“We will not stand by while children are being taken from their parents, and families are being taken from our communities and congregations,” explains @CCCathedralIndy Dean Rev. Stephen Carlsen. #EveryFamilyIsHoly #CadaFamiliaEsSagrada
Christ Church Cathedral, is an Episcopalian church in Indianapolis. It got me thinking. What would a border interview be like for The Holy Family? I think it would go a little something like this:
Border Agent: So his first name is Hey-Zeus. How do you spell that?
Middle initial? What does “H” stand for? Could you spell that?
Last name? Spelling?
Look Lady, if you don’t want us to lose your kid, tell us his real name and yours too. “The Virgin Mary” seems like a fake name.
Father’s name?
That’s not what I have. I’ve got Joseph T. Carpenter.
Oh, the husband’s not the Father. Got it.
What happened, did He Ghost on you? Okay, so eh, who’s the baby daddy?
Could you spell that? YHWH? No vowels? Is that some kind of Middle Eastern name? What do you mean you don’t know?
Look Lady, if this kid was born in [checks paperwork] Bethlehem, which is [checks Wikipedia] in PALESTINE, that sounds pretty goddammed Middle Eastern to me.
If the Baby Daddy’s Palestinian we need to know. We might have to deport Him. He might be a terrorist.
Does the Baby Daddy live in Palestine or does He reside in the United States?
He’s in the heart? You mean the heartland? Like Nebraska?
Mary, you are making this process very difficult. I don’t know what you are afraid of. If the Father entered the heartland legally there shouldn’t be any problem. I can’t believe that He would abandon His Son.
Now if you had gotten legally married to the Father you wouldn’t be having this problem. I’m just sayin.’
Okay, well that’s all I need. Now this nice lady agent is going to take little Hey Zeus H. Christ for a bath. Don’t worry He’ll return soon. I can’t tell you when. It’s not up to me. I don’t make the rules. I’m just following orders.
Following the mass shooting at The Capital Gazette newspaper office yesterday where journalists were gunned down, Milo Yiannopoulos went on Facebook to blame journalists for whipping up hysteria about killing journalists. Two days prior Milo had texted this to New York Observer reporter Davis Richardson, “I can’t wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight.“ Yiannopoulos Encourages Vigilantes to Start ‘Gunning Journalists Down
But this wasn’t simply a toss-off remark. Yiannopoulos appears to be dead serious – that is, he sincerely believes that right-wing assassins should begin taking out targeted reporters. He’s been saying so on a number of forums, and it’s clear that he isn’t being simply “ironic” in the classic alt-right hall-of-mirrors fashion.
People often get caught up in the technical issue of threats as it relates to free speech. I understand this. Is it a “true threat” as defined by the court? Can we determine if this threat is going to incite people? What if someone acts on a general threat? What if the person wasn’t given specific instructions about a specific person, just general comments about a category of people like journalists?
These are all good questions to have, because we know that not all cases are clear cut. The SPLC has a piece from 2007 titled, When Are Threats Protected Speech? They look at several cases, some in which the threats were ruled “true threats” while others where they were not.
It’s important to know the distinction.
In the end, each case will turn on its own facts. But one thing is clear: Racist talk show hosts and Internet bloggers who make specific threats against individuals or call on others to do so and who intend to put their targets in fear of being attacked may indeed be held both criminally and civilly liable.
Based on personal experience some people know how to walk the line when it comes to threats. Others don’t. Recently there was a call for “civility” during protests involving shaming and shunning. I fully expect that the right will overreact to our protests with an out of proportion response to any protest action.
Here is their thinking:
“The libtards protested the actions of one of our people!! We need to threaten the lives of some of their people!” (They will then think they are clever by saying something about knives and gunfights and Chicago.)
Based on past history, they will “double down” in response to our protests. Some will launch illegal and felonious responses. The good news is they are not mob bosses or the President of the United States who can get away with threats of violence. They are penny-ante operators, low-level thugs.
When they overreact here are steps to take:
1) Capture the threats. (A.B. R. ALWAYS BE RECORDING. Use that video camcorder, audio recorder and electronic message collector in your pocket! Pro tip: It’s good to make sure it’s legally recorded so you can use it in court in a civil suit. See this guide for laws on recording in your state.)
2) Determine the source of the threats. (There are tools to help you do this you might not be aware of, check with your hacker friends.)
3) Confirm their intent. (This is important for later actions, see my link to Elonis v. United States.)
4) Use their overreaction against them
If their responses cross the line into ‘true threats” and you captured their comments and death threats, make them available to the appropriate authorities.
For out of state threats, go to a private attorney who handles civil lawsuits. The people threatening you might have to pay you damages. (For example, if you were threatened with death by police proxy, SWATTING, there are lawyers who will sue the people who arranged your house to be SWATTED.)
