Skip to content

Month: August 2019

It’s over when young people vote by @BloggersRUs

It’s over when young people vote
by Tom Sullivan

The election is over the minute young people decide to turn out,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) tells the Washington Post. And so it is.

Murphy was responding to a gun-control program proposed by March for Our Lives, led by survivors of the February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Co-founder David Hogg, 19, and other students propose “A Peace Plan for a Safer America.”

The Post reports:

The Peace Plan would create a national licensing and gun registry, long a nonstarter with gun rights advocates; ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; implement a mandatory gun buyback program; and install a “national director of gun violence prevention” who would report directly to the president and coordinate the federal response to what advocates call a national public health emergency.

The group also proposes raising the age for gun purchases from 18 to 21, a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, and a federally supervised “multi-step” gun licensing process, renewed annually.

The March for Our Lives proposal goes further than anything floated so far by the current Democratic presidential front-runners. The plan includes a kind of Peace Corps for gun violence prevention, plus “community-based urban violence reduction programs, suicide prevention programs, domestic violence prevention programs, mental and behavioral
health service programs, and programs to address police violence in our communities.”

The National Rifle Association (should that be prefaced with “Russian-funded”?) naturally will oppose such measures with whatever strength the struggling organization can bring to bear. Spokeswoman Amy Hunter tepidly called the March for Our Lives plan “out of the mainstream.”

Hogg called the NRA “the big tobacco of violence in the U.S.,” adding, “The NRA cares as much about gun owners’ safety as the tobacco industry cared about smokers not getting cancer.”

Although a poll taken before the El Paso and Dayton mass-shootings found 70 percent of Republicans favor family-initiated “red flag” laws, the March for Our Lives proposal will find few (if any) friends among Republicans in Congress. Moderate Democrats concerned about their next elections will not be leaping on to the bandwagon either.

But backstopping the students’ effort to gain control of the narrative on gun violence is a call for automatic voter registration when eligible teens turn 18. Activating the youth vote is key to moving the needle in Congress.

“The election is over the minute young people decide to turn out,” Murphy said. “The only reason that Trump would get reelected is if young people stay home. The issue of gun violence is one of the only issues that truly motivate young people to shake off their indifference and aversion to voting.”

An excited voter registration volunteer called yesterday to request laminated copies of this chart I created from last fall’s NC turnout data. Showing nonvoters where the people power really lies in this country versus who actually exercises theirs (seniors) was enough to convince them to no longer leave their fates in the hands of parents and grandparents.

This shape of this NC data is similar around the country. Share it with your friends.

The most ineffectual Trump award goes to ….

The most ineffectual Trump award goes to ….

by digby

Ivanka!

Ivanka Trump has quietly been calling lawmakers since the El Paso and Dayton massacres to gauge their openness to movement on gun legislation when Congress returns, sources familiar with her conversations tell Axios. 

… Ivanka Trump spoke last Wednesday to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), while he was vacationing in Hawaii, to get an update on the bipartisan background checks bill he proposed with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.). 

The measure, which was initially introduced in 2013 after the Sandy Hook shooting, would expand background checks to nearly all commercial firearm sales.
“She called Manchin and said she was trying to get a sense of what bills are out there,” a Manchin aide told Axios. 

As Steve M wryly notes:

Translation: Ivanka Trump has been not-so-quietly calling journalists, including those at Axios, to gauge their openness to writing stories favorable to Ivanka Trump on the subjects of gun legislation.

And needless to say, Ivanka’s little PR push added up to nothing:

President Trump appears to be backing away from potential support for gun background check legislation, according to White House aides, congressional leaders and gun advocates, dimming prospects that Washington will approve significant new gun measures in the wake of mass shootings that left 31 dead. 

Immediately after the carnage in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, Trump said “there is a great appetite” for tightening background checks on people who buy firearms. But in recent days, Trump has focused in public remarks on the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill while emphasizing that the nation already has “very strong background checks right now” — positions that hew more closely to the views of the National Rifle Association.

Trump is running a base strategy for re-election. He has no choice since nobody else can stand him. The idea that he would in any way anger the gun nuts is ludicrous.

