Skip to content

Month: January 2019

The Big Deliverable

The Big Deliverable

by digby

I can’t say this particularly surprises me. It’s been obvious from the beginning that Trump wants to withdraw from NATO. The motive, as always, is unclear. He is either intellectually disabled to such an extent that he can’t understand the simple concept of how countries contribute to the alliance, or he’s pretending to be ridiculously dumb in service of a more cynical goal:

There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.

Last year, President Trump suggested a move tantamount to destroying NATO: the withdrawal of the United States.

Senior administration officials told The New York Times that several times over the course of 2018, Mr. Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Current and former officials who support the alliance said they feared Mr. Trump could return to his threat as allied military spending continued to lag behind the goals the president had set.

In the days around a tumultuous NATO summit meeting last summer, they said, Mr. Trump told his top national security officials that he did not see the point of the military alliance, which he presented as a drain on the United States.

At the time, Mr. Trump’s national security team, including Jim Mattis, then the defense secretary, and John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, scrambled to keep American strategy on track without mention of a withdrawal that would drastically reduce Washington’s influence in Europe and could embolden Russia for decades.

Now, the president’s repeatedly stated desire to withdraw from NATO is raising new worries among national security officials amid growing concern about Mr. Trump’s efforts to keep his meetings with Mr. Putin secret from even his own aides, and an F.B.I. investigation into the administration’s Russia ties.

A move to withdraw from the alliance, in place since 1949, “would be one of the most damaging things that any president could do to U.S. interests,” said Michèle A. Flournoy, an under secretary of defense under President Barack Obama.

“It would destroy 70-plus years of painstaking work across multiple administrations, Republican and Democratic, to create perhaps the most powerful and advantageous alliance in history,” Ms. Flournoy said in an interview. “And it would be the wildest success that Vladimir Putin could dream of.”

Retired Adm. James G. Stavridis, the former supreme allied commander of NATO, said an American withdrawal from the alliance would be “a geopolitical mistake of epic proportion.”

“Even discussing the idea of leaving NATO — let alone actually doing so — would be the gift of the century for Putin,” Admiral Stavridis said.

Senior Trump administration officials discussed the internal and highly sensitive efforts to preserve the military alliance on condition of anonymity.

After the White House was asked for comment on Monday, a senior administration official pointed to Mr. Trump’s remarks in July when he called the United States’ commitment to NATO “very strong” and the alliance “very important.” The official declined to comment further.

American national security officials believe that Russia has largely focused on undermining solidarity between the United States and Europe after it annexed Crimea in 2014. Its goal was to upend NATO, which Moscow views as a threat.
[…]
An American withdrawal from the alliance would accomplish all that Mr. Putin has been trying to put into motion, the officials said — essentially, doing the Russian leader’s hardest and most critical work for him.

When Mr. Trump first raised the possibility of leaving the alliance, senior administration officials were unsure if he was serious. He has returned to the idea several times, officials said increasing their worries.

I’d forgotten what an ass he made of himself at the last NATO meeting just before Helsinki:

Senior national security officials had already pushed the military alliance’s ambassadors to complete a formal agreement on several NATO goals — including shared defenses against Russia — before the summit meeting even began, to shield it from Mr. Trump.

But Mr. Trump upended the proceedings anyway. One meeting, on July 12, was ostensibly supposed to be about Ukraine and Georgia — two non-NATO members with aspirations to join the alliance.

Accepted protocol dictates that alliance members do not discuss internal business in front of nonmembers. But as is frequently the case, Mr. Trump did not adhere to the established norms, according to several American and European officials who were in the room.

He complained that European governments were not spending enough on the shared costs of defense, leaving the United States to carry an outsize burden. He expressed frustration that European leaders would not, on the spot, pledge to spend more. And he appeared not to grasp the details when several tried to explain to him that spending levels were set by parliaments in individual countries, the American and European officials said.

Then, at another leaders gathering at the same summit meeting, Mr. Trump appeared to be taken by surprise by Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general.

Backing Mr. Trump’s position, Mr. Stoltenberg pushed allies to increase their spending and praised the United States for leading by example — including by increasing its military spending in Europe. At that, according to one official who was in the room, Mr. Trump whipped his head around and glared at American officials behind him, surprised by Mr. Stoltenberg’s remarks and betraying ignorance of his administration’s own spending plans.