If you have determined their intent and they refuse to retract it and stop, their employer may need to know what they were doing during work hours using company resources.
Got a death threat or suggestions of violent rape from a self proclaimed Christian? Go to the head of the church that they worship at with your evidence.
Is there is an important woman in their lives? That woman can be copied on the threatening letter along with evidence of their threats. It should be noted that the person who shot up The Capital Gazette had a history of domestic violence.
Some of these responses are more difficult to carry out than others, and it really depends on the willingness of the person who has been threatened if they are willing to engage further with the people doing the threatening.
Standing up to bullies and making sure that there are consequences for their threatening speech isn’t for everyone, but it is for some. The right wing conservatives have a choice in how they respond to our peaceful protests. You have a choice on how you respond to their actions, especially if their actions cross the line into threats of violence.
“But Godwin’s Law was never meant to block us from challenging the institutionalization of cruelty or the callousness of officials who claim to be just following the law.”
Yes, we must challenge the institutionalization of cruelty. Now is the time to condemn the callousness of officials who claim to be just following the law. Let’s rebuke the people who support cruelty. It’s time to remove from office the officials who put cruelty in place in our country.
I had dinner with some wonderful old friends this evening. One wanted to understand why a certain group of people were supporting what he called “meanness.” He wasn’t talking about the 30 some percent of white men and women who have been marginalized or left behind. Nor the racists or bigots. What was behind the additional 15 to 18 percent of people who still support Trump? These people didn’t fit the “economic insecurity” box. They had money and were smart people.
We discussed people who fit this category. Why were they still supporting Trump? I had some thoughts, I quoted from Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians I talked about the need to be seen as “tough” some men have. I covered the right wing aggrievement that Sam Seder and Digby talk about and the way the conservatives like to “piss off the liberals” that Atrios covers.
But none of those reasons seem to fit this group of people that he and his wife had encountered.
My very smart friend Sara Robinson often directs me to pieces that help explain how conservatives think, like this one. ( Why Trump country is unfazed by the child separation crisis ) The desire to understand is good because we hope understanding will lead to the changing of minds.
Explanations for behaviors are good too. It’s useful to learn that some people believe in cruelty because of X, Y and Z. But even if I can’t understand why someone believes in meanness or cruelty, and I haven’t figured out the process to change them, I CAN still work to stop the implementation of it.
We can try to understand people and also say.
“We as Americans should not be cruel.”
That people believe cruelty is acceptable is a tragedy and a failure of our institutions of education, religion and culture. Today in our country people are working to bring more cruelty into the world. This is tragic.
Cruelty rejects the best values of our country as codified in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Acceptance of cruelty is morally repugnant and is rejected by the major religions that people profess to be part of.
You’re telling me his name is Hey Zeus?
This meanness and cruelty will lead to future economic pain for our country. It crushes human advancement in areas as diverse as science and art. (Just look at the benefits we have gotten from intellectual and artistic refugees for years.)
Culturally the institutionalization of cruelty is horrifying and ugly.
I could go into the myth of the effectiveness of cruelty as a deterrent to immigration, but that’s like discussing the utility of torture. I can point to all the ways that torture doesn’t work, but then we are arguing about something else. It is the institutionalization of cruelty that we are doing now that is horrific. (My friend Dr. Rebecca Gordon, has a lot to say about state sponsored torture and what it means)
One of Dr. Gordon’s many points is that torture has terrible effects to all involved, not just on the person being tortured, but to the person doing the torture.
My friend Interrobang pointed out to me that Americans never put themselves in the position of the person being tortured, just the ones doing the torture.
Americans who support cruel policies and the people who implement them don’t put themselves in the position of the refugee. They see themselves as the one in power in control who can help or not help. I wish these people didn’t feel this way, I’d like to change their minds, but if I can’t I’m not going to start supporting cruelty.
Watch this clip from the Majority Report by CNN at a diner in Arizona talking to supporters of Trump’s policy of state sponsorsed child abuse and cruelty.
You can see three of the ways that the people justify their cruelty.
1) They are bad guys who break the law
2) They are coming here to get our stuff
3) “Stop picking on me for supporting cruel policies!”
I can argue with these people, point out the incorrect and incomplete facts they are holding onto. The truth doesn’t always work for them, though. “I don’t care if you can prove it to me, I still won’t believe you!” What we need to do at the same time is to take steps to stop the institutionalization of cruelty. Some people aren’t going to come around, so we move forward away from their views into a better human and humane future.
What To Do If Kids Separated From Parents Are Found In Your City?
by Spocko
On Wednesday Rachel Maddow interviewed Garance Burke, the national investigative reporter for the Associated Press, about “tender age” facilities where the Trump administration is keeping babies and toddlers taken from parents seeking asylum in the U.S.
