However, a source close to the defense told POLITICO, "the cooperation agreement does not involve the Trump campaign. ... There was no collusion with Russia."
Of course, Cohen did not enter into a cooperation agreement -- yet he is now cooperating, and apparently has been for a while.
In recent weeks, it has also become common knowledge among close friends of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, that Cohen is talking to the Mueller team, according to people familiar with the situation.
Fortfeiture of assets plays a big role in the Manafort deal. Marcy Wheeler has been, perhaps, the only person paying sufficient attention to that angle. I hope she won't mind if I quote her at length:
And at this point, the deal is pardon proof. That was part of keeping the detail secret: to prevent a last minute pardon from Trump undercutting it.
Here’s why this deal is pardon proof:
Mueller spent the hour and a half delay in arraignment doing … something. It’s possible Manafort even presented the key parts of testimony Mueller needs from him to the grand jury this morning. The forfeiture in this plea is both criminal and civil, meaning DOJ will be able to get Manafort’s $46 million even with a pardon. Some of the dismissed charges are financial ones that can be charged in various states.
Remember, back in January, Trump told friends and aides that Manafort could incriminate him (the implication was that only Manafort could). I believe Mueller needed Manafort to describe what happened in a June 7, 2016 meeting between the men, in advance of the June 9 meeting. I have long suspected there was another meeting at which Manafort may be the only other Trump aide attendee.
At this point, I must sound my usual ominous notes.
First: Yes, Manafort will lose millions, pardon or no pardon. What of it? As I've said before, Putin and the 'garchs can kiss that wound and make it all better. Hell, Manafort can be recompensed with less than one-tenth of the wildly inflated price paid for that dubious Salvator Mundi by quote "Leonardo" unquote.
Second: Marcy does not directly address the bit quoted above. Once again:
However, a source close to the defense told POLITICO, "the cooperation agreement does not involve the Trump campaign. ... There was no collusion with Russia."
Is this source talking BS? Maybe. It's hard to imagine why Mueller would make a deal with Manafort which does not cover the campaign. I mean, that would be like visiting the Louvre just to admire the flooring.
This just in: MSNBC is now reporting that Manafort has completely folded. So that "source" must have been trying to put a positive spin on a bad sitch.
Third: Have the other cooperation agreements been game-changers? Papadopolous was a fucking disaster, no two ways about it. He gets all of fourteen days, and now he's giving lip service to whatever inane conspiracy theory Trump wants him to pretend to endorse. The Michael Flynn "flip" was a big damned deal for a while, but soon enough Sean Hannity and others declared him a victim and were calling for his rehabilitation. I've seen no hint of contrition in any tweet by Flynn Jr. Looks to me as though Flynn the elder is stonewalling, agreement or no agreement.
The only "flipper" who seems to have developed a genuine dislike for Donald Trump is Michael Cohen.
There is much more to say on the Manafort flip -- and of course, I will have a lot to say about Kavanaugh. Back soon.
Update on Kavanaugh: We now know that Mystery Letter includes an allegation of attempted rape, and that DiFi has been sitting on the letter since June. You know damned well that if the parties were reversed, the Republicans would never sit on such a letter. Nevertheless, the disgusting propagandists at The Federalist are talking about "Feinstein's smear letter." Good lord, can anyone out there actually be so stupid as to believe that crap?
I've been looking into a sub-mystery: Which high school did the girl attend? Let's first look at this Josh Marshall summary...
Here’s something that caught my eye in the new Kavanaugh controversy about an alleged sexual assault while he and the alleged victim were in High School in the 1980s. Kavanaugh went to an elite DC preparatory school, Georgetown Preparatory School, in Bethesda, Maryland. It was an all-boys school. So no female students. The New Yorker article says the alleged victim “attended a nearby high school.”
The letter of support signed by 65 women who knew Kavanaugh at the time notes this: “Almost all of us attended all girls high schools in the area.” Unless the public school system in suburban Washington was very different than I think, that must mean that almost all the signatories went to private schools. Few and maybe none went to public schools.
I've checked out Georgetown Prep. Geographically, its right across the street (the street being Rt. 355) from an arts center called Strathmore -- and just east of that is a Catholic girls' high school called the Academy of the Holy Cross. This is the only high school of any sort that I can find nearby. It appears that the students at Georgetown Prep and the Academy of the Holy Cross tend to socialize with each other.
I'll bet you a donut that Kavanaugh tried to force himself on a Catholic schoolgirl. Uniform and all. They wear grey skirts at that school, not the plaid skirts you're probably envisioning.
By the way: Sixty-five girls testified to Bret Kavanaugh's good character in high school? Even though he went to an all-boy's school? COME OFF IT.
First: The mere existence of that letter proves that Team Trump knew about that "smear" letter long before we mere Dems did. That's a smear?
Second: I went to a normal public high school in the San Fernando Valley, and I strongly doubt that five female classmates retained any memory of me.
(There was a lovely, freckle-faced redhead named Karen D. whom I recall very well. I finally worked up the courage to ask her out on the day of our graduation. Just before I could make the big ask, she told me that her family was leaving for Arizona the next morning. Then she hugged me goodbye, a hug that told me everything I ever needed to know about lost opportunity and roads not taken. I would like to believe that she recalls me from time to time. Carpe diem, my friends.)
Permalink
When I read that Manafort was flipping I literally dropped my phone and let out an audible gasp. I can't believe it's really happening. I've been pretty optimistic on the Mueller investigation, but even I was starting to lose faith that he would ever flip and that he would get a pardon. But no more! The man he knows where all the bodies are buried, probably even more than Trump, has now turned. Amazing. I've basically had a buzz all day since I read the news.
I know (and admire!) your general outlook, but I have to disagree about the Papadopoulos and Flynn cooperation. Even though they've both had moments of clownishness (especially Papa), there's no way they would be getting such light sentences without providing serious information. Flynn has stayed virtually silent since he flipped, and his legal exposure is huge. Also, it wouldn't surprise me they were feigning interest with staying in Trump's good graces in order to head fake Trump into believing they aren't really giving up anything. I think that's what Manafort did as the last couple of weeks he's sent signals that he was expecting a pardon and now BOOM! he's flipped.
