Skip to content

Month: December 2019

Bred for Circuses by @batocchio9

Bred for Circuses
by batocchio

Conservatives and Republicans can win few arguments honestly on the merits; most of their policies are awful for the vast majority of Americans and benefit only a select few, typically the rich and powerful. Conservative positions tend to be unpopular, too. Rather than change their policies, conservatives choose to lie constantly and shamelessly, and to stoke the worst impulses of their base. Key to these dynamics is ignoring matters of truth and fact, as well as any serious discussion of greater principles about how our country should work. Instead, they try to reduce everything to my team against your team, us against them. The Republican Party is aided in this by a large block of rabid, authoritarian conservatives and a propaganda network eager to feed the faithful the latest two minutes hate, 24/7. Outsized media personas play a critical role in this strategy. (“Conservative” and “Republican” are pretty interchangeable in this post, but for more on that, see the first link above.)

Conservatives and Republicans are also aided, however, by shallow political coverage by mainstream media outlets that far too often withhold essential context from their audiences by refusing to fact check or call out lies, by pretending policy doesn’t matter, by pretending both major American political parties are basically the same and both sides are equally to blame for our political problems, and that any deeper look is pointless and/or partisan. Shallow coverage is cheaper to produce and avoids offending some viewers (while aggravating others), and is also seen as neutral and savvy by some reporters. Unfortunately, it’s lousy for informing citizens and thus bad for democracy. Propaganda typically demonizes the perceived opposition unfairly, whereas shallow political coverage is loath to call out even clear wrongdoing or hypocrisy by one party. Thus both lying and gutlessness reduce the national political discourse to superficial, bad sports coverage of two competing political teams and to treating important matters as mere entertainment, a sitcom, a circus.

We’ve seen all these dynamics play out in the impeachment hearings on Donald Trump, related press conferences and media coverage of all of it. During the impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives, several observers noted that Republicans seemed less interested in making coherent arguments or convincing the general populace of their cause than creating video clips for Fox News to run for the conservative base. After the hearings moved from the intelligence committee chaired by Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) to the judiciary committee, Republicans pulled the stunt of putting Schiff on a milk carton poster, saying he was missing because he rejected their call to appear as a witness. (Republicans also asked to call the anonymous whistleblower yet again.) Schiff rejected the request, instead pointing to the intelligence committee’s 300-page report and the evidence it covered, and added:

There is nothing to testify about. I think if the President or his allies in the Senate persist it means they are not serious about what they are doing. What would I offer in terms of testimony, that I heard Dr. [Fiona] Hill in open hearing say such and such? That is not pertinent. The only reason for them to go through with this is to mollify the President and that is not a good reason to try to call a member of Congress as a witness.

Trump has repeatedly, angrily expressed a desire to prosecute Schiff for paraphrasing him, but has run into the small problems that that’s not illegal and Trump is not a dictator. Judiciary chair Jerold Nadler (D-NY) unsurprisingly sided with Schiff about testifying, and in his letter to Republicans, Nadler cited the “independent evidence” for the conclusions of the report and issues initially raised by the whistleblower. Nadler also reiterated for the umpteenth time concerns about witness intimidation and threats of retaliation by Trump and other conservatives against the whistleblower. As for the report itself, Professor Heather Cox Richardson, who’s delivered excellent analysis on the impeachment hearings and related stories, offered up a nice summary on 12/3/19:

The big news today was that the House Intelligence Committee released its report on its investigation into the Ukraine scandal that is at the heart of the impeachment case against Trump. Although the report was long, it had two very clear points: the facts against Trump prove that he solicited a bribe—wording designed to show that the scandal meets the Constitution’s threshold for impeachment—and that Trump obstructed justice in his attempts to stonewall Congress and intimidate witnesses. Obstruction of justice is a crime; it is what took Nixon down in 1974.

The report lays out that the Ukraine scandal is at heart an attempt to rig the 2020 election and destroy our democracy with the help of a foreign country. It points out that this is a pattern for Trump, who benefited from Russian aid in 2016 and who has openly called for help from China as well as Ukraine before the upcoming election. The report notes that Trump’s call with Zelensky took place the day after Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified in public, apparently convincing Trump he was no longer in danger of being nabbed for working with Russia in 2016, and was willing to try a similar scheme again.

The report also notes that the Founders worried about precisely this behavior, and that if it is not checked, democracy is over. The House Intelligence Committee report is a remarkably clear, concise, and powerful document.

For their part, the White House ignored all the facts and relied instead on disinformation. . . .

These are grave matters, but Republicans do not want to discuss the facts and principles driving all serious discussions of impeachment. Likewise, Republicans showed little interest that intelligence committee ranking member Devin Nunes (R-CA), who led the Trump defense in the first set of impeachment hearings, allegedly was part of the Ukraine scandal himself to some degree. As of late November, Republicans had offered at least 22 excuses for Trump (or by another count, 64), many of them contradictory. This blunderbuss technique is a reliable sign of bullshitting and bad faith. Similarly, the Republicans’ competing impeachment report “is a series of red herrings.” (As of this writing, the House has impeached Trump, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has vowed to coordinate with the White House during any trial in the Senate, further suggestion that the fix is in and the Republican-majority Senate will not convict Trump, regardless of the merits of the charges.) Meanwhile, Trump’s unhinged letter to Nancy Pelosi frames the entire impeachment process as driven by a personal vendetta against Trump, not the serious matter of upholding core principles of the U.S. Constitution that it is. Trump’s conceit is that Schiff, Pelosi, and every single person who’s said something critical of him, given factual evidence harmful to him or moved to curtail his power simply dislikes him personally versus, say, being motivated to uphold the rule of law and think of the good of the country and other higher principles. Trump and the Republicans cannot win an honest, substantive discussion. So they need to reduce everything to: Their guy doesn’t like our guy. Just because he’s our guy. Fight for our guy. Fight for the team. Attack the enemy.

These dynamics are not remotely new, even if they’ve become more prevalent not just in politician’s arguments but in the political coverage itself. Back in 2006, linguist Geoffrey Nunberg discussed the theatricality of political commentary, even comparing the choice of political talk show figures to sitcom casting. This was back when Ann Coulter was arguably at the nadir of her awfulness, selling shock value and viciousness, and getting plenty of coverage from mainstream media outlets in addition to her usual support from Fox News and other conservative entities. What Nunberg describes as political “smut” overlaps with behavior we might now call trolling, and Coulter was one of the most successful practitioners at the time:

Take Ann Coulter’s recent description of the 9/11 widows as self-obsessed witches who were enjoying their husbands’ deaths. As calumnies go, it doesn’t have a patch on the things people were saying in the 1864 election, when the Democrats called Lincoln a leering buffoon, and Horace Greeley accused the Democrats of stealing the votes of dead Union soldiers. But it’s only in the current age that remarks like those could turn someone into a media celebrity who’s invited to appear on Jay Leno and the Today Show to repeat her choicest remarks for the delectation or outrage of their viewers.

Coulter’s celebrity is a good measure of what has become of political discussion. You’d scarcely describe her as a political thinker, no more than you’d describe Simon Cowell as an critic of the arts. But like Cowell, she has an unerring gift for media theatrics. It isn’t just her penchant for making snarky or outrageous remarks. Plenty of people do that without being invited onto the Today Show, and in fact Coulter doesn’t get a lot of national attention for her run-of-the-mill ruminations about giving rat poison to Justice Stevens or fragging John Murtha. But the remark about the 9/11 widows was irresistible for its brazen and gratuitous tastelessness and the obvious pleasure Coulter took in consternation she created.