They play this game every time — the horrific bloodshed galvanizes the gun safety advocates and arouses the masses to demand action. The Republicans pretend to give a damn long enough for the issue o fall off the radar screen at which point it just …. goes away.  Until the next time.

The only answer is to take the Republican party out of power and pass sensible gun safety measures.  In the long term the country needs to deal with this insane gun culture.

As for Ivanka, Steve M has the full indictment. What a sadly useless person she is.

He closes with this:

I keep hearing that Ivanka Trump will be president someday, and I keep thinking: Who’d vote for her? Here she is pursuing gun control. That alienates the right. Here she is failing in her efforts to lobby her own father on behalf of modest gun control measures. That alienates everyone else. She displeases everyone. Why? Why does she keep doing this? What does she think is in it for her?

A recent New York magazine cover story claimed that Ivanka has a solid fan base in Trump country:

Long perceived by MAGA die-hards as a shifty liberal, Ivanka is now mostly beloved on the right, where she polls better than her father in the critical states of the industrial Midwest, leading to speculation on mid-tier news sites that she might replace Mike Pence on the 2020 ticket and to fans’ dreams about Ivanka 2024.

In fact, Ivanka’s poll numbers in those Midwestern states are mediocre:

In a Firehouse Strategies and 0ptimus poll released Sunday, Ivanka Trump was net favorable in Pennsylvania at 38-35 as well as Michigan at 37-36. The first daughter had a net disapproval rating of 35-39 in Wisconsin, but her favorability among likely general election voters surpassed her father’s. She was +3 versus the president at -3 in Pennsylvania, +1 compared to his -5 in Michigan, and -4 to his -7 in Wisconsin.

“While not by overwhelming margins, Ivanka Trump maintains better net favorability among likely voters in these three states than her father does,” the poll report states.

That could be the slogan for Ivanka in 2024: Awful, but Not by Overwhelming Margins.

I’ll bet the margins will be overwhleming by 2024.

.

Dear American Jews by tristero

Dear American Jews 

by tristero

Dear American Jews.

Donald Trump, who’s asking for loyalty from Jews solely to himself here (and not Israel), had a splendid opportunity to demonstrate his loyalty to you. What happened?

Back in 2017, a riotous mob of Nazis and White Supremacist chanted “Jews will not replace us.

If Trump truly supported American Jews, he would have instantly and unambiguously denounced the mob. Instead, Trump said that “very fine people” were members of that mob of Nazis. (Yeah, he added “on both sides” but that was just for show; Trump has never had a good word for anti-fascists and liberals, ever.)

One of those “very fine people” — a neo-Nazi— murdered a counter protestor.

Since then, Trump has been given ample opportunity to separate himself from Nazis, fascists, racists, and other kinds of white supremacists. He has instead vilified anti-fascists at every opportunity. He has gone out of his way not to put any distance between himself and people like David Duke and his heirs.

Donald Trump is not on your side. He always sides with the men and women who hate Jews and everyone else they deem insufficiently “white.”

love,

tristero

When a bully uses his pulpit

When a bully uses his pulpit

by digby

The term “bully pulpit” didn’t actually apply to what we call a “bully” in 2020. (More like “bully for you!”) But in Trump’s case it seems to be working in the modern sense. He’s changing people’s minds — because more people don’t like bullies than like them:

One of the most enduring descriptions of presidential power comes from Teddy Roosevelt, whose description of the office as a “bully pulpit” reflected his conclusion that its true worth was not its constitutional powers, but the ability to speak with and persuade voters. A century later, political scientists had largely debunked Roosevelt. It turns out, Ezra Klein wrote in The New Yorker in 2012, that presidents don’t actually possess much power to sway public opinion.

But maybe Roosevelt was right after all. Recent polling shows that Donald Trump has managed to reshape American attitudes to a remarkable extent on a trio of his key issues—race, immigration, and trade.

There’s just one catch: The public is turning against Trump’s views.

A Reuters poll released today contains a trove of interesting data on race. Trump has long sought to use racial tension to gain political leverage, but this summer he has become especially explicit about exploiting and exaggerating racial divisions, with a series of racist attacks on four Democratic congresswomen, and then on their colleague Elijah Cummings, as a strategy ahead of the 2020 election.