Just, holy shit. Both Cohen and Manafort have flipped. We just may get out of this!
posted by nemdam : 8:14 PM
Wow. She says that with another guy, he held her down and covered her mouth with his hand. This is intense. But she never reported it to authorities.
Manafort. Looks like he is flipping. Semi-flipping. I think that he will enter a plea tomorrow. I do not think that we will see an announcement of cooperation with Mueller.
Why a plea, and why now? Lotta speculation on this point. Marcy thinks it's all about moolah:
But the reason why Mueller isn’t just going to let Manafort plead to some of the DC charges without cooperating is because that would mean giving up the considerable leverage — $30 million worth — that Mueller built into this case a year ago.
While it hasn’t gotten a lot of attention, both Manafort indictments include forfeiture provisions, meaning the government will seize his ill-gotten gains. And because Manafort had a shit-ton of ill-gotten gains, there’s a whole lot of stuff that the government can now seize, starting with his ostrich skin suits.
Having been found guilty of charges 25 and 27 in his EDVA trial, for example, the government will seize the funds from the $16 million loan Manafort got by lying to Federal Savings Bank.
Fair point, but Putin and the 'garchs can make Paulie whole and then some. In my opinion, this is about the all-important state charges against Manafort -- charges which that divinely-inspired holdout juror in the first trial made possible. Thanks to him or her, then will be no argument about double jeopardy.
(Y'think that juror was secretly working for Mueller? Nah. That's a ridiculous theory. But boy -- that would be playing hardball, wouldn't it?)
The point is this: For a guy Manafort's age, it's no longer about the money. It's about spending your remaining years a free man. I'm older than Marcy, so this is one area where my instincts may be keener than hers.
My hunch, and it is just a hunch, is that any cooperation agreement won't be revealed tomorrow.
Why not? I suspect that a key factor is the Grand Omerta Compact which links everyone on Team Trump facing investigation. Manafort, we now know, is part of that compact, officially known as a Joint Defense Agreement.
I'm not sure how the Joint Defense Agreement would impact the cooperation agreement, but common sense tells us that if Paulie comes out and says "I'm cooperating!", he must then leave the Omerta Compact.
On the other hand, if a cooperation agreement is not formally announced...
What then? Is Paulie still in the Big Omerta Club?
I dunno. I can't find an answer to that question. Folks, we are swimming in strange waters...
Keep in mind, though, that much the same thing happened to Cohen. He was forced to make a plea based on state charges -- to be specific, the potential charges against his wife. No cooperation agreement was announced, even though Cohen clearly is cooperating.
Cynic I may be, pessimist I may be, buteven I must admit that Muller played this one well. He seems to have found a way around the presidential power of the pardon. The Manafort case is not like the Papadopoulos case, which seems to have turned out badly for Mueller.
The great Brett Kavanaugh Guessing Game. Just now, as Rachel Maddow transitioned to Lawrence O'Donnell, we learned more about the mystery letter, which O'Donnell (probably based on his contacts in the Senate) has known about since last freakin' Friday.
Apparently, the letter involves a sexual abuse case which goes all the way back to Kavanaugh's high school days -- to a time when both Kavanaugh and the unnamed girl were underaged. I'm not sure what "abuse" means in this instance, but nobody has mentioned the word "rape."
So what are we talking about? Are we dredging up an accusation that a seventeen year-old boy made a premature play for second base? Is the letter about something like that?
Frankly, most Americans won't be angered by that kind of revelation. A few ultra-hardcore feminists might sound the alarms, but most won't care. Nobody wants to see a small-ish skeleton -- a high school skeleton -- pop out of the closet at this stage of the game. I would become infuriated if a Democrat got blindsided by the revelation of a sin dating back to his teenaged years -- the years when everyone is trying to figure out how to read sexual signals. We have to maintain the same standard in the case of a Republican.
On the other hand: Perhaps the letter does contain a claim of rape. Perhaps the claim is justified. Or perhaps the claimant is lying. (If so, why would a liar demand anonymity?) It's also possible that she is working on behalf of a Republican plot, the mechanics and purpose of which we can now only guess at. (DiFi's careful reaction indicates that this thought has crossed her mind.)
The greatest mystery facing us right now is this: Why the referral to the FBI? The Bureau does not investigate sexual abuse allegations. Besides, the statute of limitations has passed.
Earlier today, Dem sites discussed a theory that Kavanaugh paid the woman to keep quiet about an abortion, and that the man's reported $200,000 in credit card debt was actually a hush money payment. If such a payment was structured in such a way as to avoid making a payment exceeding the $10,000 mark (the kind of payment that must be reported), then the FBI might well take an interest.
A simpler theory is that Kavanaugh was asked about his sexual history during the vetting process. If he did not mention -- or lied about -- an assault case which occurred during his youth, then he is guilty of perjury.
Of course, we know that the man has perjured himself on other matters, but sex gets attention. At any rate, the simpler theory seems like the better theory right now, although I do wonder if that $200,000 plays a role here.
The right is filling comments sections with outrageous accusations of a Democratic conspiracy. Come off it!
The woman provably exists; some news organizations know her name and have spoken to her. She does not want to go on the record. If she were party to a conspiracy to besmirch Kavanaugh, then she would go on the record -- otherwise, what would be the point? A smear that remains secret is no smear at all.
If this were a smear, then the letter would have leaked. Feinstein would not have referred the matter to the FBI, where (as far as we know) the whole issue may well disappear into a black hole. The whole point of a smear is publicity, and the Dems have bent over backward to avoid that. Even Lawrence O'Donnell has kept mum.
Update:The Guardian reveals more about the letter.
A source who said they were briefed on the contents of the letter said it described an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman that took place when both were 17 years old and at a party. According to the source, Kavanaugh and a male friend had locked her in a room against her will, making her feel threatened, but she was able to get out of the room. The Guardian has not verified the apparent claims in the letter. It is not yet clear who wrote it.
Is that it? I doubt that the FBI will take any deep interest. So far, it seems as though this letter won't be the thing that kills Kavanaugh's chances.