Garance Burke, national investigative reporter for the AP, discusses “tender age” facilities
where the Trump administration is keeping babies and toddlers taken from parents seeking asylum in the U.S.
Burke explained that children were being sent to many places around the country. Rachel then did a segment. Are they holding them in your state? In your town?
She described how people who have knowledge of what is going on are leaking to the press.
On Thursday we started to see this happening. Chicago-based Heartland Alliance confirmed it was providing shelter for migrant children who were separated from their families. CBS’s Lauren Victory did a story about what they found out. At the time they didn’t know how many children or where they are located.
The reporter contacted the Mayor’s office who didn’t know anything about it. The reporter was still investigating. What happens next?
What should you do if you find out separated children are in your city? Find the location and organize a protest? It depends on who the players are and what your goals are.
What if you find out kids are being held in a “tender age” facility run by a government agency? People should learn where the kids are so they can protest at the location. Burke talked about how she found the “tender age” facilities by following the vendors and suppliers to the locations of the facilities.
But what if the children are in a non-profit shelter that’s not bad? You could find the location the kids are being held and go protest there, but maybe the reason they don’t want locations to be known is they also house children from domestic violence cases.
Maybe the kids have their own rooms, aren’t in cages or drugged. Maybe the non-profit is providing good shelter. The separation of families still needs to be protested, because the kids still aren’t with their parents.
Young immigrants arrive with their parents at the Catholic Charities RGV after they were
processed and released Tuesday by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in McAllen, Texas.
I’ve found lots of good people in nonprofits who want to help kids. They too are disgusted by Trump’s program and the concentration camp facilities with ceiling-high metal fencing, space blankets and 24/7 lighting.
“Heartland Alliance does not agree with separating children from their parents at the border. It is our moral obligation to keep children safe while they are in our care.
We operate nine shelters in the Chicagoland area, and our first priority is the safety and welfare of the children in our care. We provide a stable, nurturing environment. Our staff speak the languages of the children in their care. They focus on the children’s well-being and help them to heal from trauma, and work to reunify the children with their families as soon as possible. Keeping the identities of children and details of their circumstances confidential is essential to these efforts.”
In the process of helping the kids, and protesting the program, you don’t want to hurt the people who are trying to do the right thing. So what can you do?
Find The Best Images and Allies
A big part of this story involves showing images of the bad conditions the kids are being held in. If you want to show bad shelter conditions, but not specific locations, there are ways to do it. Find elected officials who can go to undisclosed locations to ask to inspect the facilities.
This gives you a chance for a visual and a message. If the person can’t get in to see the children, you still have video of a politician opposing the program. With a politician and a protest at a symbolic location, a media outlet can still do a story about the terrible program, even if there are no crying babies.
And here is another big reason you don’t always want to go to the location. The visuals of the kids in the shelter might not be terrible! I have a source who confirms good conditions for the kids in Heartland Alliance shelters. I was happy to hear that, but the kids still aren’t with their parents. But even if conditions are fine, the previous cases of separation still need to be protested.
The media now has to mention the executive order the President signed. But it doesn’t address what is happening with the children already separated.Stories of separation and what happens to those families needs to come out in your media now. This is important to do because Fox News will be searching for and providing examples of abuses of the immigration and asylum system.
Prepare for the GOP Fox News Pushback
Something I don’t see activists working though is the need to anticipate the GOP response to actions. For example, once you have picked a Democratic politician who will talk about the child separation program in your city, they need to be prepared for the GOP response. Yesterday I watched a politician and bunch of obese white people in a cafe in Arizona throw out talking points that support Trump’s baby snatching program.
“The parents illegally came here… blah, blah, blah. “
If your Democratic politician knows what the GOP opposition will say and your spokesperson knows what the fat white people in Arizona will use as talking points, they can preempt them with specifics of the families involved.
Trump supporters deal in generalities and imaginary bad guys. When given a specific case to comment on they get stumped and move to generalities.
Know About The Worse Cases And Best Cases We will need to provide lots of real cases to show the public because the Trump supporters will be shown cases of abuse of the asylum system and cases of crime from illegal immigrants.
(I wrote this part last night. This afternoon Trump held an event where he gave statistics of “the human toll of illegal immigrant” He starts talking about homicides and kidnapping from a 2011 report with idea over what period of time these happened. Then he talks about arrests in Texas over 7 years of “criminal aliens” (vs “illegal aliens”) with no break down of the crimes. After talking about murder, robbery and kidnapping people will assume they are from homicides, robberies or kidnapping. The Washington Post did an analysis of Trump’s number of crimes committed by people who entered the US illegally? Guess what? They are totally BS, untrue, made up. Source>? from PETE KING from 2005 https://t.co/PqaONObTuN )
Fox or Trump PR will find a story of a human trafficker from MS-13 who claimed to be a parent. Even if they have to go back years and ignore tens of thousands legitimate asylum seekers, they will get that story to Fox, Breitbart and Town Hall.
