Skip to content

Month: March 2019

“Trust me, I’m like a smart person”

“Trust me, I’m like a smart person”

by digby


This story 
about Trump’s two years at the Wharton School proves once again that he is a liar.

On the morning of Trump’s graduation in 1968 — “the beginning,” as he said — his time at Wharton amounted to a single line of text in the program, as part of a Bachelor of Science in Economics list:

He did get in easily, apparently. I assume people are chasing the circumstances of that down right now. Here’s a previous story from the Penn school paper:

Shortly after Donald Trump questioned President Barack Obama’s legitimacy as a U.S. citizen, he challenged his academic record. 

“I heard [Obama] was a terrible student, terrible. How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard?” Trump said in an April 2011 interview with The Associated Press. “I’m thinking about it, I’m certainly looking into it. Let him show his records.”

During the February 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump said, “The people that went to school with him, they never saw him, they don’t know who he is. It’s crazy.”

Pulitizer Prize-winning website Politifact rated Trump’s statement as a “pants on fire” lie.

All queries and the Politifact report show Obama’s time at those Ivy League schools was well documented and represented honestly.

Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983 with a degree in political science and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1991. He was also the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

University of Pennsylvania records and documents uncovered by the school’s student newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvanian, show it’s President Trump’s academic record that is now in question.

For decades, the national media has reported that Trump graduated “first in his class” at Wharton, often confusing his undergraduate degree with the Ivy League university’s top-ranked MBA program.

In 1973 and 1976, the New York Times reported that Trump graduated first in his class in 1968 from the Wharton School of Finance.

During campaign stops in Pennsylvania, Trump frequently said he was “a very smart guy” and knew the state well because he went to Wharton.

When PennLive tried to delve into his academic record in the summer, a school spokesman said it’s university policy to not release such information other than confirming graduation.

In Gwenda Blair’s 2001 book, “The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a President,” she said Trump transferred into Wharton from Fordham University with help from family connections. The president’s older brother, Freddy Trump, knew an admissions counselor at Wharton, she said.

Of course he did.

Update:

The Daily Show hit back:

.

The white supremacists love Trump. And he loves people who love him.

The white supremacists love Trump


by digby

My Salon column this morning:

Last Thursday night I happened to be on Twitter when news of the New Zealand massacre hit. Not realizing the magnitude of the horror, I clicked on a link to a video of the shooter’s livestream. When I realized what I was seeing, I quickly clicked away, but I’m afraid I won’t ever be able to forget what I saw before I did. But the one thing I knew from the moment I saw the guns and heard the words, “Let’s get this party started” was that this was a white supremacist terrorist. That macho, pseudo-warrior, “white power” swagger is all too familiar these days.

You’ve heard all the ghastly details of the massacre by now. And you’ve undoubtedly heard about the killer’s manifesto, entitled “The Great Replacement,” which he posted online before he began his murderous rampage. It’s filled with white supremacist dogma and coy internet tropes designed to troll people who are unfamiliar with the jargon, while speaking to his mates in the racist online forums he frequented.

We’ve seen various forms of terrorism repeatedly in recent years. But only terrorist attacks committed by brown or black people, it seems, are worthy of anything more than a reluctant shrug and a few words about how some people “have problems” from the President of the United States. If the perpetrator is a Muslim, it’s a different thing altogether.

When a young white man gunned down 10 fellow students in Roseburg, Oregon, in October 2015, Donald Trump was philosophical. He said:

You’re always going to have problems. I mean, we have millions and millions of people, we have millions of sick people all over the world. Even if you did great mental health programs, people are going to slip through the cracks.

Two months later, before anyone knew the details of the attack in San Bernardino, California, in which 14 people died, Trump immediately labeled it “radical Islamic terrorism,” saying, “I mean, you look at the names, you look at what’s happened. You tell me.”

Five days later, he called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country until we can figure out what the hell is going on.”

After the horrific June 2016 attack at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Trump infamously said that he appreciated the “congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism” and called for “toughness & vigilance,” reiterating his call for a ban on all Muslims entering the country.

The next month an African-American man, whom the police chief called “delusional,” shot five police officers in Dallas. Trump called it “a coordinated, premeditated assault on the men and women who keep us safe.”

Fast forward to October 2017, when a man ran his truck into a bike lane in lower Manhattan, killing eight people, Trump immediately called the perpetrator a “terrorist” and an “animal” and called for the death penalty. But the white man who killed 26 people in a Texas church in November 2017 had “mental health problems.” After the unbelievable carnage at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas October 2017, when a white man fired more than 1,000 rounds down on concertgoers from the 32nd floor, killing 59 people and injuring hundreds more, Trump said he was a “sick and demented person.”

