Skip to content

Month: August 2018

No, it’s not surprising that he called Omarosa a dog this morning

No, it’s not surprising that he called Omarosa a dog this morning

by digby

Why?

Well, he has shown he is a disgusting asshole in every way for years (and his followers love him for it.) This report, from October 2016, was particularly egregious:

Just in case you thought Donald Trump was insufficiently awful: He repeatedly called a deaf actress “retarded,” three sources tell The Daily Beast.

Trump, who was accused on Wednesday of making sexual comments to Marlee Matlin, an Oscar-winning actress who once competed on Trump’s Celebrity Apprentice, also apparently had a habit of insulting, mimicking, and demeaning as mentally handicapped his star female contestant—all because she was deaf.

In 2011, Matlin, who is still the only deaf actor or actress to win an Academy Award for best actress, appeared on Trump’s NBC reality-TV series. By the end of the season, she had come in second place and earned her fair share of compliments from Trump in the aired footage. But according to three longtime staffers who worked on Matlin’s season of Celebrity Apprentice, Trump would regularly disrespect the actress and would even treat her as if she were mentally disabled.

Sometimes the insults would be behind her back; other times they would be right in front of her.

Due to extensive non-disclosure agreements signed by members involved with the production, every one of the sources asked to be quoted anonymously for fear of legal retribution.

“[Trump] would often equate that she was mentally retarded,” said one source, who described how kind Matlin and her interpreter Jack Jason were.

During the taping of the show, Trump would often scribble down notes while sitting at the table of “the boardroom”—the show’s primary set. A person familiar with the notes who helped clean up after tapings said that on one of the pieces of paper, Trump wrote: “Marlee, is she retarded??”

Just don’t say he and his followers are deplorable. That hurts their feelings.

Of course he uses the n-word. Of course he does.

.

“The lies, the deception, the dishonesty…”

“The lies, the deception, the dishonesty…”

by digby

August 10, 2016:

Two years later:

At least 125 Republican campaigns and conservative political groups spent more than $3.5 million at President Donald Trump’s resorts, hotels and restaurants since January 2017, the month he was sworn in, according to an analysis by McClatchy.

The money paid for catering for a fundraiser at the Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla. , a night’s stay at Trump’s golf club in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., and many meals at Trump International Hotel in Washington through June 30, according to the most recent information provided to the Federal Election Commission.

The list includes Trump supporters like House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, Rep. Roger Williams of Texas and Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, a group of influential conservative members.

By comparison, candidates and political groups spent less than $35,000 at Trump properties for the entire two-year 2014 election cycle, according to FEC records. The biggest spender was former Rep. Allen West’s leadership fund, which spent more than $15,000 on fundraising expenses at Mar-a-Lago.

America First Action, a super PAC dedicated to electing federal candidates who support Trump’s agenda, has been one of the biggest spenders since 2017, spending more than $225,000 on rental fees, catering, lodging and meals, primarily at the the Trump hotel in Washington D.C.

“The simple fact is that our supporters and friends are excited when we do so,” the group’s spokeswoman Erin Montgomery said. “It’s a unique experience for them, they are excellent locations, and the staff are wonderful to work with.”

Trump ignored calls to fully separate from his business interests when he became president. Instead, he placed his holdings in a trust designed to hold assets for his “exclusive benefit,” which he can receive at any time.

He’s still wailing about emails and “crooked Hillary” and calling for a new investigation.

.

Wisconsin v. Walker by @BloggersRUs

Wisconsin v. Walker
by Tom Sullivan

Ever since Wisconsin’s Scott Walker gave his 2015 bobble-head speech announcing an ill-fated run for president, we have waited. We have waited since Walker earlier in 2015 submitted a budget that removed from the University of Wisconsin’s century-old mission a mandate to “search for truth” and “improve the human condition” and replaced them with “meet the state’s workforce needs.” Walker quickly backed away after the news blew up on social media and news sites.

We have waited since Scott Walker survived a recall election in 2012, and since he signed into law the state’s controversial photo ID requirement in May of 2011. Since before that, even, when Ian Walker pranked Walker into thinking he was on the phone with David Koch, the “Tea Party sugar daddy.” That was February 2011, at the height of Walker’s battle to strip collective bargaining rights from Wisconsin’s public sector unions.