Is Coulter is sincere about the things she says? That’s a silly question, like asking whether schoolchildren are sincere in the taunts they throw at each other across the school yard. But that doesn’t make her a satirist, as her defenders like to claim — usually with the implication that her literal-minded liberal critics don’t get the joke.

Satire depicts things as grotesque in order to make them seem ridiculous — what Stephen Colbert does in his Bill O’Reilly persona or Christopher Buckley does with the pointed caricatures of Thank You For Smoking. But Coulter isn’t actually sending anybody up — not herself, certainly, and not the targets of her remarks. Her fans may enjoy hearing her talk about poisoning Justice Stevens or say that it’s a pity Timothy McVeigh didn’t park his truck next to the New York Times building. But that’s not because the remarks make either Stevens or New York Times seem particularly ridiculous. It’s because Coulter seems to be able to get away with unbridled aggression by presenting it as mere mischief, leaving her critics looking prim and humorless. (“Perhaps her book should have been called ‘Heartless,'” said Hillary Clinton after Coulter’s remarks about the widows, inviting the response, “Oh lighten up, girl.”)

That rhetorical maneuver doesn’t really have a name, but it’s a close relative of what we think of as smut. In the strict sense, of course, smut is the leering innuendo that veils sexual aggression. But in a broader sense, smut can be any kind of malice that pretends to be mere naughtiness. It might be a leering vulgarity, a racial epithet, or simply a venomous insult — what makes it smut is that it’s tricked out as humor, so that if anyone claims to be offended you can answer indignantly, “Can’t you take a joke?”

In that broad sense, smut can sometimes be innocuous fun. It’s a staple of sitcoms, in what you could think of as a Wooo! moment. That’s the moment when a character who’s comically malicious or catty (think Betty White, Rhea Perlman, Joseph Marcell) makes a remark that’s just offensive or risqué enough to brush the limits of taste, and the studio audience reacts by saying “Woooo!!”

The political talk shows traffic in these moments, too — not surprising, considering how much those shows owe to the classic sitcom. When you think of the most successful practitioners of the genre, whether Coulter, O’Reilly, or James Carville, there isn’t a one of them who couldn’t be the model for a recurring character on Cheers or Drew Carey — the waspish virago, the bombastic blowhard, the sly yokel.

And as on the sitcoms, the drama of the political talk show is character-driven rather than plot-driven. Watching O’Reilly or Hannity and Colmes, you can’t help recalling the bickering on All in the Family, where politics was always just a pretext for the clash of personalities. It doesn’t matter whether the ostensible issue is the massacre at Haditha or an increase in wild bachelorette parties; it’s going to be reduced to grist for the eternal squabble between liberals and conservatives — not as adherents of opposing political philosophies, but more as distinctive political genders. (“Who are these parents who allow their kids to sleep with Michael Jackson?,” Alan Colmes asked a couple of years back, and Sean Hannity answered, “Liberals.”)

Coulter and Trump share a great deal in terms of a bullying style, but also in their knack for nabbing mainstream coverage and validation, in large part by crafting a character to sell, a media persona. (Coulter thankfully gets less attention these days. Incidentally, Coulter has criticized Trump for not building a border wall and not being harsh enough on immigration, but says she will vote for him anyway. My most in-depth post on Coulter is this one, although some links are broken.) Coulter, like many conservative political commentators, has always been light on substance or outright rejects it. Instead, the key selling point for such figures has always been viciousness and ‘owning the libs,’ to the delight of their audience. Coulter is now a less popular conservative belligerent than, say, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Mark Levin, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Tomi Lahren and perennial ragemonger Rush Limbaugh (among others), but currently, they’re all eclipsed by the biggest conservative troll of them all, Donald Trump.

As we’ve covered before, Trump’s main selling point to the conservative base is spite; he promises to hurt the people they fear and dislike. He’s a bigot, and racism and bigotry form a key part of his appeal to his fans. The recording of him bragging about sexual assault did not sink his presidential campaign and at least 25 women have accused him of sexual misconduct. Trump constantly lies; as of October 2019, he’d told at least 13,435 false or misleading claims over 993 days. In 2016 shortly after being elected, Trump paid $25 million to settle fraud cases against Trump University, a business that one of its own employees described as “a fraudulent scheme.” Trump also recently paid a $2 million settlement for using charity funds supposedly going to military veterans for personal use instead, including buying a portrait of himself. (Grifting runs in the family; son Eric Trump’s charity misused funds meant to go to St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, which predominantly serves kids with cancer.) Imagine the conservative outrage if Barack Obama or really any Democrat had done a fraction of this, yet most of them give Trump a pass.

Trump’s image as a successful businessman is an utter fiction constructed by Trump himself, aided by his late father and by fawning media coverage. He’s not a business genius, or even a competent businessman – he just plays one on TV. As The New York Times reported in 2016:

[Trump’s] casino companies made four trips to bankruptcy court, each time persuading bondholders to accept less money rather than be wiped out. But the companies repeatedly added more expensive debt and returned to the court for protection from lenders. . . .

All the while, Mr. Trump received copious amounts for himself, with the help of a compliant board. In one instance, The Times found, Mr. Trump pulled more than $1 million from his failing public company, describing the transaction in securities filings in ways that may have been illegal, according to legal experts.

In 2018, The New York Times further reported that rather than being largely a self-made man, Trump inherited at least $413 million from his father, and his entire family has enriched itself with possibly illegal schemes. In 2019, the Times reported that Trump lost over a billion dollars over a decade, losing more money than any other individual in the United States in that time period while simultaneously selling himself as a great dealmaker. Trump’s retorts to these reports were unconvincing; as The New Yorker‘s John Cassidy put it, Trump stands revealed as the biggest loser. Trump’s dealings with Deutsche Bank further undermine any claims of actual business acumen versus his ability to scam lenders. Trump may not actually be a billionaire and almost certainly has less money than he pretends, but nonetheless, he’d have more money if he had simply invested in the stock market than attempted all his deals. (As people have joked, Trump has lost money selling booze, steaks and gambling to Americans. Who does that?)

Conservatives sure love their macho daddy figures, from those fake cowboys, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, to that fake, successful businessman, Donald Trump. The book The Art of the Deal played a critical role in selling the myth of Trump, but its deeply regretful ghostwriter Tony Schwartz has explained how he made Trump appear far more thoughtful, competent and ethical than he actually is. The Art of the Deal in turn helped Trump get an even larger vehicle for mythmaking, the NBC TV show, The Apprentice. As The New Yorker article “How Mark Burnett Resurrected Donald Trump As an Icon of American Success” explains:

“The Apprentice” portrayed Trump not as a skeezy hustler who huddles with local mobsters but as a plutocrat with impeccable business instincts and unparalleled wealth—a titan who always seemed to be climbing out of helicopters or into limousines. “Most of us knew he was a fake,” [producer Jonathon] Braun told me. “He had just gone through I don’t know how many bankruptcies. But we made him out to be the most important person in the world. It was like making the court jester the king.” Bill Pruitt, another producer, recalled, “We walked through the offices and saw chipped furniture. We saw a crumbling empire at every turn. Our job was to make it seem otherwise.”