Sadly, those are just a few examples of the mass casualties in America and around the world over the last few years. Some are obviously political and ideological in nature. Trump is of course correct that some are perpetrated by people with mental illness. (The Las Vegas shooter’s motives remain unclear, for instance.) But our president has a very specific way of organizing these horrific events in his mind. He has no problem calling Muslim extremists “terrorists.” And he is more than willing to say that a mentally ill black man had premeditated and coordinated an assault. But he will not admit that white supremacist terrorism even exists.

He literally can’t say the words. He issued a routine statement about thoughts and prayers in the wake of the Christchurch massacre. But when asked whether he viewed white nationalism as a rising threat worldwide, he replied:

I don’t really. I think it’s a small group of people that have very, very serious problems. I guess if you look at what happened in New Zealand, perhaps that’s the case. I don’t know enough about it yet.

First of all, he was definitely lying. By the time he was asked that question, everyone in the world knew that the Christchurch killer was a white nationalist. Needless to say, the president of the United States had been briefed on the fact that the shooter’s manifesto included admiration for him as “a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.” He always knows when his name is mentioned.

More importantly, Trump refused to acknowledge that in recent years, an international white identity movement has grown all over the world, including in the United States. In Europe, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are the major motivating factor. American white supremacists take it to a whole other level, which is not unexpected considering our history of slavery and Jim Crow oppression. They are generally hostile to Muslims and Jews as well, of course, but they have equal antipathy toward African-Americans and Latinos. The American race war has a lot of diversity.

Considering the body count, Trump’s continued unwillingness to admit that this movement exists, and to specifically denounce it, is an admission of his affinity. Indeed, in his statement on Friday when vetoing the congressional resolution that would have overturned his national emergency declaration, only hours after the shootings, he echoed the themes of the “Great Replacement” manifesto, which the Christchurch killer wrote “to show the invaders that our lands will never be their lands.”

This invader language is apparently common among white nationalists. The Tree of Life synagogue shooter used similar language about the so-called migrant caravan, claiming that a Jewish refugee organization was bringing in “invaders that kill our people.” Just days later, Trump was tweeting out a racist propaganda ad:

Most politicians would have at least rhetorically tried to separate themselves from such associations. But as we witnessed after Charlottesville and many times since then, Trump finds it impossible to chastise these people. But then he has always said that his only criterion for liking people is whether or not they like him. And white supremacists like him a lot:

In keeping with those earlier instances of being totally inappropriate in the wake of a white supremacist terrorist attack, Trump went on a Twitter tantrum on Sunday, angry that Fox News had apparently suspended Judge Jeanine Pirro for making anti-Islamic comments. He demanded that they defend her and Tucker Carlson, whose South African scaremongering he and David Duke found so compelling. He can’t help himself.

There can be no doubt that there is a growing international white identity movement. And we can no longer ignore the fact that by failing even to admit that such a movement exists, the president of the United States is empowering and enabling it. In using the rhetoric of hate, he has aligned himself with it.

.

What to do if a Trump supporter threatens you @spockosbrain

What to do if a Trump supporter threatens you
by Spocko

Trump has a long history of making threats. He also directs others, like Michael Cohen, to make threats to specific people.  Trump supporters also hear that Trump expects them to “be tough” when Trump is attacked.

This week Trump explained to a Brietbart editor that when his people in the military and police reach a certain point he expects things will be “very bad, very bad” for his enemies. Trump Again Threatens Violence If Democrats Don’t Support Him

Image by WayneBreivogel

It is clear to me that we cannot stop Trump from inciting and suggesting violence, rather than trying to stop a jackass from braying, I want to focus on what you can do if a Trump supporter threatens you. Below is a case study of someone who was threatened online and the steps she took to deal with it.  Here are the first three steps:

1) Don’t ignore them

2) Demand an investigation of the threats made and the person making them–establish the facts
     There should be due process for the people accused of making the threats

3) If the facts support the case, there should be appropriate consequences for the people who made the threats
     When there are no consequences for threatening others, it continues

Men with guns threaten women online, via email, text or on social media every day. These threats rarely show up in the news unless the woman is shot at, injured or killed. In an average month, 50 American women are shot to death in a domestice violence case. When we look at the background of shooters after the fact we often see a history of domestic violence and threats, which leaves people wondering what they could have done to prevent it.