This fall, Walker is up for reelection again, finally. Wisconsinites decide today which of over a half dozen Democrats on Tuesday’s primary ballot will get a shot at replacing “the goggle-eyed homunculus hired by Koch Industries to manage their subsidiary formerly known as the state of Wisconsin.”

Lapping his opponents by +/- 20 points in RCP’s averages is Tony Evers, the state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction. Evers may have name recognition, but a Marquette poll indicates 38 percent of voters are still undecided and others in the Democratic pack have won name-brand endorsements, Vox notes:

Mahlon Mitchell, the president of the Professional Fire Fighters Association, has the support of California Sen. Kamala Harris. Kelda Helen Roys, a former state Assembly member, has the backing of New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (and Wisconsin’s most famed indie band, Bon Iver).

Whichever candidate wins tonight, mounting a statewide campaign for governor after a late primary leaves any challenger with a hard pull against a multi-term incumbent. Walker has raised $4.8 million for his campaign so far.

The Wisconsin Republican Party is not taking chances. Politico reports Republicans have already launched attack ads against four prospective Democratic candidates: the three mentioned above plus former Wisconsin Democratic Party chairman Matt Flynn. Once the Democrats have a nominee, the contrast will crystallize, says Republican strategist Mark Graul:

“The governor has been in sort of a vacuum. Either you’re for Scott Walker or you’re not for Scott Walker. And after Tuesday I think it’ll be ‘either you’re for Scott Walker or whether it be Evers or Roys or Mitchell,'” Graul said. “So there will be a clear contrast of what people’s choices are going to be in November.”

The sitting president has helpfully endorsed the governor he once described as “a mess” and “not smart.” (Trump has a fixation about smartness, doesn’t he?) Speaking of, Trump just endorsed Scott Walker after saying it would be “great” if motorcyclists boycotted Milwaukee-based Harley-Davidson. From The Independent:

“Scott Walker of Wisconsin is a tremendous Governor who has done incredible things for that Great State,” he wrote. “He has my complete & total Endorsement! He brought the amazing Foxconn to Wisconsin with its 15,000 Jobs-and so much more. Vote for Scott on Tuesday in the Republican Primary!”

Walker and Trump belong together.

* * * * * * * * *

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

The comedian in chief

The comedian in chief

by digby

He’s not funny. But he thinks he is …

“We are proudly giving our troops the biggest pay increase in a decade, and I know you don’t want it because you’re very patriotic. Just save the money, got to pay down debt. Does anybody not want it? Please raise your hand.”

“What’s going on here? Are these real patriots? I don’t know, general, I don’t know.”

Hahahaha.

For those of you who don’t live in my personal internet hellscape, here are some comments from people who watched that speech on Youtube:

Our President impresses me all the time by rambling off names of people, like he knows them personally, never needing a document to refer to…a true patriot, one of “we the people”. I never trusted any other President before, except Kennedy, but I was in the fourth grade at the time….I thank God for President Trump. It is not politics as usual, things will be turned around to benefit all of us by stopping the corruption that went on for decades.

Every time I turn around, he is speaking somewhere letting us know what he is doing, I have never seen so much transparency by another president, never seen another president work so hard and long for us….You make me proud to be an American, sometimes bringing tears to my eyes…..I want to thank you President Trump, thank you! OOOXXX

The reason some people do not believe our president’s words is because we have been lied to for so long, that they are unable to trust a true patriot when he is standing tall…..totally understandable, but have faith, truth will win!

President Trump wasn’t originally my first choice for president, but I thank God daily that he was elected and for the expectation surpassing job that he has already done. In spite of 100% opposition from the democrats, added opposition from republicans, and unrelenting negativity and lies from the mainstream media, the entire situation in the US has turned around to the positive. America is truly being made great again!

I’m not letting him off the hook until he punishes Omarosa. This kind of dissent towards the highest administration should not be tolerated by any government of any country especially the United States Government.

President Trump isn’t just playing the role of president, Donald J Trump is the best President the United States has ever had!!!!! Thank You Mr Donald J Trump!!!!!!