But the Reuters poll casts doubt on that strategy: “The Reuters analysis also found that Americans were less likely to express feelings of racial anxiety this year, and they were more likely to empathize with African Americans. This was also true for white Americans and whites without a college degree, who largely backed Trump in 2016.”

Among the details, the number of whites who say “America must protect and preserve its White European heritage” has sunk nine points since last August. The percentages of whites, and white Republicans, who strongly agree that “white people are currently under attack in this country” have each dropped by roughly 25 points from the same time two years ago.

It isn’t entirely clear what is motivating these changes. As Ashley Jardina, a political scientist at Duke, told me recently, there has been a 10 percent drop in the number of Americans who espouse white identity politics since Trump entered office. Many members of that group interpreted the election of Barack Obama, the first black president, as a threat to their group, and with Obama out of office, they may feel less threatened. Jardina also noted, though, that Trump’s most explicit racist rhetoric turns off voters who may feel threatened but don’t exhibit classical racial prejudice.

But the Trump era has also radicalized Democrats, and especially white Democrats, who by some measures are actually more liberal on race than fellow Democrats who are minorities. Reuters found that more Democrats say blacks are treated unfairly at work and by the police than in 2016—remarkable given how coverage of police violence toward African Americans has dropped in the past few years—while Republican attitudes have remained unchanged.

Meanwhile, opinion shifts like the ones on race appear elsewhere. Consider immigration, which is Trump’s signature issue—though it is also inextricable from race, especially given Trump’s focus on and rhetoric about Hispanic immigration.

Reuters found that white Americans are 19 percent more supportive of a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants than they were four years ago, and slightly less supportive of increased deportations. Other polls find related results. A record-high number of Americans—75 percent—said in 2018 that immigration is good for the United States. Although the Trump administration took steps last week to limit even legal immigration, the Trump presidency has seen an increase in the number of Americans who support more legal immigration—not just among Democrats, but even slightly among Republicans.

Trump, like other presidents but arguably more so, exerts a special type of gravity by virtue of his ability to set the topic of conversation. His fearmongering on immigration has led even Trump critics to argue that if moderates and liberals do not limit immigration, it will embolden hard-liners like Trump. Yet far from suggesting a large appetite for greater immigration restrictions that’s being unmet, the polling data suggest a large appetite for more immigration that’s going unfulfilled thanks to Trump’s aggressive rhetoric. Moreover, there’s been evidence of a backlash against the president’s invective since the first months of his term. Trump has managed to force a national conversation around immigration, but rather than bring people to his side, he has convinced them he’s wrong.

One big problem for Trump is that voters have now gotten a chance to see him implement ideas that seemed novel or at least worth a shot during the campaign, and they don’t like what they’re seeing in practice. A trade war with China might have seemed worthwhile in summer 2016, but now that there’s actually one being fought, the public is having second thoughts, and fears of a recession are growing. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released yesterday found that 64 percent of Americans think free trade is good, up from 57 in 2017, 55 in 2016, and 51 in 2015. Meanwhile, the percentage who say free trade is bad has dropped 10 points since 2017.

The rising support for free trade is interesting in light of the Democratic presidential field’s attitudes toward trade. Barack Obama was a free trader and pursued the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a major trade agreement that was torpedoed by Trump early in his term. This year’s Democratic field has been notably skeptical of trade. In some cases, such as Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, that skepticism is rooted in long-held economic views. But other Democrats who were once more supportive of trade deals have also soured on them. It is possible that they, too, have been fooled by the Trump gravitational field into overestimating the public opposition to free trade.

Raw polling can, admittedly, be somewhat misleading on its own. Progressives have for years lamented the gap between the fairly liberal policies that the public says it favors and those that its elected representatives actually pursue. One reason for that is not everyone votes, and those who don’t vote tend toward the left.

But the Reuters poll offers reason to believe that the shifts it documents are directly relevant to the coming election. The poll found that “people who rejected racial stereotypes were more interested in voting in the 2020 general election than those who expressed stronger levels of anti-black or anti-Hispanic biases.” That wasn’t the case in 2016, when Americans who held strong antiblack views were more politically engaged.

