Skip to content

Month: October 2018

The Real Winner,,, by tristero

The Real Winner,,, 

by tristero

… is Jeff Flake. As a result of his recent cynical stunts, he’s positioned himself perfectly as thoughtful, compassionate, caring, and reasonnable.

He is, of course, none of these things. But he manipulated and marketed this awful tragedy with ruthless cunning. He will now be perceived by the media and Very Serious People as the desperately-needed measured voice who might bring the country together and vanquish Trump.

He’s not that either. Flake’s a far-right ideologue that votes Trump over 83% of the time.  You hate Trump but like Trumpism? Flake’s your boy especially now that he has the perfect cover, as a fake Independent Thinker.

I think Flake’s been running for president since the moment he announced his Senate resignation. He may not win in 2020 against Trump, but I’ll bet dollars to donuts he’ll try. And there’s always 2024.

That’s the thing about major catastrophes, be they tsunamis or the collapse of democracy. The dangers and damage multiplies in horrible ways.

They have all become purveyors of fake news

They have all become purveyors of fake news

by digby

That’s Christine Blasey Ford second from left as a cheerleader in high school.

But this is the meme the right has got going all over the internet:

A Facebook post about Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of assault in the early 1980s, has triggered a war of words between a local Republican leader and a Democratic candidate for Congress.

This is not Christine Blasey Ford. Its a stock photo that’s been around since 2012.

Lanny Lancaster, Cabarrus County GOP chairman, shared a photo allegedly of Ford that was originally posted by an account using the name Joseph Mannarino.

Lancaster shared the photo, which shows a young woman wearing braces and large glasses, adding the comments: “This is the alleged sexual assault victim. Wow.”

On Tuesday, Democratic congressional candidate Frank McNeill included the post in an email newsletter as an example of a Republican “assault on the safety and dignity of American women.” McNeill is running against Republican U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson in the 8th district, which runs from Fayetteville in southeastern North Carolina to the north Charlotte area.

Frank McNeill, a Democratic candidate for Congress in North Carolina’s 8th District, in a newsletter on Tuesday called this Facebook post by Cabarrus County Republican chairman Lanny Lancaster “disgusting.” 

The person in the picture is not Christine Blasey Ford as the Facebook post claims.

“Now, Republican attacks on Dr. Blasey-Ford are coming from inside our own 8th District. Cabarrus County Republican Chair, Lanny Lancaster, posted his nastiness on Facebook just last night!” McNeill said in the newsletter. He then asked for donations. “Your contribution of $25 will help take our fight with anti-women incumbent Richard Hudson right back to Cabarrus County!”

Contacted by The News & Observer, Lancaster said in a phone interview that there’s nothing inappropriate about his post.

“I didn’t say anything. I just said this is her picture. Basically, the media is distorting the facts on this lady. Everything she’s said is made up. She has no evidence whatsoever. I support that theory,” Lancaster said.

Lancaster said he takes issue with how the news media is portraying Ford’s early life.

“The media wants you to think she was a beautiful young lady who was on her way home from the tennis courts … ” Lancaster said. “I just wanted you to see the real person. I wanted people to see that this is really her.”

The picture in the Facebook post that Lancaster shared is not of Ford. The photo has been circulating on the internet as a meme since as early as 2012.

Users on 4chan, an anonymous message board site known for circulating false information, claimed the photo shows Ford. Other photos of Ford from her teenage years have circulated, and the one Lancaster shared bears no resemblance.

That’s because the photo isn’t of Ford, a member of her legal team told The N&O in an email.

Lancaster is one of many people sharing the photo. It has been shared thousands of times on Facebook. WLOS in Asheville reports that Brandon Gosey, a member of the Rutherford County School Board, recently apologized after using the same photo to mock Ford.

When a reporter asked Lancaster if he believes a person’s appearance plays a role in how likely someone is to be sexually harassed, Lancaster said no. And he said McNeill is “immature” for concerning himself with someone’s personal Facebook page instead of focusing on job recruitment, immigration and other issues.

“Why would a potential congressman be concerned with what a Republican chairman thinks?” Lancaster said. “He appears to be the type of person that will be a troublemaker. To me, him looking at my Facebook page is childish on his behalf. Is he going to be a childish congressman?”

Lancaster’s post was sent to the McNeill campaign by a concerned constituent, said Marc O’Hara, McNeill’s campaign manager. McNeill didn’t scan Lancaster’s Facebook page, O’Hara said.