Mr. Trump appeared especially annoyed, officials in the meeting said, with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and her country’s military spending of 1 percent of its gross domestic product.

In the end, the NATO leaders publicly papered over their differences to present a unified front. But both European leaders and American officials emerged from the two days in Brussels shaken and worried that Mr. Trump would renew his threat to withdraw from the alliance.

It now seems obvious that he was acting out for a reason in advance of the big meeting with Putin, trying to impress him with his disdain for the NATO allies.

His reasoning for insulting and degrading America’s strongest allies has always been almost criminally stupid, even for him. He criticizes the NATO allies as if they have overdue protection payments to the US. This is, needless to say, ridiculous, but he continues to insist that they are in arrears on what they “owe.”

Maybe it’s just the only reason he could come up with to fulfill the big deliverable on the Putin contract? Seems like a stretch — but what doesn’t with him?

.

This presidency’s coda? by @BloggersRUs

This presidency’s coda?
by Tom Sullivan


Willy Wonka’s evil half-brother. Image via White House twitter account.

Amidst the tweet-shaming Monday night of the sitting president’s cold fast-food reception for college football’s national champions; and news that a unanimous panel of House Republicans stripped Iowa’s Rep. Steve King of his committee assignments over his wondering aloud why anyone finds “white nationalist” or “white supremacist” offensive; and swirling stories about furloughed federal workers rationing insulin as U.S. air traffic controllers working unpaid during the now-historic Trump government receive pizzas donated by their Canadian counterparts; and in the wake of revelations that the F.B.I. is investigating whether the president of the United States is “working on behalf of Russia against American interests” and that he has “gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin“; plus a warning Monday night from the former head of the Justice Department’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section that Donald J. Trump represents “a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States“; this masterful almost-coda to the Trump presidency from Michelle Goldberg:

Trump has turned out to be the Norma Desmond of authoritarians, a senescent has-been whose delusions are propped up by obsequious retainers. From his fantasy world in the White House, he barks dictatorial and often illegal orders, floats conspiracy theories, tweets insults and lies unceasingly. But much of the time he’s not fully in charge. He has the instincts of a fascist but lacks both the discipline and the loyal lieutenants he’d need to create true autocracy.

That doesn’t mean, however, that the country isn’t coming undone. Trump’s bumbling incoherence, coupled with his declining political fortunes since the midterms, makes him seem less frightening than he once did. But, two years in, the jaded weariness many of us have developed might obscure how bad things are. We’re living through an unprecedented breakdown in America’s ability to function like a normal country.

Goldberg’s litany of Trump-plagues is near biblical. EBT cards that purchase about 10 percent of U.S. groceries will be drained in February. Domestic violence shelters are cutting services. Immigration cases may be delayed “as long as four years.” Native Americans’ health care access is affected. Thousands of low-income Americans face eviction when funds run out at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. That fruit on your cereal and your baby’s formula? Were they inspected and deemed safe?

House Republicans finally censuring Steve King after years of racist comments confirms (in part) the Abba Eban saying that “nations do behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.” But that meager action is no signal of a return to normalcy by a party swept up by a cult. Having done so little until King’s censure, the GOP’s House leadership cannot be exhausted. This leaves them plenty of energy, in addition to their surfeit of patriotism, for joining their House Democratic counterparts in doing something about the clear and present danger in the Oval Office.

The enfant terrible of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue entertains like a seven year-old, lies by reflex, treats the U.S. Constitution as an inconvenience, holds his own citizens hostage, and undermines U.S. alliances for a hostile foreign power that helped elect him and likely still funds his businesses. To the untrained observer, Donald Trump appears “dirty” and has the bearing of a traitor. Trained eyes in the F.B.I. are investigating him as though he might be. In the case of Steve King, it took six years for Republicans in the U.S. House to shed the scales from their eyes. The rest of us don’t have another two to spare.

Why is he wearing an overcoat in the White House?

Why is he wearing an overcoat in the White House?

by digby

Trump had the Clemson football players to the White House. He served them junk food from Wendy’s and McDonalds. He tweeted that he assumed it was their favorite food.

