Skip to content

Month: December 2019

We have to keep our eyes on Barr

We have to keep our eyes on Barr

by digby

Judging from the reactions by most of the right wing, this piece by Michael Tomasky from this morning, before the Horowitz report dropped, looks pretty prescient:

Will reality stop the Trumpists? It never has. They’ll turn to three (at least!) tried and true methods of the demagogue.

One: They’ll dump on Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Well-known deep-stater, etc etc. Don’t buy it. Last week, the Center for American Progress put out an eye-opening report about Horowitz. Turns out that during the Obama administration, Horowitz issued two reports on Fast & Furious, the “scandal” that was supposed to lead to Obummer’s impeachment, while during the Trump years Horowitz has not launched a single investigation into any allegations of corruption within the Department of Justice.

More, from the report: “Horowitz’s lack of action in this regard is a significant anomaly among his peers. Public records suggest that he is the only inspector general at a major federal agency who has not investigated at least one potential instance of corruption or abuse of power by a Trump appointee. In fact, even a non-exhaustive review of inspector general reports from across the government quickly demonstrates that the majority of Cabinet-level agencies have launched multiple investigations. While some did not lead to findings of wrongdoing, others prompted the resignations of high-level Trump officials.”

You really have to go out of your way to find no corruption in this administration. But this is what Horowitz has done. If he’s a deep stater, he’s a pretty incompetent one.

Two: They’ll try to characterize the findings as bombshells anyway. I obviously don’t know as I write what the findings will be, but it sounds as if they’re likely to be violations of procedure of the type that probably happen a lot of the time, because we live in an imperfect world where investigations are conducted by imperfect people with imperfect information making the best judgments they can. People can make mistakes and still not be guilty of advancing a conspiracy against the president.

Three: They’ll just lie. They’ll dismiss the report as propaganda and keep on saying the same things they’ve been saying. Trump will certainly do that. And as long as he does it, his apologists will do it too.

So the questions now are what will Bill Barr do about all this, and what will the Democrats do about Barr.

While Horowitz and Durham’s less-than-bombshell reports suggest that there are still limits to how far the Justice Department will go to defend Trump, the more that we hear from the attorney general, the more he sounds like an out-and-out fascist.

There was the Notre Dame speech in October, where he denounced liberalism and secularism and warned that “militant secularists” were out to destroy America’s “moral order” with rhetoric that would have fit right in at Nuremberg.

The report was as Tomasky predicted. There were some low level mistakes and some problems with the FISA warrants for Carter Page which had no effect on the ultimate decision to proceed with the investigation.

Barr publicly disagreed with Horowitz’s findings. He got his henchman Durham to break the rules and come out and say that he too disagrees with the findings, despite the fact that he hasn’t completed his report! thus proving what we all suspected — that he’s in the tank with Barr and Trump. The DOJ is rotting from the inside out.

Trump went with the second choice — he proclaimed total victory making it sound as if the report was a devastating takedown of the Deep State. Of course.

But as Tomasky points out we have a very, very serious problem with Bob Barr.  He is an authoritarian with Fox News brain rot and I honestly think he has the same megalomania as his boss.

.

They keep making the mistake of comparing Trump’s crimes to Clinton

They keep making the mistake of comparing Trump’s crimes to Clinton

by digby

Yeah, no kidding.

 GOP Counsel Castor repeatedly went back to the Clinton impeachment which I think is a very weird thing for them to do. It just reminds everyone that the Republicans once impeached a president over a lie about a consensual (but improper) affair in a civil deposition for a case that was dismissed by the judge. You simply cannot compare that with what Trump has done.

 I guess it doesn’t matter to their cult followers but some of them are watching the hearings unfold on Fox and they are hearing Chris Wallace make this point. Most will just reject Wallace, of course. But there may be a few who start to feel experience some dissonance over this whole thing.

Here’s a little shot of GOP crazy followed by a little cleansing chaser:

x

.

The Inspector General finds that reality still exists

The Inspector General finds that reality still exists 


by digby

Oh no

A long-awaited report by the Justice Department’s inspector general released on Monday sharply criticized the F.B.I.’s handling of a wiretap application used in the early stages of its Russia investigation but exonerated former bureau leaders of President Trump’s accusations that they engaged in a politicized conspiracy to sabotage him. 