(For more on the mythic Trump created on The Apprentice, see The New Yorker again, The New York Times, Fortune and People‘s piece on Fisher Stevens’ documentary on Trump, The Confidence Man.)

Donald Trump is probably one of the worst businessmen in human history and also possibly the most successful con man. His image as a great businessman and dealmaker is a complete fraud. About the only authentic things about him are his vanity, bigotry, greed, proud ignorance and spite. Yet the conservative base loves him and congressional Republicans loyally defend him despite any misgivings.

Mainstream media outlets have often struggled to cover Trump, as well as conservative and Republican perfidy in general. In contrast to some of the excellent investigative journalism mentioned above, daily news coverage of political clashes often descends to a “he said, she said” level. For example, Dan Froomkin’s piece criticizing a New York Times article on impeachment is aptly titled, “In the war on truth, the press can’t be an innocent bystander.” Fact-checking and calling out liars is essential, but often doesn’t occur. Likewise, as we’ve mentioned before, “coverage on the 2016 presidential race almost entirely ignored policy issues and focused on shallow issues with false balance.” Such coverage decisions help candidates with bad positions, slim policy portfolios or a habit of lying. False equivalencies and “both siderism” also remain persistent scourges to good journalism, but rather than delve into that here, I’ll once again link past posts by digby, driftglass, alicublog, Balloon Juice, LGM and my own archives.

Consider entertainment programming – and news sold as entertainment – and the picture grows even worse. NBC created The Apprentice and played a central role in creating the myth of Trump that enabled him not only to run for president but win. NBC also let Trump host Saturday Night Live even after cutting ties with him over bigoted comments. And NBC and other mainstream outlets have long validated Trump and earlier toxic figures such as Ann Coulter. Trump received more than $5.9 billion of free media coverage during the election, over twice the amount received by Hillary Clinton. In 2016, then-CBS chairman Les Moonves made some infamous remarks about the “circus”:

Donald Trump’s candidacy might not be making America great, CBS Chairman Les Moonves said Monday, but it’s great for his company.

“It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS,” Moonves said at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in San Francisco, according to The Hollywood Reporter — perfectly distilling what media critics have long suspected was motivating the round-the-clock coverage of Trump’s presidential bid.

“Most of the ads are not about issues. They’re sort of like the debates,” Moonves said, noting, “[t]here’s a lot of money in the marketplace.”

The 2016 campaign is a “circus,” he remarked, but “Donald’s place in this election is a good thing.”

Moonves’ later claim that he was joking was unconvincing. Trump was a horrible candidate who frequently behaved vilely, but he was a showman, so CBS, NBC, and other outlets gave Trump tons of coverage, some negative, but not really that critical, and certainly not substantive, given their scant discussion of policy. They rejected sound editorial judgment and shamefully if predictably chose short-term profits over a sense of civic duty to meaningfully inform their audiences, especially because they thought Clinton would win and their behavior could not affect the election. But it most certainly did.

Worse than the mainstream outlets, though, are propaganda outlets, most notably Fox News. Fox News has always scored poorly in terms of factual accuracy, but it’s moved beyond being a conservative news outlet to being outright propaganda, comfortable to flat-out lie. The same is true of Republicans in government, and the two work closely together. See, for example, Jane Mayer in The New Yorker on “The Making of the Fox News White House” and Greg Sargent in The Washington Post on how “McConnell’s awful Hannity interview shows power of Fox News’s disinformation.” In a similar vein, The Post reported, “A Justice Department inspector general’s report examining the FBI investigation of President Trump’s 2016 campaign rebutted conservatives’ accusations that top FBI officials were driven by political bias to illegally spy on Trump advisers but also found broad and “serious performance failures” requiring major changes.” Attorney General William Barr, a Republican party loyalist, has undercut his own department and directly contradicted key findings of the report, as covered in Sargent’s piece, “William Barr’s deceptions are more dangerous than you think” and Wonkette’s “Just When You Thought You Couldn’t Respect Bill Barr Any Less.” Wired covered Barr and much more in “Fox News Is Now a Threat to National Security.” Digby’s commented on similar dynamics in “The Nonsense Ecosystem” (adopting a phrase from Daniel Dale) and many other posts. Fox News and the entire right-wing media ecosystem pose a serious and growing problem to democracy. As several people have noted, if Nixon had had Fox News, he might not have been impeached.

Authoritarian conservatism plays a pivotal role in making the propaganda work; Fox News and similar outlets cater to an audience eager to hate their scapegoats du jour. In 2016, then-candidate Trump bragged that “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” He considered it praise for his supporters’ loyalty; it was instead an accurate and chilling description of unquestioning obedience and authoritarianism (and Trump’s megalomania). One of Trump’s lawyers has actually argued in court that as president, Trump could indeed shoot someone in 5th Avenue and get away with it (shades of Bush lawyer John Yoo). The transcript of Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Zelensky is damning, especially with the added context that has been provided by later reporting and the impeachment hearings. Yet Trump and his allies have shouted to “READ THE TRANSCRIPT!” as if it exonerates him. Trump even held a rally where supporters were wearing t-shirts (presumably distributed by Trump’s team) saying “READ THE TRANSCRIPT!” Naturally, as The Daily Show discovered in a great segment covering a later rally, most Trump supporters have not read the transcript and were not familiar with the key takeaways, even though some said – without irony or self-awareness – that reading the transcript, not being a sheep and being an independent thinker were all important. They simply believe what they’re told, and do so gladly it’s from the right authority figures, whether that’s Trump himself, Fox News talking heads or other conservative figures. It’s completely Orwellian; they will eagerly believe that black is white and insist that their chosen political team is always in the right. (Who are you going to believe, Trump and Fox News or your lying eyes?)

Trump was clearly unfit for office before the election and has provided overwhelming evidence of his unfitness since. The misdeeds for which he’s being impeached may not even be the worst things he’s done (and who knows what else will come out), but they’re certainly sufficient grounds for removing him from office. The conservative base, Republican voters and congressional Republicans simply do not care. Nearly 90% of self-described Republicans voted for Trump in 2016, and assuming he’s still in office by the time of the 2020 election, similar percentages will likely vote for him again, despite any disapproval they express. As of this writing, Trump has been impeached but the articles of impeachment have not be sent to the Senate. The Democratic presidential candidate for 2020 has not been chosen and the presidential election has not occurred. Despite some uncertainties about the year(s) ahead, we can make some reasonable predictions, among them that conservatives and Republicans will not behave honorably and it would be folly to expect otherwise.

Conservatives tend to be bullies with power and whiners without it. They’ve constructed alternative realities with alternative facts, where they can believe what they want and feel simultaneously persecuted (and thus righteously aggrieved) and superior. Some religious conservatives (ostensibly Christian) will even cite ancient Roman persecution of Christians, that they were thrown to lions in the arena. There’s some truth but mostly myth to that tale, but regardless, some religious conservatives will apocalyptically invoke the image as a future reality should “socialism” take hold (via a Bernie Sanders presidency, for instance). The truth is that conservatives thrill for combat with their chosen foes, and that they’d just choose new scapegoats if they ever succeeded in eliminating the old ones. They don’t believe in treating others as they would like be treated, and certainly don’t believe in turning the other cheek. They are pro-spectacle, anti-substance, pro-circus; authoritarian conservatives are particularly bred for circuses. They don’t truly object to the idea of throwing people to the lions; they just want the power to choose the victims.