“This is a transparent attempt to shame a woman and objectify Dr. Blasey Ford again,” O’Hara said. “As a father of a daughter and a grandfather of three, I honestly don’t know how Mr. Lancaster will be able to look his daughter in the eye after this nonsense.”

He won’t admit it isn’t her picture. And then he projects his nasty, juvenile behavior onto the Democrat who called him out, saying basically, “I know you are but what am I?”

This is the world they now inhabit.

But even if it was he, he’s a scumbag, just like the man he undoubtedly worships — Donald Trump — who said similar things about women who have accused him of assaulting them.

And when he wasn’t threatening to throw her in jail, he was similarly insulting Hillary Clinton:

Some women just aren’t rape worthy, amirite?

This is who they voted for. This is who they are. And people are surprised that they have rallied around that drunken lout Brett Kavanaugh? They love these guys.

.

Justice wept by @BloggersRUs

Justice wept
by Tom Sullivan

To believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is mistaken about being assaulted as a teenager by Brett Kavanaugh is to insist she is mistaken about both Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. She named both as attackers in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let that sink in.

The FBI interviewed neither man.

Republicans in the Senate hope this weekend to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to a lifetime seat on the United States Supreme Court. This, after his public temper tantrum even longtime friends acknowledge was disqualifying regardless of the accuracy of Ford’s recollection.

A reluctant Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, explains his opposition in The Atlantic, “The Brett Kavanaugh who showed up to Thursday’s hearing [10/27] is a man I have never met whom I have never even caught a glimpse of in 20 years of knowing the person who showed up to the first hearing.”

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens concurs. Stevens, 98 and a Republican, has lauded Kavanaugh in the past, but found Kavanaugh’s behavior in last week’s hearing unbefitting a Supreme Court justice.

Kavanaugh, Stevens said, “has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential (litigation) before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities,” adding, “It’s not healthy to get a new justice that can only do a part-time job.”

Even a clutch of Kavanaugh’s former Yale drinking buddies agree lies they believe he told under oath are disqualifying. “Honesty is the glue that holds together a society of laws,” they write. “Lies are the solvent that dissolves those bonds.”

Yet half the members of the United States Senate are nonetheless hell-bent on appointing Kavanaugh in “an act of rank tribalism.”

This confirmation process has been as tumultuous as the one for the previous Republican nominee, Neil Gorsuch, was not. Certainly, far less fraught than the hearings for Obama nominee Merrick Garland that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ensured never happened.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed, every Supreme Court ruling for a generation will carry a Mark McGwire-like asterisk questioning its validity and that of the court. It is enough to make Lady Justice weep beneath her blindfold.

Meant to symbolize the impartiality of justice, that blindfold this morning represents the willful blindness of Republican senators and a conservative base consumed by tribalism and “weaponized misogyny.” They mean to install on the high court a man who cut his political teeth as partisan attack dog and who bared them in a freakish tirade to committee Democrats who dared question him about his past.

America indeed seems to be tearing itself asunder emotionally and politically while violating norms of decency it once preached to the rest of the world.

But even on this dark Friday there are glimmers of light:

On Thursday, the day the Rev. William Barber Jr. was awarded a $625,000 “genius grant,” Barber was hard to reach, because he was being arrested. Which is related to why the North Carolina preacher was given one of the rare MacArthur Foundation awards.

Barber, 55, is one of the country’s best-known public advocates fighting racism and poverty, known for successfully organizing tens of thousands of people in marches and other nonviolent acts of civil disobedience around the country. On Thursday, as MacArthur was announcing that Barber was among 25 people “on the precipice of great discovery or a game-changing idea,” Barber’s Poor People’s Campaign was tweeting about his arrest.

“I’ve just been arrested in Chicago, and I’m waiting on their process,” he said in a call to the Raleigh News & Observer. “For minimum wage, in front of McDonald’s headquarters.”

The powerless have more power than they know and advocates the powerful need fear.

* * * * * * * * *

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

The “lock her up” crowd discovers “due process”

The “lock her up” crowd discovers “due process”

by digby

… for powerful white conservative men, of course. Everyone else should be hauled out in handcuffs and thrown in the hoosegow on general principles.

Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R) opened his appearance on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Tuesday with the tiniest, frailest of olive branches for his Democratic colleagues in the ongoing battle over the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh.

“I think there are some Democrats in good faith . . . ” Kennedy, the junior senator from Louisiana, told Carlson from an echo-filled stairwell corridor of the Senate.

But.

“But I think [for] some of their colleagues, it isn’t about searching for the truth,” he continued. “It’s about winning. Just win, baby, win.”