I think he may have made a few people less prejudiced. If you hate him then you may be more inclined to look at your own views and recoil from any that correlate to his.

In any case, there’s never been a president who dominates the national consciousness as Trump does. He’s a demagogue and demagogues use the “bully pulpit” as their primary political tool. This experiment shows that it’s not necessarily a positive for them.

.

Heckuva job, Trumpie

Heckuva job, Trumpie

by digby

That was from three weeks ago. Heres the latest national poll from NBC/WSJ:

The white, non-college educated men still love him. The rest, not so much:

Our NBC/WSJ poll released Sunday showed just 40 percent of registered voters saying they would definitely or probably back Trump in 2020, versus 52 percent definitely/probably supporting the Democratic candidate.

So not surprisingly, Trump is underperforming in our poll among almost all subgroups from the exit poll in 2016, when he took 46 percent of the popular vote.

Here’s the breakdown:
Men: Trump +8 points in the NBC/WSJ poll (was +11 in the 2016 exit poll)
Women: -32 points (was -13)
Whites: +5 (was +20)
African Americans: -84 (was -81)
Latinos: -36 (was -38)
Independents: -19 (was +4)
Whites with college degrees: -19 (was +3)
Whites without college degrees: +18 (was +37)

Of course, Trump won’t be facing a generic Democrat next year. Plus, this is among all registered voters, not likely voters. And time could be on his side.

Still, this breakdown shows how vulnerable Trump is right now.

And let’s face facts: they cheat.

Still it’s better not to make it easy for them.

.

Trump Jr’s lucrative scam

Trump Jr’s lucrative scam

by digby

Donnie Jr once said that he would have nothing to do with politics and would instead concentrate on the Trump family business while his daddy was in the White House paying absolutely no attention to the Trump Organization. Obviously, he has not fulfilled that promise. He’s all over TV at rallies and fundraisers and has a big presence on social media. And he’s also all over the world obviously parlaying the name and the access for money.

The following is from Trump Inc:

Last week, while President Trump was in New Hampshire on his 2020 campaign, his son Donald Trump, Jr. was promoting the Trump name in a different venue.

Don Jr. and his son, Donald Trump III, traveled to Indonesia to promote two upcoming Trump-branded resorts in the country: one on the island of Bali, and another in West Java. For both projects, the Trump Organization is partnered with the MNC Group, an Indonesia conglomerate run by billionaire, political hopeful, and Trump mega-fan Hary Tanoeseodibjo.

“Today, I received the arrival of the eldest son of United States President Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr.”, Tanoesoedibjo wrote on his instagram account. The tycoon has made his own foray into politics. In 2014, he unsuccessfully ran for president of Indonesia. Shortly after, he founded his own political party. Now, the Indonesian news media is reporting that his daughter is under consideration for a cabinet position in the government.

The MNC Group plans to invest nearly $1.7 billion in the two Trump-branded resorts, and has already paid the Trump Organization between $2 and $10 million in fees and royalties.

Don Jr. has said his visit isn’t a conflict of interest. At a pre-launch sales event and ribbon cutting last Tuesday ⁠— at which several Indonesian government officialswere present ⁠— he said the idea that U.S. policy might be influenced “because of a development somewhere” is “totally asinine.” Tanoesoedibjo has said “he believes his relationship with the U.S. President could help ties between nations.”

It’s not the first time the president’s son has traveled abroad to promote his family’s projects. You can listen (or re-listen) to our two-part story about Don Jr’s travels to India here and here.

They are trying to make our heads explode:

.

The Dems work is cut out for them, just to assess the damage

The Dems work is cut out for them, just to assess the damage

by digby

This piece by Axios spells out the policy stakes for the Dems retaking the presidency in 2020.  The damage is severe:

A great deal of President Trump’s policy record — on issues like health care, energy and even immigration — would need a second term to fully take root, and could be easily reversed if he doesn’t get one.