You may think this is cheap and classless. But remember. This is how Trump entertains. But at least the White House grabbed handfuls of individual packets of mayo. Recall his sumptuous Christmas spread for journalists down at Mar-a-lago:


 The White House is probably sanitary:

Of course the kitchen at Mar-a-Lago is disgusting. As a businessman, President Donald Trump made his name by hawking products and services that sounded glitzy and fabulous but were actually very bad. (See: Trump University, Trump Steaks, Trump Airlines.) So it makes perfect sense that the restaurant at his so-called “Winter White House” is no different.

The Miami Herald on Thursday published the most recent inspection reports from Mar-a-Lago’s kitchen, which show 13 violations, including some that are just plain dangerous. Some highlights:

▪ Fish designed to be served raw or undercooked, the inspection report reads, had not undergone proper parasite destruction. Kitchen staffers were ordered to cook the fish immediately or throw it out.

▪ In two of the club’s coolers, inspectors found that raw meats that should be stored at 41 degrees were much too warm and potentially dangerous: chicken was 49 degrees, duck clocked in at 50 degrees and raw beef was 50 degrees. The winner? Ham at 57 degrees.

▪ The club was cited for not maintaining the coolers in proper working order and was ordered to have them emptied immediately and repaired.

In other words, not only is it ethically gross for a president to be hosting foreign leaders at his own resort, it’s also generally gross too.

.

Stop publicly intimidating witnesses, Mr President. You may not know this but it’s illegal.

Stop publicly intimidating witnesses, Mr President.

by digby

Trump’s threat against Michael Cohen’s father-in-law was one of his most thuggish acts yet.

Three newly empowered Democratic House committee chairmen, alarmed by statements over the weekend by President Trump about his former lawyer’s planned testimony before Congress, cautioned on Sunday that any effort to discourage or influence a witness’s testimony could be construed as a crime.

The warning, a stark and unusual message from some of Congress’s most influential Democrats, underscores the increasing legal and political peril facing Mr. Trump. Democrats are beginning their own investigations of him as the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, appears to move toward a conclusion in his investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia and potential obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump.

In a Fox News interview on Saturday night, Mr. Trump accused the former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, of lying about him to win leniency from federal prosecutors and spoke cryptically of the existence of damaging information against Mr. Cohen’s father-in-law. Mr. Cohen, who has been sentenced to three years in prison, has accused Mr. Trump of directing him to make illegal hush payments during the campaign.

“Our nation’s laws prohibit efforts to discourage, intimidate or otherwise pressure a witness not to provide testimony to Congress,” the chairmen wrote. “The president should make no statement or take any action to obstruct Congress’s independent oversight and investigative efforts, including by seeking to discourage any witness from testifying in response to a duly authorized request from Congress.”

Josh Marshall wrote up the father-in-law story in case you were wondering. Trump may regret opening that can of worms.

.

Three Amigos: Trump, Steve King and Pat Buchanan

Three Amigos: Trump, Steve King and Pat Buchanan

by digby

I’m guessing that Stephen Miller is passing along right-wing xenophobic screeds from anti-immigrant web-sites to buck him up as the shutdown carries on:

Check this out:

The sad reality is that Trump was being a phony then but not now. How do we know this? Because he’s always been a racist piece of work going back to the 70s.

And then there’s congressman Steve King, the man who told the the New York Times this week that he can’t understand why white supremacy has such a bad reputation. Adam Serwer has a must-read piece in the Atlantic about all this:

In 2014, as Trump was mulling a run for president, he made an appearance in Iowa with King, calling him “special guy, a smart person, with really the right views on almost everything,” and noting that their views on the issues were so similar that “we don’t even have to compare notes.”

Little has changed. The president has defended white nationalists; sought to exploit the census to dilute the political power of minority voters, described immigration as an infestation, warning that it was “changing the culture of Europe;” derided black and Latino immigrants as coming from “shithole countries,” while expressing a preference for immigrants from places like “Norway;” and generally portrayed non-white immigrants as little more than rapists, drug dealers, and murderers at every opportunity.

Unlike King however, the president has the authority, by himself, to make his views into policy. From his travel ban to his child-separation policy to his revocation of protections for immigrants brought here as children, he has pursued discriminatory policies with a commitment he has shown for few other campaign promises. Even now, the federal government remains shut down, its workforce denied payment for their labor, all in pursuit of the construction of a taxpayer-funded symbolic monument of disapproval towards immigrants of Latin American descent.