Fox will explain that the bad guy came in under Obama years ago! Fox will then run that story of the abuse of the system 24/7. It will be shared and forwarded on email and Facebook millions of times just to prove to the libtards that bad people slipped through.
Then, because of the Fox story of abuse, the MSM will run a story about it. Because of how the MSM works thousands of legitimate asylum seekers will be “balanced” against a handful of abuses, making it look like half of the people entering are liars. That is why a big part of our job as activists is to show the preponderance of evidence of why asylum programs are necessary.
Soon, the right wing will find stories of people who gamed the system, they will find and share specific stories of immigration abuses and coached children- because they exist. We don’t need to deny the stories exist (although we do need to verify them!) In response we need to show and share examples from the tens of thousands of cases where the need for asylum was real, the children weren’t coached and the parents were trying to get away from a bad situation to a better life.
Why Was Melania given credit for Trump’s change on child snatching?
By Spocko
An NPR story today called Melania Trump, “a private lobbying force behind President Trump’s change of heart on his controversial policy that resulted in thousands of family separations at the southern U.S. border.”
A White House official confirmed to NPR’s Sarah McCammon that Mrs. Trump pressed her husband to act to keep undocumented immigrant families together.
“She’s been talking to him about it from the very beginning,” the official said, who declined to speak on the record due to the sensitivity of the issue. The first lady’s “Be Best” initiative is focused on the well-being of children.
Mrs. Trump, shown here during a viewing of the caged children.
.
When Trump gets busted for something bad, he usually finds a scapegoat to take the heat. When he makes a change in a bad policy he doesn’t want to acknowledge that any outside force caused him to change his mind. Trump doesn’t want anyone to think that his mind CAN be changed, especially by protests from Democrats.
Trump also doesn’t want to give credit to Republicans who asked him to change his mind. That would be giving them perceived power over him. He won’t acknowledge the actual reason, a disastrous public response.
Remember the change in policy after Trump saw the photos of kids in Syria? Was it really Ivanka who showed him the photos that changed his mind, or was she simply given CREDIT for it?
In general Trump doesn’t want to acknowledge what leverage works on him. It would be admitting weakness. By giving the credit to Melania, it makes her look like a person with power over the President. Yes, she might have some influence, but saying Melania convinced him is really just an acceptable excuse to use for the media instead of the actual reason. Plus, it helps push her her #beBest initiative. She’s probably still pissed at him and giving her credit for this change is one way to appease her.
Baby Gitmo is Bad PR
We know that Trump watches a lot of TV, but it wasn’t until images of the kids in cages reached him and his remaining staff, did he finally get the, “This is bad.” feeling.
The reason that we never saw the girls who were separated from their parents? It’s the same reason that factory farms pass Ag Gag laws. They don’t want people to see atrocities on their TV screens.
Going forward we should note that reaching Trump involves creating the images that get to him. This is why everyone in the White House goes to Fox and Friends to reach him. To reach Fox and Friends you have to give them something to show, even it is so they can downplay it or lie about it or justify it.
Activists know the importance of photos and video. The media aren’t going to get these images and videos by themselves. We need to help them.
Sometimes we need to make our own videos, other times we need to tip off the media so they can get the images. Now is the time for insiders or people who know insiders at the Baby Gitmos to act. Here’s a tip. Find a third party to get the story to the media.
For example, maybe you know the guy who delivers diapers to your local Baby Gitmo. You don’t want to be the whistleblower, but if the diaper delivery guy gets the idea, totally out of the blue, to call his local TV station with what he noticed… well it’s not your fault he noticed, you just work in shipping and receiving!
When I read about Presidential pardons being handed out to “clean things up” I feel my Angry Left human side rise up. I really want to see some serious prosecution of the jerks who are driving the fascist state. I want them to get caught, disgraced, lose their money and go to jail.
I want the people who supported them to not get away with the, “I barely even knew them!” crap.
I want these jerks to get caught for crimes they committed, flip on the crimes that others committed, and then NOT get off easily for their own crimes.
I don’t want them to get a fine and get rehabilitated on Fox News.
When the Democrats get back in power, I don’t want them to “move on” or “look forward, not backward.” I want them to hold investigations and trials. I want them to repeal laws that made corrupt things legal.
I want the DeTrumpication of the country
I’m tired of Republican politicians not getting their feet held to the fire for their support of fascist policies. I want them to OWN Trump hard now, so that when he goes down, they go down with him.
I want the media to keep asking why the degradation of Constitutional values is acceptable to Republicans.