If the deep state tries to take this great Pres. down THERE WILL BE CIVIL WAR!! We the PEOPLE will rise up!! I can feel it.

When these players take a knee. IT pisses me off when I was 18 yrs. and fighting for my life and brothers lives and watched my brothers hauled out of Vietnam hanging from the belly of a Huey by their boots not in body bags yet.

WOW I see we still have the #HatefulLeft With Us. Thank Q Lastest World News Updates for your work

Love this President ..one of the greatest the world has ever produced

Canada thanks God that the U.S. are our neighbors. We will vote Justin the soy boy out as soon as we can and be a strong partner for democracy, capitalism and a western culture way of life.

Obummer made a lot of cuts to the military because he was not patriotic and didn’t care for our troops !!! Thank God President Trump is bringing it back up !!!!!

DONALD TRUMP…MAKES ME PROWD OF BEING AN AMERICIAN AGAIN AND KNOWING AN ACTUAL HERO AND A REAL PRESIDENT
THAT RESPECTS AMERICA, THE MILITARY
and the OFFICE

Maybe democracy isn’t such a good idea after all …

By the way, the bill he signed after he gave that absurd speech was called the John McCain Defense Authorization Bill. He never mentioned his name.

And he has the gall to call someone else a lowlife…

.
.

Disloyal!

Disloyal! Sad!

by digby

Trump should have gotten that loyalty oath up front:

A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump ruled Monday that special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe is constitutional and legitimate, rejecting an effort by a Russian company — accused of financing a massive political influence operation in the United States — to stamp out the ongoing investigation.

Judge Dabney Friedrich, who Trump appointed to the U.S. District Court of Washington D.C. last year, is the fourth judge to quash efforts to upend Mueller’s legitimacy and cancel his investigation.

They are looking for a judge in one of these cases to rule that the Mueller investigation is illegal so they can get it into the appellate pipeline. So far, no dice.

.

Today’s Democratic Party is not your father’s Democratic Party

Today’s Democratic Party is not your father’s Democratic Party

by digby


It’s your mother’s Democratic Party:

There’s a popular portrait of a “Trump voter.” He’s a white man without a college degree, and so loyal that he would stick by Mr. Trump no matter what.

There’s a reason the stereotype exists: Mr. Trump’s strength among white working-class voters, particularly men, put him over the top in the decisive battleground states in 2016. And his approval ratings have been extremely steady, despite a year of controversial tweets and policy decisions. But it’s not the whole story.

Yes, white voters without a college degree shifted decisively from Barack Obama to Donald J. Trump in 2016. But these voters actually made up only a slightly larger share of Mr. Trump’s coalition than they did of the previous three Republican nominees’ coalitions.

And while Mr. Trump has a large and resilient base of supporters, a sizable share had reservations when they cast their ballots for him and continue to have reservations about him today. A small but meaningful number of his voters, particularly women, appear to have soured on him since the election.

Understanding the breadth of Mr. Trump’s coalition is important to understanding the Republican Party’s position heading into the 2018 midterms. Mr. Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters were vital to his victory in the primary, and Obama-Trump voters in old industrial towns were decisive in the general election. But the midterms could be decided by voters at the edge of Mr. Trump’s coalition and of the public’s imagination: stereotype-defying female, college-educated or nonwhite Trump supporters, who are somewhat likelier to harbor reservations about the president. They may have been reluctant to back him, but they were still essential to his 2016 victory and are essential to the G.O.P.’s chances today.

This more nuanced picture emerges from a survey of validated voters on Pew’s American Trends Panel, a representative sample of American adults who agreed to take Pew surveys every month. The panel allows a rare, direct measurement of how voters have shifted over time.

Pew asked panelists how they voted in November 2016, and the responses were matched to voter records that indicate whether a panelist actually cast a ballot. It’s a big advantage over typical polls, which struggle to distinguish shifts in public opinion from the effect of a new set of respondents in each poll. It offers perhaps the clearest picture yet of who supported Mr. Trump and how his voters feel about him today.

Trump’s voters are demographically similar to Mitt Romney’s

If you want to understand why Mr. Trump won the presidency, there’s one big reason: white voters without a college degree. They put Mr. Trump over the top in disproportionately white working-class battleground states where Mr. Obama fared relatively well, like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.