As if to remind the world of his similarity to King, on Sunday night, Trump tweeted a column from Pat Buchanan arguing that the president should seize executive power and build the wall without approval from Congress, warning that unless he does so, “the United States, as we have known it, is going to cease to exist.” Such a barrier is made necessary, Buchanan argues, because of the increasing diversity of the United States, which he portrays in apocalyptic terms. “The more multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual America becomes—the less it looks like Ronald Reagan’s America—the more dependably Democratic it will become,” he argues in the same column. “The Democratic Party is hostile to white men, because the smaller the share of the U.S. population that white men become, the sooner that Democrats inherit the national estate.”

This genetic determinism—that the sovereignty of America’s white people is threatened by the presence of non-white people—is the logic of white nationalism.

Trump’s big on genetic determinism:

Trump lamented the fact that “I haven’t actually left the White House for months,” except for a quick trip to Iraq. He failed to mention trips for golf, campaign rallies, the G20 summit and visits to California fire scenes, among other events.

“I’m a worker,” Trump said.

Asked by Pirro what makes him such a great fighter, he responded: “Good genes.”


Update:
Just FYI one the inane “I’m a a worker” comment. He spends most of his time in the White House watching TV. They have to carve out “executive time” for him every day because he doesn’t show up for work. The last month he’s been stuck in the White Houe and he’s crying like a little baby. He misses his golf:

How many times has Trump played golf as President of the United States? Since taking office on Jan. 20, 2017, Mr. Trump has reportedly been on the grounds of his golf courses or played golf elsewhere 167 times since becoming President, and that’s as of Nov. 25, 2018.

The cost of Trump’s golf rounds to the American taxpayer varies by round and course, but it has totaled so far in the tens of millions of dollars.

He previously was on pace to visit his golf clubs more than 650 times in an eight-year presidency. However, his pace as of Aug. 6, 2018 now indicates Trump would spend as much as 745 days of his presidency at a golf course if he wins a second term and serves both terms to completion.

Trump has spent nearly 25 percent of his days in office at one of his golf properties for some portion of the day. There have been days where Trump has visited one of his golf clubs and not played golf. He made a 40-minute visit to his Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va., and he has made a three-day visit to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., to watch the 2017 US Women’s Open, unfolding at that club. Trump spent a 17-day “working vacation” at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., in August, which meant all of those days count as days on his golf courses, even though he didn’t necessarily play golf on all of those days.

.

The White House wants to kill the hostages

The White House wants to kill the hostages

by digby

If this person actually represents thinking in the White House, it means they are consciously blowing up the government.

An unnamed “senior official in the Trump administration” wrote in an anonymous Daily Caller op-ed Monday that the record-breaking 24-day partial government shutdown “is an opportunity to strip wasteful government agencies for good.”

While it’s unclear how “senior” this administration official is — many senior Trump officials are still being paid, while the author claims to be “one of the senior officials working without a paycheck” — the op-ed could offer a window into another goal of this shutdown, in addition to using federal workers’ paychecks as leverage in an attempt to extract border wall funds from Congress: starving the government.

The op-ed’s author wrote that “many federal agencies are now operating more effectively from the top down on a fraction of their workforce” and that “we do not want most employees to return, because we are working better without them.”

Roughly 800,000 federal employees are currently going without pay, and millions of Americans who rely on the agencies those employees usually run — everything from the Food and Drug Administration to the Department of the Interior to the Department of Homeland Security — are going without services, except for those provided by workers deemed essential to national security or public safety.

“Now that we are shut down, not only are we identifying and eliminating much of the sabotage and waste, but we are finally working on the president’s agenda,” the official wrote, adding in conclusion: “Wasteful government agencies are fighting for relevance but they will lose. Now is the time to deliver historic change by cutting them down forever

I suspect this person is a low-level wingnut — if he exists at all. But the Daily Caller is going to get a bunch of clicks and succeed in providing another alternate narrative to mirror the “Anonymous Op-Ed writer” in the New York Times. At best it’s a troll.

But don’t think there isn’t a group within the GOP that truly believes this is a good idea. They are working with Trump for their own purposes. And their purpose is to “break” the US Government.

.

