork] Bethlehem, which is [checks Wikipedia] in PALESTINE, that sounds pretty goddammed Middle Eastern to me.

If the Baby Daddy’s Palestinian we need to know. We might have to deport Him. He might be a terrorist.

Does the Baby Daddy live in Palestine or does He reside in the United States?
He’s in the heart? You mean the heartland? Like Nebraska?

Mary, you are making this process very difficult. I don’t know what you are afraid of. If the Father entered the heartland legally there shouldn’t be any problem. I can’t believe that He would abandon His Son.

Now if you had gotten legally married to the Father you wouldn’t be having this problem. I’m just sayin.’

Okay, well that’s all I need. Now this nice lady agent is going to take little Hey Zeus H. Christ for a bath. Don’t worry He’ll return soon. I can’t tell you when. It’s not up to me. I don’t make the rules. I’m just following orders.