But Mr. Trump’s supporters aren’t monolithic. Nor is his coalition necessarily dominated by the groups that broke most strongly for him.

Just 33 percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters were white men without a college degree. A majority of Mr. Trump’s supporters defy the stereotype: They were either women, nonwhite or college graduates (or some combination of those).

Over all, 47 percent of Mr. Trump’s voters were women. And though he struggled among affluent college-educated whites for a Republican, he still won 44 percent of voters making more than $150,000 per year, according to the Pew data, and nearly 40 percent of college-educated white voters.

Perhaps surprisingly, Mr. Trump’s voters were about as likely as the supporters of other recent Republican nominees to hold a college degree.

How did the number of white working-class Republican voters stay so constant? Republicans have been winning a progressively larger share of white voters without a degree, but the group is shrinking over all. The result is that the two trends have basically canceled each other out.

White, non-college voters did break strongly for Mr. Trump but those voters make up an ever-decreasing share of the electorate.

At the same time, Republicans have lost ground among college-educated and nonwhite voters, but those groups have been growing as a share of the electorate. So oddly, a room full of Trump voters would be similar to a room full of George W. Bush voters, at least based on their race and education.

A room full of Democrats, on the other hand, would look a lot different. The party is doing increasingly well among growing portions of the electorate, and worse among the shrinking number of white working-class voters. Over all for Democrats, white voters without a degree have fallen from 43 percent of John Kerry’s voters to 26 percent of Hillary Clinton’s.

The shift among college-educated white voters was particularly sharp, and the Pew data is one of the strongest pieces of evidence indicating that Mrs. Clinton did far better among this group than initially believed. In the Pew data, she carried college-educated white voters by 17 percentage points, a huge shift from 2012, when Mitt Romney won that group.

It’s a very different story from the exit polls, which showed Mr. Trump winning college-educated white voters. There’s little doubt that the exit polls were wrong. Virtually all other survey data, along with the precinct-level election results, suggest that Mrs. Clinton won college-educated white voters and probably by a big margin.

The Trump voters most likely to stop supporting him: Women and the college-educated

There has been little change in President Trump’s approval rating in the last 18 months, and so it’s often assumed that nothing can erode his base of support. The Pew data suggests it’s not so simple.

Yes, nearly half of Mr. Trump’s voters have exceptionally warm views toward him: 45 percent rated their feeling toward him as a 90 or higher out of 100, a figure that is virtually unchanged since his election. But a meaningful number of his voters had reservations about him in November 2016, and even more Trump voters held a neutral or negative view of him in March.

Over all, 18 percent of Mr. Trump’s voters gave him a rating of 50 or less, on a scale of 0 (coldest) to 100 (warmest), up from 13 percent in November 2016.

It is worth noting that the November 2016 Pew survey was taken after Mr. Trump won the presidency, at the height of his post-election honeymoon. But even when you consider the slightly lower ratings voters gave him in the months before the election, the big picture is the same: A modest number of Mr. Trump’s voters didn’t like him that much then, and don’t like him much now.

Women, and especially college-educated women, are the likeliest Trump voters to have serious reservations about him in 2018: A striking 14 percent of the college-educated women who voted for him hold a very cold impression of him, up from just 1 percent in November 2016.

I suspectethis new Democratic coalition may not necessarily be welcome news for many Democrats since these are not the traditional hard-scrabble, blue-collar white working class men who formed the heart of the left in the past. But Democrats do represent the new working class of people of color and women and their policies will still benefit the white working class so it’s not something that will negatively affect their material well-being. (And there is a minority of white working class men who do vote Democratic that numbers in the tens of millions …)

You go to war with the coalition you have, not the one you wish you had. And this Democratic coalition is broad and deep which will bring much “disarray” and many problems in the future. But it’s a good problem to have. You certainly wouldn’t want to trade places with this other side.

That is if our democracy makes it through this current crisis — and that is not assured.

.

Stephen Miller’s immigrant story

Stephen Miller’s immigrant story

by digby

Let me tell you a story about Stephen Miller and chain migration.