In this case study our hero, Morena Hockley, didn’t ignore the threat, she did research and found out that the man making the threat was a law enforcement officer. She then demanded an investigation by his employer and got it. What happened after the investigation is also a very important part of the story and that I want more people to learn about.

  Disclosure: I know Morena Hockley through my work on Gun Violence Prevention. I advised her on talking to the press. The photos are in this piece were obtained directly from Hockley or from Facebook.

CASE STUDY PART 1: One of Trump’s “people” in the police threatens his critics

Here’s the story in the San Antonio Express.

Reserve constable deputy suspended after threatening emails to S.A.-area woman over Trump views  
by Fares Sabawi


In December 2018, a conservative New Braunfels resident took to Facebook to express displeasure upon discovering a book mocking President Donald Trump was for sale at Got Toys, a gag store in the Central Texas town that often carries items mocking politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Photos of the book “A Child’s First Book of Trump” by Michael Ian Black and Marc Rosenthal at the Got Toys store

What followed was a barrage of supportive and opposing comments, email threats from a Trump-supporting Bexar County reserve constable deputy and his subsequent month-long suspension handed down on Friday.

Precinct 3 Deputy Calloway Lawson, who works part-time for the constable’s office, was apparently upset over comments from people who supported the book store and criticized Trump in their comments. And he let them know how he felt.

Others were more disparaging, insulting people’s size and appearance and using homophobic slurs. Some of his comments, like those making fun of a poster’s name, were trivial.

“Why don’t you go find a safe place and have a group hug with your f***ing liberal f****t friends, you’re probably doing that right now,” he wrote.

Morena Hockley, a local blogger and craftswoman, tried to engage with Lawson at one point on his negative review of the toy store.

“Too bad a book hurt your feelings so badly,” she wrote.

In response, Lawson posted one of Hockley’s Facebook profile pictures with a mocking caption.

Lawson’s behavior allegedly led to multiple users reporting him, which led to the deletion of his Facebook review and a temporary ban from the social media site.

That’s when the reserve deputy allegedly singled her out, found her email address and sent her multiple messages on Dec. 8, 2018. Hockley said she didn’t report Lawson’s comments and wasn’t sure why she was being targeted. Lawson later told an investigating sergeant he though Hockley owned the store in question.

“Do you actually think it was smart getting me kicked off Facebook for a week I’m coming for you you f***ing c**t I’m coming for you,” his first email read.

Lawson sent a second one a minute later that read “every time I look at your f***ing horse mouth in that giant f***ing billboard of a smile you have I think of Mr. Ed, I can’t wait to see you soon,” the second email read.

Lawson did not respond to mySA.com’s interview request seeking comment on Monday.

Reserve constable deputies usually do little investigative work and patrol only as needed. They more often work off-duty at businesses or events.

Hockley didn’t know that though. She saw a law enforcement officer sending her what she perceived were threats, she said in an interview with mySA.com.

“He said ‘I’m coming for you,’ and I’m not sure what kind of information he has access to,” she said. “I took it seriously.”

Hockley responded to the emails in an effort calm him down, assuring him she was not responsible for his account being suspended.

Lawson responded, “telling you see you soon is not a threat I never threatened you believe me, apparently you didn’t take a look at my profile before this started you would know if I threatened you. Have good holidays no one is threatening you.”

That did not quell Hockley’s fears, she said. She asked Garden Ridge police to provide extra patrols by her house and put up a camera outside.

Hockley also filed a formal complaint with the constable’s office against Lawson a month later, on Jan. 8.

Sgt. Jaime Perales investigated Hockley’s complaint and submitted his report to Constable Mark Vojvodich who suspended Lawson for 30 days, pulling his work permits, which prevents him from working off-duty. Lawson was also placed on probation for the remainder of his employment with the constable’s office.

A letter to Hockley about the investigation dated March 8 said Lawson violated multiple department policies, including conduct unbecoming of an officer, bringing discredit and relations with the public and social media.

“However,” Perales wrote in his letter to Hockley, “the alleged threats did not have the elements to charge Deputy Lawson with terroristic threats.”

Hockley was not surprised to hear that. She said investigators told her that Lawson would have had to explicitly threaten her life to be criminally charged.

“But I took it as a threat on my life,” Hockley said. “How else am I supposed to interpret this. He said ‘I can’t wait to see you,’ especially with his (Facebook) picture showing all his guns in it.”

