Skip to content

Month: December 2019

“The literal image of the power behind the throne”

“The literal image of the power behind the throne”


by digby

Russian foreign minister Lavrov with Trump last week

The Russian media is an interesting window into this weird Trump-Putin relationship. JUlia Davis at the Daily Beast follows it closely and this report is truly astonishing:

Russian commentators note, rightly, that “sooner or later, the Democrats will come back into power,” and they’re already joking about offering Trump asylum.

Sometimes a picture doesn’t have to be worth a thousand words. Just a few will do. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov returned home from his visit with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office last week, Russian state media were gloating over the spectacle. TV channel Rossiya 1 aired a segment entitled “Puppet Master and ‘Agent’—How to Understand Lavrov’s Meeting With Trump.”

Vesti Nedeli, a Sunday news show on the same network, pointed out that it was Trump, personally, who asked Lavrov to pose standing near as Trump sat at his desk. It’s almost the literal image of a power behind the throne.


And in the meantime, much to Russia’s satisfaction, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is still waiting for that critical White House meeting with the American president: the famous “quid pro quo” for Zelensky announcing an investigation that would smear Democratic challenger Joe Biden. As yet, Zelensky hasn’t done that, and as yet, no meeting has been set.

Russian state television still views the impending impeachment as a bump in the road that won’t lead to Trump’s removal from office. But President Vladimir Putin’s propaganda brigades enjoy watching the heightened divisions in the United States, and how it hurts relations between the U.S. and Ukraine.

They’ve also added a cynical new a narrative filled with half-joking ironies as they look at the American president’s bleak prospects when he does leave office.

Appearing on Sunday Evening With Vladimir Soloviev, Mikhail Gusman, first deputy director general of ITAR-TASS, Russia’s oldest and largest news agency, predicted: “Sooner or later, the Democrats will come back into power. The next term or the term after that, it doesn’t matter… I have an even more unpleasant forecast for Trump. After the White House, he will face a very unhappy period.”

The host, Vladimir Soloviev, smugly asked: “Should we get another apartment in Rostov ready?” Soloviev’s allusion was to the situation of Viktor Yanukovych, former president of Ukraine, who was forced to flee to Russia in 2014 and settled in the city of Rostov-on-Don.

Such parallels between Yanukovych and Trump are being drawn not only because of their common association with Paul Manafort, adviser to the first, campaign chairman for the second, but also because Russian experts and politicians consider both of them to be openly pro-Kremlin.

He is.  Or perhaps the correct term for him is “useful idiot.” We don’t really know.

Tightly controlled Russian state-television programs constantly reiterate that Trump doesn’t care about Ukraine and gave Putin no reasons to even contemplate concessions in the run-up to the recent Normandy Four summit in Paris.

State-television news shows use every opportunity to demoralize the Ukrainians with a set of talking points based on the U.S. president’s distaste for their beleaguered country. The host of Who’s Against on Rossiya-1, Dmitry Kulikov, along with pro-Kremlin guests, took repeated jabs at the Ukrainian panelist, boasting about the meeting between Trump and Lavrov.

“There are no disagreements or contradictions between Trump and Russia,” argued Valery Korovin, director of the Center for Geopolitical Expertise, appearing on the state-television channel Rossiya-24. Korovin insisted that the Democrats in Congress are the main antagonists in the relationship between Russia and the United States. 

Putin has expressed undisguised delight with the crusade led by Trump and Giuliani to whitewash Moscow’s interference in the U.S. elections and pin the blame on Kyiv. Last month, the Russian president smugly remarked “Thank God no one is accusing us of interfering in the U.S. elections anymore. Now they’re accusing Ukraine.”

Rossiya-1 reporter Valentin Bogdanov surmised that by now the majority of American Republicans believe that Ukraine interfered in the U.S. elections, with the show airing various clips from Fox News.

The absurdity of such claims spawned by the Russian security services puts the hypocrisy of the Republicans on full display. The Kremlin, having argued for years that democracy is a sham and the West is devoid of morals and principles, can now showcase the GOP as its “Exhibit A.”

Appearing on The Evening With Vladimir Soloviev in October, political scientist Dmitry Evstafiev argued that Trump has to destroy the Republican Party in order to secure his own long-term survival. The impeachment proceedings seemed to expedite the process, with the GOP’s self-immolation for the sake of its “Dear Leader.”

Appearing on Soloviev’s show, Semyon Bagdasarov, director of the Moscow-based Center for Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, exclaimed: “The United States is the enemy. It is our enemy. It is a hostile state that aims to destroy our country… We are at war!”

