Skip to content

Month: November 2019

40% of Americans only believe Dear Leader

40% of Americans only believe Dear Leader

by digby

A depressing read if you care about the future of democracy:

In a sharply divided country, here’s something many Americans agree on: It’s hard to know what’s a true and honest fact.

A new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and USA Facts finds that regardless of political belief, many Americans say they have a hard time figuring out if information is true. Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they often come across one-sided information and about 6 in 10 say they regularly see conflicting reports about the same set of facts from different sources.

“It is difficult to get facts. You have to read between the lines. You have to have a lot of common sense,” said Leah Williams, 29, of Modesto, California. A Republican, Williams says she relies on like-minded friends and family to help sort through conflicting information. “There are wolves in sheep’s clothing everywhere.”

The poll found that 47% of Americans believe it’s difficult to know if the information they encounter is true, compared with 31% who find it easy to do so. When deciding whether something is factual, there is widespread consensus on the importance of transparency in how the information was gathered and if it is based on data. Democrats and Republicans alike frequently find the process challenging.

But as a president with a history of making false statements and repeating debunked conspiracy theories faces public hearings this week in only the fourth impeachment inquiry in the nation’s history, the poll finds that differing political beliefs led Americans down different paths as they try to determine what’s a unquestionable fact.

Here’s the problem:

Democrats are more likely to say they rely on scientists and academics, while Republicans are more likely to trust what they hear from President Donald Trump.

“When I hear him on Fox News — that’s where I get all my information,” said Al Corra, a 48-year-old Republican from Midland, Texas. Trump, he said, is the easiest way to cut through an otherwise confusing information environment.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to put a great deal of trust in the president’s statements, 40% to 5%. Overall, a majority of Americans (61%) have little to no trust in information about the government when it comes from Trump,

Corra said he distrusts academics as too “liberal” and he’s not alone in that regard among Republicans. More Democrats than Republicans say they consider something to be factual if it’s been verified by scientists — 72% versus 40% — as well as academics — 57% versus 30%.

These people have been brainwashed. I don’t know how else to explain it. If they believe that orange conman is the font of all truth and wisdom they are so deluded I’m not sure they can be reached.

The following is a much more normal way to assess truth, not because scientists and academics are always right but because they have had to demonstrate some ability to learn and have become experts in their fields.

Donald Trump, by contrast, is a pathological liar.

Scott Austin, a Democrat from Aurora, Colorado, says he generally trusts scientists, but checks their affiliations carefully because he believes fraudulent information abounds. “If I see something that some scientist from Stanford says, I’ll believe that because it’s Stanford,” he said.

Austin, a 52-year-old Army veteran, says he has to ping-pong from website to website to try to verify facts and has found himself increasingly skeptical of government information. Like 54% of Americans, he believes the president has a lot of sway over the information distributed by the government, and that’s made him increasingly skeptical given his lack of trust in what Trump says to be true.

“I never had a problem trusting the government under Democratic or Republican administrations — until this administration,” Austin said.

Close to half of Americans — 45% — also think members of Congress have a lot of influence on information that comes from the government, while just 3 in 10 say the same of federal agency employees.

When it comes to assessing whether information is factual, at least three-quarters of Americans think it’s very important for it to be accurate, and that sources provide all relevant information and explain the way that information was gathered. Smaller majorities say the information should include opposing viewpoints and be devoid of opinion.

About 6 in 10 say they are very likely to consider information factual if it is based on data.

Many Americans say they rely on government websites, as well as news sources and social media, to get information. In total, 54% say they get information about the government from social media at least once a day, 52% say that about local TV news, 50% from national TV news networks and 47% from cable news. About 6 in 10 also say they have used government websites to look up information.

And yet, poll found widespread skepticism about these sources — majorities say they have little to no confidence in information they get about the government from social media, the president, members of Congress and businesses.

This is the point, I think. The right thrives in an atomosphere where there is a chaotic information stream.

I don’t know where this is going. It’s not good to place all your trust in authorities whether religious, government or academic. But many people just yearn to do that and that’s where authoritarians and demagogues like Trump get over.

.

It looks like the Intelligence Inspector general is about to get Sessioned

It looks like the Intelligence Inspector general is about to get Sessioned

by digby

If you know what I mean:

I’m beginning to think we’re dealing with dementia more than a stupid strategy. The call is damning. His pretense that his bribe isn’t obvious is becoming downright delusional.