Though Vojvodich did not respond to interview requests from mySA.com, Perales said it was a complaint the office took seriously.

“We’re sorry it turned out the way it did because Precinct 3 doesn’t condone that language or behavior,” Perales said.

Lawson expressed regret for the incident, Perales said, and said he “should have just kept quiet.”

“He regrets it, he said everybody left negative comments so he left negative comments,” Perales said.

Perales said Lawson told him that, “I’m coming for you,” meant he was planning on posting more negative comments when he was allowed back on Facebook.

“At no time did he mean that he was going to physically harm her,” Perales said.

Though Perales did not decide on Lawson’s punishment, he said the discipline is “pretty significant.”

“That’s how he makes his living and it’s hurting him right now,” Perales said. “We can assure people that won’t happen again.”
———[ See more of San Antonio Express story below]———–
                                           
At this point most stories about complaints based on threats end.  But when Hockley got the letter from Precinct 3 she thought the punishment was too lenient. Several people suggested she take the story to the press, which she did.  In parts two and three I’ll break down the process and next steps

CASE STUDY PART 2: Tell Your Story To the Press

I advise activists about how best to interact with the media. One of the things I explain to them is that reporters will make an effort to talk to both sides. They also like to talk to third-party experts for context. You might have a solid story, but to the reporter your story is just one “she said” vs a trained police spokesperson’s “he said.”

Spokespeople for the police know the exact right thing to tell the media.  For example, in the answers above note what Sgt. Jaime Perales conveyed to the reporter:

  • He recast Lawson’s intent to something that didn’t rise to the level of a firing offence. This recasting happened months later, only after Lawson got in trouble for making the threat.
  • He relayed regret from Lawson, months later, and made a pledge that it will not happen again.
  • He stated department principles and condemnation of Lawson’s manner, which “does not present the department in what it stands for”
  • He shifted focus from the seriousness of the threat to what the organization saw as a serious penalty to the perpetrator

I advised Hockley to ask to speak to the reporter after he talked to the officials to find out what they said about her case. This is because in most stories the officials get the final word. Hockley had done research on Lawson’s history (as referenced in the story).

In addition, when she talked to the press, she provided additional context for the story based on third-party research. It turns out that  Bexar County was named one of the deadliest counties in Texas for domestic violence in 2017.   As Hockley put it, “How can women trust police to keep them safe when men like this are protected by the police department?

Twitter @Bexar3

Political spokespeople use the opportunity to get the last word with the press all the time. It’s called “getting another bite of the apple.” When a politician says something really terrible, the spokesperson “walks it back” or “clarifies.” 

What doesn’t usually happen is a reporter challenging the credibility of an explanation, the redefinition of a term or a different interpretation of a law than is commonly understood. 

To deal with this reporting process it is incumbent on us to prepare for multiple possible responses.

When Hockley spoke to the reporter again and heard what the officials had to say she was able respond to their answers about why she was still concerned and explained her next steps.

——-[The San Antonio Express story continues]——-

 But Hockley disagreed. She felt the punishment was lenient, considering that Lawson was reportedly previously fired from the Cibolo Police Department after a spotty attendance record and a questionable arrest of a woman he said tried to run him over in 2007.

The woman initially pleaded guilty to the charge, according to the University of Michigan’s National Registry of Exonerations, but the conviction was vacated because of her poor legal defense and Lawson’s questionable behavior.

“He’s unstable, has a history of crossing the line and breaking the law and yet he’s still going to be kept on as a peace officer,” Hockley said. “That astounds me.”

Perales said he was unaware of Lawson’s past and that it was not part of his investigation.
Hockley said she supports local law enforcement but still plans on taking her complaint to the next Bexar County Commissioners Court meeting, she said.

“I spent the past three months looking over my shoulder,” she said.

— # # # —

CASE STUDY PART 3: Protect yourself and others from threats in the future

When I talk to people about men with guns making threats and how to respond, they often reply, “If you report them and they get punished, they might get REALLY angry?”  Or, “What if you report a threat and nothing happens?”

In this case, the complaint wasn’t ignored, but the response seemed inadequate. What to do now? This brings up the next steps:

Fix the systems, policies and laws in communities to better deal with threats and the people making them.

4) If the consequences for the threat seemed inappropriate for the crime, work to change the consequences
This might involve going to the police commission and asking them to change their policies.