Kennedy was referring to the Democrats’ push for an extended FBI background investigation of Kavanaugh after Christine Blasey Ford, a research psychologist and professor in California, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her at a small gathering at a house in the 1980s when they were in high school. Kavanaugh has denied those claims.

Still, after a dramatic turn of events, an FBI investigation was reopened Friday. Since then, several Republican lawmakers have gone on the offensive, accusing Democrats of intentionally using claims against Kavanaugh to stall the nomination process.

“These are people — I’m not gonna name names — but I’m not sure they have a soul,” Kennedy said. “I don’t think their mother breast-fed them.”

Carlson broke his serious expression and laughed.

“I think they went right to raw meat,” Kennedy concluded.

A representative from Kennedy’s office declined to comment on or clarify what the senator had meant.

It was only the second-most outraged Kennedy had seemed this week. He had appeared Monday on Fox News to angrily characterize Kavanaugh’s divisive nomination process as “an intergalactic freak show.”

“If you think this is about searching for the truth, you ought to put down the bong,” the lawmaker told host Martha MacCallum. “This is not about the truth. This is about gamesmanship and power, political politics.”

Other Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have also blanketed the airwaves with attacks on Democrats since the FBI investigation was called.

On Tuesday night, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) appeared on Fox News to demand that Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) apologize to Kavanaugh “for being part of a smear campaign that I haven’t seen for over 20 years in politics.”

At last week’s hearing, Kavanaugh snapped at Klobuchar when she asked whether he had ever drunk so much that he blacked out. Instead of answering the question, Kavanaugh parroted the question back at Klobuchar.

“I don’t know,” he said then. “Have you?”

On Wednesday morning, the office of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) retweeted a Daily Caller story about Kennedy’s remarks on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

However, the criticism paled in comparison to those of President Trump, who openly mocked Ford’s recollection of the alleged attack at a Mississippi rally Tuesday night. Trump’s aides had reportedly been trying to prevent such a riff, and the incident drew criticism the next day from three Republican senators — Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff. Flake (Ariz.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) — who are seen to be the most likely swing votes on Kavanaugh’s nomination.

By Wednesday afternoon, Kennedy was back in the Senate halls, hammering the Democrats on Fox News. “I’m not prejudging the FBI report, but it’s time for the senators to be senators, for women to women up, for men to man up, and let’s vote,” Kennedy said.

Just we needed, another insult wingnut “comedian” like Mike Huckabee. A wonderful statesman for out time:

Update: I suspect this isn’t the last we’ll be hearing along these lines:

Candace Owens attacked Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford on Wednesday, saying that she should be jailed.

Owens shared an article on Twitter from Fox News that reported that a former boyfriend of Dr. Ford said she helped prepare a friend for a polygraph test.

“WOW. LIAR Christine Ford’s entire testimony just got blown up by an ex-boyfriend of 6 years,” said Owens “She has HELPED people prep to take polygraph tests, never had a fear of flying–oh, and of course, never once mentioned her sexual assault.”

“#LockHerUp,” she added, throwing in the 2016 presidential campaign hashtag previously used almost exclusively by Trump supporters for Hillary Clinton.

.

They can confirm him but everyone knows who he is

They can confirm him but everyone knows who he is

by digby

They couldn’t interview a professor of theology. No credibility, I guess:

Several former Yale students who claim to have information regarding the alleged incident with Ramirez or about Kavanaugh’s behavior at Yale said that they had not been contacted by the F.B.I. Kenneth G. Appold was a suitemate of Kavanaugh’s at the time of the alleged incident. He had previously spoken to The New Yorker about Ramirez on condition of anonymity, but he said that he is now willing to be identified because he believes that the F.B.I. must thoroughly investigate her allegation. Appold, who is the James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, said that he first heard about the alleged incident involving Kavanaugh and Ramirez either the night it occurred or a day or two later. Appold said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He said that he never discussed the allegation with Ramirez, whom he said he barely knew in college. But he recalled details—which, he said, an eyewitness described to him at the time—that match Ramirez’s memory of what happened. “I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” he said in an interview. “I believe her because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.”

Appold, who won two Fulbright Fellowships, and earned his Ph.D. in religious studies from Yale in 1994, also recalled telling his graduate-school roommate about the incident in 1989 or 1990. That roommate, Michael Wetstone, who is now an architect, confirmed Appold’s account and said, “It stood out in our minds because it was a shocking story of transgression.” Appold said that he initially asked to remain anonymous because he hoped to make contact first with the classmate who, to the best of his recollection, told him about the party and was an eyewitness to the incident. He said that he had not been able to get any response from that person, despite multiple attempts to do so. The New Yorker reached the classmate, but he said that he had no memory of the incident.