Polls, polls ,polls. Not that it matters …

Polls, polls, polls. Not that it matters …

by digby

As we head into the fourth week of the Government shutdown, the longest in US history, some new polls show Trump and the GOP are losing the PR battle. But Trump doesn’t care. He obviously believes that if he just makes America suffer enough, that uppity Speaker will come crawling. And then he will be a big hero to his base. They love hurting people.

HuffPost YouGov:

The share of Americans who regard the shutdown as “very serious” now stands at a new high of 50 percent, the HuffPost/YouGov survey finds, up from 29 percent in an initial survey taken just before Christmas.

CBS:

CNN:

CNN also has this:

Overall, the President’s approval rating in the poll stands at 37% approve to 57% disapprove. Disapproval has risen five points since December, while his approval number has held roughly the same. Trump’s current approval rating matches Ronald Reagan’s at this point in his presidency. January of 1983 was the only time during Reagan’s tenure when his approval rating fell below 40%, according to Gallup. Trump has hit a low point of 35% in CNN’s polling two times — in December 2017 and February 2018 — and has been at 40% or above just nine times out of the 20 CNN has polled on it.

37%.

Washington Post/ABC:

Quinnipiac poll:

The survey found 56 percent of voters say Trump and Republicans are responsible for the shutdown while 36 percent blame Democrats. The two sides have reached an impasse over Trump’s request for $5 billion to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
[…]
In a separate question, 62 percent of voters opposed shutting down the government to force funding for the wall, with 32 percent in favor. Republicans were the only group who supported a shutdown. About two-thirds of voters disapprove of Trump using executive powers to fund the wall.

On the issue of the wall itself, 55 percent of voters oppose building a wall along the Mexican border while 43 percent are in favor. But voters agree, by a margin of 54-43 percent, that there is a security crisis along the Mexican border and, by a margin of 68-26 percent, that there is a humanitarian crisis there.

“While they believe there is both a humanitarian and a security crisis along the southern border, they absolutely don’t think a wall will solve the problem,” Malloy said.

None of this matters to Trump who only sees what makes him feel better about himself:

Over the last 24 hours, Trump has privately touted a Washington Post-ABC News poll indicating that public support for a border wall has increased to 42% from 34% last year, a source familiar with his comments told CNN.

“He’s not going to budge even 1 inch,” a source familiar with the President’s mindset told CNN.

He thought Helsinki was great!

He thought Helsinki was great!

by digby

Trump said this morning that the Helsinki summit was a “tremendous success.” Obviously, it was a flaming trainwreck. But he really did think he did great …

Tuesday, July 17, 2018


It was a yuge success of course

by digby

Dotard had thought he had it covered:

Immediately after his news conference, Trump’s mood was buoyant, people familiar with the matter said. He walked off stage in Helsinki with little inkling his remarks would cause the firestorm they did, and was instead enthusiastic about what he felt was a successful summit.


By the time he’d returned to the White House just before 10 p.m. ET on Monday, however, his mood had soured. Predictably, the President was upset when he saw negative coverage of the summit airing on television aboard Air Force One. It was clear he was getting little support, even from the usual places.

He vented to aides traveling with him, including new communications chief Bill Shine and policy aide Stephen Miller. First lady Melania Trump was also aboard and was involved in some of the discussions, but not all of them, the people familiar with the matter said.


Trump, the first lady, Shine and Miller were seen in animated conversation aboard Marine One when they arrived to the White House South Lawn on Monday evening.

A day later, aides are still wondering what the ultimate fallout will be, including whether any senior officials will resign. Those who were not on the trip are waiting to debrief their colleagues later in the day about what transpired behind the scenes. All are nervously watching Twitter to see if the President attempts further cleanup beyond his tweet after the event Monday when he said he has “GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people.”

 Well, so far:

While I had a great meeting with NATO, raising vast amounts of money, I had an even better meeting with Vladimir Putin of Russia. Sadly, it is not being reported that way – the Fake News is going Crazy!

By the way:

Administration officials had hoped that maybe, just maybe, Monday’s summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin would end differently — without a freewheeling 46-minute news conference in which Trump attacked his own FBI on foreign soil and warmly praised archrival Russia.

Ahead of the meeting, staffers provided Trump with some 100 pages of briefing materials aimed at laying out a tough posture toward Putin, but the president ignored most of it, according to one person familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal deliberations. Trump’s remarks were “very much counter to the plan,” the person said.