The New York Times reported earlier that he’s been on this crusade for a while:

President Trump has discussed dismissing the intelligence community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, because Mr. Atkinson reported a whistle-blower’s complaint about Mr. Trump’s interactions with Ukraine to Congress after concluding it was credible, according to four people familiar with the discussions.

Mr. Trump first expressed his dismay about Mr. Atkinson around the time the whistle-blower’s complaint became public in September. In recent weeks, he has continued to raise with aides the possibility of firing him, one of the people said.

The president has said he does not understand why Mr. Atkinson shared the complaint, which outlined how Mr. Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals at the same time he was withholding military aid from the country. He has said he believes Mr. Atkinson, whom he appointed in 2017, has been disloyal, one of the people said.

Mr. Trump’s private complaints about Mr. Atkinson have come as he has publicly questioned his integrity and accused him of working with the Democrats to sabotage his presidency.

It is unclear how far Mr. Trump’s discussions about removing Mr. Atkinson have progressed. Two people familiar with what took place said they thought that Mr. Trump was just venting, and insisted that Mr. Atkinson’s dismissal was never under serious consideration.

But the mixture of public attacks and private discussions about a possible dismissal is a familiar way Mr. Trump has undermined investigators who have examined his conduct or that of people close to him. The president publicly criticized James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and Jeff Sessions, the former attorney general, before he dismissed them for perceived disloyalty.

Mr. Trump believes he has the power to fire anyone in the executive branch, though aides say they have learned to ignore many of his private rants, unless the president brings up the subject repeatedly and appears on the precipice of making a move they feel could be damaging.

He needs to punish somebody. He’d love to take down the whistleblower but he has legal protections. The witnesses are all straight arrows who are difficult to attack successfully. This guy he can just fire. Whether they can hold him back remains to be seen. He is a headstrong toddler and he’s not easily controlled.

.

Bill Barr is not as smart as he thinks he is

Bill Barr is not as smart as he thinks he is

by digby

Earlier today:

“Mr. Attorney General, did the president ask you to publicly defend him regarding the Ukrainian call, and if so, why did you not want to do that?”

“If you’re talking about press reports that he asked me to have a news conference, the fact is, I don’t remember any such request,” Barr said. “In fact, my recollection is that I told the White House that we would do what we would normally do, and that is issue a press statement, which we did, and that was not an issue. There was no pushback on that.”

He doesn’t remember the request but he does remember his response?

Ok.

Maybe Bill Barr isn’t as smart as he thinks he is?

“An administration taking the 5th” by @BloggersRUs

“An administration taking the 5th”
by Tom Sullivan

“If only American politics weren’t so partisan, I might be able to make sense of it all, but I can’t,” McSweeney’s Devorah Blachor wrote Wednesday afternoon.

The Donald Trump impeachment inquiry’s opening public hearing featured William Taylor, America’s top diplomat in Ukraine, and George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. Testimony by two obviously competent, obviously committed foreign service officers dedicated to lives of service left Blachor perplexed:

At the hearing, I saw two serious, professional men who both served under Republican and Democrat administrations. Yet just last week, President Trump was ordered to pay two million dollars for using charity funds to pay off his business debts and promote himself. How can a voter like me be expected to know who is more credible?

[…]

What sounds more believable? That career diplomats with everything to lose would make up a story implicating the most powerful man in America? Or that the president’s butt-dialling, criminal-loving lawyer was involved in something nefarious? I wish this would be easier!

The Washington Post’s Alexandra Petri found the five-hour hearing similarly satire-worthy:

REPUBLICAN QUESTIONER: And don’t you, of course, the Fusion GPS, when we know Alexandra Chalupa has not been called, of course?

TAYLOR: I’m trying, I’m really trying, to find the question in that.

Petri refers to veteran Republican staff attorney Steve Castor’s questioning of the two diplomats. Here is a sample:

Castor spent an extraordinary amount of time asking witnesses to acknowledge they know nothing about things and people they know nothing about. Those include Russian-inspired conspiracy theories about Black Ledgers and missing computer servers promoted by Trump’s defenders. Where once Republicans spoke in dog whistles, they now speak in cult whistles only Fox News viewers and fans of “QAnon” can hear. The day did not go well for Trump or the GOP.

Democrats hired Daniel Goldman earlier this year to lead their questioning. Goldman served as Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York for ten years. He prosecuted mobsters on racketing and murder charges, including “a Genovese Family Boss and two hitmen on a case involving RICO, two murders, one attempted murder, and two murder conspiracies.”