Investigators uncovered “no documentary or testimonial evidence” of political bias behind official actions related to the investigation, known as Crossfire Hurricane, said the report, which totaled more than 400 pages. The F.B.I. had sufficient evidence in July 2016 to lawfully open the investigation, and its use of informants to approach campaign aides followed procedures, the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, determined. 

But Mr. Horowitz also uncovered substantial dysfunction, carelessness and serious errors in one part of the sprawling inquiry: the F.B.I.’s applications for court orders approving a wiretap targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser with ties to Russia, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. He found that one low-ranking F.B.I. lawyer altered a related document and referred the lawyer for possible prosecution. 

Given the highly fraught context of investigating someone linked to a presidential campaign, the report said, the Crossfire Hurricane investigators knew their work would be scrutinized — yet they nevertheless “failed to meet the basic obligation to ensure that the Carter Page FISA applications were ‘scrupulously accurate.’”

Actually that’s not a surprise.

Bigger Surprise:

Yeah, I know. That’s not a bigger surprise either, is it?

Barr also says, “It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory.” And he later made a point of saying that he isn’t criticizing “friendly foreign governments” (Australia) after someone probably nudged him to do it. (I don’t know who — it certainly wasn’t Trump.)


And I think we now have a good idea what John Durham is up to as well:

Also not a big surprise. But it’s good to see it confirmed.  I suspect that what we’re going to see from him is a bunch of bullshit from crooked Ukrainians.

.

Update: It looks like there may be a rift between Barr and Christopher Wray developing:

Aaaand, here’s the King of Bizarroworld:

.

What do you do when a political party adopts disinformation and propaganda as a strategy?

What do you do when a political party adopts disinformation and propaganda as a strategy?

 by digby

 

My Salon column this morning:

Monday morning brings us the second round of House Judiciary Committee hearings to determine whether President Donald Trump has committed impeachable acts. Last week’s hearing with constitutional experts laid out the history of the impeachment process and the somewhat ambiguous criteria. Now we will hear “opening arguments” frm three lawyers.

Representing the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee will be Barry Berke, whom you will recognize as the attorney who got former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to admit that he often lies to the media, among other things, in an earlier hearing. You may also remember Daniel Goldman, the former federal prosecutor from the House Intelligence Committee who skillfully questioned various witnesses during the hearings into the Ukraine bribery scandal. And the Republicans have chosen Stephen R. Castor, the longtime House GOP staff investigator and lawyer who led the questioning at the House Intelligence Committee hearings.

Unlike impeachment hearings in the past, President Trump has refused to participate directly, preferring instead to whine and complain that he isn’t being allowed to defend himself. (Which is a bald-faced lie.) Apparently, Trump has now accepted that impeachment is inevitable and is planning to produce his own spectacle in the Senate trial, where it is expected that he will beat the rap. The jury will include 53 Republicans and it would take 67 votes to convict, assuming all are present. It’s possible to imagine up to two or three GOP senators voting to convict, which would certainly be a blow to Trump’s ego. But it’s more likely they’ll all hang together, with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine issuing one of her trademark statements of “concern” or “regret.”

We don’t know exactly what the Democrats’ plan to present as possible articles of impeachment, but Berke’s presence alongside Goldman has led some observers to wonder if they haven’t decided to include the obstruction of justice charges from the second volume of the Mueller report. I am on record being very much in favor of that, since I believe it illustrates the pattern of Trump’s behavior and also the fact that Trump’s obstructive behavior in the Mueller probe was a precursor to what he has done with Ukraine. What binds all that together is the fact that Trump welcomed Russian interference on his behalf before he took office. Then, despite a monumental scandal that has lasted throughout his presidency, he went ahead and did it again, this time deploying his power as president to bribe a foreign country into doing his bidding.

It’s hard to predict how the House Republicans will approach these hearings. The House Intelligence Minority Report and the earlier GOP staff report prepared by Reps. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Michael McCaul, R-Texas — ranking members of the Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees, respectively — have suggested slightly different strategies.

Susan Simpson of Just Security analyzed the staff report and concluded that it made no attempt to construct a coherent statement of facts, nor to offer its own version of events as an alternative to the one set forth in the majority’s report. The point of the minority report is not to offer an explanation of what really happened, but to make what really happened seem unknowable.