The war isn’t a traditional war, thank goodness. It’s a propaganda war designed to make us destroy ourselves. And they didn’t create the conditions that are making that happen. They were merely smart enough to see what was already happening in our politics and and exploit them for their own benefit.

And yes, it’s working.

Here’s how that’s playing out in the real world. Remember, the imbecile in the White House is highly motivated to continue the fiction that Ukraine was the “real” perpetrator of the election sabotage in 2016 and he’s obviously all-in on the Biden Ukraine conspiracy theory. So, this is totally expected:

Ukrainian officials spent last weekend glued to Trump’s Twitter feed.

People working closely with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have been in contact with Trump administration officials over the past several weeks discussing the relationship between the two presidents, according to four people with knowledge of the talks. Based on those conversations, Ukrainian officials came to expect that President Donald Trump would make a statement of support before Zelensky met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in France for peace talks. A statement might even come via Twitter, they said they were told.

“Through all the signals we got, we firmly believed there would be a statement,” a senior Zelensky administration official told The Daily Beast.

But as Saturday and Sunday ticked by, there was only silence from the White House. Even as Ukrainian officials have publicly been loath to criticize Trump’s pressure campaign on their country, frustrations with Washington have quietly percolated. And last weekend, they were especially acute.

On Monday, Zelensky and Putin met in Normandy, France for face-to-face negotiations on the war in eastern Ukraine. Russia had seized Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in 2014, and has ever since backed separatists in the eastern part of the country. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were on hand for the talks. Putin and Zelensky agreed to exchange “all known prisoners,” according to The Washington Post. Another round of talks is expected in several months.

Words of support from the United States in the lead-up to the Normandy talks could have given the Ukrainian president more leverage with Putin, according to the Zelensky administration official and two additional people close to his administration. Instead, Trump spent the weekend on Twitter tweeting about Fox News pundits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and CNN. It was a particularly busy weekend of social media for him, with more than 100 tweets and retweets by Politico’s count. But no word on Normandy.

And the next week put salt in the wound. On Tuesday, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a joint press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and made an appearance at the White House.

One of the people close to the Zelensky administration said the silence from White House—combined with Lavrov’s photo-friendly visit to Washington—sent “a terrible signal” and was “most unfortunate.” According to a read-out of Trump’s meeting with Lavrov, the president “urged Russia to resolve the conflict with Ukraine.” The Ukrainian official called the episode “frustrating.” 

Ukrainians say they view the coupling of Trump’s pre-Normandy silence and the administration’s decision to welcome Lavrov as a signal in an of itself—and not a good one.

Of course it’s a signal.

What this means is that the Russia story and the Ukraine scandal are still at the center of Trump’s corruption and I believe they will remain so throughout the election.  Giuliani is out there right now pimping the story, apparently with impunity, secure in the knowledge that he can get away with anything, just like his “client” Donald Trump.

They are both desperate to reclaim their reputations even though that’s impossible. In doing so they are going to drag this country through a year of hell.

It’s Holiday Fundraiser time. If you’d like to support this blog for another year, I’d be grateful if you’d hit one of the buttons below.  I appreciate your support more than you know — digby

Happy Hollandaise…

.

The President’s letter to Pelosi is the most epic presidential tantrum in history

The President’s letter to Pelosi is the most epic presidential tantrum in history

by digby

It is the raving of an emotionally disturbed, intellectually stunted human being who should never have been elected to a position of power:

 


https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Letter-from-President-Trump-final.pdf

Dear God.

People we have to do everything in our power to get this man out of office next November. He’s completely bonkers.

If you can help to keep this blog going so that I can document and agitate for another year, I don’t think it’s ever been a more important time. I would truly appreciate your support:

Happy Festivus everyone … yikes

.

Well, do ya, punks? by @BloggersRUs

Well, do ya, punks?
by Tom Sullivan

The pending impeachment of Donald Trump raises anxiety levels to 11 on the left side of the philosophical aisle. But let’s take a moment to share those feelings with the wrong side. What Republicans need to ask themselves is who besides Trump cultists will still vote for them by November 2020.

The recent Fox News poll found support for Trump’s impeachment and removal has ticked up a point since October. FiveThirtyEight‘s polling average this morning shows 47.1 percent for impeachment and 46.6 percent against. Fox polling tends to reflect poorly on the president. But other polls, The Atlantic’s David Graham reports, also lean slightly towards impeachment. It is worth adding that those polls measure people, not necessarily states where it’s winner-take-all on electoral votes.