I want the Democrats to have a thirst for punishment, instead of a timid attitude of, “Well, the Republicans are just like me, I better not piss them off, because then they’ll come after me when they are in power.”
To return to norms of humanity, decency and American constitutional values we need punishment of the breaking of those values. Otherwise they become the norms.
The SWATTING of Hogg, Kasky and Chadwick is a crime of violence
by Spocko
Following the SWATTING of the Parkland students Hogg, Kasky and Chadwick I was expecting to read about lots of democratic politicians condemning the SWATTING and pointing out that these are not “pranks” or “hoaxes” but dangerous acts that have led to deaths and needs to be addressed as such.
What I found out, and what most people don’t know, is that SWATTING is a misdemeanor in many states. I don’t know if the SWATTING of Hogg, Kasky and Chadwick, fits under 7026, the new Florida school safety law, but if it does, then it’s a class 2 felony. See section 1362 below about making death threats. The problem is that these cases might turn on how prosecutors interpret the act of SWATTING combined with the intent of the callers, and thatmight not be known until after suspects are arrested.
I think that SWATTING needs to be taken much more seriously, especially following the case of Tyler Barriss, the man behind the fatal Wichita swatting case.
“Swatting is, in fact, a crime of violence. It is an assault with a deadly weapon in which the police are used as proxies to commit the assault.
By definition, the crime entails an armed police response. When the responding officers are threatened in the fake 9-1-l communication with physical harm or death if they respond, the officers invariably arrive at the premises in force, with guns drawn and trained on the premises and its occupants. The prospect for injuries or fatalities in the police response is manifest.”
I want to point out these specific SWATTING actions happened after the MSD School Safety act passed, which made making threats felonies. The good news is that one of the Florida politicians I’ve talked to has been looking into this and sees the need to develop a specific bill for this crime. However, if the case comes up under current SWATTING law the perpetrator might only be charged with a misdemeanor, which would send a message that protecting gun control activists isn’t important.
In the comments section of stories on SWATTING, some people wrote that David Hogg or other gun control activists did this to themselves to get attention for their cause. That is ridiculous, but a demand for justice following these kind of acts is important.
Back in 2012 there was a major case of SWATTING where conservative media were targeted. Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss asked the Department of Justice and Attorney General Eric Holder to look into the SWATTING of conservatives. At the time Saxby said,
“Regardless of any potential political differences that may exist, threats and intimidation have no place in our national political discourse. Those who choose to enter into that political discourse should not have to worry about potential threats to their or their family’s safety.”
The money-losing conservative publication Washington Times wrote about how Florida Republican Sandy Adams drafted a letter to Eric Holder asking him to act. Here is a link to that letter. It had 85 signatories. The Republicans elevated the SWATTING of conservative media to a national issue and news story. Why hasn’t this happened in this case with Democrats and progressives?
Rep. Katherine M. Clark’s [D-MA-5] introduced a federal bill, H.R.3067 – Online Safety Modernization Act of 2017 a few years ago. It made SWATTING a felony on a federal level. But to date there are only seven co-sponsor, 5 Republicans 2 Democrats. None from Florida.
Rep. Brooks, Susan W. [R-IN-5]* 06/27/2017
Rep. Meehan, Patrick [R-PA-7]* 06/27/2017
Rep. Kuster, Ann M. [D-NH-2] 07/19/2017
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA-7] 07/26/2017
Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17] 09/05/2017
Rep. Messer, Luke [R-IN-6] 01/10/2018
Rep. Kustoff, David [R-TN-8] 03/14/2018
Many stories mentioned H.R.3067 – Online Safety Modernization Act of 2017, but without a vocal group of people, it might never get to a vote.If Democrats and progressives push for this there should be huge conservative support for a SWATTING bill.
The story of conservatives being SWATTING is long and convoluted, but it might be useful to understand why there should be conservative support for a SWATTING bill. The history of conservative SWATTING was detailed in this story by David Weigel in the Daily Beast. At that time politicians rallied around the conservatives who were being targeted. I’m hoping that Democrats and progressive politicians will do the same now that gun control activists are targeted.
Tyler Barriss, confessed to SWATTING
which led to the death of Andrews Finch
BTW, the case of Tyler Barriss, the California man whose swatting lead to the death of Andrew Finch, has an interesting Florida connection that illustrates the need for more resources. The Panama City Beach Police Department wasn’t able to confirm the identity of Tyler Barriss, the man who was charged with involuntary manslaughter in a fatal Wichita swatting case. If his earlier case of SWATTING had been solved, the Wichita death might not have happened.