That is an interesting approach, isn’t it? But it requires a fair amount of lying anyway, as Simpson’s analysis shows.

It’s more likely that the Republicans will follow the outline of the Intelligence Committee minority report and reprise their performances in the hearings so far. That means they will ignore all the evidence that proves Trump’s guilt and spin a bunch of overlapping or contradictory conspiracy theories instead. As Ryan Broderick of BuzzFeed points out, this strategy seeks to create “not just a counternarrative but a completely separate reality” with which to feed Facebook posts and Fox News clips. Basically the idea is to use the hearings to promote the conspiracy theories for a broader audience and give them the imprimatur of respectability from the hallowed halls of the U.S. Congress.

Quinta Jurecic and Jacob Schulz of the Lawfare blog have written a very interesting and slightly unnerving analysis of how that works. They point out that Democrats on the Intelligence Committee mostly opted not to address all the conspiracy-mongering that occurred during their hearings in their report to the Judiciary Committee, and for good reason. Aside from all the confusion these conspiracies and false narratives create, studies show that even rebutting such theories tends to give them credibility. For instance, Jurecic and Schultz write:

Research suggests that the more a claim is repeated, the more likely people are to believe it, even in the context of a debunking — so stating, “The DNC server is not in Ukraine” could lead readers to have more, rather than fewer, doubts over whether the server actually is in Ukraine, much less whether there is a physical server at all. (This has proven difficult to navigate for media outlets struggling to report on the president’s falsehoods.)

We will know soon enough if House Republicans are planning to take advantage of these phenomena. It would be hugely surprising if they don’t. The big question now is whether or not the Senate will do the same.

Politico reported last week that the White House is plotting impeachment trial strategy with Republican senators. Senators are supposed to serve as jurors so that might seem odd, but since Trump and his House allies are demanding that Senate Republicans allow the president’s lawyers to put Joe Biden on trial, and air their nutjob conspiracy theories on every network, it makes some sense.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he wants to investigate Hunter Biden but told House members last week that he wouldn’t go along with subpoenaing House Intelligence chair Adam Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as Trump has demanded. (But when has Graham ever disappointed Trump?) Supposedly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., are working on rules for the impeachment trial. I wouldn’t bet on the president’s lawyers adhering to them.

Trump is no student of sociology, but he has a very finely honed sense of how to bullshit the public and he’s a natural at disinformation and propaganda. He’s been doing it his whole life. He knows the value in using a Senate trial to push his conspiracy theories into the mainstream and seems to instinctively understand that the more exposure they get, the more “real” they become. All the Democrats can do is try to get the truth out while avoiding giving too much oxygen to the other side’s alternate reality. It won’t be easy.

.

That’s Quite a Feat, NY Times! by tristero

That’s Quite a Feat, NY Times! 

by tristero

Truly incredible.  Dean Baquet, the editor of the NY Times, permitted a front page article on how William Barr loves to take “liberals” and “secularists” to task for corrupting America’s moral values without once mentioning Stormy Daniels (or any other well-documented Trump infidelities).

Bottom line: Anyone who would take a job in the Trump Administration is in no position to lecture me or anyone else about our morals.

Adding: Mr. Barr, a bit of advice: John 8:7

Hot spit take by @BloggersRUs

Hot spit take
by Tom Sullivan

Be advised. Swallow your coffee and put down that cup before reading on. Sen. Lindsey Graham has an announcement to make.

“I’m not going to participate in things I think will destroy the country,” Trump’s manservant said of a prospective impeachment trial for Donald Trump.

Days ago, Trump threatened to have House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “and many more” testify to “reveal, for the first time, how corrupt our system really is.”

Republicans have criticized Schiff, Fox News reports, “for subpoenaing and releasing phone records of calls between the office of former Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and Rudy Giuliani, Giuliani associate Lev Parnass, and journalist John Solomon.”

Responding to Maria Bartiromo, Graham hinted that might mean Democrats could call Nunes to testify in a Senate trial.

“I think it’s dangerous,” Graham said. “Here’s what I would tell Adam Schiff. Do you really want to start calling other members, Republican members of Congress in oversight? Do you want me to call you to the Senate as part of Senate oversight?”