Appold reached out to the Bureau last weekend but did not hear back. Frustrated, he submitted a statement through an F.B.I. Web portal. During his first year at Yale, Appold lived in the basement of Lawrance Hall, one of the university’s freshman dormitories. He was in the same suite of bedrooms as Kavanaugh, sharing a common room. Appold said of Kavanaugh, “We didn’t hang out together, but there was no animosity between us either.” He said he believes that “there were two sides to Brett.” Those who have described the judge as studious and somewhat reserved or shy are correct, he said. He added, “That was true part of the time, but so are the other things that have been said about him. He drank a lot, and when he was drinking he could be aggressive, and belligerent. He wasn’t beating people up, but there was an edge and an obnoxiousness that I could see at the hearings. When I saw clips”—of Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony—“I remembered it immediately.”

Appold said that he learned about the alleged incident with Ramirez during the winter of the 1983-84 school year. He recalled being told that, during a party in a first-floor common room in Lawrance Hall, Kavanaugh went over to Ramirez, who had been participating in a drinking game, “and opened his pants, and pulled out his penis, and tried to put it in her face.” But she waved him away. Appold recalled hearing that Ramirez said something like “It’s not a real penis.” He said that the remark made no sense to him at the time, and he understood it only after reading Ramirez’s allegation in The New Yorker and learning that people had been playing pranks with a fake plastic penis at the party.

Somebody’s going to write a book and it’s going to be shocking. There’s just so much:

Kavanaugh and thirteen other Georgetown Prep boys described themselves in their high-school yearbook as “Renate Alumnius,” which other classmates have told the Times was a crude sexual boast. During his Senate hearing, Kavanaugh said that the reference was an endearment, saying, “She was a great friend of ours. We—a bunch of us went to dances with her. She hung out with us as a group.” He said that a “media circus that has been generated by this, though, and reported that it referred to sex. It did not.”

But the classmate who submitted the statement said that he heard Kavanaugh “talk about Renate many times,” and that “the impression I formed at the time from listening to these conversations where Brett Kavanaugh was present was that Renate was the girl that everyone passed around for sex.” The classmate said that “Brett Kavanaugh had made up a rhyme using the REE NATE pronunciation of Renate’s name” and sang it in the hallways on the way to class. He recalled the rhyme going, “REE NATE, REE NATE, if you want a date, can’t get one until late, and you wanna get laid, you can make it with REE NATE.” He said that while he might not be remembering the rhyme word for word, “the substance is 100 percent accurate.” He added, “I thought that this was sickening at the time I heard it, and it left an indelible mark in my memory.”

Reached for comment, Dolphin noted that she had asked for her name to be removed from a statement signed by female supporters of Kavanaugh’s nomination. “If this report is true, I am profoundly hurt,” she said, of the account in the affidavit. “I did nothing to deserve this. There is nothing affectionate or respectful in bragging about making sexual conquests that never happened. I am not a political person, but my reputation matters to me and to my family. I would not have signed the letter if I had known about the yearbook references and this affidavit. It is heartbreaking if these guys who acted like my friends in high school were saying these nasty, false things about me behind my back.”

And now this. Mark Judge had an underground newspaper filled with misogynistic hate for the girls who attended Christine Blasey Ford’s school:

On another page, the paper’s editors relentlessly attacked the girls at Holton-Arms, the nearby private school from which Ford graduated in 1984.

The mimeographed rag included slurs against girls at Holton-Arms School, which Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford attended.

“The Truth About Holton,” read the headline of one piece, which was first described by the New York Times this week. “What is Holton Arms? Is it a training academy for The Rainbow Inn? We do know that Holton is the home of the most worthless excuse for an underground newspaper. In fact, it is also home of the most worthless excuses for human females.”

The article went on to refer to a typical Holton student as a “Holton Hosebag,” which, according to one classmate, meant a “woman who exists for a man’s pleasure, a human receptacle for semen, and just thrown away like you would a bag.”

The Class of 1983 yearbook lists Judge as the Unknown Hoya’s “co-founder;” Brooke Anthony Beyer Jr., now a senior assistant general counsel for NASCAR, as editor; William Glenn Geimer, the president of a Washington-based firm called Iron Vine Security, as co-editor in chief; and John Andrew Gibbons as a staff writer. Another student, Richard J. Simeone Jr., a lawyer for Potters & Della Pietra, simply listed the Unknown Hoya on his yearbook page as one of his activities.