For a month, the two attorneys led their party’s questioning of witnesses behind closed doors. Their first public appearance proved Castor was no match for his counterpart Goldman.

The most important news from yesterday’s hearing came at the end of Taylor’s opening statement. The event occurred the day after the July 25 call between Trump and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump asked for “a favor”:

Last Friday, a member of my staff told me of events that occurred on July 26. While Ambassador Volker and I visited the front, this member of my staff accompanied Ambassador Sondland. Ambassador Sondland met with Mr. Yermak.

Following that meeting, in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, Ambassador Sondland called President Trump and told him of his meetings in Kyiv. The member of my staff could hear President Trump on the phone, asking Ambassador Sondland about “the investigations.” Ambassador Sondland told President Trump that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward.

Following the call with President Trump, the member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for. At the time I gave my deposition on October 22, I was not aware of this information. I am including it here for completeness. As the Committee knows, I reported this information through counsel to the State Department’s Legal Adviser, as well as to counsel for both the Majority and the Minority on the Committee. It is my understanding that the Committee is following up on this matter.

In his October testimony, Sondland denied Trump presented Zelensky with any “arms for political dirt” deal, as former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner framed it last night. Sondland revised his testimony on Nov. 5 to say he remembered discussing the linkage with Andriy Yermak, a senior adviser to Zelensky, during a meeting in Warsaw on Sept. 1.

Sondland is scheduled to testify publicly on Nov. 20. Democrats will ask why he omitted from his testimony a call to reassure the president investigations were coming. (Stock up on popcorn.) If Sondland hoped to avoid a perjury indictment in “coming clean,” Slate’s Fred Kaplan writes, Taylor’s testimony and the forthcoming testimony of his staffer indicate “Sondland didn’t come clean enough.” David Holmes, Taylor’s staffer, is scheduled to appear before a closed-door hearing on Friday.

Republicans on the committee complained repeatedly that Taylor and Kent had no contact with Trump nor any firsthand knowledge of his directives. This is, as they know, only because the Trump administration has refused to allow those with direct knowledge to testify, in addition to stonewalling House requests for critical documents. In a tossed-off comment last night, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews called Trump’s “an administration taking the 5th.”

Trump and the Turks

Trump and the Turks

by digby

While career diplomats were testifying under oath about Trump’s crimes, he was hosting the leader to whom he gave a greenlight to ethnically cleanse the Kurds in Northern Syria, Turkish president Erdogan. And it was weird:

CNN:

A small group of Republican senators who traditionally focus on foreign policy issues attended a White House meeting with President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Ahead of the meeting, there had been limited information given to the Hill on what it was all about, two sources familiar with the meeting told CNN. But it was made clear it was a meeting Trump wanted amid significant Capitol Hill criticism of Erdoğan personally and Turkey’s recent actions in Syria.

It was being framed as an opportunity to “clear the air” and have a serious and frank discussion about the real fissures in the relationship, which also includes US outrage over Turkey’s purchase of Russian weapons systems, one source familiar with the meeting told CNN. But the source also acknowledged the meeting was very irregular and nobody was sure what to expect.

GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham, Jim Risch, Ted Cruz, Joni Ernst and Rick Scott all attended and reporters were invited in to see the lawmakers raise their foreign policy concerns with Erdoğan — specifically addressing the sale of Russian weapons to Turkey and Turkey’s conflicts with the Kurds.

“The purpose of this meeting is to have an American civics lesson with our Turkish friends. And there’s a pony in there somewhere if we can find it,” Graham said.

Risch, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also emphasized Turkey’s membership in NATO. But the two issues at hand, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said, were the S-400s and the Kurds, who were allied with US forces against ISIS in Syria.

“We do not want to see Turkey engage in offensive action against the Kurds,” the Texas senator said.

Erdoğan’s pushed back on Turkey’s conflicts with the Kurds, maintaining that the Kurdish forces in Syria are “terrorist organizations.

Apparently, Trump thought he could “mediate” between the Senators and Erdogan. He is stupid so of course, it didn’t work.

Here’s a nice backgrounder from the Washington Post about Trump and Erdogan:

— The president’s softness toward Turkey and his bromance with Erdogan is striking and, to some former Trump aides, suspicious. To wit: Former national security adviser John Bolton suggested during a private speech in Miami last week that the president’s approach to U.S. policy on Turkey is motivated by personal or financial interests, six people who were present for the remarks told NBC News.