“Everyone around Trump” was urging him to take a firm stance with Putin, according to a second person familiar with the preparations. Before Monday’s meeting, the second person said, advisers covered matters from Russia’s annexation of Crimea to its interference in the U.S. elections, but Trump “made a game-time decision” to handle the summit his way.

.

He’s just a president, standing in front of a strongman, asking him to love him.

He’s just a president, standing in front of a strongman, asking him to love him.

by digby

My Salon column this morning:

The New York Times’ Peter Baker’s lede in Sunday’s newspaper was one I don’t think anyone ever expected to see:

“So it has come to this: The president of the United States was asked over the weekend whether he is a Russian agent. And he refused to answer.”

That comment specifically refers to a question posed to the president by Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro in reference to the big New York Times story over the week-end reporting that in the wake of the firing of James Comey and Trump’s suspicious behavior surrounding that event, the FBI finally realized that they needed to open a counterintelligence investigation into the president himself. We don’t know whether that probe is still active, but one can safely assume that it was folded into the Special Prosecutor’s portfolio along with a number of other investigations that had been opened into Russian spying, sabotage and cyber-propaganda over the course of the presidential campaign.

Salon’s Andrew O’Hehir took a deep dive into the details and political implications on Sunday, particularly noting the fact that while many of us have concluded that there was plenty of evidence Trump was compromised and this was just the last straw, the right sees it as more evidence of a “Deep State Coup.” Getting one’s hopes up that there will soon be a biartisan consensus on this is as remote as ever.

But that wasn’t the only Russia story that hit this weekend. The Washington Post reported that Trump’s infamous private meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the past two years are even more suspicious that we were led to believe. And it seems to have especially alarmed some of the people who know about such things:

The Atlantic’s Natasha Bertrand pointed out that Laufman is the former chief of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section at DOJ and oversaw parts of the Russia investigation until he left DOJ last year.

We knew, of course, that Trump had gone to some lengths to speak privately with Putin, but the new reporting shows that he’s gone to greater lengths than we knew to hide the details, going so far as  confiscating the notes from at least one of his interpreters at the 2017 G20 and giving instructions not to discuss the meeting with members of his administration. (Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson did attend that meeting .) You’ll recall that Trump was also later revealed to have had a long private conversation with Putin at the official G20 banquet.

As Marcy Wheeler and others have pointed out, Trump later admitted that they discussed “adoptions” at this little tête-à-tête which just happened to take place the night before Trump dictated that dishonest response to the New York Times on Air Force One claiming the notorious Trump Tower meeting with Don Jr and all those Russians was an innocent discussion about … adoptions.

The Post revealed something else about that Hamburg meeting that was quite startling. The American interpreter in the room during refused to discuss the details of the meeting with officials from the National Security Council but did report that Trump responded “I believe you” after Putin denied any Russian involvement in the U.S. election.

It must have been quite a chat. He tweeted this on the way home:

The experts all dismissed that as the daft notion it was, but Trump brought it up again at the notorious Helsinki meeting last summer. This time he refused to have anyone but the interpreters present for the two hours he spent with Putin before appearing in what may be the most horrifying press conference of his tenure — and that’s saying something.

Standing beside the Russian president, when asked about the election and if he would denounce the Russian interference, this is what he said:

So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server — haven’t they taken the server. Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?I’ve been wondering that, I’ve been asking that for months and months and I’ve been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know where is the server and what is the server saying?

With that being said, all I can do is ask the question. My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others, they said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia.

I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be. But I really do want to see the server.

But I have — I have confidence in both parties. I — I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but I don’t think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC? Where are those servers? They’re missing; where are they? What happened to Hillary Clinton’s e-mails? 33,000 e-mails gone — just gone. I think in Russia they wouldn’t be gone so easily. I think it’s a disgrace that we can’t get Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 e-mails.

So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.

And what he did is an incredible offer. He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators with respect to the 12 people. I think that’s an incredible offer. OK?

Needless to say, beneath that river of incoherent drivel, he managed to make it quite clear to the whole world, as Putin looked on smugly, that he would not or could not, say one word of condemnation for Russia’s behavior.