It’s Holiday Fundraising time. If you’re of a mind to support the kind of independent media we provide here, informed by nearly two decades of daily observation and analysis, you can do so at the links below or at the address on the column on the left.

Again, thank you so much for reading and supporting my work all these years. It means the world to me. — d

Happy Hollandaise everyone!

Trump knows if you’ve been bad or good…

Trump knows if you’ve been bad or good…

Trump held a little rally for the Turning Point kids on Saturday. He lied a lot. And he behaved like the crude brute he is. They loved it, of course.

But he did have kind words for one Democrat and one Green Party leader:

“They knew a few days into the Russian witch hunt that it was nothing,” Trump said at a Turning Point USA conference in Florida Saturday. “It didn’t exist. Did you the see the other day? Crooked Hillary came out, she said that Jill Stein from the Green Party, she said Jill Stein was a Russian agent. Now, I don’t know Jill Stein, I’m sure she’s a fine woman. But I know she’s not a Russian agent.” 

“Then she said Tulsi Gabbard is a weapon of Russia. And they lost all credibility because you know that Tulsi Gabbard — and I give her respect. She didn’t vote the other day. I give her a lot of respect, because she knew it was wrong. But I don’t know, but I know one thing. She is not an agent of Russia,” he continued.

He seems extremely confident about who is and isn’t a “Russian agent.”  How odd.

I’m sure he doesn’t know anything about that, actually. What he does know is they are both helpful to him politically which is all that matters. And frankly, if they were Russian agents he’d be fine with that too.  Again, as long as they are helpful to him personally.

But I have to admit that Trump talking about anyone losing credibility always gives me a chuckle.

It’s Holiday Fundraising time. If you’re of a mind to support the kind of independent media we provide here, informed by nearly two decades of daily observation and analysis, you can do so at the links below or at the address on the column on the left.


Again, thank you so much for reading and supporting my work all these years. It means the world to me. — d

Happy Hollandaise everyone!

Pushing for witnesses is the right thing to do

Pushing for witnesses is the right thing to do

 



I think a lot of us wondered why the Democrats want to call Trump political appointee Michael Duffy for the Senate trial. Here it is:

Schumer went on to tweet, “if there is nothing wrong with withholding the aid, why didn’t Michael Duffey want anyone to know about what he was doing? If the call was so perfect, why is the email so “sensitive” that it should be kept hush-hush? What are they afraid of?”

Mark Sumner at Daily Kos nicely summarized what we learned from these heavily redacted emails:

One of the first emails shows Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey following up on an article published by The Washington Examiner. Duffey makes it clear that he is following up on the article at the direct order of Trump. ..

Though Republicans during the hearing trotted out multiple reasons for the hold, the emails show that those excuses were all fabricated after the fact. Right up until the day Trump finally released the hold.

OMB director and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney earlier admitted that there had been some internal concern about the legality of Trump’s actions. But he dismissed those concerns as “one of those things that … makes it look a lot worse than it really is.”

Mulvaney’s ongoing confessions are the reason for him to be called to testify as well. (He’s rumored to be on his way out of the White House right after the trial because Trump is unhappy with him. I doubt he has the guts to defy Trump however. None of them do.)

The problem with all of this, of course, is that Republicans believe that criminal and impeachable behavior is just fine as long as their President is doing it. Honestly, I think if Trump was shown on video telling Vladimir Putin that he was happy he was able to deliver the goods to Russia pursuant to their agreement, they would still defend it.

Oh wait:

Still, these witnesses could be pivotal in public opinion and would put some of these swing state Senators in a very bad position. The Democrats are right to push this.

Happy Hollandaise! It’s Holiday Fundraiser time. if you’re of a mind to put a little something in the Christmas stocking to keep this thing going for another year, I’d be very grateful:

Shamelessness is their superpower and Trump just saw he could do it better.

Shamelessness is their superpower

 

One of the big issues I’ve been covering on this blog lo these many years is what I used to say was the fact that the Republicans had “retired the concept of hypocrisy.”  Trump did not invent this.

For instance, here’s a little something I wrote here a while back:

Friday, October 31, 2008


Got Hypocrisy?

by digby

I often say that Republicans have retired the concept of hypocrisy and people titter politely, but I suspect they think it’s a sort of glib slogan and not a serious observation. But I mean it literally.

Recently Michelle Malkin went ballistic over Joe the plumber’s privacy being invaded. And many people pointed out that she was hardly the best messenger for such a complaint considering her own notorious history of stalking low income families to prove they weren’t actually in need of government subsidized health care when they had the nerve to speak out politically.

One would have thought that would be enough for her to slither off in an embarrassed funk and let someone else carry the hypocritical wingnut banner on personal privacy, but it apparently spurred her on to write a big op-ed in the mainstream media instead.

[W]hen freelance members of the Obama Goon Squad take it upon themselves to do opposition research on The One’s citizen critics and rummage through government databases, where are all the privocrats? And how safe will your state tax and IRS records be if Dear Leader is elected?Welcome to Obama’s America.

Now, as it happens, I think that public employees searching through Joe the plumber’s governmental records is absolutely wrong and that people should lose their jobs if they did it. It creeped me out too. And I thought the press treatment was overkill as well — right up until the moment that Joe started grandstanding for the cameras, got an agent and started talking to people about a recording contract.

But, again, Malkin is hardly the right person to complain considering the absolutely horrific invasion of privacy she perpetrated against the Frost family. It’s mind-boggling that, of all people in the right wing blogosphere, she has appointed herself to be the one to lead this story. The sheer brass of it, the unreflective audacity, is simply breathtaking. 

This is why I say that they have retired the concept of hypocrisy. It goes far beyond double standards or duplicity or bad faith. There’s an aggression to it, a boldness, that dares people to bring up the bald and obvious fact that the person making the charge is herself a far worse perpetrator of the thing she is decrying. 

There’s an intellectual violence in it.

In a world in which the conservatives weren’t such post modern shape shifters, we could come to a consensus on certain issues in this country — like privacy, for instance. We could agree that it’s wrong for government employees to use private information for partisan purposes — or for the media, including bloggers, to stalk and publish private information of anyone who dares speak out for a political cause. But we don’t live in a world like that.

We live in a world where the right wing ruthlessly and without mercy degrades and attacks by any means necessary what they perceive as the enemy, and then uses the great principles of democracy and fair play when the same is done to them. They leave the rest of us standing on the sidelines looking like fools for ever caring about anything but winning.

It’s not that I believe liberals are purely good and decent. We have many, many faults and are almost preternaturally talented at seizing defeat from the jaws of victory before we even get finished celebrating. But failing to truly grok just how pernicious this right wing rejection of hypocrisy really is and how much power it gives them is a foolish mistake.

I think we’re about to get schooled. Again. The torture loving right is dusting off its completely hypocritical “government is full of jack-booted thugs” playbook — and it’s going to drive us all completely crazy.

That was eleven years ago. Trump wasn’t in the White House committing what I called “intellectual violence.” It was the conservative media and Republican Party. He was just another D-list celebrity at the time who saw what they were doing and realized this was something he knew how to do better than anyone.