Of the five men known to work on the paper, three of them — Geimer, Gibbons and Simeone — signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsing Kavanaugh.
[…]
At least one teacher knew about it, a late priest identified by Judge as Father Hart who shook his head when he saw it, and said, “You guys have what could be a great thing, and you’re turning it into garbage.”

Judge described himself as “offended.”

“[We] were working hard putting the paper together,” he wrote, “and on the days it came out we could see students all over campus tripping over themselves laughing. What was the problem?”

Hart, he explained, was upset that Judge was not creating something in the mold of the 1960s “underground press” that championed civil rights.

“To us everything was a joke. We had no concern for the truth,” Judge wrote. “We were mocking people without pointing to what we found good — aside from drinking, sex and violent homemade movies.”

Nice guys. Just the sort you’d expect to rise to become Supreme Court Justices some day. I wonder if anyone has some of those violent homemade movies sitting in the basement somewhere…

The difference between those who are vouching for Ford and Ramirez during this period and those who are backing Kavanaugh is profound. And yet it’s those Kavanaugh buddies who are the “corroboration” for his testimony. White, rich, assholes.

.

Dem voters are putting their money where their mouths are

Dem voters are putting their money where their mouths are

by digby

I’m sure you’ve read all the doom and gloom stuff about Democrats losing their enthusiasm advantage. FWIW, I always figured it would end up being a battle of the bases — Republicans always turn out in midterms. The difference this year is that Democrats are going to turn out too. This enthusiasm advantage isn’t dissipating because Dems are less enthusiastic but because GOPers are getting excited, as they always do. These older white conservatives love politics and they love voting. Younger people of color are less inclined to watch hours and hours of cable news every day because they have better things to do with their time, so when there isn’t a presidential election they aren’t as engaged.

This year may be different. The two parties are about to go head to head in a grudge match over Donald Trump and his people will certainly come out to support him. They worship him.

Let’s hope the sane people are as motivated to vote forenough Democrats so that the congress can do some oversight of this out-of-control regime. But make no mistake. This is a fight and it’s going to get more and more volatile.

Anyway, here’s some good news that lends itself to a little bit of optimism:

House Democratic candidates are raising money like never before in the run-up to Election Day — and their record-setting hauls are alarming already anxious Republicans who now worry that a difficult political environment is becoming even worse.

In Kentucky, for instance, Democrat Amy McGrath announced this week that she had collected $3.65 million from July through September. Sharice Davids, running in suburban Kansas City, said she had raked in $2.7 million during the quarter. And in California, Josh Harder delivered $3.5 million. Others across the country are repeatedly posting hauls of well over one million dollars.

The sums — driven by small-dollar online fundraising — are unprecedented, sometimes exceeding even what many House candidates typically raise during an entire campaign. And strategists in both parties say they see this cash surge as a major inflection point in the campaign.

“When we look back, that may very well be the big enthusiasm advantage that we think may have been decisive,” said California-based GOP strategist Rob Stutzman, who added that as of now, he expects “the odds are that Republicans lose 30-40 seats.”

Said Democratic strategist Ian Russell, “The Republicans have walked into an ambush by a well-armed force.”

News of the fundraising totals comes as Republicans are already braced for a rough national environment. Trump remains polarizing, adored by his base but appalling to many moderate suburbanites, who are putting dozens of traditionally Republican districts into play this cycle. Making matters worse, the party has also been beset by retirements from key incumbents in once-safe GOP seats. And incumbent Republicans who are running this cycle continue to get outraised, despite two years’ worth of warnings to avoid that from national GOP leaders.

Now armed with an influx of campaign cash, Democrats have the resources to push even further into longtime Republican territory.

Democrats “are running in a better environment than in the last several cycles, and they have a lot of money,” said former Ohio GOP Chairman Matt Borges. “I think you’ll see some of that translate into Democrats taking some of these districts, some of these offices around the country that they otherwise wouldn’t have, shouldn’t have been able to.”

Republicans tell the reporters that money isn’t everything which is hilarious …

Still, the numbers are staggering — and far in excess of what Republican House candidates raised during their own wave election of 2010.

Mike Kelly, for example, ran and defeated incumbent Democratic Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper in 2010 in a northwest Pennsylvania congressional district.

His fundraising total in that year’s third fundraising quarter? Just under $500,000, according to a list compiled by The Washington Post. Even other top GOP House candidates that cycle rarely raised more than a million dollars in the quarter.