“Bolton told the gathering of Morgan Stanley’s largest hedge fund clients that he was most frustrated with Trump over his handling of Turkey,” Stephanie Ruhle and Carol Lee report. “Noting the broad bipartisan support in Congress to sanction Turkey after [Erdogan] purchased a Russian missile defense system, Bolton said Trump’s resistance to the move was unreasonable … Bolton said he believes there is a personal or business relationship dictating Trump’s position on Turkey because none of his advisers are aligned with him on the issue.”

— Erdogan, then prime minister, cut the ribbon at the opening of Trump Towers Istanbul in 2012. Trump was there with his daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner. Both now work in the White House. The Trump Organization, which the president has never divested from, has received annual licensing fees for the use of the name on the skyscrapers.

— Trump has offered Erdogan a package of inducements to improve U.S.-Turkey relations, which will be up for discussion today, that is virtually identical to those the administration proposed last month in a failed effort to stop Turkey’s invasion of Syria. Karen DeYoung, Missy Ryan and Kareem Fahim report on the proposal: “In a new letter to Erdogan last week, Trump told the Turkish president that a $100 billion trade deal, and a workaround to avoid U.S. sanctions over Turkey’s purchase of Russia’s S-400 missile defense system, are still possible, senior administration officials said. The offer is likely to infuriate at least some of the overwhelming House majority that voted last month to impose sanctions on Turkey over its assault into Syria, and a bipartisan group of senators who introduced a similar bill. …

“In exchange for Trump’s revived offer, Erdogan would continue what the administration has said is its adherence to an Oct. 17 cease-fire agreement, negotiated with Vice President Pence a week after the invasion began, that limited the Turkish incursion. [There is dispute about the degree to which Erdogan has complied.] Turkey, a NATO [member], would also continue to actively support U.S. goals of preventing a resurgence of the Islamic State in Syria and establishing a stable and representative Syrian government. … Now, the administration’s red line is that the S-400s ‘do not become operational’ in a way that would allow them ‘access to our F-35 communications and defenses,’ said the senior official.”

— Meanwhile, the Syrian National Army, a Turkish proxy force, has been accused of widespread abuses, including summary executions, beatings, kidnappings and looting in areas under Turkey’s control. “U.S. military officials watched live drone feeds in October that appeared to show Turkish-backed Arab gunmen targeting civilians during their assault on Kurdish fighters in northeastern Syria, attacks the Americans reported to their commanders as possible war crimes,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday. “U.S. surveillance videos of two incidents were included in an internal report compiled by State Department officials laying out concerns regarding four credible cases of alleged war crimes…”

After saying he wouldn’t tolerate such behavior, Erdogan has not cracked down on these Turkish-backed forces. In fact, he’s defended them. Margaret Huang, the executive director of Amnesty International USA, has more about the ground truth in an op-ed for today’s paper: “As Erdogan visits the White House, remember the suffering in northern Syria.”

There’s a lot more at the link about Jared and the business ties. This relationship is almost as suspect and the one between Trump and Putin.

Check out how ridiculous he is:

.

Blast from the past

Blast from the past

by digby

I don’t know whether people will care about this impeachment inquiry or not. They should. Trump is a criminal who should be removed as soon as possible and the evidence is fascinating. But it’s possible that there is just so much churn that the public is already worn out. We’ll have to see.

But this came across my twitter feed today and I thought it was interesting. I knew that the public backed Clinton during his impeachment in large numbers, which Trump doesn’t enjoy. I didn’t realize that they also largely tuned out of the impeachment hearing and Senate trial.I, of course, was riveted because I’m a political junkie. But I was in the minority.

It may have been only the second impeachment in history, but it was a non-starter to the American public. Not only did the President’s approval ratings go up following the House’s decision, but only 34% of Americans paid very close attention to the proceedings. More people followed news about the attack on Iraq (44%) than the debate and historic vote this past weekend. In fact, the impeachment vote was not even among the top ten news interest stories of 1998.

The 805 adults who were re-interviewed December 19-21 were strongly supportive of Bill Clinton.* His job approval rating rose from 61% to 71%, and there was no significant increase from the original survey in the number who want to see him removed from office (31% vs. 29%). Only 30% say they would like to see Clinton resign in favor of Al Gore. [*NOTE: The original survey was conducted largely after the Judiciary Committee’s vote on articles of impeachment (Dec 9-13,1998).]