Trump is doing a lot: He has upended American politics, and his appointment of conservative judges will reverberate well beyond his presidency. But if — if — he were to be a one-term president, the substantive policy changes he’d leave behind could be short-lived.

The big picture: Trump has scored few big legislative wins so far, and will instead head into 2020 with a policy record that comes largely from executive action, like regulations to expand bare-bones health insurance plans and roll back Obama-era energy standards.
But many of those actions would be at risk if he loses in 2020. (This is not a prediction that Trump will be a one-term president; only an acknowledgment that that’s 1 of the 2 possible outcomes of the election.) 

A Democratic president could reverse many of Trump’s decisions just as easily as he reversed some of Barack Obama’s. Other steps that would normally be harder to reverse may not be fully cemented by January 2021.

“It’s a fairly slim record, even judging against single-term presidents, partly because the legislative achievement list is so short,” said Andrew Rudalevige, an expert on the presidency who has published books on both the Obama and George W. Bush legacies. 

Undoing the 2017 tax cuts would take another act of Congress. And those tax cuts, coupled with skyrocketing federal spending under Trump, have sent annual budget deficits over $1 trillion for the foreseeable future.

But on many of the biggest domestic policy issues, his impact has been lighter. 

On health care, the administration is falling short of its original ambitions. The Affordable Care Act is still standing. Several big regulatory ideas have fallen by the wayside; or won’t be finished by 2021; or are meeting resistance in the courts. Some will make it through, but their cumulative impact would be a lot smaller than what Trump once envisioned. 

On energy, too, big-picture promises of bringing back the coal industry have fallen flat, Axios’ Amy Harder writes, while many efforts to roll back Obama-era rules and other regulatory changes are caught up in delays and legal challenges. 

On trade, a Democratic president could unilaterally unwind Trump’s trade war, although it’s not clear that a President Sanders or a President Warren would want to.

Yes, but: More substantial elements of Trump’s time in office — his political impact, and most of all his reshaping of the federal judiciary — could help cement a greater policy footprint than Trump has so far secured for himself. 

It’s a long shot, but if the courts do end up striking down the entire Affordable Care Act, as the Justice Department has urged them to do, that certainly would count as a health care legacy.

Similarly, on immigration, experts told Axios’ Stef Kight that Trump’s successor won’t have a hard time grappling with Trump’s policies — many of those specific decisions could be easily reversed — but rather, the hardened politics in an area where compromise had once seemed possible. 

“Politicians on both sides no longer feel they have permission to compromise or they don’t want to spend the political capital,” said Ben Johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Many of Trump’s social policies also are not particularly durable on their own, but could be with an assist from the courts. 

Trump has reversed or modified Obama-era rules on abortion and LGBTQ nondiscrimination, but in some of those cases Obama had reversed Bush-era rules and a Democratic president could change them yet again. 

Trump’s ability to reshape the courts, however, will likely lead to a significant narrowing of abortion rights.
[…]
What’s next: Election Day is still more than a year away, and Inauguration Day is even further. That gives him time to keep trying — especially on drug prices and trade, where the White House is working hard to strike one more legislative deal.

He’ll also be able to keep appointing judges for the next year and a half, at least — a legacy that will tie Democrats’ hands long after 2020.

His legislative agenda was thwarted the minute the Dems won the House. Thank god. The judges … well, the only thing that will stop McConnell from further packing the courts is the prospect of losing the Senate majority because of it. I don’t know the Democrats can make that case against individual GOP incumbent Senators but they should try.

As for the rest, any Democratic President is going to have to do a thorough damage assessment of the entire executive branch to figure out what has to be done. They need to treat it like a natural disaster — on the level of an asteroid hit. And where there is lawbreaking, they need to follow through and hold people accountable this time. Decades of impunity for political malfeasance and lawbreaking are what led us to this place in the first place.

.

Update on the counter-narrative

Update on the counter-narrative

by digby

They aren’t letting the 2016 Russia counter-narrative go. Politico reports:

To hear President Donald Trump and his allies tell it, the federal investigators who spent the past two years investigating the president are about to go down.