The Post reported that officials “said they were never able to get a reliable readout of the president’s two-hour meeting in Helsinki.” Experts in these matters explain that the fact there was no American record of what was said in the meeting meant that Putin could say Trump agreed to anything he wanted and there would be nothing Trump could do about it.  But that’s a silly thing to worry about. After the press conference, it was obvious that Trump was happy to appear before the whole world and agree to anything Putin proposed.

The Democrats say they will call the interpreter to testify before the Intelligence Committee, which could potentially answer the more serious concern. Is Putin exercising leverage over Trump in these private meetings or is Trump truly just a president, standing in front of a strongman, asking him to love him?

.

Strike: First time in 30 years by @BloggersRUs

Strike: First time in 30 years
by Tom Sullivan


Image: UTLA website.

Teachers across the country are not done demanding better pay and better funding. Joining the movement this morning: United Teachers Los Angeles. UTLA will go on strike after negotiations between the union and the nation’s second-largest school district failed to reach an agreement. Negotiations began in 2017. Members have worked without a contract for over a year. Over 30,000 teachers are expected to walk out. About 600,000 students will still attend school, taught by “more than 2,000 reassigned administrators and about 400 substitute teachers,” reports CNN.

Vox provides background:

The strike comes after months of fruitless contract negotiations between the teacher’s union and the Los Angeles Unified School District. The school system extended a last-minute deal on Friday, but organizers rejected it, saying they’re fighting for the future of the education system — with implications that extend beyond the district’s borders.

[…]

Nationwide, stagnant teacher wages, crumbling infrastructure and deep budget cuts to education have helped fuel a wave of educator activism. From Arizona to West Virginia, Kentucky to Oklahoma, teachers garnered widespread support and won major victories boosting salaries and benefits last year. And now the movement has a powerful ally joining its ranks.

What is at stake is more than pay, but about “the conditions that the kids are learning in,” Scout Wodehouse told NPR. Wodehouse is a high-school drama teacher in downtown LA. UTLA deemed the Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) last offer on Friday “woefully inadequate.” The school district counters it cannot afford more. UTLA insists the school district draw on $1.86 billion in reserves to meet teachers’ demands. Neither is budging.

NPR’s report adds:

“This is not an easy decision for us,” says Jesenia Chavez, a Spanish teacher at UCLA Community School in the Koreatown neighborhood. She grew up in southeast Los Angeles; some of her students are immigrants, and many are low-income. She says, “Public education for me was a space of transformation, a place for opportunity. And that’s why I’m striking.”

Schools across the district have already informed parents of their plans during the strike, with several noting that kids should bring an extra book to read.

Before California joined the ranks of strike states to the east, Vox’s Alvin Chang argued last April that state lawmakers have systematically underfunded public education:

The root of these education cuts started decades ago, when state legislators gave tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations during times of economic prosperity. The hope was that it would spur economic growth — but that growth never came. When the economy turned south, states needed to raise more revenue.

But conservative lawmakers refused to raise taxes; they just cut spending. And because education often takes up the largest portion of state budgets, schools were hit especially hard.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

But in California, tax cuts for the rich are not so much the issue. Encroachment of privately run, publicly funded, non-union charter schools is, as are restoration of deep funding cuts left over from the last recession. Plus, the distribution of available funding:

Underlying the debate between the two sides is a situation they agree is a major problem: that high-needs school districts like Los Angeles, where 82 percent of students are low-income, bear the brunt of the burden from the state’s low education spending.

With many wealthy and white families opting to choose private schools, or move to other surrounding school districts, the Los Angeles school district is disproportionately African-American and Latino. A study from U.C.L.A.’s Civil Rights Project found that Latino students in Los Angeles are more segregated than anywhere else in the country.

[…]

“We’ve had a systemic process over the past many years of disinvesting in neighborhood public schools,” said Alex Caputo-Pearl, the president of United Teachers Los Angeles, the main union for the district. Instead of funding neighborhood schools, cities and states had chosen to “dismantle them and privatize them,” he said.

That process is insidious. Public education is the largest portion of annual budgets in all 50 states. Investors see schools (and children) as resources to mine:

Over the last decade, the charter school movement has morphed from a small, community-based effort to foster alternative education into a national push to privatize public schools, pushed by free-market foundations and big education-management companies. This transformation opened the door to profit-seekers looking for a way to cash in on public funds.

In 2010, Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. has been an ALEC member, declared K-12 public education “a $500 billion sector in the U.S. alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed.

Hide yer children.