Today I simply call this phenomenon “shamelessness” and I’ve concluded that it is their superpower. When you have no shame you have a whole lot of room to maneuver and pay no price. We cannot make laws requiring people to be rational.

A good case in point is this  amazing flap about the Christianity Today editorial. I haven’t weighed in  because Tom and tristero have been doing such a good job of covering it but it does illustrate just how shameless the right is revealing itself to be. Just as the previous flag-waving patriots are fine with a president betraying the country and cozying up to autocratic foreign dictators, the vast majority of the allegedly moral religious right shows they are fine with a decadent, immoral brute in the White House.

They are just political hacks like the rest of them.  And they have demonstrated over the past few days that they will descend upon one of their own who deviates from their cult of Dear Leader like a pack of ravenous jackals.

Everyone says it’s all about judges and abortion but I don’t really think it’s just transactional.  After all,  the judges are Mitch McConnell’s doing and Mike Pence would be even better on their issues. He’s a real member of their tribe so they don’t stand to lose anything by judging Trump on his grotesque behavior.

No this is about Trump himself. They like him. They are no more pious than he is.

The good news is that we don’t ever have to listen to their moralizing again. The bad news is that they will still do it without missing a beat in service of their political goals.  The Christian Right is as shameless as the rest of them.

I have been watching this phenomenon unfold for a long time and have been documenting it right here — with your help I’ll keep this blog going and we’ll continue to do that.

I hope you will check in here at Hullabaloo as we try to sort all this out during this tumultuous time. I don’t think it’s ever been more important to stick together. This next year is going to be unspeakably ugly and I think it’s going to be important for us to keep our heads and try to get through it without disengaging.

You can count on us to keep an eye on this unfolding drama seven days a week even when you find it too stressful to do it yourselves.  If you have the means to help support this blog for another year, I would be very grateful.


Again, thank you so much for reading and supporting my work all these years. It means the world to me. — d

And Happy Hollandaise everyone!

.

Grievance and revenge by @BloggersRUs

Grievance and revenge
by Tom Sullivan

A Politico/Morning Consult poll may show a majority of Americans (52%) approve of Donald Trump’s impeachment, but not even gold-plating it will improve its image among Trumpers or the man himself.

Thursday evening on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” former executive vice president at the Trump Organization, Barbara Res predicted how Trump will react to being impeached.

“Once he gets through this, and he probably will,” Res said, shaking her head, “He will exact revenge on a lot of people. A lot of people.”

Elected Republicans know this. They fear Trump more than any occupant of the Oval Office since Lyndon Johnson, Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman explain in the New York Times.

After criticizing the president in a closed meeting of G.O.P. lawmakers, a colleague warned two-term Michigan congressman Dave Trott, “Dave, you need to know somebody has already told the White House what you said … Be ready for a barrage of tweets.”

From his handheld Death Star, Trump can destroy political careers on a whim. Republicans uneasy about his character and fitness for office have two choices: kowtow or retire. Trott chose the latter and left office in January. To cross paths with Trump was to invite retribution. Trump would insist on it.

Martin and Haberman write:

There is no market, he said, for independence. Divergence from Trumpism will never be good enough for Democrats; Mr. Trump will target you among Republicans, Mr. Trott added, and the vanishing voters from the political middle will never have a chance to reward you because you would not make it through a primary. That will be ensured in part by the megaphone the president wields with the conservative news media.

“Trump is emotionally, intellectually and psychologically unfit for office, and I’m sure a lot of Republicans feel the same way,” Mr. Trott said. “But if they say that, the social media barrage will be overwhelming.”

For Trump, all politics is personal. He may not know much else, but he tracks who praises or denounces him. with him, and he carefully tracks who on television is praising him or denouncing his latest rhetorical excess.

Mr. Trott recounted one of his most vivid memories of his time serving with Mr. Trump. It was the day in 2017 when House Republicans voted to repeal the A.C.A. and celebrated afterward at the White House.

Mr. Trott was one of the first lawmakers to enter the Oval Office after the Rose Garden celebration and he stood behind the president’s desk when Mr. Trump pulled out a sheet of paper.

“He already had a list of 20 people who had voted against him two hours earlier,” he recalled.

“This is a testament to organized cowardice, not actual power,” national security blogger Marcy Wheeler responded.

If Republicans have become the party of white grievance, Trump personifies it for his followers. They marinate in his meanness, Ashley Parker writes in the Washington Post:

“Trump is the worst within us, and he markets that worst as admirable,” said Stuart Stevens, a Republican operative and frequent Trump critic who was a senior adviser on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. “He appeals to our darkest angels, not our better angels.”

Supporters excuse his personal attacks as counterpunching:

But by definition Trump is almost always punching down. His targets of derision are not only less powerful than a U.S. president, but many are among the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. He has mocked and attacked, among others, immigrants, minorities, women and a reporter with a physical disability.

“A dead guy or a widow or somebody who has a physical handicap or the wives of a candidate — the idea that he’s a counterpuncher or a tough guy has been a farce from the start,” said Tim Miller, a Republican operative and frequent Trump critic, who was a senior adviser on Jeb Bush’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump punches down while kissing up to those with real power and the will to wield it. His pathology has rendered his party a cult of personality where rallygoers would cheerfully shout, “Yes, we’re all individuals!” at his prompting.

But power, like politics or the emperor’s clothes, is largely about perception. What allows Trump to rule a party of alpha males in-waiting is the perception of strength Trump works hard to sustain by being constantly on the attack. Branding is one of the few things Trump is good at. Once that brand begins to erode, so will his grip on power.

Impeachment has bruised both Trump’s ego and his image upon which his financial empire hangs. The Christianity Today post condemning Trump’s amorality has left a crack in Trump’s facade that may widen with time. His white evangelical base will find it harder to “pretend Trump’s wretchedly corrupt subversion of the country’s interests to his own simply isn’t happening, or that it’s absolutely fine.

In the meantime, Trump will expend more of his energies seeking ways to exact revenge on a world that must be punished for never loving him enough.

It’s Holiday Fundraising time. If you’re of a mind to support the kind of independent media we provide here, informed by nearly two decades of daily observation and analysis, you can do so at the links below or at the address on the column on the left.


Again, thank you so much for reading and supporting my work all these years. It means the world to me. — digby

Happy Hollandaise everyone!

Blu Xmas: Best reissues of 2019, pt. 4 By Dennis Hartley @denofcinema5

Super-Saturday Night at the Movies




Blu Xmas: Best reissues of 2019, pt. 4

By Dennis Hartley

Continuing my year-end wrap up from last week’s post, here are more of my picks for the best Blu-ray reissues of 2019, in case you procrastinators (ahem) are stuck for gift ideas. Any reviews based on Region “B” editions (which require a multi-region Blu-ray player) are noted as such; the good news is that multi-region players are now more affordable.

Alphaville (Kino-Lorber) – The first time I saw this 1965 Jean-Luc Godard film I said to myself “WTF did I just watch?” I shrugged it off and forgot about it for about a decade. Then, a couple weeks ago I picked up a copy of this newly restored 4K Blu-ray and watched it a second time. This time, I said to myself, “Oh. I think I got it.” Then, after pausing a beat “No. I don’t got it.” Now bound and determined, I watched it AGAIN several days later. This time, by George…I think I got it: Godard’s film, with its mashup of science fiction, film noir, dystopian nightmare and existential despair is a pre-cursor to Blade Runner, Dark City and Death and the Compass. The film stars American actor Eddie Constantine and Godard’s muse Anna Karina (Karina passed away just last week).