On Twitter, on conservative cable TV and in countless interviews, they’ve claimed the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies are on the verge of being exposed for planting spies, falsifying evidence and forging testimony. They’ve relished in the possibility that a federal prosecutor on the case could file criminal charges. And they’ve predicted jail time for top Obama-era leaders who they say were behind a “deep state” plot to take down Trump.

They’re expecting all of this to come from a spate of Justice Department probes reviewing the full scope of the Trump-Russia investigation, which culminated earlier this year with special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

“This was treason. This was high crimes,” Trump said during a recent Fox News interview with Sean Hannity. “This was everything as bad a definition as you want to come up with. This should never be allowed to happen to our country again.”

These hyperbolic expectations have legal experts, even some who are often sympathetic to the president, skeptical that the final product can equal the Trump-fueled rhetoric.

“What I think is going to happen is nobody is going to be charged with any criminal activity,” said Jon Sale, a former assistant U.S. attorney from Miami and longtime friend of Rudy Giuliani, a personal attorney to the president.

Sale expects the probes will instead offer much less dramatic procedural reforms, likely focused on potential future investigations of presidential candidates.

“I think that’s where this is all leading,” he said.

Such outsize expectation setting has become de rigueur in the Trump era, with the long-running Trump-Russia probe particularly prone to embellished predictions. And each overheated messaging campaign has served a political purpose. For Democrats, it has helped highlight Trump’s norm-busting behavior. For Republicans, it has helped counteract negative narratives about the president as he faces the possibility of impeachment.
[…]
Now, with the Mueller investigation wrapped and fading into the rearview mirror, conservatives have placed their hopes in a pair of intertwining DOJ probes examining the Russia investigation itself.

One is led by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. He’s already examined a number of issues tied to the 2016 presidential election, including a report released last summer that found no indication that political bias influenced the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of State. A second probe is helmed by U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut. Attorney General William Barr tapped Durham earlier this year to pursue any criminal prosecutions that spill out out of the IG’s efforts.

Neither investigation has a deadline, though Horowitz told lawmakers in June that his investigative work was “nearing completion.” He was referring to a look at the FBI’s use of some information provided by former British spy Christopher Steele to help procure surveillance warrants during the presidential campaign on Carter Page, a onetime Trump policy adviser. Horowitz explained that his team had examined more than 1 million records, interviewed more than 100 witnesses and had been writing its report on the warrants “for some time.”

It’s unclear how much of that work the public will see — Horowitz told lawmakers that “virtually all of the information we have obtained” has a classified stamp on it.

Conversely, Durham has been silent about his work. In a CBS interview in May, Barr said the longtime federal prosecutor was well-positioned to take up any criminal referrals from Horowitz, while also fulfilling a wider mandate to examine the underlying origins of the FBI’s Russia probe.

But Barr declined to offer specifics about what he hoped Durham would uncover. “Things are just not jiving,” the attorney general said.

Trump and his allies have filled the information void by repeatedly suggesting serious wrongdoing is just on the verge of being uncovered.

Speaking to reporters after the Mueller report became public, senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway insisted that a probe of former DOJ leaders involved in the Russia investigation would show they’d been leaking information to the media.

“Let’s put them under oath. Let’s investigate the investigators. Why not? Anybody who objects to that is just being partisan and having amnesia about how much we all love transparency,” she said.

In mid-May, reacting to the news of Barr’s decision to appoint Durham, Joe diGenova, an informal Trump legal adviser, said on Fox News that several Obama-era government leaders were now facing serious legal jeopardy. He singled out former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan, who he argued would get their comeuppance for leading a scheme from the highest levels of government to set up Trump.

“The bottom line is this: This is now big time. This is where Brennan needs five lawyers. Comey needs five lawyers,” said diGenova, former federal prosecutor who nearly signed on to be the president’s outside counsel in the spring of 2018.

Conservative media outlets have fueled the drumbeat about the possible outcomes from the Horowitz and Durham probes. Hannity has made the topic a central theme on his shows. Last week, he told his 3 million viewers his sources were telling him the Justice Department was at work on “explosive” findings about intelligence gathering techniques that go to the origins of the Mueller investigation.