Based on previous cases, I think that the police already have a suspect, but haven’t announced, possibly because the suspect(s) are on other states or are minors. (Several major SWATTING cases involved minors and people located in other states or countries)
I hope that the person(s) who SWATTED Hogg, Kasky and Chadwick and the people who sent them death threats earlier are all brought to justice. If they are tried and found guilty of a felony they will lose the right to own guns. That would be enforcing laws already on the books.
Section 17. Section 836.10, Florida Statutes, is amended to
1364 read:
1365 836.10 Written threats to kill, or do bodily injury, or
1366 conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism; punishment.—Any
1367 person who writes or composes and also sends or procures the
1368 sending of any letter, inscribed communication, or electronic
1369 communication, whether such letter or communication be signed or
1370 anonymous, to any person, containing a threat to kill or to do
1371 bodily injury to the person to whom such letter or communication
1372 is sent, or a threat to kill or do bodily injury to any member
1373 of the family of the person to whom such letter or communication
1374 is sent, or any person who makes, posts, or transmits a threat
1375 in a writing or other record, including an electronic record, to
1376 conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism, in any manner
1377 that would allow another person to view the threat, commits a
1378 felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.
1379 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
My friend Dan Mcenroe, a brilliant video production guy in Sweden, saw this live at about 1:30 am California time. He said,
“They cut a fucking TRAILER for the summit. I’m dead serious. They’re showing it on big screens to the media. It’s crazy. They actually got a trailer voice guy who says shit like, “Destiny Pictures presents…” and, “…featuring Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un.” At one point they say something like, “Two men, two LEADERS have two paths before them,” and show a montage of nuclear missiles launching followed by a montage of kids on a playground and shit. Then trailer voice guy intones, “Which path will they choose?” This is like an SNL digital short. My head is spinning.”
I transcribed the entire 4 minute piece.
Seven billion people inhabit planet Earth. Of those people alive today only a small number will leave a lasting impact. And only the very few will make decisions or take actions that will renew their homeland and change the course of history. History may appear to repeat itself for generations, cycles that never seem to end. There have been times of relative peace and times of great tension. While this cycle repeats, the light of prosperity and innovation has burned bright for most of the world. History is always evolving and there comes a time when only a few are called upon to make a difference. But the question is, “What difference will the few make? The past doesn’t have to be the future. Out of the darkness can come the light and the light of hope can burn bright.
What if a people that share a common and rich heritage can find a common future? Their story is well known. But what will be their sequel? Destiny Pictures presents a story of opportunity. A new story, a new beginning. One of peace. Two men. Two leaders. One destiny. A story about a special moment in time when a man is presented with one chance that may never be repeated. What will he choose? To show vision and leadership? Or not?
There can only be two results. One of moving back. Or one of moving forward. A new world can begin today. One of friendship, respect and good will. Be part of that world where the doors of opportunity are ready to be open. Investment from around the world, where you can have medical breakthroughs and an abundant resources. Innovative technology and new discoveries. What if? Can history be changed? Will the world embrace this change? And when could this moment in history begin? It comes down to a choice on this day, in this time, at this moment. The world will be watching, listening, anticipating, hoping. Will this leader choose to advance his country and be part of the new world? Be the hero of his people? Will he shake the hand of peace and enjoy prosperity like he has never seen? A great life? Or more isolation? Which path will be chosen? Featuring President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un. In a meeting to remake history. To shine in the sun. One moment, one choice. What if? The future remains to be written.
What will he choose? To show vision and leadership? Or not?
As Dan said, this is a really crappy video production. It looks like it was thrown together quickly. They used stock video images and generic music.
The script is designed to appeal to an audience of two. Trump and Kim Jong Un. (Trump showed him this video on an iPad.) It is important to understand why this script was written. It was designed to flatter Trump.
When something like this comes out of the Trump White House it tells you something about how Trump wants the world to see him. He sees himself as that “one man” who is remaking history. He is shining in the sun.
Trump believes he is the hero the whole world is watching and listening to.
I think the video will work on Kim, because it is designed for Trump, a wanna be dictator. It includes all the flattering that insecure men need.
We all saw the photo that Merkel’s office sent out with Trump sitting and everyone else standing over him. But what you might not have seen is the photo the Press Secretary’s office put out. I’ve lightened the face of Trump and darkened the foreground so you can see better. This is where Trump wants to be, at center of everyone’s attention.
The childish script and cheezy video actual left me optimistic for the future. It’s important to know your audience. This video was designed to flatter and hopefully calm down two people with huge egos, bad haircuts and nuclear arsenals at their disposal.
We aren’t dead today, that’s a good thing. The hand of peace has been shaken.
Next week I expect the White House to take out “For your Consideration.” ads in the Economist,
“Donald Trump for Nobel Peace Prize.”
Giuliani said impeachment was the initial remedy for a president’s illegal behavior ― even in the extreme hypothetical case of Trump having shot former FBI Director James Comey to end the Russia investigation rather than just firing him.