Graham asks readers to consider that roughly half the country not only supports impeaching Trump but removing him from office. “And that support comes at a time of (mostly) peace, with the economy (mostly) strong,” Graham explains. “There’s more support for impeaching Trump now than there was at the equivalent stage in the Watergate scandal—right after articles of impeachment were approved by the House Judiciary Committee.” Half the country supports enforcing an unprecedented sanction against Trump.

Graham continues:

Thus the paradox of impeachment politics: Supporting impeachment is anathema for Republicans. Supporting impeachment seems to be hurting vulnerable Democratic politicians, at least marginally. But support for impeachment remains remarkably strong, and also, Trump’s approval remains as stable as ever.

Even though Trump almost certainly won’t be removed, the breadth of support for impeachment, especially when compared with his approval ratings, could have important repercussions in the 2020 election. For roughly the entire Trump presidency, a small majority of Americans has disapproved of Trump, while a substantial minority has approved of his tenure. Yet despite this disapproval, most members of that majority did not support removing the president.

That has changed since the Ukraine scandal broke open in September, despite House Judiciary Republicans throwing a jumbo pack of smoke bombs to obscure the facts. More damaging evidence may yet surface before the prospective Senate trial (since it seems certain the House will pass articles this week). For now, it appears most Republicans “have abdicated their responsibility” on impeachment.

On the Democratic side, New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew opposes impeachment and announced plans over the weekend to switch parties. Running as a DCCC-selected moderate in 2018 allowed Van Drew to win flip a Republican district. Voting against impeachment will gain him nothing except a primary challenge he is unlikely to survive. Nor will his change of parties (assuming he joins Republicans) earn him anything more than side-eye from the G.O.P. His staff is already abandoning ship. As Graham reports, Van Drew “endorsed Senator Cory Booker for president, voted with Pelosi on most issues, and has been a Democratic elected official for decades.” Trump’s Republican base will not vote for a warmed-over Democrat.

Graham continues:

The intensity of anti-Trump feeling could remain influential long after the Senate trial ends, because once a voter decides that she not only dislikes the president but feels he ought to be removed from office, it’s tougher to imagine that future events, from a booming economy to a trade deal, will persuade her to change her mind and support him.

This may be why, despite Trump’s repeated insistence that impeachment is good for him, he is not mad, and actually he finds this funny, he is apoplectic about the process. The president has a keen intuitive grasp of politics and understands the challenge facing him. While it may be true, as his campaign says, that impeachment has motivated his base to support him more strongly, it has also motivated his opposition—and that opposition remains significantly larger.

The future of the republic is at stake and Republicans are failing to meet the challenge.

“The party of the rule of law is dead, writes Jonathan Capehart at the New York Times. He cites a recent interview with Democrat Stacey Abrams of Georgia who believes Republicans have nothing left but a thirst for power:

“They had a moment basically between George W. Bush and today to change course, they knew it, they couldn’t do it,” Abrams said, referring to a brief window in 2013, following Barack Obama’s reelection, when senior Republicans recognized that broadening their appeal was a matter of political longevity. “And now they are left with holding on to power through manipulation, theft and immorality, and that immorality is the acceptance of things they know to be wrong.”

If he is not patient zero, Sen. Lindsey Graham is the most visible carrier of the rot. He will do anything, make any obeisance, any debasement of principle, to hold onto his position. “Lindsey Graham has no other definition to his life,” Abrams said.

Slowly, ever slowly, that reality is seeping into the minds of moderates and suburban Republicans — perhaps even red-hats, too — that obsequiousness is not a good look for kings-in-waiting, nor is complicity in putting party over country and monarchy over democracy. Trump and his party have made a sick joke of the founders’ vision. Trump has not unmasked them, he has simply revealed them. How will 2020 voters respond?

Republicans in both houses of Congress and in the several states soon face the infamous Dirty Harry question: Do you feel lucky?

Well, do ya, punks?

It’s Holiday Fundraiser time. If you can help support this old blog, I’d be very grateful.

— digby

Happy Hollandaise!

Marches for impeachment today. Go if you can, it’s important

Marches for impeachment today. Go if you can, it’s important

by digby

Michelle Goldberg makes the case that it’s time to take to the streets. She’s right:

After weeks of contentious, often exasperating hearings, most polls show backing for impeachment holding steady, with more people supporting than opposing it. Support for removing Trump from office is generally higher than was support for removing Richard Nixon in July 1974, the month before he resigned.