The Hill comparison. Quite a few right-wing trolls have brought up Anita Hill's accusations against Clarence Thomas. These trolls are banking on the fact that young people have no clear memory of what really happened back in the 1990s.
In the years since that confrontation, Hill has been entirely vindicated. Back then, the only conspiracy in evidence was a right-wing conspiracy to besmirch Anita Hill, an honorable woman speaking the truth. We know all about that conspiracy because the man hired to smear Hill, David Brock, later confessed to everything. In fact, he offered the world a superb behind-the-scenes expose of how the right-wing smear machine operates.
That machine is even more vicious nowadays. If the author of the Kavanaugh Mystery Letter is ever revealed, she'll be pummeled by dozens of Brocks. Perhaps hundreds. A Brock brigade. They will play far dirtier than Brock did, and they will be backed by the Russian troll army.
Permalink
isn't it just as possible that someone from the Trump team found a juror to not find guilty on the two counts you mentioned not realizing it would eliminate the argument for double jeopardy?
On the Manafort NG verdicts, the holdout is a Trumper who played the Reasonable Doubt card. Koathanger Kavanaugh's high school antics are a straw for spineless Red State Democrats looking for an excuse. This brings up the hypocrisy of the Liberals hectoring Sens Collins and Murkowski but ignoring Manchin, Heitkamp, and McCaskill, as probable Yes votes.
posted by Mr Mike : 6:57 AM
any woman who goes through this at any age will never forget it:
This whole sexual innuendo against Kavanaugh is distraction. The real issue concerns the debt he incurred for, allegedly, baseball tickets. That story is so simply unbelievable. He won't name the "friends" for whom the tickets were bought. It looks like something much more sinister is involved with that debt.
Sources tell ABC News that Mueller’s office is seeking cooperation from Manafort for information related to President Donald Trump and the 2016 campaign. Manafort, however, is resisting and his team is pushing prosecutors for a plea agreement that does not include cooperation, at least as related to the president, sources said.
I can't find a more recent story from ABC or any other source. I'm still betting that Manafort will go for the pardon, not the flip.
Added (unrelated) note: Once again, I'm going to press you to do what you can to stop Kavanaugh. This guy should be in jail, not on the Supreme Court. The most effective approach is to call the Senate. Forget email: Use the phone and interact with a real human being. I promise. It will be painless.
Call (202) 224-3121.
For the purposes of this call, you live in Maine and your senator is Susan Collins. She is a Republican who can be turned. Call that number, ask to speak to Collins' office, and you'll be connected to a pleasant person who will take your message. Simply tell that person "I want Collins to stop Kavanaugh -- please. If she doesn't, I will regretfully never vote for Collins again." Don't get angry. Just say bye-bye pleasantly and hang up. If you want to lay it on thick, say "Ayuh" and work in a reference to Stephen King or Moxie or clambakes. And don't pronounce the letter R: You pahk the cah.
Never say anything that can possibly give rise to a story like this one. Leave the vulgarity and the hate for the other team. You're playing for Team Nice.
Alternatively, you can live in Alaska and your senator is Lisa Murkowski. Same script. Don't say Ayuh and leave Moxie out of it.
Your area code doesn't matter. These days, a phone's area code does not necessarily indicate where you live. Just make your pitch and leave the stage ASAP. I used to make these calls in the wee small hours; weirdly enough, actual human beings would answer, and sometimes they would be chatty. That may not be the case nowadays.
Permalink
Every call I've made to my senators has gotten me their voicemail. I left a message regardless of whether or not I was throwing my voice down the Memory Hole.
And it gives you the chance to call again during work hours.
It was back in the 1990s when you might have a chance to talk to staffers, if you called around 3 a.m. Sometimes, they seemed genuinely eager to mix it up, and maybe give you a bit of a scoop from the inside. But I haven't had a chat in quite a while.
I'd worry more about Manchin and Heitkamp before Collins and Murkowski.
posted by Mr Mike : 7:04 AM
Marcy thinks that Manafort is in serious money trouble because he owes $30 million. But as Vox points out, the threat of re-trying the 10 charges declared as a mistrial in Virginia and the DC trial yet to come, Manafort is depending on a Trump pardon to bail him out. So Manafort needs Trumps pardon plus some Russian Oligarch cash to keep the Putin Poisoners away.
But Bobbie Three Stripes remains in control since the two trials coming up and Mr. Manafort's attempts to bribe witnesses can keep Paul Manafort spinning for years because Trump has to wait until the stage clears to issue a pardon.
Whenever I contemplate L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Sun Myung Moon, "Bill" Cooper, Alex Jones or other cult leaders, one question dominates my thoughts: Do these people really believe what they're saying?
Years ago, a guy who knew Hubbard told me that, when separated from his followers, Ron would sneer at the suckers who bought into Dianetics. At least, that was the mask he wore when speaking to his fellow science fiction writers. Other evidence suggests that Hubbard sincerely bought into his own rap -- Xenu, the volcanoes, thetans, clams, all of it.
Proposition: Let us consider Trumpism as a cult.
Question: Does DJT believe in the weird conspiracy theories that he tweets about?
I've gone back and forth on that poser. Now we have evidence: Yep. He's a sucker for his own bunk. He's a Music Man who has convinced himself that the Think System actually works.
“I think Hillary is getting killed now with Russia. The real Russia story is Hillary and collusion,” Trump can be heard saying on the tape before arguing that the Clinton campaign made an illegal campaign finance violation by allegedly spending $9 million on a report to prove he had colluded with Russia. After getting affirmation on that claim from Hope Hicks, he adds, “So the whole Russia thing I think seems to have turned around, what do you think, Sarah?”
“Absolutely,” Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders replies, dutifully.
What shocks me is not the fact that the underlings all say "Yes, boss. Right, boss. Seven in one blow if you say so, boss." Obsequiousness is what underlings are for.
What shocks me is that Trump seems genuinely convinced that there is some hidden skullduggery linking Hillary and Russia. That claim is pure projection, pure propaganda. Nothing backs this theory except for casuistry offered by desperate people hiding behind feigned arrogance. Yet Trump makes this absurd claim not just on Twitter, not just in speeches, but behind the scenes.
He's a Hubbard who thinks that Xenu really is out to get him.
Speaking about cults. I must respond to this article, which references -- yet again -- Leon Festinger's overly-familiar When Prophecy Fails. For some reason, people keep presuming that I've never read that book. Hell, if I had a dollar for everyone I've met who made that presumption, I could order steak tonight. Well, maybe a first-rank burger.
Yes, I've read it. Not only that: I know the truth about "Marion Keech," the cult leader whose group was infiltrated. Her real name was Dorothy Martin, a.k.a. Sister Thedra, and she became the behind-the-scenes leader of the Association of Sananda and Sanat Kumara (ASSK), the group that gave us Ramtha.
(Remember Ramtha? Blonde chick who imitated Yul Brynner while offering mystical guff and fake prophecies? "He" was big in the 1990s. Most people ignored "his" conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds, but I notice such things.)
Here's a message for all you folks who think that you can take me to school just because you've read Festinger's book: I've spoken directly to someone who got screwed over by Keech/Martin/Thedra.
After the events outlined by Festinger, she joined up with a con artist/cult leader named George Hunt Williamson, a.k.a. Brother Philip. (His real name may or may not have been Michael d'Obrenovic; no-one really knows.) Williamson became notorious for introducing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories into the subculture of post-war mysticism. Standard fare nowadays, but shocking at the time.
In the late 1950s, Williamson and Martin gave lectures about a secretive conclave of adepts nestled in the Andes -- the Brotherhood of the Seven Rays, supposedly a kind of Shangri-La in Peru. He wrote about this group in a 1961 book called Secret of the Andes.
(That "Seven Rays" bit was lifted from Theosophy and actually refers to a deeply racist theory of human development. Rays = Race.)
Shortly before the publication of that book, Williamson and Martin announced that they were mounting an expedition to visit the Brotherhood. Dozens of naive young Americans forked over a lot of dough to join the trek. The rubes were taken to a small Peruvian town (I forget the name) at the foot of the Andes, where they holed up in a truly horrible hotel. After they had spent a few days there in mystic preparation, Williamson and Martin assured the group that, in the morning, they would all begin the final leg of the journey. They were going to join the Brotherhood.
Dawn came. You guessed it: Williamson and Martin had flown the coop -- taking all the money with them.
How do I know this? Because I spoke at length to one of the victims.
Like all of the other young rubes, he had no choice but to send a message to his family begging for emergency money. Although the Peruvian expedition proved very humiliating, it awakened an interest in actual anthropology -- at least, such was the case with my informant; I don't know about the others. He later became a scientist attached to a prestigious institution, and he made me swear that I would never reveal his name in connection with this tale.
I mention all of this by way of countering Festinger.
That book is founded on the premise that "Marion Keech" was a sincere would-be prophetess, when in fact she was just a money-grubbing con artist. Festinger made the same mistake that several other sociologists have made, particularly J. Gordon Melton and Massimo Introvigne: They insist on presuming that all cult leaders operate in good faith. In fact, many fringe religious movements are headed by liars and dangerous criminals.
As for Festinger's theory that followers "double down" on their beliefs when a leader proves fallible -- well, my informant didn't react that way. He doubled down on science and logic. When you awaken in the middle of nowhere and suddenly realize that you've been robbed, you tend to wise up very quickly.
The Trump cultists need a morning like that. Nothing else will snap 'em out of it.
We come back to our original question: Do cult leaders really believe their own bullshit? On some level, Martin and Williamson did betray a kind of sincerity. Their commitment to certain Theosophical ideas -- and to racism -- was probably genuine. Yet they also were in it for the dough.
Sorta like Stantonn Carlisle believing his own Shit?
posted by Mr. Mike : 4:19 PM
This post needs an important clarification.
Does Trump believe his OWN bullshit? NO, repeat NO. For a very simple reason: None of what we call "bullshit" or "lies" came from Trump's own pea brain. It's all stuff he read or heard somewhere - like on Fox & Friends, or Alex Jones. If he hears something he likes or that is favorable to him, he latches onto it and integrates it into his stump speech and dinner conversation. Maybe he even tweets about it.
The last thing he cares about is whether it's true or not. NO fact-checking required. It simply doesn't matter, and so he doesn't bother to find out. The bullshit's pleasing and good, it gives him something to joke or rant about, and it therefore becomes part of his (alternate) reality. He covers his ass with a stock phrase: "People say...[insert bullshit here]."
Trump's not so much a deliberate liar as he is someone with a total disregard for the truth. He doesn't bother with it.
Does Trump believe his own bullshit? Well it makes it easier to appear convincing if you believe the lies you're telling. But remember, young Donald Trump grew up attending church services of Minister Norman Vincent Peale. Peale wrote the best selling book "The Power of Positive Thinking". Trump truly thinks that if he believes strongly enough in his own bullshit, it will become reality.
posted by Anonymous : 1:15 AM
Wow! I have to say this classifies as an optimistic post. Never thought I would read that here! What I took away is that once the Trumpers realized they've been conned, they will abandon him strongly and immediately. This would give me great hope for the future except for the whole vote hacking thing which, as everyone needs to be reminded of constantly, our government has done nothing to prevent. Can't wait till election night!
posted by nemdam : 10:29 AM
Obama in his latest speech repeated his version of what Hillary said 10 years ago. When she said it, she was chastised and ridiculed for it, I am talking about politics isn't a game. Now suddenly when it came out of his mouth it sounded so deep by the same cult who didn't like when she said it. Of course he wouldn't be a president without that cult. I don't know if there are people who born without conscious or flooding it along the way.
posted by Anonymous : 10:56 AM
Pretty much all power brokers are either wealthy or have access to people who have wealth. It's not just Trump. Even when a person marries into money or has a trust fund so in theory they the can be more independent in thought they are still probably going to be accused of being beholden to the source of wealth.
When wealth comes from being victorious in the business world, whether the victory is earned, justified, passed on, or immoral seems to be a side product that is not often investigated. Some will rationalize that immorally gotten wealth can be reinvested in a moral way, or more ethical way.
So once a person's wealth exists, the person has power and influence over others. Cult leaders have power because they have faced down people by looking them in the eye and getting the person to believe that by following the leader, their lives will be more fulfilling. Perhaps the biggest difference between a Cult Leader and a Politician is the Politician has to be voted in and can be removed via private vote at a later time.
MIchael's assessment of Trump is pretty spot on. I would suggest that Trump believes Trump is a truthful person because Trump believes in anyone who believes in Trump. Perhaps Trump is a cross between a Cult Leader and a Politician. That would explain why it will be difficult to have Washington Insiders Impeach AND remove him from office since he is an outsider who has created his own paradigm for governing. If the establishment tries to thwart him he will become a martyr to his followers.
Let me be a bit a of a contrarian here, Trumpism is not a cult. There is an interesting book, "Rogue Messiahs" by Colin Wilson which discusses various religious cults through history. One of the hallmarks of a cult leader is the ability to change rules rather capriciously. One of the most famous Jewish cults was that surrounding Sabbatai Tzvi. Sabbatai Tzvi was, like Trump, nuts. Judaism, if nothing else, has many rules. So do other religions, but I am most familiar with Judaism, so I will proceed with Tzvi. He would whimsically change rules, this year we eat matzah on Yom Kippur and fast on Passover. Next year, who knows. Suppose Trump decided to change the rules, suppose he grew a soul and decided that we would have single payer, that we would invite refugees in, that we would raise taxes on the rich or would adopt any other liberal issue. I don't think his followers would continue to follow him. The point is that the Republican party was not co-opted by Trump, Trump was co-opted by the Republicans. Trump saw an opening in racism, hatred and fear and simply used it. To be clearer, Trump saw that he could seize up the natural inclination of people towards tribalism and turned it from a benign, even positive attribute into a vicious,negative one. As Obama said, Trump is not the cause, he is the symptom.
I must admit that comparing Trump to Sabbatai Tzvi (or Zevi, which was the version of the name I learned) is an idea that never would have occurred to me. As I recall the tale, didn't he convert to Islam at the end, when made an offer he couldn't refuse? I can't imagine Trump bowing his head and giving in to an enemy. He's just too arrogant.
But Trump DOES capriciously change the rules. During the campaign, he advocated for something very like single-payer. He said he wanted out of Afghanistan, and I think he really did. And then there's Syria. I could cite another dozen examples of startling changes of mind.
Sabbatai Tzvi (or Zevi or Zvi or any other variation you like)But did convert, and his followers saw that as another sign from God. They also converted but continued to believe in his messiahship. The followers continued to live in Turkey. The cult ultimately died out in the early 1900s. But single payer was never a Republican idea, nor was getting out of Afghanistan. These are just more examples of Trump being co-opted by Republican orthodoxy. If TODAY he were to come out for single payer, that would be a change, that would be leadership and that isn't going to happen.
The Elephant in the room is still Ageism. Most Progressives either make enough money to help take care of their of their parents or have created their own life that is based on other Progressive values. Hillary Clinton has abandoned her Moderate Base and gone 45 and under with her Onward Together movement. Unfortunately, what a Progressive won't ever do is admit that they are more concerned about other issues than they are about the elderly we already have in the U.S. are being treated. Maybe I should say we have a Twin Elephant in the room because many Conservatives don't want to pay for programs for the elderly, and they conveniently get to use the Progressives agenda to make their point. The Moderates are the ones who get flipped into becoming Republicans or Progressives, and the Moderates are the ones who see the need to have a benevolent society, and that includes taking care of the elderly. What we have now is the elderly going into the Progressive Blender with all immigrant related issues, and the elderly are largely being ignored. Every alleged free legal aid service in California focuses ONLY on issues that also affect immigration. They will NEVER take on an issue that only affects seniors who have lived in this country for most of their lives, they just won't do it.
Dye! Plus: Why there will be no blue wave -- and why Gillum will lose in Florida
Ted Cruz thinks that tossing around a few California stereotypes will improve his chances of re-election.
"We are seeing tens of millions of dollars flooding into the state of Texas from liberals all over the country who desperately want to turn the state of Texas blue," Cruz said. "They want us to be just like California, right down to tofu and silicon and dyed hair."
Hilarious! A Republican making catty remarks about dyed hair! Ted, have you taken a look at the Republican in the Oval Office lately?
Ted himself is 47, so his dark brown hair is still more-or-less credible, though I wouldn't be surprised to learn that "Just For Men" plays a role here. Now take a gander at Heidi Cruz, Ted's wife. Are those blonde locks the work of God or L'Oreal?
There are plenty of Californians (I was one of 'em) who can't stand Tofu -- and there are some Texans who love the stuff. I guess it's healthy. If only it had some flavor.
What does Cruz have against silicon? If he's talking about Silicon Valley, I can only presume that he's jealous.
More likely, he's getting desperate. Beto O’Rourke has not surpassed him in the polls, but he's only about four or five points behind and seems to have the big mo.
With O’Rourke outraising Cruz more than 2 to 1 during the past quarter, right-leaning organizations have begun routing resources to the state. The anti-tax Club for Growth, which spent millions on Cruz during his 2012 Senate bid, has started a seven-figure advertising blitz aimed at tearing down the Democratic congressman.
A handful of other well-funded groups are considering joining the effort, including the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, the Mitch McConnell-aligned Senate Leadership Fund, the newly formed Senate Reform Fund, and Ending Spending, which in the past has been bankrolled by major GOP financiers including New York City investor Paul Singer.
So why is outside money a bad thing only when Dems do it?
Blue wave my ass. That said, Cruz ain't going down, and the Senate won't go blue. Neither will the House, despite stories like this one. Why? Here's why.
I could cite another hundred articles -- articles by reputable writers, not partisans or sensationalists or conspiratards. If you follow the last link, you'll see a headline which summarizes my own feelings:
Dear Media, It is irresponsible to continue PRETENDING we have a system that allows us to know whether or not our “official” election results are legitimate.
Exactly. Why are we pretending? Why do people treat me like the bad guy when I tell them that, if election fraud is real (and it is), then blue waves are mythical?
1. The TERRIBLE TRUTH is that neither you, nor I, nor any other voter knows what happened INSIDE the electronic voting machines, election management systems, and tabulators used to count our votes.
2. ALL voting machines can be hacked through the internet, even if the voting machine itself isn’t connected to it.
3. This is because “all voting machines must accept electronic input files” via a “cartridge or memory card … prepared on an Election Management (EMS) computer” that is itself likely connected to the internet from time to time.
Skipping a bit...
6. Moreover, results from the precincts are often transmitted into a central tabulator over a LOCAL AREA NETWORK, so that the “chain-of-custody of the images is not provable, and images may be manipulated in transmission by network-based attacks.”
7. Central tabulators, in turn, transmit results to ONLINE election night reporting systems creating another opportunity for internet hacking of voting machine tallies.
Skipping a bit more...
14. According to Computer Science and election security expert Andrew Appel (Princeton University), these new ES&S cellular modems make it easy for a “man-in-the-middle” hacker to alter votes! https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2018/02/22/are-voting-machine-modems-truly-divorced-from-the-internet/
15. Meanwhile, the New York Times recently “outed” ES&S for its past sales of remote access software for election management systems! (Election management systems are centralized computers used to program both scanners and touchscreen voting machines before each election.)
18. Regardless of what vendor you use, it is also easy to insert malware onto voting machines when they are updated. https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2016/09/20/which-voting-machines-can-be-hacked-through-the-internet/ …
19. Optical scanners are very easy to hack, as they use memory cards that can be programmed without detection to +1k votes for one candidate and -1k for the other candidate (or whatever +/- number a hacker might choose).
20. Per IT expert Alex Halderman (Univ. Michigan), the ONLY way to VERIFY if an electronic tally is correct is to HAND count the ballots or to FORENSICALLY AUDIT the machines
In 2016, Donald Trump's lawyers fought against an audit in Wisconsin, even though public donations were raised to fund said audit. There is no excuse for this behavior. Impeding an audit of election machinery is a confession of vote tampering.
Since 2004, I have screamed "Election fraud is real!" Although I have not seen polling data, I'm pretty sure that most Americans now agree with that position. Yet we all feel constrained to pretend that what we know to be true isn't really true. The Republicans are fighting like hell because they need to make "victory" credible. In other words, they need to get within five points of the Dems; hackers can carry 'em over the line.
In other countries, a sharp dichotomy between the exit polls and the official tally is considered prima facie evidence of tampering. In this country -- and only in this country -- we are continually reminded of the fallibility of exit polls. If they fail so damned often, shouldn't they fail in both directions? Shouldn't the exits over-estimate the blue candidate's total as often as the red candidate's total? Yet in election after election, state after state, exit polls tell us that the blue candidate should have done better than the "official" results indicate.
Before the advent of computer voting, teevee journalists continually assured us that exit polls were accurate and trustworthy. If, like me, you're old enough to recall Chet and David and Uncle Walter, you know what I'm talking about.
Primaries are even more likely to be rigged because exit polling is rare, and because fewer people question the official results. Rigging a primary allows the Republicans to run against the candidates they choose. That's been a Roger Stone trick since 1972.
Who really chose Gillum? Let's take a look at the recent primary race in which Andrew Gillum became the Dem nominee for Florida governor. I don't dislike Gillum; he says the kinds of things I usually like to hear. But let's face facts: Going into election night, polls had Gillum in third place. The only "informal" exit poll we have for that race shows Gillum in third (maybe second) place. Yet he pulled off a surprise win.
In this environment, we should be highly suspicious of such surprises.
Trump is based in Florida. So is Jeffrey Epstein. A Democratic governor would rescind the "sweetheart deal" that gave Epstein a slap on the wrist. A proper investigation of the case could publicize the Trump/Epstein relationship; most people don't know that Virginia Roberts was recruited by Epstein at Mar-A-Lago.
One way to maybe have honest elections is to have each voter generate two identical voting ballots. Then the two are kept separate forever. all the votes are counted in two different locations, and if the two results are more than .01% different, then something went wrong somewhere. The totals would be kept silent and then revealed ala Academy Award Style.
Some international perspective: it may be that Steve Bannon has experienced setbacks in the past few days in Sweden and Britain.
In Sweden, the Sweden Democrats came third in the general election.
In Britain, Boris Johnson made a move towards the Tory leadership and prime ministership and then got pushed flat on his face. You can read the "War Book 2" "dossier", as the media call it, here.
My take is that this guy is unlikely to stand for the Tory leadership; if he does stand in the first round, he is unlikely to stand in the second; and contrary to the parroted garbage saying "he'll do well if he gets onto the members' ballot", if there's a contest there's unlikely to be a members' ballot. I don't care that he's the punters' favourite: Johnson will not become PM.
He is, however, an important figure at this time. Britain watchers should note the flavour of his accusation that current PM Theresa May is attempting to strap a "suicide belt" onto the country. That is a British analogue to the nutcase far-right line that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are Daesh. It really is that polarising and nutcase.
In Syria, bombing with white phosphorus from F-15 jets has been reported. Russia has accused the US. The US has denied it. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual culprit is Israel.
posted by b : 10:17 AM
What Cruz really meant to say was "silicone" (note final e), as in boob jobs.
RE: Kavanaugh docs released by @SenBooker-some names in these docs are interesting.For example,Jay Sekulow&Viet Dinh have turned-up.Both are attorneys.Jay,of course, is one of DJT's attorneys.Viet Dinh is one of Alfa Bank's attorneys.I wonder if BK stayed in touch over the yrs.
By the by: Supreme Court Justices can be impeached. Kamala Harris, who clearly has some sort of inside information, forced Kavanaugh to make a declaration which he obviously did not want to make. Lying under oath is an impeachable offense. Even if Kavanaugh gets on the court, he may not stay there.
Hour 25. Felt's Twitter feed reminds us that a "25th Amendment" maneuver requires a sympathetic House in order to be sustainable. Here are the words of the amendment -- and feel free to skim, because I shall soon offer a summary.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
If your eyes glazed over, I'll simplify.
If a majority of cabinet officers tell Congress "Yow! The prez has gone nutso!" -- then the veep takes over. However, the prez has the right to challenge. If there's a standoff -- if the cabinet and the veep say "He's nuts!" and the prez says "No, I'm not!" -- then Congress decides.
The threshold is high: To keep President Nutso from getting back into the Oval, a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate must declare: "He really is nuts. Keep him out."
Now, nothing that happens in November will result in a two-thirds anti-Trump majority in both houses of Congress. That said, I think that an invocation of the 25th might well be upheld, if only because the country will finally be tired of the continual drama, and the cabinet members will be telling their side of the story all over cable teevee.
A temporarily-ousted Very Stable Genius would be forced to convince Congress and the country that he really is very stable. Would Trump rise to that challenge? Would he say the right words?
Nah. Trump is Trump. Under stress, he'll say something bizarre.
Here's a part of the 25th amendment that I never noticed before...
...either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide...
What does that mean? Sounds to me as though Congress could empower a panel of shrinks to make the determination.
Because I habitually forecast the worst, I do not stand with those who predict a Blue Wave. But if, by some miracle, the Dems were to capture both the House and the Senate, it would become feasible for Congress to pass a law requiring the President to undergo an annual psychiatric evaluation. And even if the Reds keep the Senate (as they very likely will), it would be cute to force Republican senators to explain why the president should not undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
Speaking of guys named Felt: During discussions of the Great Op-Ed Mystery, many teevee talking heads have reminded us that FBI man Mark Felt formally denied being Deep Throat. Some of us found those denials believable. In fact, we found those denials so compelling that we still question the identification of Felt as Throat. That is to say: We, the obstinate few, continue to argue that Throat was probably a composite of more than one individual.
For one thing, Felt had no way of knowing things that Throat knew. For another thing, Woodward's description (physical and otherwise) of Deep Throat bore no resemblance to Mark Felt -- but was a perfect match for James Jesus Angleton of the CIA, who really was audacious enough to pull off such a move. Woodward spoke of a secretive, gaunt chain-smoker who liked his scotch and who occasionally made literary allusions. That's not Felt; that's Angleton.
You may want to check out my earlier posts on the topic, here and here.
Permalink
A lot could happen in the four days after Article 25 gets invoked. My reading is that Pence would stay as Acting President during that period even if Trump is tweeting like a mofo, insisting he's the sanest person in the history of the world as well as the greatest, physically healthiest, and most stable. If the Pres says he's as sane as a button he resumes office UNLESS Pence plus a cabinet majority say "nope, as we said, he's crazy" WITHIN FOUR DAYS. So Pence gets four days' grace, during which presumably there are no restrictions on his exercise of presidential powers.
posted by b : 7:14 PM
L. Patrick Gray was long rumored to have been Deep Throat though he denied it.
It's not saying Congress can appoint a panel of shrinks, it's saying Congress decides who counts as a member of the cabinet for twenty fifth amendment purposes. They can pass a law promoting the executive officers of other federal bodies to cabinet members, at least for these purposes.
25th ain't gonna happen, no republican wants to spend the rest of their life fearing doorknobs.
posted by Mr. Mike : 12:05 PM
I disagree with Stephen Morgan's interpretation of the language of the 25th Amendment. I don't know if he's a lawyer, and lawyers certainly have no monopoly over saying what the laws mean, but at least we've been forced to study the framework used for that purpose. The Amendment says "either the principal officers of the executive department or of such body as Congress may by law provide". That means Congress can designate any body it wishes, including a body that exists for this purpose alone. Of course, the fact that it has not yet done so and would therefore have to pass a law for that purpose and, I assume, get the President to sign the law, or override his veto, does limit Congress's ability to do anything like that at the moment. It could happen when the Vice President is serving as President, but there's a pretty tight deadline in that situation.
posted by CambridgeKnitter : 2:29 PM
"May by law provide" is a hard bit here. If Congress wants to empower another body than the cabinet is it restricted by existing law? Or can it enact a law to create and empower whatever body it wants? If it can empower whatever body it wants, does the body have to be in prior existence? I could imagine lawyers arguing over these three issues.
Trump denounces journalists who use anonymous sources.
Trump tells us to presume that anonymously-sourced quotes are fabricated.
Trump believes that the writer of the anonymous NYT op-ed piece committed "treason."
Trump demands that "the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"
Yet Trump has no problem with Q-anon or the followers of Q-anon -- even though Q is (supposedly) an anonymous insider revealing the most closely-guarded secrets of our time, including the hidden workings of the Mueller probe and the innermost plans of Donald Trump. No-one notices the contradiction.
In fact, the Q Qrazies have gone qrazier than usual...
Milton "Bill" Cooper -- the proto-Alex Jones of the 1990s -- proved that there's a massive audience for wild, unprovable claims from alleged "inside" sources. Back then, I was intrigued by the question of Coop's motive. Money clearly played a role -- he made a pretty good living as a conspiracy salesman -- yet he demonstrated a willingness to die (and to kill) for his weirdo weltanschauung. Although he told many easily provable lies, and although he often contradicted himself, Cooper actually believed his own bullshit.
So what's in it for Q? What's his motive?
He's nuttier than a jar of Peter Pan. At least, that's what some Trump administration officials told a Yale psychiatrist named Brandy Lee.
Lee briefed a dozen lawmakers from the House and Senate last December about Trump's fitness to be President. But lawmakers on Capitol Hill weren’t the only ones alarmed by the President’s erratic behavior, his troubling tweets or his temper.
A pair of West Wing representatives contacted her two separate times on the same day because they believed the President was “unraveling.”
Political psychologist Dr. Bart Rossi said it is clear that Trump has been exhibiting narcissistic behavior and it has been getting worse as the pressures of the office mount and the federal Russia probe stretches on.
“I see someone who has a real narcissistic problem,” Rossi told The News. “The problem is he is narcissistic to the extreme. He’s self-absorbed to the point where he’s only concerned about himself.”