“We’re not going to turn the Senate into a circus,” Graham finished.

Nor turn a Senate trial into a real one by putting Schiff under oath. Not an ice cube’s chance in hell.

Graham then offered the president some advice he won’t take:

“When 51 of us say we’ve heard enough, the trial is going to end,” Graham said. “The president’s going to be acquitted. He may want to call Schiff, he may want to call Hunter Biden, he may want to call Joe Biden. But here’s my advice to the president: If the Senate is ready to vote and ready to acquit you, you should celebrate that. And we can look at this other stuff outside of impeachment. Impeachment is tearing the country apart, I don’t want to give it any more credibility than it deserves.”

Graham really doesn’t understand his master. Swift acquittal is not what Trump wants. He wants to be proved right. He wants to WIN. He wants to inflict pain and suffering on his accusers. To humiliate them. He wants to crush his enemies, to see them driven before him, and to hear the lamentations of their women. Without so much blood, though, because “Oh my God, that’s disgusting.”

In this Martin and Lewis act, Trump is a teetotaling straight man.

You do NOT criticize Dear Leader

You do NOT criticize Dear Leader

by digby

 TPM reports:

On Sunday, the Danish Atlantic Council cancelled its upcoming conference celebrating NATO’s 70th anniversary after the U.S. embassy in Copenhagen barred a critic of President Donald Trump from attending the event.

“After serious consideration, we have decided not to proceed with the Conference,” Dr. Lars Bangert Struwe, the council’s secretary-general, said in a press release. “The progress of the process has become too problematic; and therefore, we cannot participate in the Conference, let alone ask our Speakers to participate.”

Stanley Sloan, a foreign policy expert who has criticized Trump, was slated to give remarks at the conference on December 10. However, the council stated that U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands, a Trump appointee, had “demanded” that Sloan be uninvited.

The embassy’s official Twitter account claimed on Sunday that the embassy “supports freedom of speech,” and said the event cancellation was “unfortunate.”

“Mr. Stanley Sloan’s proposed last-minute inclusion in the program by
@AtlantDK did not follow the same deliberative process of joint decision-making and agreement that we followed when recruiting all other speakers,” the embassy tweeted.

“I’m sorry that you objected to my inclusion in the conference,” Sloan responded. “I am an experienced public diplomacy lecturer who always represents his country well.”

The NATO policy expert, who said he was “stunned” by the decision, has posted his speech online.

The Ambassador seems nice. When she isn’t obsessively retweeting everything FCC Chairman Ajit Pai tweets for some reason, she’s tweeting lovely things like this:

Carla Sands is a wealthy former soap opera actress and chiropractor who gave a lot of money to Trump, whom she clearly sees as an inspiration and mentor.

I don’t know if cancelling a speech by a Trump critic was her idea or if it came from above. I would have to guess the latter since everything she says and does is Trump boilerplate.

This is just a little moment in Trump time. But keep in mind that he only thing that’s holding the rest of the world back from completely rejecting us and everything we stand for is the fact that they think 2016 was a fluke and that we will fix it in 2020. If we don’t, all bets are off.

.

Blue America Contest: Nirvana And Pramila

Blue America Contest: Nirvana And Pramila 

by digby

Goal Thermometer
From Howie Klein:

Our two favorite things about Seattle: grunge rock pioneers Nirvana and congressional progressive champion Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal. So, when former Nirvana manager Danny Goldberg offered Blue America a super-rare 1991 Nevermind Canadian gold record as a way to raise campaign funds for Pramila, we jumped at the chance.

Pramila is probably best known as the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, as the author of the 2019 Medicare-For-All bill and as a relentless advocate for humane immigration policies. She’s been very different than most candidates in that she uses her campaign funds to help elect other progressives in difficult districts.

“I run a year-round organizing team, with campaign manager and organizers on staff, to help push both progressive issues (like Medicare for All) and also to train and keep busy our over 1,000 active volunteers. They get trained and then we put them to work knocking on doors in OTHER important districts and making phone calls for other candidates. Last year, we worked for Kara Eastman, Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams, Katie Porter and many others. And we worked, successfully, to flip the 8th congressional district in Washington state, with my volunteers going into that district and knocking on doors. Overall, we knocked on 35,000 doors and made over 150,000 phone calls on behalf of other candidates. Not to mention, I was the first Member of Congress to support and endorse progressive candidates like Rashida and Ilhan.”