True, impeachment is less popular in several important swing states, which is cause for Democratic worry. And there have been a couple of polls which show it underwater with voters at large, including a recent one from Quinnipiac. But as David Graham recently wrote in The Atlantic, one underappreciated aspect of the Trump impeachment is how popular it is given the rarity and severity of the remedy. It’s certainly more popular than Trump himself.

That’s particularly true in some states where Republican senators are up for re-election in 2020. In Maine, where Susan Collins is still reportedly deciding on her political future, an October poll showed support for impeachment at 53 percent. Her own approval rating was 35 percent. The same month, a poll in Colorado, where Cory Gardner is facing a tough re-election battle, found that a plurality of 48 percent favored Trump’s impeachment and removal.

For some reason, though, I rarely hear pundits wagging their fingers at Republicans about the price they’ll pay for clinging to a president who is consistently out of step with mainstream American values. I suspect that’s because the media tends to unconsciously accept Republican ideas about who constitutes an “average American,” so that the majority of Americans who oppose Trump are treated like an elitist fringe.

After Brett Kavanaugh’s agonizing Supreme Court confirmation, Republicans insisted that Democrats would face a reckoning from outraged voters. Anger about Kavanaugh’s treatment may indeed have contributed to Democratic losses in North Dakota and Missouri. All the same, more voters opposed Kavanaugh’s confirmation than supported it, and polling indicated that the hearings motivated Democrats more than Republicans. Women furious at the treatment of Christine Blasey Ford, who upended her life by publicly accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault, helped power the blue wave that won Democrats the House and made impeachment possible.

Ultimately, there’s no way to know how small polling fluctuations on impeachment now will affect an election that’s almost a year away. But Trump’s skill at intimidating the political class into believing that he is anything but historically reviled still matters. It keeps his supporters in line and demoralizes his opponents. That’s why, with an impeachment vote in the House expected on Wednesday, it’s important for anti-Trump America to make itself visible.

For months now, many people, myself included, have looked at mass protest movements around the world and wondered why Americans horrified by the depravity of this administration aren’t taking to the streets. Well, on Tuesday evening, in every part of the country, many will be.

Over 550 protests calling for the impeachment and removal of Trump are planned, sponsored by a coalition of progressive groups including Public Citizen, Indivisible, the Service Employees International Union and the Sierra Club. There will be at least one protest in every state. If you are disgusted by Trump’s behavior, and by the way elected Republicans have built an impenetrable wall of lies to protect him, you should go.

Think back to how bleak it was the day of Trump’s inauguration. Then remember the exhilaration of the day after, as millions of people marched in the largest single day of protest in American history. The Women’s March helped blunt the momentum of Trump’s presidency before it started, sending the message that there would be popular resistance at every step.

High-profile protests have, perhaps naturally, waned as the Trump presidency has dragged on. Ordinary people can’t sustain a sense of emergency month after month, and much of the Resistance has poured itself into organizing around local elections. But in this moment, when the political valence of impeachment is still unclear, and the fight for a thorough, transparent trial in the Senate is just beginning, citizens can make a real difference by gathering en masse and voicing their outrage.

Demonstrations aren’t just about pressuring Republicans, though. Despite cable and social media, local TV news is still many people’s primary news source. Because there are going to be demonstrations everywhere — there are eight planned for Montana alone — local TV will likely cover them. “Right now the message is coming from Washington,” Jonah Minkoff-Zern, an organizer with Public Citizen, told me on Monday. “Tomorrow night, people are going to hear their neighbors’ voices.” If you want those voices to be amplified, you have to show up.

It’s time. 

Here’s where you can go to find a rally. And this won’t be the last one so keep your walking shoes handy …

 It’s Holiday Fundraiser time. If you’re of a mind to put some coin in the kitty you can do so below. Thanks — digby




Happy Hollandaise!

.

Distorted Reporting by tristero

Distorted Reporting

by tristero

I honestly don’t know how the Times lets political reporters get away with this egregiously awful level of distorted reporting. Let me summarize first.

The first four paragraphs of the story describe how Representative Slotkin released a statement supporting Trump’s impeachment and then was “shouted down” by MAGA goons at a town hall meeting. The distinct impression you get is that her decision to impeach was wildly unpopular at the town hall.

It’s not until the second sentence of Paragraph Five that you learn the truth. In fact, Slotkin’s constituents support impeachment, and her. And the distortions don’t end there. Slotkin wasn’t shouted down. In fact, despite the MAGA clown acts, she actually read her statement supporting impeachment.


Don’t take my word for it. Here’s the opening of the story:

 Impeaching President Trump, Representative Elissa Slotkin said, “was pretty much the last thing I wanted to be working on in my first term as a congressperson.” 

Yet there she was at midnight Sunday, holed up in her farmhouse at a desk that had belonged to her grandfather — and, before that, President Woodrow Wilson’s secretary of war — clicking the “send” button on a newspaper op-ed article explaining why, after months of resisting impeachment, she would vote to charge the president with high crimes and misdemeanors. 

The blowback was quick and intense. Dozens of angry Trump supporters bearing “Impeach Slotkin, Keep Trump” signs shouted down Ms. Slotkin, a first-term Democratic congresswoman who represents a Republican-leaning district, at a packed town hall-style meeting on Monday morning in a university ballroom in the city of Rochester. 

“Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Elissa Slotkin has got to go!” they chanted, amid intermittent cries of “One-term congresswoman!” and “C.I.A. Hack!” — a reference to Ms. Slotkin’s past work as a C.I.A. analyst. 

But the voices on the other side, though not nearly as loud, were present in force. Most in the crowd of about 400 people leapt to their feet and applauded when Ms. Slotkin — plowing through her prepared statement as her pleas for civility were ignored — announced her intention to vote “yes” on Wednesday when the House holds historic votes on two articles of impeachment.

Something is seriously wrong at the Times.


It’s Happy Hollandaise time. If you’d care to support this blog for another year, you can do so below. Thanks — digby

.

This gun safety ad is excellent

This gun safety ad is excellent

by digby

I’m not a supporter of Mike Bloomberg the politician for reasons I assume you all can guess. But his gun safety activism is great:

I don’t think he can buy this nomination. This Democratic Party is not in the mood for another rich, white billionaire* president. But his message on this issue is totally correct and I’m happy to see it.

 *Yes I know. Trump is not a real billionaire. He just plays one on TV.




It’s Holiday Fundraiser time. If you’re of a mind to support this old blog, you can do so below. And thanks. I’m very grateful — digby


 Happy Hollandaise everyone!

.

.

Of course we should recognize the Native American genocide

Of course we should recognize the Native American genocide

by digby

“American Progress” by John Gast

I think it would be fine to condemn us for the fact that we were among the last more or less developed countries to end slavery too. Have at it, Erdogon. 

In fact it would be a really good idea to condemn all the genocides by everyone:

Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has threatened to recognise the killing of Native Americans at the hand of European settlers in a tit-for-tat attack on Washington’s decision to rebuke Ankara for the Armenian genocide.

The US Senate voted in favour of recognising the genocide last week, a move initially stalled by Republicans at the urging of Donald Trump – who had been due to meet with the Turkish leader at the time.

However, with the bill now passed, Mr Erdogan has threatened to respond by recognising US killings of Native Americans – saying the deaths of millions of indigenous people at the hands of European settlers should also be viewed as a genocide. 

Speaking on the pro-government A Haber news channel, he said: “We should oppose [the US] by reciprocating such decisions in parliament. And that is what we will do.

“Can we speak about America without mentioning [Native Americans]? It is a shameful moment in US history”

But Turkey denies the killings amounted to genocide, instead marking up the deaths of Armenians and Turks as the consequences of the ongoing war. It claims a lower death toll of hundreds of thousands.

While the ramifications of the US legislation are largely symbolic, its timing and the targeting of a sore spot for the Turkish state have been seen by many as a direct challenge to the Middle Eastern country’s foreign policy.

The bill began its passage through congress in the aftermath of the Ankara’s decision to move troops into Kurdish-held territory in northern Syria, exploiting a power vacuum left by the withdrawal of American forces to attack Kurdish militias who had served as allies to the US.

But Turkey’s leader was not alone in wanting the issue of indigenous Americans addressed – with left-wing Democrat Ilhan Omar refusing to back the bill until the deaths of Native Americans and the transatlantic slave trade were viewed in the same light by congress.

A University College London team estimates that 55 million indigenous people died following the conquest of the Americas that began at the end of the 15th century.

The majority of these deaths are believed to have been caused by disease – with indigenous people unable to build immunities to diseases that had never previously crossed over the Atlantic to the Americas.

War, slavery and displacement also contributed to the decline of indigenous populations.

Yeah, whatever. The fact is that Europeans conquered the Americas and over the course of several centuries managed to nearly wipe out the indigenous populations. It is a fact and there’s no denying it.

Yes, we are in a different world today. But many descendants of those indigenous people are still living in poverty, suffering the consequence of that conquest and the bigotry that accompanied it. The legacy of slavery is still here for all to see. And in some parts of he world similar atrocities are happening happening as we speak.

Erdogan has his own agenda and it doesn’t matter. Let’s call it all out, take responsibility and work to ensure it never happens again. I don’t see the problem.

It’s Holiday Fundraiser time. If you can help support this old blog, I’d be very grateful. — digby

Happy Hollandaise!

.

This was the guy people thought Bill Barr was going to be

This was the guy people thought Bill Barr was going to be

by digby

I’m printing this whole op-ed by Reagan official William Webster as a public service for those who don’t have a NY Times subscription:

The privilege of being the only American in our history to serve as the director of both the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. gives me a unique perspective and a responsibility to speak out about a dire threat to the rule of law in the country I love. Order protects liberty, and liberty protects order. Today, the integrity of the institutions that protect our civil order is, tragically, under assault from too many people whose job it should be to protect them.

The rule of law is the bedrock of American democracy, the principle that protects every American from the abuse of monarchs, despots and tyrants. Every American should demand that our leaders put the rule of law above politics.

I am deeply disturbed by the assertion of President Trump that our “current director” — as he refers to the man he selected for the job of running the F.B.I. — cannot fix what the president calls a broken agency. The 10-year term given to all directors following J. Edgar Hoover’s 48-year tenure was created to provide independence for the director and for the bureau. The president’s thinly veiled suggestion that the director, Christopher Wray, like his banished predecessor, James Comey, could be on the chopping block, disturbs me greatly. The independence of both the F.B.I. and its director is critical and should be fiercely protected by each branch of government.

Over my nine-plus years as F.B.I. director, I reported to four honorable attorneys general. Each clearly understood the importance of the rule of law in our democracy and the critical role the F.B.I. plays in the enforcement of our laws. They fought to protect both, knowing how important it was that our F.B.I. remain independent of political influence of any kind.

As F.B.I. director, I served two presidents, one a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who selected me in part because I was a Republican, and one a Republican, Ronald Reagan, whom I revered. Both of these presidents so respected the bureau’s independence that they went out of their way not to interfere with or sway our activities. I never once felt political pressure.

I know firsthand the professionalism of the men and women of the F.B.I. The aspersions cast upon them by the president and my longtime friend, Attorney General William P. Barr, are troubling in the extreme. Calling F.B.I. professionals “scum,” as the president did, is a slur against people who risk their lives to keep us safe. Mr. Barr’s charges of bias within the F.B.I., made without providing any evidence and in direct dispute of the findings of the nonpartisan inspector general, risk inflicting enduring damage on this critically important institution.

The country can ill afford to have a chief law enforcement officer dispute the Justice Department’s own independent inspector general’s report and claim that an F.B.I. investigation was based on “a completely bogus narrative.” In fact, the report conclusively found that the evidence to initiate the Russia investigation was unassailable. There were more than 100 contacts between members of the Trump campaign and Russian agents during the 2016 campaign, and Russian efforts to undermine our democracy continue to this day. I’m glad the F.B.I. took the threat seriously. It is important, Mr. Wray said last week, that the inspector general found that “the investigation was opened with appropriate predication and authorization.”

As a lawyer and a former federal judge, I made it clear when I headed both the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. that the rule of law would be paramount in all we did. While both agencies are staffed by imperfect human beings, the American people should understand that both agencies are composed of some of the most law-abiding, patriotic and dedicated people I have ever met. While their faces and actions are not seen by most Americans, rest assured that they are serving our country well.

I was never a fan of Webster. He’s a staunch conservative, after all. But he was not a radical, right-wing, fanatic. He’s the guy everyone was hoping Bill Barr would be, and boy were we ever wrong. Indeed, even a radical wingnut Jeff Sessions looks like Dwight Eisenhower by comparison to Barr.

I hoped Barr was an old school straight shooter too. I wrote a few columns about Leon Jaworski, Nixon’s handpicked successor to Archibald Cox after the Saturday Night Massacre. He was a Texas Democrat who’d been a Nuremberg prosecutor but he was Nixon’s guy. He went into the case assuming he would find nothing illegal in his behaviors. But when he heard the tape of Richard Nixon suborning perjury, he changed his mind.

One would have thought the hush money payments alone, much less all the obstruction of justice and bribery would have changed Barr’s as well but he was clearly impressesd by Trump’s audacity and encouraged more. He’s even more dangerous than Trump.

Here is some of my recent stuff on Barr:

Bill Barr’s fascist manifesto: Is this man the real threat to American democracy?
Yes, it’s this bad: Conspiracy-hunter Bill Barr is roaming the globe under Trump’s orders


It’s Holiday Fundraiser time. If you can help support this old blog, I’d be very grateful. — digby

.

They are all Trump now

They are all Trump now



by digby

In the past, despite their differences, our political leaders were in agreement that to at least preserve the ideals behind our democratic system it was important to pay lip service to the spirit of the law. For instance, during the Iraq war, the Bush administration committed war crimes. But officials didn’t come right out and say, “Yes, we torture people. What are you going to do about it?” There were consequences to openly defying the law, which they knew could get quite serious down the road. They understood that to openly endorse war crimes was to let an ugly, dangerous genie out of the bottle. So they claimed it wasn’t actually torture and pretended that they believed torture was wrong, insisting they would never do such a thing.

The old-fashioned trope that describes this is, “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.” It’s certainly not an ideal way for leaders to behave. They should follow the law and the Constitution, and if they don’t they should be held accountable. But declaring war on virtue all together and embracing vice as your organizing principle is what mobsters and tyrants do. That’s what’s happening under President Trump.

During the 2016 campaign, he proudly declared that he meant to torture, kill civilians and “take the spoils” of war if he wanted to. Today, he’s pardoning war criminals and bringing them up on stage at political events. While he does lie profusely and conspires with his henchmen, much of his alleged criminal behavior in the White House has been done right out in the open. He admitted he fired former FBI Director James Comey because Comey was investigating him. He dangled pardons and intimidated witnesses in public statements. Most recently he released a transcript of a phone call in which he tried to coerce a foreign leader to smear his political rival, calling it “perfect.”

Now Republican leaders are following his lead. They don’t bother to pretend that they are following rules anymore, or make arguments based on a common understanding of what the Constitution requires. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has announced he has no plans to even feign seriousness with the Senate impeachment trial of Trump. He has said right out in the open that he planned to follow the president’s lead and do whatever Trump wants him to do.

But it’s Trump’s most ardent sycophant, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is really letting it all hang out:

Graham was in Qatar this past weekend for that nation’s annual international forum, looking for every camera he could find to flagrantly defy the oath he will take before he sits as a juror in the Senate trial. He told CNN, “This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly.” When asked if he thought that was an appropriate thing to say under the circumstances, he replied, “Well, I must think so because I’m doing it. I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here. What I see coming, happening today, is just partisan nonsense.”

That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Graham, of all people, knows this. He is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was a House manager during Bill Clinton’s impeachment. There are dozens of YouTube clips floating around that show Graham arguing for open-minded fairness in that trial. Let’s just say that if Graham’s a hypocrite, which he is, it’s not in service of any virtue. It’s in service to Donald Trump, the Republican Party and himself.

Graham does seem to have a strategy with all this loose talk. The argument between the White House and the senators who want to put this behind them as quickly as possible continues to rage over whether or not to hold a full trial with witnesses called by both sides or a pro forma process that takes the reports offered by the House Judiciary Committee and simply votes up or down on whether to convict. The president signaled on Friday that he was open to either approach but reports keep surfacing that he wants to put on a big show and leading Senate Republicans are having a hard time talking him out of it.

I suspect that Graham and McConnell have cooked up a deal with Trump for the perfunctory proceeding and a quick acquittal, with the promise that they will pursue the Ukraine charges against Joe Biden and the Democratic Party in the Senate after the trial is over. Graham has been promising investigations ever since he took the gavel in January, but hasn’t managed to get any of it done yet.

Trump may hold him to his latest promise. He might agree to a short trial, but he wants his pound of flesh. So does his lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the former hero of 9/11 who is now staring down the barrel of a federal indictment.

Giuliani just returned from Ukraine where he’s been “gathering evidence” on a couple of brand new scandals allegedly involving Adam Schiff, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. He’s been tweeting about some of it and it all sounds absolutely bonkers.

Giuliani has met with the president to tell him all about this stuff and you can be sure that, acquittal or not, Trump will not let it go.

Graham told Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation” on Sunday, “Rudy, if you want to come and tell us what you found, I’ll be glad to talk to you. We can look at what Rudy’s got on Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and anything else you want to look at after impeachment. But if Rudy wants to come to the Judiciary Committee and testify about what he found, he’s welcome to do so.”

After that we’ll have Bill Barr’s extravaganza starring his hand-picked special counsel, John Durham next summer., just in time for the conventions. And who knows what Trump’s foreign friends have on tap?

It’s clear that impeachment is just a bump in the road for Trump and the Republicans. Once it’s over, they plan to continue with the lies and smears and betrayals without even taking a breath. The main lesson they have learned from his leadership is that it’s a waste of time to even pretend to care about the rule of law or the Constitution unless it serve.

Happy Hollandaise!

.

Some of us were predicting Trumpism way back when …

Some of us were predicting Trumpism way back when …

by digby

Yes, It’s that time of year again. I’m back, making my pitch for support to keep this old blog afloat for another year. Thank you to all of you who have supported me in the past and have stepped up already this year. It’s a welcome affirmation and I could not be more grateful.

It’s especially poignant for me this year since I originally started writing online twenty years ago during the Clinton impeachment. I wrote on forums those days. (Blogs were still in the future and are now mostly in the past.) I was sufficiently outraged by what was going on that I found myself writing late into the night, sometimes just to myself, documenting what was going on in our politics.

I could see that we had gone off the rails in some fundamental way and it scared me to death.

It wasn’t that I thought Clinton was all that great, although I had voted for him twice. It was that I could see that the modern conservative movement had finally radicalized the Republican Party to an extent that it was no longer committed to the democratic process. The dubious 2000 election proved that in my mind.

When I started this blog we were still reeling from 9/11 and in the midst of the debate over the Iraq war.  Bush’s approval rating was soaring above 80%. The political argument centered around stopping the war.

But throughout that period, I continued to be concerned about this radicalization of the Republicans and I wrote about it frequently.

I noted that for all their talk of “freedom” they were growing into an authoritarian faction. For instance,

It may be apocryphal, but the bin Laden family’s good friend and everybody’s favorite Leninist right wingnut, Grover Norquist, is reported to have said back in the 1980’s: 

“We must establish a Brezhnev Doctrine for conservative gains. The Brezhnev Doctrine states that once a country becomes communist it can never change. Conservatives must establish their own doctrine and declare their victories permanent…A revolution is not successful unless it succeeds in preserving itself…(W)e want to remove liberal personnel from the political process. Then we want to capture those positions of power and influence for conservatives. Stalin taught the importance of this principle.”

As the Bush years unfolded I wrote about the GOPs strong-arm lobbying scam, the K-Street Project, tracing the roots of the corruption and radicalization over the course of a couple of decades. An excerpt from one piece:

Norquist more than anyone else has ensured through carefully constructed alliances that movement ideologues like himself peppered the Republican power structure to the extent that over time, they have come to define it. This is why people like John Bolton, who has no more business being a diplomat than the Rude Pundit does, have become mainstream Republicans, even though they are clearly radical. He has made sure that Republicans are interdependent on each other through money and influence and that the money and influence flow through him and his allies. 

Norquist is the truest of true believers, but he understands the importance of certain other inducements to keep people in line. Tom DeLay and Norquist created the K Street project and it’s been a rousing success. Abramoff and DeLay were the guys who offered those needed inducements when true belief and solidarity weren’t enough. Delay wielded the hammer and Abramoff (among others) offered the goodies. This is how they hold the GOP majority together. 

I think you can see why I’m bringing this up now. Trumpism did not spring up out of nowhere. Donald Trump is the product of the natural evolution of the conservative movement. This is what I’ve been worried about and fighting against and why I started writing like a maniac all those years ago.

I care about issues, of course. During the Obama years my co-bloggers and I pushed hard for progressive policies and held Democrats to account when we felt they faltered. I spent years trying to get progressives elected — my colleague Tom Sullivan is hard at work doing that every day as we speak.

We do media criticism and talk a lot about the culture war as well. I am deeply concerned about foreign policy and the disintegration of the world order with nothing but chaos to replace it. But fundamentally, this blog’s mission from the beginning has been to document the accelerating descent of the Republican Party into authoritarian, nationalist, kleptocracy.

And so here we are.  Donald Trump’s election represented a deep drop over that cliff, and it was the scariest day of this entire odyssey.

The Democrats are going to vote to impeach Trump this week. And he will be acquitted of the charges by the Republicans. And then comes the election campaign. It literally could not be more consequential. Having engineered the survival of this corrupt criminal in the White House, if Trump is re-elected, there will be no stopping them.

It’s not  really about Trump. It’s about the Republican Party. The rot has been there for a very long time. The smart ones have departed but it’s stunning how many stayed.

I’d like to keep doing this if possible. If you think it’s a valuable contribution to the conversation, I could use your support to keep this thing running for another year. And again, thank you for reading and sticking with me all this time.  It’s not over yet…

Happy Hollandaise!

.