It begins at the turn of the 20th century in a dirt-floor shack in the village of Antopol, a shtetl of subsistence farmers in what is now Belarus. Beset by violent anti-Jewish pogroms and forced childhood conscription in the Czar’s army, the patriarch of the shack, Wolf-Leib Glosser, fled a village where his forebears had lived for centuries and took his chances in America.

He set foot on Ellis Island on January 7, 1903, with $8 to his name. Though fluent in Polish, Russian, and Yiddish he understood no English. An elder son, Nathan, soon followed. By street corner peddling and sweat-shop toil Wolf-Leib and Nathan sent enough money home to pay off debts and buy the immediate family’s passage to America in 1906. That group included young Sam Glosser, who with his family settled in the western Pennsylvania city of Johnstown, a booming coal and steel town that was a magnet for other hard-working immigrants. The Glosser family quickly progressed from selling goods from a horse and wagon to owning a haberdashery in Johnstown run by Nathan and Wolf-Leib to a chain of supermarkets and discount department stores run by my grandfather, Sam, and the next generation of Glossers, including my dad, Izzy. It was big enough to be listed on the AMEX stock exchange and employed thousands of people over time. In the span of some 80 years and five decades, this family emerged from poverty in a hostile country to become a prosperous, educated clan of merchants, scholars, professionals, and, most important, American citizens.

What does this classically American tale have to do with Stephen Miller? Well, Izzy Glosser is his maternal grandfather, and Stephen’s mother, Miriam, is my sister.

This is an amazing read. Very powerful.

Trump’s family were immigrants too as were all of our ancestors unless we are 100% Native American. I would guess that the difference in Miller, Sessions and Trump’s minds is that they didn’t come from shithole countries. Let’s face it, that the problem. They don’t want non-white people in America. Trump even said he would be thrilled to have more Norwegians (which DSH secretary Kirstjen Neilsen said she didn’t know was a very white country.)

I guess it’s progress that they don’t consider Jews among the shithole people. But wait a bit. They will. They always do in the end.

.

“To the best of my knowledge”

“To the best of my knowledge”

by digby

Greg Sargent notes a subtle but important change in Trump’s line about the Trump Tower meeting:

Trump has privately fretted that Trump Jr. may have strayed into legal jeopardy with the Trump Tower meeting, which Trump Jr. and campaign officials took in the expectation of receiving dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government.

Here’s the latest statement from Trump to The Post (emphasis mine):

“Don has received notoriety for a brief meeting, that many politicians would have taken, but most importantly, and to the best of my knowledge, nothing happened after the meeting concluded.”

“This statement was clearly lawyered,” Bob Bauer, former White House counsel under President Barack Obama, told me.

Let’s put this in its larger context. After the news broke in July 2017 about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, Trump Jr. put out a statement falsely claiming that it was “primarily” about a Russian adoption program. The president helped dictate that statement. But then Trump Jr.’s emails demonstrated the real purpose of the meeting.

Recently, Trump flatly declared on Twitter that his son held that Trump Tower meeting “to get information on an opponent.” This amounts to conceding that his son and top campaign officials had been eager to conspire with a hostile foreign power to sabotage the election on his behalf, and again reveals that the statement he (the president) dictated about the meeting was a big lie.

One big question right now is: Did Trump know about and approve the meeting at the time? He may not have; we’ll find out soon enough. But another question also matters: What happened after this meeting? As one legal expert told Natasha Bertrand, the big unknown is whether it bore some kind of relation to Russia’s subsequent cybertheft of Democratic emails and other possible evidence of collusion by Trump advisers such as Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, making the meeting part of “the same criminal conspiracy.”

In this context, Bauer pointed out, Trump’s claim that nothing untoward subsequently happened “to the best of my knowledge” is revealing.

“He’s trying to put as much of a cloak of ignorance around himself as he possibly can,” Bauer told me. “What this does is abandon Trump’s year-and-a-half explanation that there was absolutely ‘no collusion.’ After that meeting, there could have been ongoing coordination. And now he’s not denying that could have happened. He’s saying he doesn’t know.”

The real nature of the bind Trump is in

This has implications for the ongoing negotiations over whether Trump will sit for an interview with Mueller. Over the weekend, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani questioned why the interview was necessary at all, arguing that Mueller’s lawyers “already know” Trump’s “answers to everything.”