The image quality is superb, showcasing Nouvelle Vague veteran Raoul Coutard’s beautiful B &W photography. Extras include an audio commentary track by film historian Tim Lucas, and a recently taped 5 minute interview with the late Anna Karina.

Apocalypse Now: The Final Cut (Lionsgate) – “Are you an assassin, Willard?” This nightmarish walking tour through the darkest labyrinths of the human soul (disguised as a Vietnam War film) remains Francis Ford Coppola’s most polarizing work-a masterpiece to some; pretentious hokum to others. Me? I love it. Remember…never get outta the boat.

I know what you’re thinking (aside from “Saigon…shit…I was still in Saigon”). Do you really need to double, triple, quadruple-dip and buy another “upgraded” home video edition of this film? Well, the “final cut” label assures a certain…finality. It’s not a marketing gimmick; Coppola really has assembled a new (and final?) edit for this edition.

First, I will say this new ‘final cut” neither detracts from, nor necessarily adds anything of a particularly revelatory nature to, the famously scattershot narrative of the piece as we know and love it. That said, it’s worth noting that this is the first time the film has been scanned from the original negative and gone through a meticulous frame-by-frame restoration, and it shows. It’s a truly stunning transfer, with newly remixed audio to boot.

Extras are plentiful; including co-directors Eleanor Coppola, Fax Bahr and George Hickenlooper’s excellent (theatrically released) 1991 documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse, which recounts the harrowing, trouble-plagued production of the film, which almost killed star Marin Sheen (he suffered a heart attack and had to be flown to the U.S. mid-shooting) and drove Coppola to the edge of a nervous breakdown. Also included are the Apocalypse Redux Extended Cut and the original theatrical version.

Klute (Criterion Collection) – In the fullness of time (good god, I’m old) it’s easy to forget that respected Hollywood icon Jane Fonda toiled away in films for nearly a decade before she began to be taken seriously as an actor (her starring role in then-husband Roger Vadim’s 1968 sexploitation sci-fi trash classic Barbarella certainly didn’t help), There were two pivotal star vehicles that signaled that transition for Fonda as a creative artist – They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? (1969) and this lauded 1971 Alan J. Pakula film.

Fonda is “Bree”, a New York City call girl trying to transition out of the game. She becomes reluctantly embroiled in an investigation being conducted by an amateurish private detective named Klute (Donald Sutherland). Klute has been hired by a Pennsylvania-based CEO (Charles Cioffi) who wants him to track down an employee (and friend of Klute’s) who never returned from a business trip. The only clues Klute has is a stack of intimate letters written to Bree by the missing man. While there is a definite mystery-thriller element to the story, the film is ultimately a two-character study of Bree and Klute as they develop a tenuous romantic relationship. Fonda and Sutherland are both excellent; Fonda picked up a Best Actress in a Leading Role Oscar that year for her work.

The 4K transfer (from the original 35mm camera negative) is outstanding. Extras include a new interview with Fonda (conducted by Illeana Douglas), several archival interviews with Pakula, and a 26-page illustrated booklet with an essay by film critic Mark Harris.

Millennium Actress (Shout! Factory) – I think some of the best sci-fi films of the past several decades have originated not from Hollywood, but rather from the masters of Japanese anime. Films like Akira and Ghost in the Shell displayed a quality of writing and visual imagination that few live action productions match (well, post- Blade Runner).

One of the most unique masters of the form was Satoshi Kon (sadly, he died of cancer in 2010 at 46). His films mix complex characterizations with a photo-realistic visual style; making me forget that I’m watching animation. Kon drew on genres not typically associated with anime, like adult drama ( Tokyo Godfathers), film noir ( Perfect Blue), psychological thriller (the limited series Paranoia Agent) and this 2001 character study.

A documentary filmmaker and his cameraman interview a long-reclusive actress. As she reminisces on key events of her life and career, the director and the cameraman are pulled right into the events themselves. The narrative becomes more surreal as the line blurs between the actresses’ life and the lives of her film characters. Mind-blowing and thought-provoking, it is ultimately a touching love letter to 20 th Century Japanese cinema.

The restored print on Shout! Factory’s Blu-ray edition is a thing of beauty. Extras are scarce (brief interviews with 4 of the voice actors) but it’s great to have this gem in HD!

Reckless Moment (Indicator) – Max Ophul’s 1949 film noir stars Joan Bennett as an overly-protective mother who gets sucked into a maelstrom of blackmail and deceit as she tries to cover up her teenage daughter’s accidental killing of her shady middle-aged lover. Adding to Joan’s headache is the appearance of a mysterious stranger (James Mason) who threatens to spill the beans on her daughter’s affair with the recently deceased gentleman (who Mason confirms did have criminal ties). Can Joan tidy this mess before her husband returns from his overseas business trip? Despite standard noir trappings, the story sustains an interesting moral ambiguity, with subtle shifts in character motivations (your assessment of who the “villain” is may vacillate throughout the piece).

Indicator is a UK-based outfit that puts out mostly Region “B” locked discs, but I’ve noticed on occasion they put out titles that are all-region-luckily, this is the case with The Reckless Moment (i.e., it is compatible with North American Blu-ray players). Extras include a 44-minute featurette on Max Ophul’s career by artist and author Lutz Bacher.

Rock ‘n’ Roll High School(Shout! Factory) – In this 1979 cult favorite from legendary “B” movie producer Roger Corman, director Alan Arkush evokes the spirit of those late 50s rock’ n’ roll exploitation movies (right down to having 20-something actors portraying “students”), substituting The Ramones for the usual clean-cut teen idols who inevitably pop up at the prom dance. I’m still helplessly in love with P.J. Soles, who plays Vince Lombardi High School’s most devoted Ramones fan, Riff Randell. The great cast of B-movie troupers includes the late Paul Bartel (who directed several of his own films under Corman’s tutelage) and Mary Waronov (hilarious as the very strict principal.)

Shout Factory’s 40 th anniversary edition features a new 4K scan; image is gorgeous and the colors really pop. Sound quality is a slight disappointment; it’s certainly not “bad”, but not as much of an improvement over previous Blu-ray and DVD versions as I had hoped for (especially for a film with such a great music soundtrack). Generous extras include a new 70 minute feature about the production of the film. Fans should be pleased.

Slaughterhouse-Five Arrow Films) – Film adaptations of Kurt Vonnegut stories have a checkered history; from downright awful ( Slapstick of Another Kind) or campy misfires ( Breakfast of Champions) to passable time killers ( Happy Birthday, Wanda June, Mother Night). For my money, your best bets are Jonathan Demme’s 1982 PBS American Playhouse short Who Am I This Time? and this 1974 feature by director George Roy Hill.

Michael Sacks stars as milquetoast daydreamer Billy Pilgrim, a WW2 vet who weathers the devastating Allied firebombing of Dresden as a POW. After the war, he marries his sweetheart, fathers a son and daughter and settles into a comfortable middle-class life, making a living as an optometrist. So far, that’s a standard all-American postwar scenario, nu? Except for the part where a UFO lands on his nice manicured lawn one night and spirits him off to the planet Tralfamadore, after which he becomes permanently “unstuck” in time; i.e., begins living (and re-living) his life in random order. Great performances from Valerie Perrine and Ron Leibman. Stephen Geller adapted the script.