5) If no laws exist for the situation in your community, find groups that are working to pass them and offer to help.
Many states have created Red Flag laws, Extreme Risk Protection Orders or Emergency Gun Restraining Orders.
If your state doesn’t have these laws, find a group that is working on developing them and help See a list of state that have them here. See current Status of State Red Flag Laws updated interactive chart  

6) If laws exist, but people don’t know about them, learn them and educate others on how to use them
California now has ERPO laws, but many people don’t know how to use them. Some GVP groups, DAs and police department officials in California are traveling around the state educating people on the laws.

7) If laws exist, but aren’t enforced because of lack of resources, demand more resources

Talking to the Bexar County Commissioners Court can be about more than just asking for a change in their policies about threats coming from law enforcement. It also can be an opportunity to get resources to help the entire community deal with domestic violence. 5 years of deaths and injuries from domestic violence cases in San Antonio: Gun Violence Archive.

This might include suggesting the commission support ERPO laws which would protect the safety and security of the entire community.

There are 2 red flag bills active in Texas legislature: HB131, SB157  Session ends on May 27, 2019.

As Think Progress’s Zack Ford said on the David Feldman Show podcast. Americans often debate about how much time people deserve for a crime, but “we should have a criminal justice system that is motivated toward improving the safety and comfort of everyone alive.”  

Ghosts of Democrats past by @BloggersRUs

Ghosts of Democrats past
by Tom Sullivan


Bonaventure Cemetery, Savannah, GA.

The presidential race has not much interested me since before the Bernie v. Hillary internecine conflict of 2016. That recent unpleasantness has the potential to color politics among Democrats the way the Civil War haunts the South and Vietnam colored American foreign policy for decades. Let’s hope not.

My disinterest is a product of residing in a political Petri dish of a state where Republican lawmakers from Koch Brothers Labs South breed nasty legislative bugs no president can cure from the Oval Office. So, for reasons made clear often in this morning space, the left’s unsinkable faith that a liberal savior in the White House (or a Robert Mueller report) will set all things right seems daft.

Salon’s Andrew O’Hehir sees another unhealthy reflex among Democrats that leaves him cynical about their prospects for 2020: a yearning for a return to normalcy when there is no “normal” to go back to.

“We stand at an inflection point in history, with the future shrouded in darkness,” he writes. “Revolution, tyranny or collapse may lie ahead, and in all likelihood some combination of the three.”

Rather than grapple with that uncertain future, Democrats as a party reach for the comfortable and familiar. Joe Biden, a candidate “dramatically out of step with both his own party and the nation,” sits atop many candidate polls. How like Democrats it would be to nominate Biden in an “attempt to rebuild the Bill Clinton administration atop the smoldering ruins left by Trump, and unconvincingly claim that the republic has been saved.”

O’Hehir’s key graf is this:

As Salon’s Amanda Marcotte recently explored, this perceived pragmatism and desire for “electability” tends to favor certain kinds of candidates who are understood as moderate, unthreatening and not overtly ideological: Michael Dukakis in 1988, Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, Clinton in 2016. What else do those four nominees have in common? I doubt I need to spell it out.

Then again, maybe O’Hehir does. Just as the South still grapples with its past, Democrats haunted by George McGovern’s singular thrashing in 1972 seem blind to multiple losses by some of their more electable-seeming choices since. They went long with Obama in 2008 and won, albeit winning much less than progressives hoped.

For fifty years, Democrats have appeared “fearful, defensive and endlessly apologetic,” O’Hehir believes. The times demand boldness, not a retreat to safety when there is no safety.

Younger and from different factions of the party, Rep. Ilhan Omar and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke represent a changing of the old guard for one unburdened by the party’s ghosts. Add to them the fresh perspectives brought by Democrats’ large class of freshman women in Congress. What is less clear is whether the party as a whole — actual voters tending to be older — has sufficiently moved past its past to meet the challenges ahead.

But even entertaining O’Hehir’s anaylsis reinforces the horse race politics that has made the presidency a largely ceremonial sinecure while, as Charlie Pierce observes weekly, “the real work of governmentin’ gets done” in state-level laboratories of democracy.

The republic won’t be saved from the Oval Office or even from Capitol Hill. The shift in consciousness that needs to take root among Democrats and progressives is not treating the quadrennial presidential contest like some kind of political Super Bowl and presidential candidates like superheroes. Real change, real boldness has to come from us.

So much for declaring victory and going home

So much for declaring victory and going home

by digby

Remember this?

Never mind:

Citing U.S. officials, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that the Trump administration plans to continue supporting Kurdish fighters in Syria.