A similar salvo played out recently when John Solomon, a conservative opinion writer for The Hill, published a column with a headline declaring Comey’s “next reckoning is imminent” because of the probe. It was a stark contrast to how The New York Times and other mainstream outlets portrayed the story — they all led with the fact that the DOJ investigators had decided not to press charges against Comey.

Among Trump supporters, hopes are still high that the Justice Department’s investigators will peel back the curtain on misdeeds across the federal government, from Mueller’s team to the intelligence agencies.

“None of the culpable parties should be sleeping well because, from my perspective, we finally have people who take their job seriously in the Justice Department,” said Michael Caputo, a longtime Trump adviser who was questioned by the special counsel’s office.

Caputo said he had confidence that the probes would reap results for several reasons, including remarks that Trump made to him during a 45-minute Oval Office meeting this spring.

“We talked about the Russia hoax, the investigation of the investigators and the dozens of families who were crushed by the hoax,” Caputo said. “The president shares my expectation for justice.”

Caputo also said his expectations went up based on Barr’s history as a “man of law and order” and by his own contacts with Durham’s investigators. He said they’d accepted about 140 pages of information he offered about Henry Greenberg, a Russian expatriate who Caputo claims was one of at least three FBI informants who approached him during the 2016 presidential campaign offering to sell the Trump campaign dirt on the Democratic nominee, Clinton. That reception stands in contrast to Horowitz, who Caputo said did not respond when he offered him the same materials.

Some former Trump aides who were pulled into the Russia probe said they want the investigations into the investigators to keep expanding.

J.D. Gordon, a Trump 2016 campaign national security adviser, recently sent his own letter to Durham urging a broader look at Mueller and his team of investigators, whom he accused of illegal leaks and violations of both privacy and defamation laws.

“I am hopeful that between the DOJ-IG report and U.S. Attorney John Durham investigation, we will get a comprehensive look into the origins of Trump-Russia as well as the conduct of the special counsel investigation,” Gordon said in an interview.

I think this is probably the real strategy:

Texas GOP Rep. John Ratcliffe, a close Trump ally, has even signaled that the impeachment battle could be settled by the probes’ findings. Once DOJ shows Obama’s national security leaders overreached, he argued, “you can pretty much put a pin in any impeachment balloon.”

The fact that they think there is still an impeachment balloon is kind of surprising. But it would make sense that they think they can head off any real impeachment action with Bill Barr threatening to put on some show trials against former FBI officials.

I don’t think these people realize that Democrats are far, far less concerned about James Comey and John Brennan’s future than they are with Donald Trump’s future.

I think this is also in the mix:

“I think most of [the probes] could be closed but the attorney general won’t let them be closed. That’s an acknowledgment that there’s no there there,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan R Street Institute and a former senior counsel to Clinton-era independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

“The value in them,” he added, “is their existence and the president and Sean Hannity gets to tout them as evidence that where there’s smoke there must be fire.”

Trump’s favorite assassin, Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, says that unless Barr gets some lawmen’s heads on pikes, the Trump supporters are going to start a war.

Whatever.

Personally, I think this is all a big mistake. I know they need to keep the base ginned up but they would be far better off letting the Democrats just bury all the Russia stuff as they seem determined to do. It might entertain their president and their hardcore, brainwashed Fox viewers, but it also reminds everyone else about Trump’s Russia issues. They might even persuade the Democrats to do something about it.

.

Trump’s “bad thoughts” economic theory

Trump’s “bad thoughts” economic theory

by digby

Ignorant as usual, the president is now espousing a conspiracy theory that Democrats and the media are creating a recession to hurt his re-election chances:

The Daily Beast reported:

According to three people who’ve spoken to Trump about recessions and the American economy since 2017, the president has repeatedly voiced concerns—or bitter annoyance—about what he views as media outlets’ ability, or even alleged desire, to help create economic recession through self-fulfilling prophecy.

One of these sources said they’ve heard Trump say at least three times over the past two and a half years that the media would “love it if” a recession occurred during his first term, seriously harming his chances at re-election in 2020. Since his inauguration, the president has brought up the subject of possible recession, sometimes as an unprompted tangent, in various policy and messaging discussions, including on health care, taxes, and trade.