Two thirds of Pew’s respondents (67%) think most members of Congress who voted for impeachment did so for political reasons, and only 25% think members did so because they thought Clinton’s actions warranted removal from office. The public is divided over Representative Bob Livingston’s decision to step down because of past marital infidelity. Some 46% say it was a good idea, 43% a bad one. A majority of Democrats oppose Livingston’s decision (52%), while most Republicans believe it was a good idea (56%).

By a 56% to 35% margin the public thinks media coverage of the impeachment debate was fair and objective. But of those who disagree, most think the media favored a Republican point of view.

President Clinton’s approval ratings increased significantly among political Independents and Republicans after his impeachment. This boost in ratings may represent a show of sympathy for the President rather than an increase in base support. This is particularly true among Republicans: while 41% now approve of the job the President is doing, 64% still believe he should be removed from office.

You know Trump will be looking at “the ratings” for this proceeding. It’s the only statistic he understands.

.

Bill Barr is embarrassing the nation

Bill Barr is embarrassing the nation

by digby

Here’s a quote for you:

“This sort of idea that there is a kind of a ASIS-ASIO-MI6-MI5-FBI-CIA-Ukrainian government conspiracy to bring down the Trump administration, that this is treason, that I should be in Guantanamo Bay … I mean, it’s a little bit sad that people take that kind of thought seriously.” — Alexander Downer, former Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom

It’s ridiculous. But Bill Barr and John Durham are pursuing it anyway. And keep in mind that the conspiracy theory is actually about bringing down the Trump administration. They are all accused of trying to bring down the Trump campaign and yet never said a word about it before the election.

U.S. Attorney John Durham reportedly interviewed the Australian diplomat whose tip about George Papadopoulos effectively started the counterintelligence investigation into President Trump’s campaign in July 2016.

Alexander Downer, who was Australia’s high commissioner to the United Kingdom up until last year, met with Durham’s team last month in London and is said to have told investigators he was not part of a conspiratorial plot to undermine Trump, according to the Australian.

Under the supervision of Attorney General William Barr, Durham is conducting an investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, examining the conduct of the Justice Department, FBI, and intelligence community. Last month, Durham shifted his administrative review to a criminal investigation that allows his team the power to impanel a grand jury and hand down indictments.

He has also been in communication with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who recently completed an investigation into allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuses by the DOJ and the FBI. Horowitz’s report is expected to be released in the coming weeks following a classification review.

Remember, it’s not just the stupid Biden Ukraine conspiracy theory we are dealing with. There’s also the stupid 2016 Ukraine hacking conspiracy. This is associated with that. And the Attorney General and his appointed special prosecutor are all over the world making fools of the American government on behalf of the American fool we call a president. It’s just embarrassing.

.

Trump may end up being “swamped” by his own corruption

Trump may end up being “swamped” by his own corruption

by digby



My Salon column this morning:

There has been a lot of talk about “gaslighting” during the last three years, and for good reason. It truly does feel as if Donald Trump and his accomplices are trying to make us all believe we’re losing our minds. And as we all launch into this impeachment drama, it appears they’ll be working overtime at that task.

I’ve been talking a lot about the Republican strategy, and if one thing is clear it’s that the president is giving them very little room to maneuver. Republicans would prefer to argue that Trump was wrong to do what he did on Ukraine, but it wasn’t impeachable. Problem is, Trump won’t stand for that. They wish they could say that he didn’t understand what he was doing, but he is having none of that one either. So all they are left with is the most fatuous of all defenses at this moment: There was nothing wrong with what the president said because he was only trying to clear up the corruption problem in Ukraine.

That forms the basis of what Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., and others in Congress are arguing: Trump didn’t “have a culpable state of mind” or a bad motive when he tried to strong-arm President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine into publicly announcing an investigation of Trump’s political rivals.

If you want a textbook example of what they see as the best defense, check out former UN ambassador Nikki Haley’s response over the weekend:

Trump said it himself on Tuesday:

You have to love that he put “obligation” in scare quotes.

Do you feel just a little bit crazy after seeing all that? I know I do. Haley is a skilled politician who found a way to turn the conversation back to Joe Biden and his son, but as Salon’s Amanda Marcotte pointed out on Tuesday, that’s not likely to work.