The officials reportedly added that the plan could keep as many as 1,000 forces across the country, but said the specific number of troops that will remain is still being determined.

The U.S. will start withdrawing hundreds of troops after it defeats the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), according to the Journal.

Trump has repeatedly claimed since December that ISIS has been fully defeated in the region.

“You kept hearing it was 90 percent, 92 percent, the caliphate in Syria. Now it’s 100 percent, we just took over,” Trump said during remarks to troops last month. “Now it’s 100 percent, we just took over 100 percent caliphate. That means the area of the land. We just have 100 percent.”

Lawmakers in Congress and U.S. officials, however, have maintained that ISIS hasn’t been completely defeated.

Gen. Joseph Votel, the top military commander in charge of the fight against the Islamic State, told CNN last month that ISIS “still has leaders, still has fighters, it still has facilitators, it still has resources.”

The move to keep troops in the country comes after Trump in December said he would immediately remove all of the roughly 2,000 U.S. troops in the country, an announcement that prompted the resignation of then-Defense Secretary James Mattis.

The Trump administration then said last month that it was planning to leave about 400 U.S. troops in Syria.

This is out of 2,000 advisers that were there when he made his big announcement. The way it’s going he’ll end up sending troops to Syria.

I don’t know what this was all about but it’s likely that Trump just got a bee in his bonnet after talking to someone on the phone and decided to announce the pullout. And, of course, it was done without planning or foresight so it is a big mess.

.

ICYMI this week Javanka news

ICYMI this week

by digby

There’s always so much going on that it’s easy to miss some stories. I think this is a particularly interesting one that will likely come back up this week:

Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was confronted by two of the most senior US government officials for mixing his personal interests with US foreign policy, according to a new book.

Kushner, an envoy to the Middle East for his father-in-law, is said to have been robustly challenged by both Rex Tillerson, then secretary of state, and Gary Cohn, formerly Trump’s top economic adviser.

The confrontations are detailed in Kushner Inc by the journalist Vicky Ward, who also describes interference in foreign relations by Kushner’s wife, Ivanka Trump. The book is scheduled to be released on 19 March. A copy was obtained by the Guardian.

Ward reports that Tillerson blamed Kushner for Trump’s abrupt endorsement of a provocative blockade and diplomatic campaign against Qatar by Saudi Arabia and several allies in June 2017. The US has thousands of troops stationed in Qatar.

Tillerson “told Kushner that his interference had endangered the US”, an unidentified Tillerson aide tells Ward. Tillerson is also said to have read negative “chatter” about himself in intelligence reports after Kushner belittled him to Kushner’s friend Mohammed bin Salman, the controversial Saudi crown prince.

Meanwhile, Cohn is said to have rebuked Kushner in January 2017 after it was revealed Kushner had dined with executives from the Chinese financial corporation Anbang, which was considering investing in the Kushner family’s troubled tower at 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.

“You’ve got to be crazy,” Cohn is said to have told Kushner in front of others. Kushner met the executives around the time he hosted Chinese government officials at the Fifth Avenue tower. The building was eventually refinanced by a Qatari-backed investment fund.

Ivanka Trump is reported to have interfered in telephone calls between her father and foreign dignitaries despite having overseas business interests. “Thanks so much for the CD you sent me,” she is quoted as having told an Indian leader by someone who heard the call. The Trump Organization owns several residential towers in India.

Ward’s book portrays Kushner and Ivanka Trump as relentlessly ambitious operators who are loathed by many forced to work with them. She reports that White House staffers mocked Kushner as the “secretary of everything” for his wide-ranging meddling and derided Ivanka Trump’s team as Habi – “home of all bad ideas”.

John Kelly, formerly Trump’s chief of staff and homeland security secretary, is quoted as dismissing the couple as “just playing government”.
[…]
For her part, Ivanka Trump is focused on cementing a Trump dynasty to rival the Kennedys and Bushes by becoming commander-in-chief herself one day, according to Ward. “She thinks she’s going to be president of the United States,” Cohn is quoted as saying.

They survived. The others did not. This is why nepotism is frowned upon. They are not fireable.

.

A different kind of vote suppression

A different kind of vote suppression

by digby

Ballot referendums in California are almost unintelligible these days due to the fact that big money groups step in to oppose legitimate populist initiatives with propagandistic mumbo-jumbo and TV ads that distort the process. It’s a problem. What is meant to be direct democracy has turned into a mind game.