But as Bauer pointed out, the chain of events, particularly now with its culmination in Trump’s latest statement, complicates this argument as well. Mueller will want to ask whether Trump knew about the meeting at the time, of course, but also about why Trump dictated the subsequent statement lying about it, and now, why Trump is hedging about what happened after it.

“After a year and a half of saying ‘no collusion,’ now he’s saying, ‘to the best of my knowledge’ nothing happened afterwards,” Bauer said. This could conceivably “indicate that, based on some information, he’s trying to distance himself from potential collusive behavior,” Bauer added. Mueller will want to probe that.

The bottom line on all this, Bauer concluded, is that Trump almost certainly knows more than he has “publicly admitted to or acknowledged,” and Mueller probably “already knows it.”

The noose does seem to be tightening.

.

He’s, like, smart

He’s, like, smart

by digby

This is your president today:

He even admits that he kept her in the White House because she “said GREAT things” about him.

Here’s more about your very stable genius president:

Knowing all the countries. Maps indicate the world contains a bunch of countries whose existence Trump was never made aware of previously. “Trump appeared confused by Nepal and Bhutan, which lie sandwiched between India and China,” a person familiar with one meeting tells Lippman. “He didn’t know what those were. He thought it was all part of India. He was like, ‘What is this stuff in between and these other countries?’” One of the things they don’t tell you when you start running for president is, there are just so many countries.

Knowing how to read the names of the countries after seeing them. “In one case, Trump, while studying a briefer’s map of South Asia ahead of a 2017 meeting with India’s prime minister, mispronounced Nepal as ‘nipple’ and laughingly referred to Bhutan as ‘button,’ according to two sources with knowledge of the meeting.”

Time zones work, how do they work? Trump reportedly gets the urge to dial up foreign leaders, and has trouble understanding that they may not be working or awake at that moment if they are located on the opposite side of the planet. “He wasn’t great with recognizing that the leader of a country might be 80 or 85 years old and isn’t going to be awake or in the right place at 10:30 or 11 p.m. their time,” a former Trump National Security Council official tells Lippman. “When he wants to call someone, he wants to call someone. He’s more impulsive that way. He doesn’t think about what time it is or who it is.”

A source tells Lippman the time zone problem comes up on “a constant basis.” Holding their daylight hours during inconvenient times is just another one of the ways all these foreign countries are ripping us off.

Which countries don’t like each other. Trump can intuitively grasp the concept that some countries will have better or worse relations with the United States. The idea that these countries may have different levels of relations with each other, independent of the United States, is a far trickier concept. During one meeting with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, Trump repeatedly praised Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, reports a source, who notes that “everyone was cringing.”

Why world leaders have phone calls. Traditional world leaders have busy schedules, and use phone calls to focus on specific points of negotiations. Trump just calls world leaders for no reason. He especially likes to stalk French president Emmanuel Macron. Trump has developed “what one former Trump national security official calls a ‘bizarre’ fascination with calling French President Emmanuel Macron,” reports Lippman. “He wanted to talk to him constantly … Macron would be like: ‘Hey what are we talking about?’”

.

Reliving those Whitewater glory days

Reliving those Whitewater glory days
by digby

My Salon column today:

Virtually every day now we have former Watergate prosecutors and historians weighing in on the parallels between that seminal scandal and the Russia investigation, and for good reason. President Trump, like Richard Nixon before him, is suspected of obstructing justice. With Nixon, the ultimate downfall came from the revelation that he had taped conversations in the Oval Office that would back up the testimony of former White House counsel John Dean that he had personally ordered a cover-up.

With Trump it’s much more straightforward. He has admitted to obstruction of justice on national television and has been obviously engaged in a cover-up on his public Twitter feed. What they have in common is hubris and an inordinate amount of faith that they are too clever to ever be caught.

In the course of the Watergate investigations and because of superb journalism, it was also revealed that Nixon ran the presidency like a personal fiefdom from which to exact revenge on his enemies and reward his henchmen. From what we’ve seen so far, Trump is doing the same thing. He’s just doing it out in the open. So it makes good sense to examine the legal precedents and look for parallels as we try to understand where this is going.