“These unprecedented numbers dwarf the Q3 fundraising of Republican challengers in 2010,” said one GOP operative who worked on elections that cycle. “So while the electoral rage may not measure up to 2010 yet, Democrats can now afford to buy rage in bulk.”

The Democratic donations have been driven by online contributions: ActBlue, which supplies the digital fundraising platform for nearly every candidate Democratic candidate, said this week it has processed $385 million in contributions during the third quarter to candidates and liberal causes. That was more than the group processed during the entire 2014 election cycle, it said.

Adding to the Democrats’ advantage is the fact that candidates are able to run TV ads for less money than party committees like the National Republican Congressional Committee (the political arm of the House GOP) or Super PACs like Congressional Leadership Fund (a group with close ties to House Speaker Paul Ryan). The disparity could strain the resources of those groups, and allow Democrats to try and target even more battlegrounds.

“[The Democrats’] ability to stay on TV and remain competitive is so much greater than the other side,” said Patrick McHugh, executive director of Priorities USA, a Democratic Super PAC. “Because the other side is relying so much on Congressional Leadership Fund and their outside groups that have to pay sometimes three, four, five times as much for the same points.

“That provides the ability for us to expand the map,” he added.

The truth is that money isn’t everything. But in this case, the fact that this massive haul is driven almost entirely by small donations does say something. A rich donor who donates $200,000 to a dark money PAC still only has one vote. 10,000 people who donate $20.00 have 10,000 votes.

I don’t think Kavanaugh has changed anything.

But who knows? I don’t make predictions. Just be sure to vote and remind every Democrat or independent you know to vote also.

.

This would never have happened ten years ago

This would never have happened ten years ago

by digby

Heidi Heitcamp is in the political fight of her life in North Dakota. She is the single most vulnerable Democratic Senator. She’s decided to vote no on Kavanaugh.

People are assuming that she’s just decided to go out in a blaze of glory since she’s going to lose anyway. I’m not so sure. She may have decided to vote her conscience and let the chips fall where they may. She may also have made a political calculation that she stands a better chance of winning if she galvanizes Democrats — and that Republicans are already as galvanized as they are going to be.

Whatever the case, she’s taking a courageous step and I’m grateful.  Ten years ago, Joe Lieberman and his pals would have been standing shoulder to shoulder with these guys:

So rich, preppie, Brett Kavanaugh is now a wrongly accused black man. Of course.

So rich, preppie, Brett Kavanaugh is now a wrongly accused black man. Of course.

by digby

Rich Lowry:

A refresher on the story: It is told from the perspective of a young girl, Scout, who is the daughter of a small-town lawyer named Atticus Finch (played by Peck in the movie). The setting is Depression-era Alabama. Finch is unpopular in town because he has decided to take on the defense of a black man named Tom Robinson who is accused of rape by a young white woman.

And this is where the story, in contemporary terms, goes off the rails. Atticus Finch didn’t #BelieveAllWomen. He didn’t take an accusation at face value. He defended an alleged rapist, vigorously and unremittingly, making use of every opportunity provided to him by the norms of the Anglo-American system of justice. He did it despite considerable social pressure to simply believe the accuser.

In a gripping courtroom scene, Finch cross-examines Mayella Ewell, the 19-year-old daughter of an abusive drunk from a dirt-poor family who is Robinson’s accuser. With all the vehemence and emotion she can muster, Ewell insists that Robinson attacked her after she got him to break up a piece of old furniture at her house.

Without mercy, Finch takes apart her account. In contemporary internet argot, he “destroys” her. He brushes right by her tears. He doesn’t care about her feelings, only the facts. He exposes contradictions in her story and shreds her credibility, especially with the dramatic revelation that Robinson doesn’t have use of his left arm when he stands up at the defense table (he is alleged to have hit her with his left hand).

It is revealed that Ewell is lying. She had made an advance on Robinson and gotten caught by her vicious, racist father. The charge of rape against Robinson was a cover story, although the bigoted jury convicts him anyway.

“To Kill a Mockingbird” stands firmly for the proposition that an accusation can be false, that unpopular defendants presumed guilty must and should be defended, and that it is admirable and brave to withstand the crowd — at times in the story, literally the lynch mob — when it wants to cast aside the normal protections of justice.

Exactly what has made Atticus Finch such an honored figure in our culture would make him a very inconvenient man at many college campuses today, where charges of sexual misconduct are adjudicated without the accused being allowed to confront the accuser or make use of other key features of our system of justice. Finch is a rebuke to the shift from a presumption of innocence toward a presumption of guilt that now attends accusations of sexual harassment and assault. He didn’t believe that someone being accused of something is enough to establish his wrongdoing, or accept that a category of people were, by definition, to be under a pall of suspicion.