For years Republicans, allied with big money, have benefitted from this system. But now that Democrats are having some success in getting past their propaganda, they want to shut it down:

In November, 64 percent of Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing former felons to regain their right to vote. Three weeks later, a Republican state representative introduced legislation that would require constitutional amendments to earn 67 percent of the vote to pass.

In Missouri, voters passed measures to raise the minimum wage, legalize medical marijuana and take legislative redistricting out of the hands of legislators. A month later, state House Republicans introduced a bill to nearly double the number of signatures needed to qualify an initiative for the ballot.

In Idaho, 60 percent of voters approved an initiative to expand Medicaid to cover low-income residents. Last week, a Republican state senator introduced legislation to increase both the number and geographic spread of signatures required to qualify an initiative.

Republican legislators in states across the country have introduced dozens of bills that would make significant changes to the initiative and referendum process, tightening rules and raising requirements after their voters approved progressive proposals that legislators opposed or refused to take up.

Critics of the proposals say they are a Republican end run around the direct democracy process, meant to stifle popular progressive policies before they get to the ballot.

“This is, combined with what we saw after the success of many of these ballot initiatives in 2018, state legislatures undermining the will of the people,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, who runs the progressive Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. “Rather than listen to the will of the people, elected officials are undermining the will of the people.”

Conservative groups such as the Republican State Leadership Committee and the American Legislative Exchange Council have advocated for tightening ballot rules.

And some Democrats have supported similar measures in states such as Oregon and Washington, where low signature requirements have led to crowded ballots.

Fields said her group was watching about 90 bills around the country that would tighten ballot access.

The nonpartisan political website Ballotpedia is tracking about 140 pieces of legislation introduced in 31 states related to ballot measures, though some of those bills would loosen requirements.

Some of the Republicans behind this year’s bills say they are necessary to curb the influence of big-money groups that increasingly fund some of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns across the country.

In Arizona, voters rejected an initiative that would have required the state to generate 50 percent of its energy from renewable sources, which made the ballot with the help of millions of dollars from California billionaire Tom Steyer.

After that measure, state Sen. Vince Leach (R) introduced a bill regulating who could collect signatures for a ballot initiative and giving counties more time to inspect signatures once they have been turned in.

“It’s pretty clear to see that over the last six years, we’ve had any number of initiatives that have started from outside of the state of Arizona,” Leach said in an interview. “We need to protect one of the most precious things we have, and that’s the ability to go to the ballot and vote.”

These people are terrified of democracy and for good reason. They’ve made themselves so hateful that it’s getting harder and harder to form a majority even on issues much less on candidates. So rather than living with the rules as they are written they are changing them, once again, to advantage themselves at the expense of the majority.

They will continue, of course, to project this manipulation of the system on to the other side with their bogus cries of “voter fraud” and “rigging the election.” That’s the new normal.

.

Trump challenges Big Boss Rupert (He’d better watch himself…)

Trump challenges Big Boss Rupert

by digby

Here is the president lobbying his state TV network to stick with their white nationalist shills this morning:

I’m sure Murdoch appreciates the cheerleading. But Trump just made it clear that he’s not the captain of the team, didn’t he? He has to take to twitter to plead his case to the network that delivers his talking points on a daily basis. They are driving the Trump train not him.

Trump’s only hope of survival is keeping his base 100% on board. And that would not be possible without Fox. He’d better be careful or the boss is going to get mad.

.

Who does Trump call during his massive amount of free time?

Who does Trump call during his massive amount of free time?

by digby

Olivia Nuzzi in New York Magazinereports on Trump’s phone habits. I don’t think it’s unusual for presidents to call their pals and chew the fat. Some politicians are garrulous types who just love to talk. But Trump seems to need to be on the phone for inordinate amounts of time to get reassurance from sycophants. I don’t think that’s normal. But then, it’s Trump we’re talking about:

…His Rolodex is a Greatest Hits and Deep Cuts composed of mostly friends, associates, media figures, and tycoons. Although Trump is known to call senior members of his staff at all hours, his informal advisers share a common attribute: They’re not there and, therefore, they can’t be blamed when things are falling apart. Their praise sounds less sycophantic and, therefore, more compelling; the president seems to grant the calls coming from outside the White House an inherent credibility. They are also a welcome distraction, a link to his old life in Trump Tower, when concepts such as “executive time,” a term used by aides to make it seem like the president is doing something productive when he’s fucking around and calling TV-show hosts to gossip about ratings (a subject of intense interest for him, even now), were irrelevant.