“If he shot James Comey, he’d be impeached the next day,” Giuliani said. “Impeach him, and then you can do whatever you want to do to him.”
But look at the violent rhetoric Giuliani uses, “If he shot…“ Shot, not punched with his tiny hands. Shot, not stabbed in the back. Shot. Not fired from a fake Apprentice job.
Trump wants to shoot and kill his enemies.
I think this comment is about something on the #TrumpTapes. Rudy says what Trump wants to do out loud. The media and some of us are using the “Rudy is a dotty old man bit” to discount his comment. But to diminish them allows the Trump Team to float outrageous trial balloon after trial balloon to reset expectations on normalcy.
Let’s imagine audio of Trump telling Michael Cohen to threaten Stormy Daniels with violence. Violence ordered by Trump might not sound so bad as compared to him using personal lethal violence with a gun.
This is all about setting expectations. It’s like the old joke where the kid tells his dad some horrible story and at the end of it he says, “It’s not true!” because it makes the fender bender of the car sound better.
I’ve been writing about the terrible effect of the right wing using violent rhetoric for over a decade.
I like to remind people that threatening speech is not protected speech. Giuliani could have used a number of other words, but he wanted to create an NRA-approved image. “Trump can personally shoot and kill someone.”
The image Giuliani uses is Trump personally shooting the head of the FBI. Executing him.
You will note this isn’t an image of Trump acting in self defense. Giuliani created an image of Trump shooting and killing someone who he feels wronged him. This is Trump using lethal violence.
For Comey in this scenario there is no arrest. No trial. No Judge. No jury of peers. Just BLAM! Trump as the gunfighter shooting the bad guy, Comey.
But even mob bosses don’t do their own killing. they order others to do it for them. They have people “whacked” or other euphemisms for physical violence.
When a comms team floats a trial balloon of the most extreme case, they are hoping to learn something and set up something. Rudy’s trial balloon tells us to expect the next level down from Trump personally executing a defenseless man with a gun.
In Rwanda the radio hosts for the Hutu’s said “Cut the tall trees” when they wanted to tell Hutus to kill the Tutsis. They didn’t say, “Take a machete and kill your neighbor.” But people knew that was what they were talking about. I’ve got 5 Quatloos on Trump telling Cohen to do some kind of physical violence to Stormy Daniels. Then people will start arguing about what is to be taken seriously vs what is hyperbole. “It’s not like Trump told Cohen to shoot her!”
Therefore, when the #TrumpTapes come out, please keep in mind that this is not a TV show. This was not some clowns joking. This was not some dotty old men shaking their fists at some mean lady with no actual plans to do anything. This happened before the election. Just because Trump personally didn’t shoot someone doesn’t make the threats he DID make okay.
This is real life, not Apprentice Mob Boss
Following the release of the #TrumpTapes the public and the media must demand all the elected adults act. This means impeaching the president, then indicting him. Then arresting and trying him. That’s what normal people do in a democracy.
It’s fun to mock Michael Cohen’s threats to Tim Mak. “He sounds like a third rate mob guy!”
Sam Seder, Michael Brooks and Alex Pareene did a good job of it on The Majority Report show today.
But listening to this recording really disturbed me. For Trump threats work. Intimidation works. Threats are part of Trump’s business model. They are a key component of his negotiations. Winners and losers are determined by who has the upper hand when it comes to threats. The person who can threaten others most successfully wins.
After listening to Cohen and reading the article closely. I wondered:
1) Who else was intimidated?
2) Who else was paid off?
3) What types of intimidation were used? 4) Were there threats of violence? 5) How many of these threats were at Trump’s direction?
6) How much did Trump know about the implementation of the threats?”
Remember the Donald Trump rape lawsuit right before the election that went away? The accuser claimed he raped her when she was 13 back in 1994.
Reading the story at the time I remember thinking, “Who and what convinced her to drop the case?”
In the NPR Story Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign aide, defends Cohen.
“People like to paint him as some kind of a thug out of New York. He’s an attorney and he knows what he’s talking about,” said Caputo. “And I think while he might push the bounds of propriety in some people’s eyes … Michael sees the line and doesn’t cross it. “
Really? How do we know he didn’t cross “the line?” Whose definition of “the line” are we using here? Caputo’s?
We know that Cohen used “arrogance and bullying and threats and intimidation.”
Avenatti described how Cohen pressured Daniels into signing a document. Avenatti alleged in a March court filing that as news stories about the NDA were beginning to emerge in January, Cohen “through intimidation and coercive tactics, forced [Daniels] into signing a false statement” denying a previous sexual relationship with Trump.
Sam Nunberg, a political adviser close to Trump says Trump cultivated an aggressive environment and that Cohen “was supposed to say and act the way Donald wanted him to act.” (“I’m just following orders.”)