Are you getting the message girls? These people think any woman who comes forward to report a rape must be destroyed. They must. Because if you can conflate Tom Robinson of To Kill A Mockingbird with the antics of the drunken pigs at Georgetown Prep who slandered a girl named Renate as their personal pass-around pack in their yearbook — and are now having a hysterical fit that anyone would think such a despicable jerk shouldn’t be given a promotion from federal appeals court to the Supreme Court — there’s little doubt about how much they hate us.

And, by the way, conservative white women, then and today, have been willing collaborators. There’s plenty o,f just plain cruelty among them, and tribalism is a powerful drug. But in conservative circles, there’s just no margin making daddy mad.

.

It’s the cruelty stupid

It’s the cruelty stupid

by digby

Adam Serwer writes a searing piece about Trump and his supporters’ cruelty — and the joy they take in inflicting it. It get right to the essence of what’s going on right now.

An excerpt:

The Trump era is such a whirlwind of cruelty that it can be hard to keep track. This week alone, the news broke that the Trump administration was seeking to ethnically cleanse more than 193,000 American children of immigrants whose temporary protected status had been revoked by the administration, that the Department of Homeland Security had lied about creating a database of children that would make it possible to unite them with the families the Trump administration had arbitrarily destroyed, that the White House was considering a blanket ban on visas for Chinese students, and that it would deny visas to the same-sex partners of foreign officials. At a rally in Mississippi, a crowd of Trump supporters cheered as the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford, the psychology professor who has said that Brett Kavanaugh, whom Trump has nominated to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, attempted to rape her when she was a teenager. “Lock her up!” they shouted.

Ford testified to the Senate, utilizing her professional expertise to describe the encounter, that one of the parts of the incident she remembered most was Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge laughing at her as Kavanaugh fumbled at her clothing. “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter,” Ford said, referring to the part of the brain that processes emotion and memory, “the uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.” And then at Tuesday’s rally, the president made his supporters laugh at her.

Even those who believe that Ford fabricated her account, or was mistaken in its details, can see that the president’s mocking of her testimony renders all sexual-assault survivors collateral damage. Anyone afraid of coming forward, afraid that they would not be believed, can now look to the president to see their fears realized. Once malice is embraced as a virtue, it is impossible to contain.

The cruelty of the Trump administration’s policies, and the ritual rhetorical flaying of his targets before his supporters, are intimately connected. As Lili Loofbourow wrote of the Kavanaugh incident in Slate, adolescent male cruelty towards women is a bonding mechanism, a vehicle for intimacy through contempt. The white men in the lynching photos are not merely smiling because of what they have done, but because they did it together.

We can hear the spectacle of cruel laughter throughout the Trump era. There were the border patrol agents cracking up at the crying immigrant children separated from their families, and the Trump adviser who delighted white supremacists when he mocked a child with down syndrome who was separated from her mother. There were the police who laughed uproariously when the president encouraged them to abuse suspects, and the Fox News hosts mocking a survivor of the Pulse Nightclub massacre (and in the process inundating him with threats), the survivors of sexual assault protesting Senator Jeff Flake, the women who said the president sexually assaulted them, and the teen survivors of the Parkland school shooting. There was the president mocking Puerto Rican accents shortly after thousands were killed and tens of thousands displaced by Hurricane Maria, the black athletes protesting unjustified killings by police, the women of the #MeToo movement who have come forward with stories of sexual abuse, and the disabled reporter whose crime was reporting on Trump truthfully. It is not just that they enjoy this cruelty, it is that they enjoy it with each other. Their shared laughter at the suffering of others is an adhesive that binds them to each other, and to Trump.

Taking joy in that suffering is more human than most would like to admit. Somewhere on the wide spectrum between adolescent teasing and the smiling white men in the lynching photographs are the Trump supporters whose community is built by rejoicing in the anguish of those they see as unlike them, who have found in their shared cruelty an answer to the loneliness and atomization of modern life.

The laughter undergirds the daily spectacle of insincerity, as the president and his aides pledge fealty to bedrock democratic principles they have no intention of respecting. The president who demanded the execution of five black and Latino teenagers for a crime they didn’t commit decrying “false accusations,” when his Supreme Court nominee stands accused; his supporters who fancy themselves champions of free speech meet references to Hillary Clinton or mentions of a woman whose only crime was coming forward to offer her own story of abuse with screams of, “Lock her up!” The political movement that elected a president who wanted to ban immigration by adherents of an entire religion, who encourages police to brutalize suspects, and who has destroyed thousands of immigrant families for violations of the law less serious than those of which he and his coterie stand accused, now laments the state of due process.