So how do you win the gold record? We’re going to pick one person randomly. Just contribute– any amount– to Pramila Jayapal’s campaign account here between now and Saturday, December at 9pm (PT), December 14. If you’re keen on reading pages and pages of FEC contest rules… here you go. And, if you want the award but find yourself a little short of cash, just send us a postcard– Pramila Contest, Blue America, P.O. Box 27201, Los Angeles, CA 90027– and you’ll have as much a chance to win as anyone else. Not a Nirvana fan? I bet there’s someone on your Christmas gift list who is. So remember… this page— or above at the Nirvana thermometer.

Just to get you in the mood:

And hey, seeing as today is the 39th anniversary of John Lennon’s assassination:

.

Pathetic innumeracy

Pathetic innumeracy

by digby

Trump excitedly retweeted that.  It is, of course, utter bullshit. Even with the country struggling to recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression, Obama’s approval rating was better than Trump’s:

They were cherry picking one poll by the right wing hack outfit Rasmussen which has him at 51% right now which is 10 points higher than most other polls.

As the president’s approval ratings rise against Obama’s, it may be fair to conclude the House Democrat effort to impeach him is based on their fear that none of their candidates will be able to beat him at the ballot box in 2020.

The danger in this pathological lying is that if Trump loses despite all these “polls” showing him winning, the party will claim that the vote was stolen. The disinformation campaign by foreigners and Republicans alike are inexorably leading to to the right being unwilling to accept any election results that  don’t go their way no matter what the real polling showed or the magnitude of the loss.

.

How can Ted Cruz face his children?

How can Ted Cruz face his children?

by digby

This was pretty good:

I expect nothing from Ted Cruz. He is clearly an empty vessel, with a yawning void where his heart and soul should be. There is nothing new there.

What is new is that Chuck Todd was able to best him by forcing him to more or less admit that he’s a sniveling coward for defending the indefensible from the same man who humiliated him repeatedly in the 2016 campaign.

There was a time when Cruz said otherwise, but we now know that he doesn’t really care about his wife or family and he was just pretending in order to win:

 Trump went further, of course:

If you look at the following “report” from 2016 you can see how the press trivialized this stuff. While they were wanking daily about Clinton’s emails, this was how they treated Trump’s character assassination tactics.

Look where we are today.

I carry no brief for Cruz, obviously. But I defy anyone to be able to successfully parry these kinds of attacks when the media treats it all like a big joke. It seems that they are less likely to indulge this nonsense this time but I’m not confident. These “spats” are a sugar rush for the press and I will be surprised if they don’t revert.

By the way, Cruz said this around the time of the convention and at the time I wondered if he saw an opportunity to be the clear alternative to Trump. But like all of them he fell in line almost immediately and has been one of Trump’s most vociferous defenders, contrary to everything he pretended to believe in his entire political career.

 

I’m sure if Trump is defeated he and the others will return to their previous “principles” and try to pretend their servile Trump boot-licking never happened.

I think I fear this most of all because the next guy they put in the White House will not be the ignoramus Trump is — and he will know that you can get away with anything you are bold enough to try. The congress has been revealed as a paper tiger as an institution — it is only as powerful as a Senate super-majority, which almost never happens. The courts have been packed. If you have no shame and are happy to exploit this post-modern, epistemological nihilism, tens of millions of people yelling madly from the sidelines won’t bother you at all.

Don’t think President Tom Cotton won’t take it to the limit.

Update:  By the way, in case you’ve forgotten about the Melania cover-shot brouhaha, there was a fact-check.

The truth is that Melania did a lot of provocative photo-shoots, which is fine in my book. But you can’t blame Trump’s rivals for thinking that might be a deal breaker to the right-wing moral scolds who’ve been dominating politics for a couple of decades.  The Access Hollywood tape flushed that idea once and for all. However, I think we would be mistaken to believe they won’t revert to that as well.

And when we all scream “BUT DONALD TRUMP!!!!” they will laugh in our faces.

.