Powerful people get away with criminal acts by avoiding evidence of their connection to those criminal acts. We have all watched enough police procedurals to know to say things like, “Don’t tell me how you did it. I don’t want to know.”
In the world of politics the old phrase, “plausible deniability” is used to protect the top guy. What if the top guy can’t deny something based on hard evidence?
Smart, powerful people don’t put anything in writing, especially details of ordering an illegal act. They don’t want to know the details of an illegal act. They talk in code because they know they are involved with illegal acts. When Tony Soprano asks Silvio, “Did you take care of the thing with that girl from the place?” he knows that he is being recorded.
What evidence do we have that Trump is smart? Does he moderate his comments when it comes to his vindictiveness? We know he is, but what does he actual SAY about how to carry out his vindictiveness?
So what happens when law enforcement gets evidence that the client knew about the threats and even suggested them? What happens when the general public hears these threats directly?
When you have a history of getting away with threats, what do you do if you are on the verge of being caught? It depends on how much power and money you have.
Trump knows he will be busted someday. Here is what he is doing now to control the damage to himself.
1) Granting pardons. “I will make that illegal thing you did go away. Trust me.”
2) Focusing on what are normal legal threats. “It was just saber rattling. It’s a bluff, just part of negotiation for deals.”
3) Redefine normal. “This is a standard business practice. It’s no big deal. Everybody does it.”
4) Play the Joker card. “I say a lot of outrageous things. I’m joking! I don’t expect people to do exactly what I say.”
5) Blame the other guy. “Hey if he broke the law that’s on him!”
6) Play the victim card. “This is a unfair! It’s a witch hunt. I’m the victim here!”
Threats Work In Multiple Ways
Some people think they wouldn’t be intimidated by a Michael Cohen. They have the truth, the law and God on their side. Great. Good for you, but threats scare the crap out of me. Legal threats, financial threats, threats against employment, threats against my family and their employment, vague future threats and physical threats. I’m easily intimidated. I don’t have money for lawyers, bodyguards and a PR response team. Most people don’t. Trump knows this.
Trump has a long history of screwing people over financially. “Don’t like how I forced you to cut your price by 30 percent? Sue me!” How else does he want to hurt people?
Did Trump tell Cohen to have someone hurt? Killed?
What lines didn’t Cohen cross for Trump? Did Trump order lines to be crossed?
Let’s say, hypothetically, that we hear Trump ordering intimidation, legal threats, coercion and maybe physical violence. What next?
Expect there will be scores of people who will work to define legality, intention and the definition of words and phrases. Alan Dershowitz will be quoted a lot.
Watch for lots of non-related whataboutisms “Well Obama ordered the bombing of… “
The media will include allegations and lies about Democratic candidates actions. “The Clinton campaign and George Soros hired thugs to…
There will be acceptance and ADMIRATION for illegal acts. Especially ones that didn’t lead to prison time. This will be surprising to some but it is actually one of the things the base LIKES about Trump. They mock the left for not knowing how to do it.
“Business people play hardball like this all the time. This is just the cost of doing business.”
And of course their all time favorite distraction line, “But the Clintons…
The rich and powerful have multiple tools to avoid getting caught and punished. If they can’t avoid getting caught, they work to set the expectations of what is normal and acceptable.
What’s the counter to this cynical narrative?
Reject the normalization of intimidation tactics in business and politics
Demand that illegal acts be prosecuted now! ( Don’t wait until mid-terms and the replacement of complicit Republicans. Put the Republicans on the defensive NOW for accepting illegal acts.
Laws need to be fixed, repealed or recreated. Things that were illegal before and are legal now, can be made illegal again. Start talking about what those law are and WHY they are necessary NOW.
What Was The Intent Of The Bullying and Threatening?
Why people do things matter. I don’t like to just focus on legality, since sometimes people break laws for noble reasons. Sometimes people say and do things for the good of their country, their family or their beliefs. Some even break laws that we generally agree with. But they might have an important, understandable reason or noble purpose for doing this. Laws were still broken and consequences accepted but a reasonable person could understand why. .
So let’s look at the intimidation actions that Trump ordered or accepted. “What were the reasons these acts were carried out? Who benefited? Were they for a noble cause?”
Some crises bring out the best in people. Others bring out the worst. What happens next isn’t just about how Trump reacts, it’s about how the Republicans in power act when they hear the voice of a man ordering a retaliation on another for his own selfish reasons.
—
I wrote this June 1, 2018 4:30 PDT. With time traveling it’s not good to reveal too much too soon. So I try to be either one hour early, 24 hours early or 6 days early with my “predictions.” so people can put them in context when they happen. Also, I get a cookie from Karoli when I’m right.