It makes some sense that Republicans would try to push the broader idea that Trump cares about Ukrainian corruption. After all, he has halfway cultivated an image as an anti-corruption reformer with his slogan “Drain the swamp,” which most people believe was a major campaign theme in 2016. In fact, it wasn’t until Oct. 17 of that year, three weeks before the election, when he was down by eight points in the polls after the “Access Hollywood” tape was released, that Trump’s campaign even came up with that:

The campaign’s press release was nothing more than an anodyne list of restrictions on lobbyists. But he used the phrase the next day at his rally and every day after that much to the delight of his crowds. “Drain the swamp!” became one of their favorite chants, right up there with “Lock her up!” and “Build the wall!” He tied it to “Crooked Hillary,” of course, reading off random WikiLeaks releases, and accusing her of massive corruption and graft as secretary of state. The meme stuck even as the absurdity of it became obvious from the moment he was elected.

Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in American history. I don’t think that is even debatable.

He declined to divest himself of his businesses and has been making millions from Americans and foreigners alike who are seeking access and currying favors by spending vast sums of money at his properties. He spends nearly every weekend and long stretches of time at his own golf clubs, funneling taxpayer money to himself in the process. Members of the military and his Cabinet, as well as Vice President Mike Pence, have participated in the scheme. According to Open Secrets, political spending at his properties since he became president exceeds $20 million.

Trump’s overseas properties, ostensibly overseen by his sons with no supervision from him, are clearly seen by foreign investors and politicians as great opportunities to get in good with the U.S. president. Just a few weeks ago he decided to hold the 2020 G7 summit meeting next year at his Doral National golf club in Florida, and only backed down because he is in the midst of impeachment and someone managed to convince him that it wasn’t in his best interest no matter how many millions he stood to pocket. The mere fact that he even contemplated such a thing makes his claims to be “draining the swamp” ludicrous.

But Trump’s personal corruption isn’t the only problem. When it comes to trying to deal with corruption in foreign countries, his record is anything but clean. As NPR reports:One of Trump’s very first actions as president was to sign a law that rescinded a Securities and Exchange Commission regulation that would have required oil and gas companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to disclose any payments they made to governments around the world. Supporters of the regulation say it was aimed at deterring bribery.

Immediately after that, the Trump administration withdrew the U.S. from the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. an effort to establish a global standard for transparency in oil and gas management.

Ukraine, by the way, is still a member.

The AP reported this week that just as Trump and his accomplices were putting the squeeze on the Ukrainians to smear Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry had helped secure a potentially lucrative oil and gas exploration deal for a couple of his personal political supporters, handing their names to Zelensky at his inauguration in Kyiv. Seriously, you cannot make this stuff up.

As for Trump’s stated concern that he didn’t want to send arms to a corrupt country, according to Defense One, he’s approved more than $3 billion in arms sales to countries that are considered to be more corrupt than Ukraine. It goes without saying that his much-ballyhooed arms sales to Saudi Arabia alone are far more disturbing than any possible U.S. military aid to Ukraine could be.

Those are just a few examples out of dozens in the Trump era that prove his promise to “drain the swamp” was preposterous. What we now understand is that what he and his administration meant by that was not to root out corruption but rather to root out career federal officials who refused to break the law or betray the country on behalf of Donald Trump.

They have no doubt been quite successful in that project. Many people have left the government and the political appointees currently running the place have all pledged fealty to Trump. But starting Wednesday we’re about to hear from some of those career officials who have decided not to go quietly. Trump may just end up being swamped by his own corruption.

.

New information from Taylor

New information from Taylor

by digby

Taylor shared a ton of information but this was a new bombshell:

Last Friday a member of my staff told me of events that occurred on July 26. While Ambassador Volcker and I visited the front, a member of my staff accompanied Ambassador Sondland. Ambassador Sondland met with Mr. Yermak. Following that meeting, in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, Ambassador Sondland called president Trump and told him of his meetings in Kyiv. The member of my staff could hear President Trump on the phone asking about the investigations.

Mr. Sondland told President Trump that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward. Following the call with President Trump, the member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland said that President Trump cared more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for. At the time I gave my deposition on October 22nd, I was not aware of this information. I’m including it here for completeness.

So Sondland had Trump’s direct line and immediately called him from Ukraine on his cell phone. Setting aside the security implication, it makes it clear that Trump only cared about the bogus “investigations.”

I’m sure this person will be deposed and probably will appear at a public hearing. This is more evidence that Trump was directly in the loop which, of course, was never really in dispute.

.