Over the last two years, current and former officials from his campaign and White House, as well as his friends and acquaintances, have provided information about Trump’s Rolodex to New York. One source almost literally provided a Rolodex, sharing an internal document from the Trump Organization with contact information for 145 employees and 26 individual departments within Trump Tower. In the White House, a similar document exists: The switchboard operators maintain a list of cleared callers, a few dozen outsiders, whose contact with the president was sanctioned by Trump’s second chief of staff, John Kelly. The list includes Eric Trump, Don Jr., Sean Hannity, Stephen Schwarzman, Rupert Murdoch, Tom Barrack, and Robert Kraft.

And then there are the unsanctioned callers. The outgoing contact from the Oval Office or the residence is unregulated, learned of only after the fact from the call logs kept by switchboard operators, while the calls to and from Trump’s cell phone are unknown — a mystery to the official staffers who long ago abandoned any hope of controlling who the president speaks to when they’re not around. And mostly they’re not around. Those who can’t call the president directly often went through Hope Hicks, Trump’s trusted communications director, until she resigned last year. Often, information has come through Rhona Graff, the longtime gatekeeper of Trump Tower who has served as a channel for those seeking to quickly get a message to the president outside the official communications structures. As Roger Stone told the journalist Tara Palmeri in 2017, Graff was the route for “anyone who thinks the system in Washington will block their access.” Others to endorse this plan? Gristedes’s John Catsimatidis.

Last month, Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen testified before Congress and confirmed that “Mr. Trump” doesn’t email or text. In 2014, the journalist McKay Coppins wrote that Trump still used a flip phone “because he likes how the shape places the speaker closer to his mouth.” But by the time he was running for president, he possessed both an Android and an iPhone, from which he lobbed countless tweets and international news cycles. In Team of Vipers, Cliff Sims, a staffer on Trump’s campaign and in his West Wing, described how, on Election Night 2016, as everyone else anxiously watched the returns, Trump was “casually” accepting calls from blocked numbers and, at one point, yelled out for someone to “get Rupert on the phone” (Murdoch later called to congratulate Trump, who told him, “Not yet, Rupy,” according to Sims). The first time I walked through the West Wing, a few weeks after Inauguration Day, I was confronted by a large photo of Trump talking on his unsecure Android hanging in a stairwell. He continued using unsecure personal devices, allowing Russia and China to spy on his calls, according to the New York Times (in response to the report, Trump tweeted, “I only use Government Phones, and have only one seldom used government cell phone. Story is soooo wrong!”)
[…]
In February, Axios obtained three months of Trump’s unofficial daily schedules, revealing that for a staggering average of 60 percent of each workday, or the period between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., the president engaged in “executive time.” But what happens after 5 p.m.? The president usually leaves the Oval Office around seven. His dinners rarely take place “off campus,” meaning off the White House grounds. By eight, he’s watching Fox News in the residence, and by the time Hannity ends, at ten, he’s on the phone, often with Hannity himself, or with one of the other members of his external cabinet, or just anybody else he feels like talking to. Politicians in Washington — and their family members — have spoken about receiving calls from the president with almost alarming frequency. So many calls that they interrupt wood-chopping or interactions with constituents or, in the case of one call between Trump and Mitch McConnell, a Nationals baseball game. Trump will call if he sees you on TV and likes something you said. Or if he sees you on TV and hates something you said. He’ll also call to try to change your mind or to try to get you to change someone else’s mind. Or just to chitchat about golf. “I just feel comfort in calling President Trump,” Senator John Barrasso said to the Washington Post. Lindsey Graham told Mark Leibovich this is the most contact he’s had with any president. And Graham is still answering the calls, even though, during an antagonistic period, the president once read Graham’s private cell number aloud onstage at a rally, forcing Graham to change his number.

Former staffers, whom Trump rarely banishes completely from the outermost sphere of his orbit, have told New York about receiving unexpected evening calls from their old boss. One former campaign official said that, after not hearing from him for months, the president rang to ask if it was a good idea to send a certain tweet. The ex-official said he had the impression everyone else had told Trump no and he was searching for someone who might tell him yes.

One person who has received late-night calls from the president told me this: “If you’re Trump, the last thing you want is a moment of self-reflection. That’s why he’s constantly on the phone at night. Everybody’s afraid of themselves. People fear silence because they don’t want to hear voices. But Trump really fears that.”

His neediness is a bottomless pit. He whines and sulks and has daily tantrums. He’s in so far over his head that he can barely function.

He is the most powerful man in the world.

.