Arrow’s 4K restoration is superb. Critic Troy Howarth contributes one of the more entertaining commentary tracks I’ve heard in a while. Extras include new interviews with Perry King (who played Billy Pilgrim’s son) and film music historian Daniel Schweiger.

A Touch Of Class (Warner Archives) – One of my favorite romantic comedies finally gets a Blu-ray upgrade, courtesy of Warner Archives. Directed by Melvin Frank ( The Court Jester, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum) the 1973 film was co-written by the director with Jack Rose and Marvin Frank. George Segal and Glenda Jackson star as a married American businessman and British divorcee (respectively) who, following two chance encounters in London, quickly realize there’s a mutual attraction and embark on an affair. The story falters a bit in the third act, when it begins to vacillate a little clumsily between comedy and morality tale, but when it’s funny, it’s very funny. The best part of the film concerns the clandestine lovers’ first romantic getaway on a trip to Spain. Segal has always shown a genius for screen comedy, but I think Jackson steals the film (and gets off some of the best zingers, with her impeccably droll “English-ness”).

Warner continues their tradition of being stingy with extras, but the 1080p transfer, taken from a new 2K scan, delivers the highest-quality image I’ve seen of this entertaining film.

Until the End of the WorldCriterion Collection) – Wim Wenders’ sprawling “near-future” techno-epic is finally available as a beautifully restored transfer by Criterion, in a 287-minute director’s cut (which Wenders himself has called his “ultimate road movie”).

Set in 1999, with the backdrop of an imminent event that may (or may not) trigger a global nuclear catastrophe, the story centers on Claire (Solveig Dommartin) a restless and free-spirited French woman who leaves her writer boyfriend (Sam Neill) to chase down a mysterious American man (William Hurt) who has stolen her money (and her heart). Neill’s character narrates Claire’s globe-trotting quest for love and meaning, which winds through 20 cities, 9 countries, and 4 continents (all shot on location, amazingly enough).

Critical and audience reaction to the 1991 158-minute theatrical version (not Wenders’ choice) was perhaps best summated by “huh?!”, and the film has consequently garnered a rep as an interesting failure at best. However, to see it as originally intentioned is to discover the near-masterpiece that was lurking all along. Not an easy film to pigeonhole; you could file it under sci-fi, adventure, drama, road, or maybe…end-of-the-world movie.

The 4K digital restoration is gorgeous, and a new 5.1 surround HD DTS audio track accentuates the film’s excellent music soundtrack (which includes songs by U2, Nick Cave, David Byrne, Julee Cruise, Lou Reed, Peter Gabriel, Patti Smith, et.al.). Extras include a conversation between Wenders and David Byrne and several film critic essays.

The Woman In The Window (Eureka; Region “B” locked) – Director Fritz Lang was one of the key progenitors of film noir, with entries like The Big Heat, Scarlet Street, Ministry of Fear, Human Desire, Clash by Night, The Blue Gardenia, While the City Sleeps, and this suspenseful 1944 drama. Edward G. Robinson stars as a buttoned-down professor who becomes intrigued by a painting of a young woman that hangs in a shop near a men’s club that he frequents. One night, he’s drinking in the view, and guess whose reflection suddenly appears in the window, standing behind him? Sexy Joan Bennett plays the woman, who (in classic femme fatale fashion) enmeshes the mild-mannered sap in a web of murder and blackmail. Noir stalwart Dan Duryea is (as always) a great heavy.

Eureka’s edition features a 1080p presentation on a dual-layer disc; while it doesn’t look to be restored, it is a noticeable upgrade over the DVD. Extras include a commentary track by film historian Imogen Sara Smith, as well as written and video essays by others.

More recommendations! I picked up so many great Blu-ray reissues in 2019, I couldn’t find enough time to review them all…so here’s a few more stocking stuffers to consider:

The Bedroom Window ,

Charly,

Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas ,

A Fistful Of Dynamite ,

Häxan,

Human Desire,

Panique ,

Police Story/Police Story 2,

Scum, The Shining,

Suspiria ,

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot ,

Track 29 .

Previous posts with related themes:

Best Blu-rays of 2019, pt. 1
Best Blu-rays of 2019, pt. 2
Best Blu-rays of 2019, pt. 3
Criterion releases Barbara Loden’s Wanda

More reviews at Den of Cinema
On Facebook
On Twitter

It’s Holiday Fundraising time. If you’re of a mind to support the kind of independent media we provide here, informed by nearly two decades of daily observation and analysis, you can do so at the links below or at the address on the column on the left.


Again, thank you so much for reading and supporting my work all these years. It means the world to me. — digby

Happy Hollandaise everyone!

Trump is upset that impeachment will taint his legacy. Uhm, I’m afraid that ship sailed a long time ago.

Trump is upset that impeachment will taint his legacy. LOL!!!

A hoax TIME cover, nonetheless true
Trump is so delusional that apparently he believes that until he got impeached he was going to be considered the greatest president in American history. Seriously. He doesn’t seem to understand that over half the country and most of the rest of the world have seen him as a lying, incompetent, buffoon from the moment he entered the political arena. And since he became president his disgusting personality and overt corruption and traitorous ineptitude (I’m being generous by calling it that) have sealed his reputation as the worst president in in world history.

“Obsessed” is how one former White House official described Trump’s mindset about how people will remember him. Trump, the ex-official said, has told people around him that impeachment would leave his presidency “tainted.” “His image is hugely important to him,” the former official said. “He is going crazy over this because the legacy he is looking for is the greatest president — even more so than Abraham Lincoln or George Washington.”

Instead, his name will now be included on another short list of presidents — those attached to impeachment. It’s an ignominious group that includes Andrew Johnson, remembered for his refusal to ensure racial equality and voting rights for African-Americans after the Civil War, Richard Nixon, who resigned before being impeached but nonetheless caused generations of Americans to lose faith in government, and Bill Clinton, who has remained popular but is facing a reassessment of his impeachment legacy in the #MeToo era. 

[…]On the eve of a House vote, the president angrily ticked through a list of over 20 accomplishments that he believes should comprise his legacy in a scathing letter sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The letter, drafted at Trump’s direction and composed with the help of several senior aides, touched on all of the president’s favorite hits — jobs, the economy, the military, the Second Amendment “and so many other things. “Nobody’s done as much as I’ve done in the first three years,” he finished.

“It’s been very hard on my family,” Trump said. “Impeachment, to me, is a dirty word. It’s been very unfair, very hard on my family. Me, my whole life is crazy.”

Trump returned to the theme in his letter, admonishing Pelosi: “You do not know, nor do you care, the great damage and hurt you have inflicted upon wonderful and loving members of my family.”
[…]Essentially, the Trump presidential legacy is synonymous with the Trump family legacy.

This is correct. And one of them main reasons he is so concerned is that the  “brand” he scratched together in the years after he lost all of daddy’s money with a TV show, licensing deals for development projects and the tabloid press is totally destroyed. He knows his most ardent fans aren’t the kind of people who are into his phony “luxury” junk and the people who might have bought into it in the past, particularly overseas, will not want to be associated with his name ever again.