This isn’t incoherent. It reflects a clear principle: Only the president and his allies, his supporters, and their anointed are entitled to the rights and protections of the law, and if necessary, immunity from it. The rest of us are entitled only to cruelty, by their whim. This is how the powerful have ever kept the powerless divided and in their place, and enriched themselves in the process.

I suspect there’s going to be high fives and toasts in Real America when the Kavanaugh vote comes in.

Hopefully not so much on November 9th.

Your money “is now laundered” by @BloggersRUs

Your money “is now laundered”
by Tom Sullivan

The massive New York Times report on Tuesday detailed how the Trump family transferred Fred Trump’s real estate empire to his children without paying inheritance or gift taxes. Among the 295 revenue streams the Times found in its year-long investigation were a host of gifts disguised as loans, loans the Times believes The Donald never repaid.

A scene from Lethal Weapon 2 kept playing in my head while reading the Times account. Leo Getz (Joe Pesci) explains to officers Riggs (Mel Gibson) and Murtaugh (Danny Glover) how he helps criminals launder money:

Fred Trump repeatedly bailed out his son Donald with “a spigot of loans” he never paid back, the Times found. This particular deal jumped off the page as something Leo Getz might do:

By 1987, for example, Donald Trump’s loan debt to his father had grown to at least $11 million. Yet canceling the debt would have required Donald Trump to pay millions in taxes on the amount forgiven. Father and son found another solution, one never before disclosed, that appears to constitute both an unreported multimillion-dollar gift and a potentially illegal tax write-off.

In December 1987, records show, Fred Trump bought a 7.5 percent stake in Trump Palace, a 55-story condominium building his son was erecting on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Most, if not all, of his investment, which totaled $15.5 million, was made by exchanging his son’s unpaid debts for Trump Palace shares, records show.

Four years later, in December 1991, Fred Trump sold his entire stake in Trump Palace for just $10,000, his tax returns and financial statements reveal. Those documents do not identify who bought his stake. But other records indicate that he sold it back to his son.

No doubt Fred took a tax deduction for the loss. Leo Getz would approve.

A less conspicuous Trump family partner is Judge Maryanne Trump Barry of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (inactive), the sitting president’s sister. (Judge Brett Kavanaugh holds a similar position on the District of Columbia Circuit.) A filing from Barry’s 1999 Senate confirmation provided a vital clue in the Times expose, CNN reports:

According to the Times, one of their key findings was a financial disclosure form from Barry’s Senate confirmation proceedings in 1999 to be a federal appellate judge. This financial form was not redacted, and Times reporter Susanne Craig, one of the three reporters who broke the story, noticed an oddity in the filing — a $1 million contribution from a Trump family-owned company called All County Building Supply & Maintenance.

The Times reports All County was “a middleman entity created by President Trump and his siblings” to allow transfer of Fred Trump’s cash to his children while evading a 55 percent gift tax:

… All County siphoned millions of dollars from Fred Trump’s empire by simply marking up purchases already made by his employees. Those millions, effectively untaxed gifts, then flowed to All County’s owners — Donald Trump, his siblings and a cousin. Fred Trump then used the padded All County receipts to justify bigger rent increases for thousands of tenants.

“In all of the books, all of the profiles, all of the newspaper stories, we haven’t found one mention of Donald Trump and All County Building Supply,” reporter David Barstow said. But wandering down that “one little alleyway” in Barry’s Senate filing revealed how little was known about the Trumps’ financial dealings.

As an executor of her father’s estate, what liability Maryanne Trump Barry may have should investigators establish tax fraud is unclear:

“She signed the estate tax return. She is required to submit accurate information to be truthful. She was a lawyer at the time,” professor Lee-Ford Tritt, a law professor and the director of the Center for Estate Planning at the University of Florida Law School, told CNN on Wednesday. Barry also was a sitting federal judge at the time her late father’s tax returns were filed.

Though the statute of limitations for pursuing possible criminal action against the Trumps for the alleged schemes exposed in the report has long passed, there could be civil penalties if tax fraud is found to have occurred.

The New York State Tax Department is reviewing allegations in the Times report.

With Fred Trump gone and his treasury disbursed, Donald has found other benefactors to back his money-losing, Trump-branded ventures. He has yet to face a full accounting — pun intended.

* * * * * * * * *

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