But if we are to understand the nature of the scandal and how the Republicans are dealing with it, we don’t have to go back 44 years to do it. The Whitewater scandals are much more recent and provide a better window into the current behavior of the Republican Party.

When you see Republicans on Fox and on the floor of the Congress accusing prosecutors on Mueller’s team of being partisan hacks and the media of being in the tank for the opposition, it’s because ever since Bill Clinton, scandal investigations have become political weapons, at least for the right.

Recall the famous words of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who foolishly admitted it in public:

Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi Special Committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.

Benghazi was child’s play compared to Whitewater, the catch-all name for the 1990s Clinton scandals.

Right-wing operatives had been pushing a baroque Arkansas tale of a failed land deal and Bill Clinton’s relationship with a partner in a failed ’80s savings and loan since the 1992 presidential campaign, and various strands of investigation were launched almost immediately after Clinton took office in 1993.

From the firing of people in the White House travel office, which incensed their friends in the press corps, to accusations that someone in the White House had inappropriately looked at FBI files, to a ghoulish obsession with the suicide of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, the scandal-mongering was relentless.

By January 1994, Attorney General Janet Reno had no choice but to appoint a special prosecutor, Robert Fiske, a Republican former U.S. attorney. That summer the House and Senate Banking committees called 29 Clinton administration officials to testify at public hearings, none of whom were ever found guilty of any wrongdoing. And that was just the beginning.

When Fiske ultimately found that nothing criminal had happened, a partisan panel of judges refused to reappoint him under the independent counsel statute and named Judge Ken Starr to succeed him. He started all over again with a multi-pronged investigation going back years from Washington to Little Rock. Meanwhile, there were activist lawyers (including one George Conway, future husband of Trump adviser Kellyanne) trolling for clients to sue the president for sexual harassment and a nonstop media campaign to hammer away at all of this. There were campaign finance scandals and Buddhist nun scandals and Chinese donor scandals and billing records scandals, none of which ultimately implicated Bill or Hillary Clinton in anything illegal but left a trail of carnage in their wake.

Throughout, Republicans in Congress were relentless in their pursuit. (If the recent Peter Strzok hearing shocked you, you didn’t watch any of the dozens of Whitewater hearings.) Starr’s office leaked like a sieve, making it clear that his mission had strayed far beyond normal law enforcement into being a political operation intended to bring down the president. The media ate it all up like little baby birds with their beaks open, eager to take whatever was fed to them. The atmosphere was febrile and intense.

Starr had finally decided to close up shop after years and years of chasing his tail had come up with no evidence of a crime. But that was when the Paula Jones civil suit opened the door for Linda Tripp to stab her friend Monica Lewinsky in the back, and right-wing lawyers set a perjury trap for the president. Clinton walked into it, lying under oath when asked if he’d engaged in an extramarital affair with Lewinsky. The rest is history.

Of course, this kind of devious machination is what Republicans see happening with Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s campaign dealings with Russians. Why wouldn’t they perceive it that way? After all, that’s what they did. They assume everyone behaves as they do. Clinton was caught in a perjury trap, so Mueller must be setting one for Trump. The press eagerly aided and abetted an independent counsel’s partisan political crusade so it must be doing the same thing now.

There are important differences. In the 1990s, a Democratic president was investigated by a team of Republican prosecutors and harassed by a ruthless GOP Congress. Robert Mueller and the leadership of the Justice Department are all Republicans and the Congress is behaving like a band of accomplices rather than performing oversight. But they’re portraying this as a partisan witch hunt anyway because, in their minds, that’s just how these things work.

We can certainly draw parallels between the Trump scandals and those of Nixon and Clinton. There are elements of both in their behaviors, from abuse of office to corruption and extramarital affairs. But neither of those presidents, as personally flawed as they may have been, were ever suspected of being dupes or agents of a foreign adversary in a plot to win their election, in a scandal so serious that one would think even the most partisan of players would sober up and take their duty seriously.

Instead, the Republicans are partying like it’s 1998 again, lost in the past, unable to adjust to new circumstances, assuming everyone is as vengeful and petty as they are. Now that I think about it, that describes the Republican Party of 2018 in more ways than one.