The Trump’s will have some wingnut welfare-type income. There’s always money there. But it’s nothing like what he’s been pretending to have and he’s not in a position to go back into business and rebuild his con game. I have a sneaking suspicion that after he’s out of politics, even his fans are going to be sick of his act any thought of a media empire is going to fizzle badly.

So yes, his family is in trouble too. But perhaps they should have stayed out of politics instead of launching themselves into the middle of it. It wouldn’t have been easy to avoid the taint, but a few years of dignified, low profile behavior and they might have been able to maintain enough of a reputation to survive this.

The Trump name was a joke before all this but now he’s turned it into a name that will be even more familiar and notorious as “Benedict Arnold”, forever associated with stupidity, greed, graft, lies and betrayal.

At least Benedict Arnold was a competent general.

It’s Holiday Fundraising time. If you’re of a mind to support the kind of independent media we provide here, informed by nearly two decades of daily observation and analysis, you can do so at the links below or at the address on the column on the left.


Again, thank you so much for reading and supporting my work all these years. It means the world to me. — d

Happy Hollandaise everyone!

.

They dreamed of a new coalition that’s finally coming to pass

They dreamed of a new coalition that’s finally coming to pass 


I was on the Majority Report with Sam Seder yesterday and we were getting all reflective about the last ten years and rise of the left in Democratic politics. As the resident old duffer among the group, I pointed out how long it takes for ideas to take hold but over time we can see it happen. We were talking specifically about the Occupy movement and how it catalyzed a new generation of activists etc, etc.

But this came across my twitter feed today and I think it really says it all:

I was too young to vote in that election but that platform in one way or another represented everything I’ve believed in and supported my whole political life. Unfortunately for me, that life has been politically dominated up by a powerful, ascendant, conservative movement that made sure none of that ever came to pass. That movement is in the process of immolating itself before our eyes just as a new, progressive coalition is growing and strengthening.

There is good reason to hope that the next 45 years can be better than the last. No guarantees, of course. But the stars are aligned now in ways they weren’t back then. The opportunity is presenting itself if we can effectively take advantage of it.

It’s Holiday Fundraising time. If you’re of a mind to support the kind of independent media we provide here, informed by nearly two decades of daily observation and analysis, you can do so at the links below or at the address on the column on the left.


Again, thank you so much for reading and supporting my work all these years. It means the world to me. — d

Happy Hollandaise everyone!

.

Another Ukrainian Shoe Drops

Another Ukrainian Shoe Drops

 

Oh look, new emails:

Shortly after President Donald Trump spoke to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25, Trump’s political appointees were already tasked with carrying out a freeze on security funding for Ukraine, newly released government documents show.


“Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration’s plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process,” Mike Duffey, the White House official in the Office of Management and Budget responsible for overseeing national security money and a Trump political appointee, wrote to select OMB and Pentagon officials on July 25. 

Duffey’s email suggests that he knew the hold could raise concerns.

“Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute direction,” Duffey said…Though these releases have been heavily redacted, they begin to shade in more detail about officials’ exchanges regarding the Ukraine aid pause, which House Democrats pursued as they investigated and impeached the President but could not access because of the White House’s refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas.

The Center for Public Integrity points out that there was much concern about the illegality of withholding aid because it violated the Impoundment Act which precludes the president from doing such a thing. Why the House didn’t add this to the list of crimes in the Articles is unknown, but I would guess this is the reason Michael Duffy is on he list of witnesses Schumer has said they want to call.

The big question remains: Did Putin tell Trump that Ukraine did the hacking in 2016 to frame Russia and him on behalf of Hillary Clinton (which makes little sense since it required hacking herself but whatever) and he believed it? Is he that dimwitted? Or does he just pretend to believe it because he and Putin are scratching each others backs?  Does it even matter?

These documents make it even clearer that he saw Ukraine as a pawn in his and Rudy’s scheme. When he saw the article about the military aid in the Examiner he realized he had more leverage than just a White House meeting and he immediately used it. He was not Putin’s puppet, at least not in this case.

In other words it was his idea.






It’s Holiday Fundraising time. If you’re of a mind to support the kind of independent media we provide here, informed by nearly two decades of daily observation and analysis, you can do so at the links below or at the address on the column on the left.


Again, thank you so much for reading and supporting my work all these years. It means the world to me. — d

Happy Hollandaise everyone!

.

Hell by tristero

Hell 

by tristero

From LakeMac Today

Catastrophic world-wide climate failure:

The fourth day of a historic heat wave in Australia shattered monthly heat records for the state of Victoria and numerous localities, and caused destructive bush fires to expand their reach. In Victoria, the temperature of 118.2 degrees (47.9 Celsius) on Friday at Horsham and Hopetoun was the hottest December day on record for the state, crushing the old record of 116 degrees (46.6 Celsius) set in 1976. 

The ongoing heat wave has set an extraordinary slew of records that are typically broken by fractions of a degree but, in this case, were broken by two degrees or more. Australia set records for the hottest day ever recorded nationwide on both Dec. 17 and 18, with the 19th likely to be ranked at least among the top five hottest days in the country’s history.

One of my oldest and dearest friends immigrated to Sydney from Eastern Europe just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. The reports I got from her this week are appalling — unbearable heat, suffocating smoke, and a Trump-loving prime minister vacationing in Hawaii while enormous fires swept Australia.

And the incredibly intense heat wave is continent-wide:

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) reports preliminary data showing that for Dec. 18, the nationally averaged maximum temperature was 107.4 degrees Fahrenheit (41.9 Celsius). This beat the old record of 105.6 degrees (40.9 Celsius), which had been set the day before. Before this heat event, the country’s hottest day was Jan. 7, 2013, which had an average high temperature of 104.5 degrees (40.3 Celsius).

It’s impossible to exaggerate the extent of the disaster. Over 1 million acres on fire in one area alone.

The Bureau of Meteorology increased the fire risk level for the Greater Sydney region to “catastrophic” for Saturday, which is the highest fire danger level. In Penrith, which is about 30 miles west of downtown Sydney, the high temperature is forecast to reach 116.6 degrees (47 Celsius). Penrith is between the Wattle Creek Blaze and the massive Gospers Mountain Fire, which is 1,109,503 acres in size and burning out of control, according to the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. The Gospers Mountain blaze is being called a “mega fire” because of its size.

 And here’s an American-centric image to help us imagine the scale of the disaster:

This season, an area about 1.5 times the size of Connecticut has gone up in smoke, particularly from Victoria to New South Wales and Queensland. Satellite-derived data has shown that the country’s emissions of greenhouse gases have increased markedly for November and December because of combustion from these blazes.

Remember that only the average temperature on the Australian continent was 107 degrees. In some places…my God:

Andrea Peace, a meteorologist with the BOM, stated in a video posted on Twitter that the heat wave has been “quite extraordinary.” For example, a Dec. 19 record set in Nullarbor, about 600 miles west of Adelaide. That location reached 121.8 degrees (49.9 Celsius)… 

And, of course, Donald Trump, the impeached president of the United States, has no knowledge or understanding of this worldwide disaster. Not “a little knowledge,” not “a dim understanding.” He has no idea.

It’s Holiday Fundraising time. If you’re of a mind to support the kind of independent media we provide here, informed by nearly two decades of daily observation and analysis, you can do so at the links below or at the address on the column on the left.

Again, thank you so much for reading and supporting my work all these years. It means the world to me. — digby

Happy Hollandaise everyone!

.