“[Trump] thinks recessions or booms are often self-fulfilling prophecies,” another one of the sources said. “He’s said when the media starts beating the drum about a recession coming, that negativity gets into people’s heads and they change their behavior: less purchasing, fewer entrepreneurs starting small businesses, people moving money out of the market, [and so on]. That’s why he’s so concerned about the coverage of a potential recession… He believes he can will the economy in a positive direction by feeding optimism to the ‘American spirit.’”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on this story. But by Thursday, it was clear that prominent media defenders of Trump’s, several of whom moonlight as top informal advisers to the president, had begun to coalesce around the narrative that much of the mainstream media craved a recession to oust Trump.

During the broadcast of his eponymous show on Wednesday, conservative talk radio giant and Trump ally Rush Limbaugh claimed that fears of an upcoming recession were largely the creation of a Trump-loathing media in order to help the Democratic Party in the upcoming election.

Here’s someone who actually knows what he’s talking about:

Update: John Amato made a compilation of Larry Kudlow’s insistence on the “optimism fairy”

Trump’s economic advisor went on multiple Sunday talk shows two days ago and deflected the fears of a recession by evoking a fairytale instead of actual hard evidence.

I’ve often written about the imaginary “confidence fairy” Republicans pretend will save us all after their constrictive and destructive policies strangle the U.S. economy.

And now Larry Kudlow has created a new one and no, it’s not a unicorn.

Kudlow said, “Let’s not be afraid of optimism. Let’s not be afraid of optimism,” he constantly repeated to NBC’s Chuck Todd on Meet The Press.

lol.

.

A dirty bomb with wings by @BloggersRUs

A dirty bomb with wings
by Tom Sullivan


Radiation plume after Russian explosion tracked by monitors. (CTBTO via Twitter)

Strangelove: Yes, but the… whole point of the doomsday machine… is lost… if you keep it a secret! Why didn’t you tell the world, eh?

DeSadeski: It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.

We thought Fail-Safe and SAC and “duck and cover” drills were behind us, leaving Dr. Strangelove as a satirical send-up of a bygone era. Death from above on 30-minute notice, remember? The good-old days.

Ah, but Vladimir, you know, loves surprises. Like that explosion in Russia Thursday of a suspected experimental, nuclear-powered cruise missile dubbed by NATO SSC-X-9 Skyfall. At least seven people died. Radiation spikes appeared nearby that were 20 times normal. Reuters reports the two radiation monitoring stations closest to the test site went offline days after the blast, followed shortly by two others farther away. Russia cited “technical problems” at the sites in place as part of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty network.

Today, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the Interfax news agency Russia has no obligation to share the data.

“We got a mini-Fukushima right beside us and they pretended nothing scary happened,” said a resident of nearby Severodvinsk, 25 miles east of the test site on the White Sea in northwest Russia:

Boris Vishnevsky, from the St. Petersburg City Council, said people deserved answers.

“People need reliable information. And if the authorities think there is no danger, and nothing needs to be done, let them announce this formally so people don’t worry.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin during a visit to France Monday announced, “There is no threat here, no increase in the [radiation] background exists either.”

Putin announced the development of a nuclear-powered cruise missile in March 2018. In theory, the missile would have virtually unlimited range and be able to circle the globe until ordered to deliver its warheads literally under an enemy’s radar:

“This is a doomsday weapon really,” said Dr Mark Galeotti, from Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies.

“It’s not something that could be deployed in anything other than a full-scale nuclear war. It is a cruise missile that can stay in the air for a long time, but it is belching out radioactive plumes behind it.”

So, a dirty bomb with wings. The U.S. gave up plans for one in 1964, the same year Strangelove reached theaters.

Less than three weeks after it left the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, the U.S. has tested a land-launched cruise missile with a range greater than 500 kilometers. Missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,000 kilometers were banned under the treaty until August 2.

What with radiation spreading, sea levels rising, glaciers vanishing, and scientists measuring the hottest July ever recorded, one imagines the lecher in the Oval Office might eagerly respond to the right kind of pitch:

Strangelove: Mr. President, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens.