Skip to content

Month: December 2019

Exercising GOP Superpower

Exercising GOP Superpower

by digby

Total shamelessness.

Then:

Now:

Here’s the whole interview:

 Crooks and Liars begs us not to be rude and remind Graham of his shameless hypocrisy:

Whatever you do, DON’T remind him of it by tweeting that video to him at @LindseyGrahamSC .

DEFINITELY don’t call him at his Washington, DC office at (202) 224-5972 to applaud him for his 1998 plea to his fellow senators to “Please let the facts do the talking.”

I certainly hope you will NOT write to him at his DC office to remind him of his 1998 concern that “people have made up their mind in a political fashion that will hurt this country long term.” Here is the address at which you should NOT write him:

290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

And, for the love of all things holy, PLEASE REFRAIN from clicking this link to send 2019 Lindsey Graham a message about when 1998 Lindsey Graham urged, “Do justice to the case. Don’t decide the case before the case is in.”

Thank you.

Hey, a Republican toady can change his mind, can’t he?

.

Is impeachment good for Trump? Not unless the media helps him.

Is impeachment good for Trump? Not unless the media helps him.

 by digby

 

This piece by Josh Marshall is important to keep in mind as you watch the impeachment of Donald Trump unfold over the next few weeks. He takes on the idea that the impeachment is bound to help Trump, o make no difference, by assuming, correctly I think, that a lot of this is driven by media assumptions that haven’t held up in the past and wont hold up this time either:

Going back to the 1990s, the elite national press, especially in Washington, DC, was highly, highly invested in the idea that a major scandal would and should bring Bill Clinton down. It is also true that a majority of those same people likely voted for Clinton, at least in 1992. It’s complicated. Many books could be written on the increasingly strained, melodramatic and esoteric theories these people peddled trying to reconcile the fact that the public didn’t seem to see the matter in the same way. 

When it comes to the question of impeachment, there was a similar pattern. Public opinion was very, very consistent over the course of 1998. The public did not want Clinton driven from office. The poll data is striking. Support for impeaching Clinton never got as high as 30%. For much of the year it was around 20%. Consistently throughout 1998, an overwhelming majority of the population opposed impeachment. As you can see from this chart, support for impeaching Clinton never got as high (though it got pretty close) as it did to impeaching Bush and Obama. 


Clinton’s spiking popularity was clearly tied to a public rejection of the year long quest to drive him from office. Earlier this month we saw press reports that Clinton’s onetime advisor, the inveterate doofus Mark Penn was advising Trump to pursue the Clinton strategy of focusing on the public business rather than impeachment as a way to drive his popularity in the face of impeachment. Of course, this strategy is completely beyond Trump’s abilities. But even if it were not this strategy only worked if you understand the underlying reality that Clinton was leaning into an overwhelming public rejection of impeachment. 

So after a year in which the public consistently, by a 2 to 1 margin, said they did not want the President impeached or removed from office, Republicans proceeded to impeach the President. It is quite clear that the real lesson here isn’t about impeachment. It is that if you do something that is overwhelmingly unpopular and which the public is closely focused on, you’re probably going to face some public backlash. Obvious…

He points out that despite the fact that the polls all pointed to Republicans losing seats, the press was shocked, as were the Republicans.  They had believed their own hype, always a mistake.

The national elite media’s relationship with Bill Clinton was a weird and highly distorting mirror. It had a profound effect at the time and continues to do so. Republicans faced a backlash because impeachment was completely uncalled for and a grossly irresponsible decision. That is of course my subjective judgment. But it is certainly mirrored by public polling data which shows very clearly that it was always an overwhelmingly unpopular decision. Ignore the public will on the big issue of the day and you’re likely to trigger a backlash. That’s obvious. Everyone knows that. 

Today support for impeachment is dramatically higher. Most polls show it has a very small plurality support. Some polls have shown support for it just over 50%. Clearly the public is highly and intensely divided. But there is no reason to believe the reaction will be anything like it was in 1998/99 for the very simple reason that the public’s take on it is radically different and support is dramatically higher. This is truly obvious.

I would just add that the press and the political establishment’s relationship with Clinton was highly influenced by the ascendant right wing media apparatus’s working of the refs. This was the media’s first test against the Gingrich right’s new nihilistic win-by-any-means-necessary ethos and they failed badly. In those days the public, however, wasn’t as highly polarized, largely because while the process had already begun with the civil rights movement and the backlash against the cultural changes of the 60s, the right wing media hadn’t fully established itself as a world unto its own and the country hadn’t bifurcated completely as a result of the election of the first black president.

The media did not cope well and, while they are doing better today, they are still not up to the task. As journalist Jonathan Allen confessed back in 2015, that dynamic was still at work 20 years later and it contributed greatly to the election of Donald Trump.

They remain a problem today. This talk of “partisan brawling” is trivializing what’s happening which is the first step. Here is a case in point:

Once acquitted, if we see a spate of “Teflon Don” analysis, it will be even worse. The truth of this matter isn’t that Trump is teflon, it’s that every Republican official is an accomplice in his crimes and a destroyer of democracy as we’ve known it. If the press fails to be honest about that, he will have a much easier time of it in 2020 than he deserves if only because it could dampen voter enthusiasm.

.

Bill Barr, fanatic from way back

Bill Barr, fanatic from way back

by digby

 

William Saletan on Barr:

In December 2018, President Donald Trump nominated William Barr to be his attorney general. Trump wanted Barr to bury the Russia investigation, and in April, Barr did just that. Brushing aside the evidence compiled by special counsel Robert Mueller, Barr decreed that Trump wouldn’t be prosecuted. Now Barr is trying to erase the truth from public memory. He’s claiming that the investigation found no evidence against Trump.

When Barr scrapped Mueller’s findings, he asserted that Mueller never pressed for an interview with Trump, that Trump fully cooperated with the investigation, that Trump never tried to fire Mueller, and that Trump’s cover-up attempts were directed only at the press. Barr also claimed that Trump “did nothing wrong,” that the investigation found “no evidence” against Trump, and that suspicions of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign were “without a basis.” Every one of these claims was demonstrably false. Barr even defended Trump’s attacks on the investigators. He said that if he were in Trump’s shoes, “I’d be comfortable saying it was a witch hunt.”

At first, Barr seemed to be an ordinary liar. But in recent months, he has displayed a fanatical streak that suggests he might sincerely believe his fictions. “People are saying that it’s President Trump that’s shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that,” Barr opined in May. The true threat, he argued, came from Americans “resisting a democratically elected president.” In October, Barr accused “so-called progressives” of a “campaign to destroy the traditional moral order.” Last month, he denounced these same “so-called progressives,” along with a “hyper-partisan media,” for waging “a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of ‘Resistance’ against this Administration.”
Barr called the investigation “completely baseless” and claimed that there “never has been any evidence of collusion.”

This week, Barr pounced on a Justice Department report about the Russia investigation. The report, issued on Monday by the department’s inspector general, faulted the FBI’s surveillance of a marginal Trump adviser, Carter Page, but found no “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions” of investigators. A normal attorney general would have welcomed this vindication of his department. But Barr works for Trump, not for law enforcement. Instead of embracing the report, he’s disparaging it, smearing the FBI, and pretending that Trump has been exonerated.

On Tuesday, at a forum hosted by the Wall Street Journal, Barr called the Russia investigation “a travesty.” He asserted that “from day one,” it produced “nothing that substantiated any kind of collusion” between Russia and the Trump campaign. In an interview with NBC News, Barr called the investigation “completely baseless” and claimed that there “never has been any evidence of collusion.”

Barr dismissed the FBI’s portion of the inquiry, which lasted a year. “From the very first day of this investigation, which was July 31, 2016, all the way to its end in September 2017, there was not one incriminatory bit of evidence to come in. It was all exculpatory,” he told NBC. He also dismissed Mueller’s portion of the inquiry, which ran from May 2017 to April 2019, as well as media reports of secret dealings between Russia and the Trump campaign. “Our nation was turned on its head for three years, I think, based on a completely bogus narrative that was largely fanned and hyped by an irresponsible press,” said Barr. He protested that “the entire case collapsed” in January 2017 but that Trump’s persecutors “kept on investigating the president.”

This account bears no resemblance to reality. The FBI had lots of evidence. The investigation began with a forensic analysis that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee in early 2016. A Trump adviser privately alluded to a Russian offer to help Trump by releasing dirt on Hillary Clinton. On July 27, Trump openly declared, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” In August, another Trump adviser predicted trouble ahead for Clinton’s campaign chairman, and WikiLeaks soon released the chairman’s hacked emails. The investigation would later confirm a two-way channel between WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign.

In November and December, Russian officials conferred secretly with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Trump’s incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn. When the FBI asked Flynn about these talks, he lied. In February, Trump asked then-FBI Director James Comey to drop the bureau’s investigation of Flynn. In May, Trump fired Comey, shared highly sensitive intelligence with Russian officials in a private meeting, and told them that by getting rid of Comey, he had eased pressure on the U.S.-Russia relationship.

Two episodes show clear collaboration between Trump and Russia. First, in July 2017, the New York Times published emails proving that Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met with Russians during the campaign to hear an explicit offer of “information that would incriminate Hillary” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The proposal was abandoned only because the Russians couldn’t explain how their information would nail Clinton. Trump later ordered a cover-up of the offer and, when it became public, tried to shut down the Russia investigation.

Second, Mueller’s investigators found that in July 2016, “within approximately five hours” of Trump’s televised request to find Clinton’s emails, hackers working for Russian intelligence “targeted for the first time Clinton’s personal office” and a slew of email addresses connected to her campaign. Trump asked, and Russia answered.

Barr’s propaganda is completely false. Mueller, the FBI, and the press found considerable evidence that Trump and his campaign sought to collaborate with Russia to win the election. They also found that Trump obstructed the investigation. The only reason Trump remains unindicted is that Barr declared the evidence insufficient. Now Barr is saying the evidence never existed. If he’s not delusional, he’s a liar.

We should have known that by his performance in the past:

Can’t be proven
Gene Lyons
ONJuly 14, 2016

Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear, specifically to September 1992, when Attorney General William Barr, top-ranking FBI officials and — believe it or not — a Treasury Department functionary who actually sold “Presidential Bitch” T-shirts with Hillary Clinton’s likeness from her government office, pressured the U.S. attorney in Little Rock to open an investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Whitewater investment.

The Arkansas prosecutor was Charles “Chuck” Banks, a Republican appointed by President Reagan, and recently nominated to a federal judgeship by President George H.W. Bush. It was definitely in Banks’ interest to see Bush re-elected.

The problem was that Banks knew all about Madison Guaranty S&L and its screwball proprietor Jim McDougal. His office had unsuccessfully prosecuted the Clintons’ Whitewater partner for bank fraud. He knew perfectly well that McDougal had deceived them about their investment, just as he’d fooled everybody in a frantic fiscal juggling act trying to save his doomed thrift.

The “Presidential Bitch” woman’s analysis showed a shaky grasp of banking law and obvious bias — listing virtually every prominent Democrat in Arkansas as a suspect. So when FBI headquarters in Washington ordered its Little Rock office to proceed on L. Jean Lewis’ criminal referral, Banks decided he had to act. He wrote a stinging letter to superiors in the Department of Justice, refusing to be party to a trumped-up probe clearly intended to affect the presidential election. “Even media questions about such an investigation … he wrote, “all too often publicly purport to ‘legitimize what can’t be proven.’ “
Keep that phrase in mind.

That was the end of the Bush administration’s attempt to win the 1992 election with a fake scandal. Also the end of Chuck Banks’ political career…

Barr saw a kindred spirit in Trump when he saw that he is a thuggish strongman wannabe. He knew that he was a man who understood the ends justify the means.

.

What a picture is worth by @BloggersRUs

What a picture is worth
by Tom Sullivan

It’s been a hell of a week and it’s not quite over.

The House Judiciary Committee on Friday passed two articles of impeachment against Donald J. Trump, acting president of the United States. The full House of Representatives votes on them next week.

Time magazine named Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, 16, its Person of the Year for 2019. Trump mocked the teen the next morning and the Trump War Room Twitter account photoshopped Trump’s head onto her body in a flaccid attempt to distract from the president’s legal/political problems.

But a tweet that popped up this morning helped reset my perspective on where we go from here.

Sir David Attenborough spoke in July to British MPs about the impacts of climate change. The tweet contained a clip from the hour-long meeting. Attenborough calls out leaders in the U.S. and other countries for ignoring climate issues that young people see very clearly will affect their futures:

Nobody thought that human beings could change the climate. I mean, we now know we are and what is worse, of course, is that we are changing the climate in a way that is irreversible. If the world climate change goes on as it is, we are going to be facing huge problems with immigration. Large parts of Africa will become even inhabitable than they are now.

We cannot be radical enough in dealing with these issues at the moment.

I have no idea what the future holds. I see no future in being pessimistic because that leads you to say, ‘Then, to hell with it. Why should I care?’ And I believe that way disaster lies. So, I feel an obligation. The only way you can get up in the morning is to believe that, actually, we can do something about it.

At the top is the latest version of a chart I’ve been playing with since last fall. It maps state population against voter registration and 2018 turnout BY AGE. We’ve been using it for voter registration show-and-tell. The beauty is, if you show, you don’t have to tell.

The NC-9 do-over election held on September 10 meant the state never posted the certified statewide file of who voted in the 2018 mid-terms. I’m still trying to get that uncertified file. What’s at the top is only the early voting. I expect the full results will simply make the voter turnout curve about 80 percent taller.

Several things are evident. Older people vote more. That’s not news. Peak registration is about age 56. Peak turnout is around age 66. People over 45 outvote younger voters by nearly 3 to 1. (Final numbers will likely increase that spread.) But population-wise, voters over 45 only outnumber younger voters by 11 percent.

Younger voters have the power in numbers to change the course of politics in this country. In terms of climate change, they have the power to change this country’s course on that, too. If they exercise the power they already have.

The problem with reporting on numbers, whether it be cancer risk or voter turnout, is the propensity in the press to compare this thing to that one or this election to the one before in terms of percentage change. In 2018, voting by citizens ages 18-29 jumped “16 percentage points since 2014,” the Washington Post reported. Breathtaking! But 16 percentage points above what? Voters 45-59 and 60+ voted at 60 and 66 percent respectively. The 18 to 29s turned out at 36 percent, and the 30-44s at 49 percent.

The point is not to berate the young for under-participation. It is to, graphically, point out why things that should change don’t. The numbers are there. The power is there. The urgency, too. Us oldsters are tilting the country towards white nationalism and screwing up the planet and their futures because we are the voices to whom politicians listen. We vote. Stop us before we outvote you again.

Friday Night Soother

Friday Night Soother


by digby

Baby elephants!

Over the years, orphaned elephants and rhinos hand reared through our Orphans’ Project and living back in the wild have gone on to have their own wild born young, showing the difference rescuing just one orphan can have for the whole species.

To date, we know of 34 wild born elephant calves because their mothers, orphans living back in the wild, have chosen to share their new bundles of joy with us by returning to our Reintegration Units sometime after the birth. However, we are certain there are many more wild born babies, fathered by male orphans living back in the wild who have mated with female wild elephants. There is also a wild born rhino calf, in the shape of Sultan, a black rhino born into the Nairobi National Park rhino population. All are protected by our Anti-Poaching and Aerial Surveillance Projects, carried out in partnership with the KWS and funded by our global supporters.
A sampling:

Born to ex-orphan Wendi, this little girl was named Wiva after the weaver birds, who were busy building their nests in the acacia trees at the Ithumba Reintegration Unit on the very same day of Wiva’s birth. Wendi was so trusting of her former Keepers, allowing Head Keeper Benjamin to meet Wiva when she was just days old.

Wema is Wendi’s second wild-born calf, born during the rainy season in Tsavo East National Park. A little girl, she has a protective older sister in the shape of Wiva, Wendi’s first calf who was born in 2015, with whom she is pictured here.

Sultan is the first calf of wild living black rhino Solio, who was raised at our Nursery after being orphaned as an infant in 2010. Sultan was first sighted by the KWS Rhino Monitoring team on 5th September 2019, at just three days old, in Nairobi National Park and mum has been keeping him close ever since.

Mwitu is the first wild-born calf of Mweya, born in the height of the dry season. We first met Mwitu on 15th November, when Mweya and Edie – with her new calf Eco – travelled back to our Voi Reintegration Unit after the rains to share their new babies with their human family and the dependent Voi orphan herd. This photo is of Mwitu and Eco on morning of 18th November 2019.

There are many more examples of wonderful elephants and rhinos at the link. Pour yourself a cocktail, click over and enjoy some pictures, stories and videos of these beautiful creatures. Your blood pressure will go down immediately. If you’re like me, you need that tonight.

 

.

How the right uses the joy of hate to stop action on climate change @spockosbrain

How the right uses the joy of hate to stop action on climate change

by Spocko

For decades powerful forces have willfully exploited people’s misunderstanding of science and their feelings of being belittled by others.

The right wing media radio and TV hosts tap into listeners’ feeling of inadequacy and turns that into a weapon to use to attack scientists, liberals and anyone who represents them.

“Those smarty pants liberals think they are smarter than you! They aren’t! They aren’t perfect! Look at how they were wrong in the past about the climate! Why listen to them now?”

Greta represents all the people who laughed at them. She is also young and female.

“How dare a 16-year-old girl tell you what to do? Who does she think she is?”

Encouraging people to be aggrieved is a powerful part of right wing media appeal. Digby, Atrios and Sam Seder have pointed this out for years. They also push the underlying theme that liberal elites have been laughing at conservative listeners. Now that they are in power it’s time to rub that laughter into their smug liberal faces.

People ask me. “Why do people deny human caused climate change?”  One answer I give is obvious.

  • Their job/income depends on disputing the science.

Some ask, “Why do people argue about the science that shows climate change?”  One answer is that it is a way to slow down change from the status quo.

  • If everyone listened to scientists and acted right now millions will have to change their lives and disrupt the status quo. They think it’s too much too fast. 

If they respond, “I get those reasons, but what’s behind the vicious attacks on Greta?” I have a different kind of answer. It makes them happy.

  • They enjoy sticking it to people who made them feel “less than” in the past. Greta represents all the people who ever made them feel wrong, stupid, weak and inadequate.

My Vulcan side thinks evidence and illustrations of  rising sea levels should convince people. But my human side reminds me that emotions drive most human actions and behaviors. If I want to get humans to act on my facts I must also find a way to get their emotional support for them.

The people who want to block action on climate change will cast doubt on the facts but also use strong human emotions to attack the people telling those facts.

It’s not about the science, it’s about the people 

When I was a little Vulcan I was thrilled by the idea of going into space. I have always been amazed at what you could learn with science and what technology could do. (Today’s example, NASA finds ‘water ice’ just below the surface of Mars.

As I got older I figured out I didn’t have the aptitude and brains for pure science nor the mechanical ability for technology. Instead I ended up helping those who did do this work explain it to others.

One of the things I learned is that not everyone responds the same to being unable to grasp science. Especially if they felt belittled when talking with scientists and technologists about their work.

And belittling happens. I’ve worked with very smart men in science and technology who were condescending to everyone they didn’t think were as smart as they were. I showed them what their condescension looks like and how it can come back to hurt them. When they saw the problem they  worked to fix it. But not everyone cares about how they come across to others. “It’s not my problem they don’t understand!”

The people who want to deny climate change have found the right buttons to push for different groups of people.  For one group they say, “Ignore the science to keep your jobs.”

To another group they say, “Argue about the science because it’ll slow change.”

For yet another group they say, “Attack this person who represents everyone who made you feel stupid, weak and inadequate in the past. Have fun with it!”  These people love to attend Trump’s Nuremberg hoedowns.

It doesn’t matter if in the future cities will be underwater because they didn’t act. They can have fun attacking Greta RIGHT NOW.  

Sticking it to the scientists and liberals who made them feel “less than” in the past is a great feeling.  When a powerful group leader attacks Greta too that gives them great joy.  (Read about Identity Fusion here)

People on the left also understand the joy that comes from mocking our enemies. A world of memes shows what fun that can be. However, there is a difference.  In most cases we can point to the significant crimes and morally repugnant acts our targets have committed that justify our mocking attacks on them.

Giving a face to an issue to create an enemy is an old strategy. Chanting hate slogans and directing people’s insecurities toward a person or group strengthens their hate.
But hate isn’t the only binding emotion. Watch crowds chanting “Lock her up!” They look happy, even joyful.  The right is using the joy of the hate to create solidarity for their beliefs and stop action on climate change.

We need to understand how and why individuals act the way they do if we want to change their behavior or stop it. I believe we will eventually get people to understand and change their behavior.

As Craig Mazin, the writer for the Chernobyl mini-series said, “People can get away with a lie for a very long time, but the truth just doesn’t care.” The people denying that humans are causing climate change can’t keep the truth at bay forever.

Greta is pushing the truth in their faces. That makes me happy. Joyful even.

.

Trump promoting his personal appearances like a Kardashian

Trump promoting his personal appearances like a Kardashian

by digby

He never leaves a penny on the sidewalk:

Trump has long been criticized for potentially profiting from events and guests at his chain of resorts and hotels. Earlier this year, the president was forced to reverse course after he originally decided to host 2020’s G7 economic summit at his Trump National Doral Miami luxury resort. Both Republicans and Democrats had said the idea of hosting world leaders at his business property was inappropriate.

Now, ethics experts say that Trump’s latest promotion of the Mar-a-Lago resort is just the latest example of his mixing business with his White House duties.

“He’s no longer pretending that he’s not using the presidency to advertise his businesses,” Jordan Libowitz told Newsweek. Libowitz is the communications director at the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit government ethics and accountability watchdog.

“We’ve had decades of presidents who separated themselves from their assets in order to show the American people that they could not be bought, that they wouldn’t have any potential economic loyalties that would make them think of themselves in front of the American people. But we now have a president who literally is using his official statements to advertise his business,” Libowitz added.

People pay a couple hundred thousand a pop for membership and the ability to hob nob with the president. The money goes directly into Trump’s pocket.

In other words, he’s directly charging money for access. He’s advertising it on his twitter feed from the White House.

 And we are supposed to believe he’s a global anti-corruption crusader? You’ve got to be kidding.

 Here’s Jamie Raskin sharply making that point in the impeachment hearing yesterday:

 

Update —


Fergawdsakes:

For the past 20 months, President Trump has received free personal legal services from one of America’s highest-paid lawyers, who has traveled around the country and across the ocean to defend him in the special counsel’s inquiry and press Ukraine to investigate a political rival and unfounded conspiracy theories.

The lawyer, of course, is Rudolph W. Giuliani, but Mr. Trump did not mention Mr. Giuliani or his unpaid labor on the annual financial disclosure he filed in May, which requires that the value and source of gifts — including free legal work — be publicly listed.

That requirement is cut and dried, said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. She cited guidance from the Office of Government Ethics, issued in November 2017, that states federal officials must disclose “gifts of legal defenses — in kind or by payment of the fees.”

“The purpose is to ensure the public has an opportunity to see whether there is any kind of corrupting influence,” said Ms. Clark, who has written on ethics issues involving government employees in need of lawyers.

During the presidency of Bill Clinton, for example, congressional Republicans and others suggested that some donors to Mr. Clinton’s legal defense funds were currying favor. The names of the donors and the amounts of their gifts were disclosed.

For his paying clients, Mr. Giuliani has been able to provide access to senior officials across the Trump administration.

Elizabeth Horton, a spokeswoman for the Office of Government Ethics, said she could not discuss whether Mr. Giuliani’s pro bono services should have been included in Mr. Trump’s financial disclosure. But in the past, when the agency has received complaints suggesting that information is missing, it has typically followed up with the office where the person works — in this case, the White House.

Scott F. Gast, the top White House ethics lawyer, did not respond to requests to discuss the matter; neither did Mr. Giuliani and his lawyer. Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary, also declined to comment.

Sure free legal work from a man getting money from clients all over the world who have business with the US Government and the president’s personal business, which he has not divested.

The anti-corruption crusader president.

These two pieces say it all about what we are going through

These two pieces say it all about what we are going through

by digby

The Republicans have no ideology. We know that now. They serve the rich and white people, by any means necessary. Period.

This from Marcy Wheeler perfectly illustrates that fact:

The House Judiciary Committee just voted to send two articles of impeachment against Donald Trump to the full House.

The entire vote took just minutes. But it said so much about the state of America today.

It will forever be portrayed as a party line vote, with 23 Democrats in favor, and 17 Republicans against. But it was also a tribute to the degree to which polarization in America today pivots on issues of diversity.

The Democrats who voted in favor included 11 women, and 13 Latinx and people of color (Ted Lieu missed the vote recovering from a heart procedure). Three (plus Lieu) are immigrants. One is gay. These Democrats voted to uphold the Constitution a bunch of white men, several of them owners of African-American slaves, wrote hundreds of years ago.

The Republicans who voted against were all white. Just two were women. These Republicans voted to permit a racist white male President to cheat to get reelected in violation of the rule of law.

This is about a clash between the rising America and the past. And it’s unclear who will win this battle for America. But the stakes are clear.

It is entirely likely that we will end up with two white, male septuagenarians running against each other for president in the general election next year.

I don’t know what to say about that. I’ll vote for the one who runs against Trump and his cult, of course, whether it’s Biden, Bernie or Bloomberg.  I’m not an idiot.

Watching TV News today has been painful. Maybe I’m just tired but after that marathon of GOP mendacity yesterday, all the talk of “partisan bickering” and barely repressed admiration for Trump just spitting in everyone’s faces and doing what he wants has me feeling down. He wins even when he loses.

 This from Michelle Goldberg in the NYT speaks for me today:

The despair felt by climate scientists and environmentalists watching helplessly as something precious and irreplaceable is destroyed is sometimes described as “climate grief.” Those who pay close attention to the ecological calamity that civilization is inflicting upon itself frequently describe feelings of rage, anxiety and bottomless loss, all of which are amplified by the right’s willful denial. The young activist Greta Thunberg, Time Magazine’s 2019 Person of the Year, has described falling into a deep depression after grasping the ramifications of climate change and the utter refusal of people in power to rise to the occasion: “If burning fossil fuels was so bad that it threatened our very existence, how could we just continue like before?”

Lately, I think I’m experiencing democracy grief. For anyone who was, like me, born after the civil rights movement finally made democracy in America real, liberal democracy has always been part of the climate, as easy to take for granted as clean air or the changing of the seasons. When I contemplate the sort of illiberal oligarchy that would await my children should Donald Trump win another term, the scale of the loss feels so vast that I can barely process it.

After Trump’s election, a number of historians and political scientists rushed out with books explaining, as one title put it, “How Democracies Die.” In the years since, it’s breathtaking how much is dead already. Though the president will almost certainly be impeached for extorting Ukraine to aid his re-election, he is equally certain to be acquitted in the Senate, a tacit confirmation that he is, indeed, above the law. His attorney general is a shameless partisan enforcer. Professional civil servants are purged, replaced by apparatchiks. The courts are filling up with young, hard-right ideologues. One recently confirmed judge, 40-year-old Steven Menashi, has written approvingly of ethnonationalism.

In “How Democracies Die,” Professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt of Harvard describe how, in failing democracies, “the referees of the democratic game were brought over to the government’s side, providing the incumbent with both a shield against constitutional challenges and a powerful — and ‘legal’ — weapon with which to assault its opponents.” This is happening before our eyes.

The entire Trump presidency has been marked, for many of us who are part of the plurality that despises it, by anxiety and anger. But lately I’ve noticed, and not just in myself, a demoralizing degree of fear, even depression. You can see it online, in the self-protective cynicism of liberals announcing on Twitter that Trump is going to win re-election. In The Washington Post, Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and a Never Trump conservative, described his spiritual struggle against feelings of political desperation: “Sustaining this type of distressed uncertainty for long periods, I can attest, is like putting arsenic in your saltshaker.”

I reached out to a number of therapists, who said they’re seeing this politically induced misery in their patients. Three years ago, said Karen Starr, a psychologist who practices in Manhattan and on Long Island, some of her patients were “in a state of alarm,” but that’s changed into “more of a chronic feeling that’s bordering on despair.” Among those most affected, she said, are the Holocaust survivors she sees. “It’s about this general feeling that the institutions that we rely on to protect us from a dangerous individual might fail,” she said.

Kimberly Grocher, a psychotherapist who works in both New York and South Florida, and whose clients are primarily women of color, told me that during her sessions, the political situation “is always in the room. It’s always in the room.” Trump, she said, has made bigotry more open and acceptable, something her patients feel in their daily lives. “When you’re dealing with people of color’s mental health, systemic racism is a big part of that,” she said.

In April 2017, I traveled to suburban Atlanta to cover the special election in the Sixth Congressional District. Meeting women there who had been shocked by Trump’s election into ceaseless political action made me optimistic for the first time that year. These women were ultimately the reason that the district, once represented by Newt Gingrich, is now held by a Democrat, Lucy McBath. Recently, I got back in touch with a woman I’d met there, an army veteran and mother of three named Katie Landsman. She was in a dark place.

“It’s like watching someone you love die of a wasting disease,” she said, speaking of our country. “Each day, you still have that little hope no matter what happens, you’re always going to have that little hope that everything’s going to turn out O.K., but every day it seems like we get hit by something else.” Some mornings, she said, it’s hard to get out of bed. “It doesn’t feel like depression,” she said. “It really does feel more like grief.”

Obviously, this is hardly the first time that America has failed to live up to its ideals. But the ideals themselves used to be a nearly universal lodestar. The civil rights movement, and freedom movements that came after it, succeeded because the country could be shamed by the distance between its democratic promises and its reality. That is no longer true.

Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans are often incredulous seeing the party of Ronald Reagan allied with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, but the truth is, there’s no reason they should be in conflict. The enmity between America and Russia was ideological. First it was liberal democracy versus communism. Then it was liberal democracy versus authoritarian kleptocracy.

But Trump’s political movement is pro-authoritarian and pro-oligarch. It has no interest in preserving pluralism, free and fair elections or any version of the rule of law that applies to the powerful as well as the powerless. It’s contemptuous of the notion of America as a lofty idea rather than a blood-and-soil nation. Russia, which has long wanted to prove that liberal democracy is a hypocritical sham, is the natural friend of the Trumpist Republican Party, just as it’s an ally and benefactor of the far right Rassemblement National in France and the Lega Nord in Italy.

The nemeses of the Trumpist movement are liberals — in both the classical and American sense of the world — not America’s traditional geopolitical foes. This is something new in our lifetime. Despite right-wing persecution fantasies about Obama, we’ve never before had a president that treats half the country like enemies, subjecting it to an unending barrage of dehumanization and hostile propaganda. Opponents in a liberal political system share at least some overlapping language. They have some shared values to orient debates. With those things gone, words lose their meaning and political exchange becomes impossible and irrelevant.

Thus we have a total breakdown in epistemological solidarity. In the impeachment committee hearings, Republicans insist with a straight face that Trump was deeply concerned about corruption in Ukraine. Republican Senators like Ted Cruz of Texas, who is smart enough to know better, repeat Russian propaganda accusing Ukraine of interfering in the 2016 election. The Department of Justice’s Inspector General report refutes years of Republican deep state conspiracy theories about an F.B.I. plot to subvert Trump’s campaign, and it makes no difference whatsoever to the promoters of those theories, who pronounce themselves totally vindicated.

To those who recognize the Trump administration’s official lies as such, the scale of dishonesty can be destabilizing. It’s a psychic tax on the population, who must parse an avalanche of untruths to understand current events. “What’s going on in the government is so extreme, that people who have no history of overwhelming psychological trauma still feel crazed by this,” said Stephanie Engel, a psychiatrist in Cambridge, Mass., who said Trump comes up “very frequently” in her sessions.

Like several therapists I spoke to, Engel said she’s had to rethink how she practices, because she has no clinical distance from the things that are terrifying her patients. “If we continue to present a facade — that we know how to manage this ourselves, and we’re not worried about our grandchildren, or we’re not worried about how we’re going to live our lives if he wins the next election — we’re not doing our patients a service,” she said.

This kind of political suffering is uncomfortable to write about, because liberal misery is the raison d’être of the MAGA movement. When Trumpists mock their enemies for being “triggered,” it’s just a quasi-adult version of the playground bully’s jeer: “What are you going to do, cry?” Anyone who has ever been bullied knows how important it is, at that moment, to choke back tears. In truth there are few bigger snowflakes than the stars of MAGA world; The Trumpist pundit Dan Bongino is currently suing the Daily Beast for $15 million, saying it inflicted “emotional distress and trauma, insult, anguish,” for writing that NRATV, the National Rifle Association’s now defunct online media arm, had “dropped” him when the show he hosted ended. Still, a movement fueled by sadism will delight in admissions that it has caused pain.

But despair is worth discussing, because it’s something that organizers and Democratic candidates should be addressing head on. Left to fester, it can lead to apathy and withdrawal. Channeled properly, it can fuel an uprising. I was relieved to hear that despite her sometimes overwhelming sense of civic sadness, Landsman’s activism hasn’t let up. She’s been spending a bit less than 20 hours a week on political organizing, and expects to go back to 40 or more after the holidays. “The only other option is to quit, and accept it, and I’m not ready to go there yet,” she said. Democracy grief isn’t like regular grief. Acceptance isn’t how you move on from it. Acceptance is itself a kind of death.

Yesterday, I wrote on twitter than I had that November 8, 2016 feeling. There’s something so dispiriting about what happened in the UK and the president and the Republicans just defying reality in this impeachment process.

On the other hand, there is 2018 to show that it is not preordained that Trump will prevail.

We just have to win in big enough numbers that they can’t steal it.

.

Trump is going ahead and doing it again. As he’s being impeached.

Trump is going ahead and doing it again. As he’s being impeached. 

 by digby

It’s hard to believe he’d do this, but there is no stopping him:

President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani visited the White House on Friday morning, as the House Judiciary Committee advanced two articles of impeachment against his client.

Giuliani reportedly intends to brief Trump on the results of his trip to Ukraine last week, where he met with Ukrainians hawking various forms of dirt on Democratic politicians.


It is that same effort to induce Ukraine to manufacture opposition research which led to Trump’s impeachment, an irony that appears lost on the former New York City mayor.

Giuliani has said that Trump asked him to brief Attorney General Bill Barr, as well as Republican senators on what he learned while studying corruption abroad last week.

Here’s what it’s about:

Rudy Giuliani has yet another new anti-Joe Biden theory ready to go, conjured up during his trip to Hungary and Ukraine last week.

The latest Rudy eruption makes the fantastical and unsubstantiated allegation that the U.S. embassy in Kyiv, under the tenure of former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and under the direction of Vice President Joe Biden, diverted a whopping $5.3 billion in American aid that was intended for the embattled former Soviet republic.

It gets better though. Soros is involved. Of course.

Biden and Yovanovitch, as Rudy’s theory goes, moved the funds to the embassy’s “favored” non-governmental organizations which, you may not be surprised to learn, allegedly have ties to the billionaire philanthropist and bogeyman of the right.

This latest confabulation from Rudy is similar but distinct from his other new conspiracy theory, ostensibly related to the investment firm Franklin Templeton, that he and his pro-Trump allies in the right-wing media are pushing.

Giuliani has promoted elements of the newest theory on his Twitter account.

The Ukrainians pushing it have featured in One America News’ “documentary,” which is comprised of interviews with an array of dubious former Ukrainian officials conducted last week in Budapest and Kyiv.

Andriy Derkach, a Ukrainian MP and graduate of the Felix Dzerzhinsky Higher School of the KGB who reportedly wrote his PhD thesis on the “organization and conduct of meetings with secret agents,” said last week that he outlined the allegations for Giuliani during a meeting in Kyiv.

Derkach also released three letters to Senate Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), and Office of Management and Budget head Mick Mulvaney in which he detailed the allegations and asks for joint investigations into the matter.

Derkach, in his letters, alludes to the creation of a joint investigative commission on the matter between the U.S. and Ukraine, called “The Friends of Ukraine STOP Corruption.”

He accuses “representatives of grant-eaters also known as ‘Children of Soros’” of stymying the investigation.

But a detailed look at the allegations set forth in the theory suggest that even on its own terms, the narrative doesn’t add up.

The theory relies on a December 2017 audit of $5.3 billion in foreign aid flows published by Ukraine’s accounting chamber, a state-run audit agency.

But right off the bat, Giuliani and those feeding him the allegations get basic facts wrong. They claim that $5.3 billion in U.S. aid was diverted; the report states that the $5.3 billion came from several foreign backers of Ukraine’s, while the U.S. only contributed $1.44 billion.

Beyond that, the audit states that the majority of the aid went towards security and safety measures for Ukraine’s network of nuclear power plants, and not non-governmental organizations. Instead, the report states, around 5.5 percent of the total aid went to “governance and civil society” organizations.

Giuliani himself connected the issue to President Obama, suggesting that he had neglected his constitutional duties somehow while Trump picked up the non-existent baton in the bid to pressure Ukraine.

Giuliani embarked on this latest dirt-digging effort in Ukraine after the impeachment inquiry got underway in September.

The impeachment inquiry seeks to remove his client, Donald Trump, from office, and was sparked by Giuliani’s earlier efforts to dig up dirt on the President’s behalf in Ukraine. The President’s personal lawyer traveled to Kyiv twice in 2017, and met with Ukrainian officials at his New York City office in January 2019.

Giuliani has publicly narrated his efforts to squeeze Ukraine into providing dirt that would discredit the prosecution of Paul Manafort and cast a cloud on the candidacy of Joe Biden.

But as time and the impeachment inquiry have worn on, the former New York City mayor’s star has fallen somewhat. His trip to Ukraine last week was reportedly arranged by Andrii Telizhenko, a 29-year old who worked at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington for six months in 2016.

Neither U.S. officials stationed in Kyiv nor members of Volodymyr Zelensky’s government met with Giuliani while he was there, a contrast to his trips in 2017 where he was welcomed by U.S. and Ukrainian government officials.

I don’t know how far he’s going to get with this. If Trump pushes this publicly, you  would think the Republicans would feel compelled to not only convict Trump and remove him from office, but have him hospitalized.

This is lunacy and if it makes you feel crazy too, I’m pretty sure that’s part of the plan.

Update —

Oh look:

.

Shamelessness is their superpower

Shamelessness is their superpower

by digby

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Thursday that there was “no chance” that President Donald Trump would be removed from office in any impeachment trial and that it “wouldn’t surprise” him if some Democrats split from their party and voted in the president’s favor. 

“The case is so darn weak coming from the House,” McConnell said in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News Thursday night, as the House Judiciary Committee continued to debate articles of impeachment. “We know how it’s going to end. There’s no chance the president’s going to be removed from office.”

He doesn’t even try to hide it. They don’t offer even a pretense of caring about the rules or the laws.

By the way, here is the oath Mitch McConnell will be taking before the trial:

‘‘I solemnly swear … that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’

He will apparently have his fingers crossed when he says it.

This piece at Lawfare on the Senate procedures for impeachment is worth looking at.  Reporting from various sources this morning says that the president is still demanding a full show trial with calls for Hunter and Joe Biden to testify. Maybe even Rudy. He wants them to present the fraudulent Ukraine conspiracy as his defense. There are people pushing back but who knows? He is the Dear Leader.

McConnell is reportedly one of them, as is Lindsey Graham. I get the feeling that they are promising to do a full fledged inquisition once the impeachment trial is over to entice him into agreeing to a quick and dirty acquittal without calling any witnesses.  Whether McConnell can persuade him that that is his best bet for re-election remains unknown.

McConnell’s narrow majority is in peril in the next election so everything he does is designed to prevent that loss. If any of his people defect, they will almost certainly get a Trumpist primary challenger. If they don’t the Democrats will hang their vote around their necks and set it afire.

The Senate will acquit the criminal. They are made men in the criminal organization known as the Republican Party. But whether a few go the other way, giving the Democrats a majority for conviction is another story.  And yes, for all we know, there could be some defections from the Democrats. There almost always are., unfortunately.

.