“The other problem is that he has a thought disturbance,” Rossi added. “When Donald Trump says something he expects others to believe it is reality even if it is completely fabricated.”
What bothers me most of all is this: Trump surely knows what he should say in order to calm people down, yet he can't bring himself to utter the words or to change his self-destructive behavior.
He knows that narcissistic is one of the first words people associate with the name "Trump." The obvious course of action would be to speak humbly and make a few self-deprecatory jokes. All other politicians do this. But Trump cannot; something his psyche prevents him. This guy not only lacks humility, he can't even fake humility when doing so is clearly in his interest.
Take the passing of John McCain. This was an occasion for Trump to make a gracious statement: "Yes, he and I were in opposition. But I know full well that a political opponent can also be a great man..." You can fill in the rest. Any writer on Trump's staff could have knocked out a humble, civilized declaration. Even if Trump had read this statement with an obvious lack of conviction, he would have been lauded for his statesmanship.
Yet he couldn't do it. Donald Trump cannot feign humility even when doing so would aid his cause. Hell, even Hitler knew how to perform that trick.
We are witnessing the most remarkable case of egomania in American political history.
If you're young, you may not know who Jack Benny was -- but if the name is familiar to you, you may have heard about the most famous moment on his radio show. Benny is walking down the street when a robber tells him: "Your money or your life!" -- followed by a long, long, long pause. Benny finally answers: "I'm thinking about it." Similarly, if Trump had to choose between a experiencing a momentary lapse in pride and giving up his life, there would be a long, long, long pause as he thought about it. And in the end, he'd probably say "Shoot."
In real world terms: If forced to choose between impeachment and not being a blowhard, Trump would choose impeachment.
I don't think that impeachment is likely. However, it seems clear that a faction within the administration have given serious thought to a 25th amendment solution. Indeed, the current debate seems designed to prepare us for that outcome.
Permalink
The current situation where one or more individuals on White House Staff have anonymously advertised their resistance, seems designed to push Donald down a dead end alleyway of increasing frantic paranoia and delusion which will make a 25th Amendment solution inevitable.
posted by Anonymous : 9:17 AM
Here's my conspiracy theory: I’m betting that within the next couple of weeks, a guy will appear on Fox and reveal how he tricked the gullible NYT into publishing that op-ed by a non-existent person, thereby forever destroying the last fragile residues of NYT's and MSM's credibility. -brumel
posted by Anonymous : 10:46 AM
We survived Richard Nixon tho allies and enemies both thought we were circling the drain. This time around we have Putin stirring the Trumptards to rise up should the Great Wipe Dope be forced out of office. The best we can hope at this time is a medical event sidelines Trump, anything else will be a shit circus.
posted by Mr. Mike : 11:27 AM
Donald Trump melting down into a burbling pile of protoplasm for the TV cameras may be the medical event of which Mr. Mike speaks.
posted by Anonymous : 11:41 AM
brumel, I thought of that as well, so have quite a lot of people actually. While I think it's possible, I find it unlikely. The NYT say they are confident in the identity of the person who wrote it. Of course, that doesn't mean they actually know, but I can't imagine they'd be willing to throw their business down the toilet for something like this. They would loose a LOT of readers (mostly progressive liberals) for falling for such a ploy. Still, it's within the realm of possibility, that's for sure.
posted by Gus : 1:02 PM
Shera Bechard makes accusations against Elliot Broidy. This is wild stuff.
At the Al Smith dinner in NYC three weeks before the 2016 election, where traditionally the candidates deliver some self-deprecatory jokes, the best Trump could come up with was to poke fun at his wife for giving the same speech at the Republican convention that Michelle Obama gave to the Democratic convention in 2008, and to comment that "it wasn't her fault". I agree that Trump couldn't bring himself to fake humility even to stay in office.
After considering the alternatives, I suspect that the anonymous writer of that instantly-infamous op-ed is Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. Lawrence O'Donnell's argument (embedded above) may not be bulletproof, but it is logical.
True, Coats has denied the allegation -- but he would have to do so, wouldn't he? Anything other than a denial would result in job loss.
And we need Coats to stay in that position. That's a key point which all Dems have missed.
When I first started to read books about spies, I stumbled across an anecdote about Napoleon -- a story which, even if apocryphal, remains instructive. Napoleon once told a friend: "People think that I'm the most powerful man in France. I'm not. That man over there is more powerful than I." He pointed to a lowly adjutant standing in a corner of the room. "He's the one who hands me reports which tell me what's going on in the world. Based on those reports, I make what seem to be the only logical decisions."
The implication: If you control the information flowing to the emperor, you control what the emperor does.
Dan Coats is in that position, even though he is far more than a lowly adjutant. Coats takes all of the information from the various intelligence services and boils everything down to one or two pages. We're told that he has to "dumb it down" quite a bit in order to hold Trump's attention. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Coats or someone in his orbit leaked this information. In all likelihood, Coats is the reason why we know that Trump often skips his daily briefing in favor of oral summaries.
If Coats were forced out, how would Democrats benefit? How would the world benefit?
The president's daily intelligence summary (which, contrary to popular understanding, is not for his eyes only) limits his range of options, places boundaries on his conception of the possible. That's a good thing. Outside-the-box thinking is a virtue only when practiced by a certain type of person: Intelligent, stable, judicious, willing to give multiple viewpoints a fair hearing. Donald Trump is none of those things. Donald Trump is a maniac who takes Alex freakin' Jones seriously.
The world's safety depends on keeping Donald Trump's mind in an intellectual straitjacket and tightening the straps as far as they will tighten. That job belongs to Dan Coats. Why would we want anyone else to have that job? The next person to take on that task may keep the straps looser, or may dispense with the straitjacket altogether.
Permalink
I appreciated Lawrence O'Donnell's thought process. It made sense and if it is Coats, you'll get no argument from me. The panel also had some good thoughts: the Shakespeare argument of multiple authors or the argument of less prominent person in national security or communications. I have to admit that I wondered if it was a calculated move by the Administration which was also bandied about by Rachel. I can't shake it. Who reads The Times? Not his base, necessarily. Who is his reader? All of us focused on Kavanaugh. I suppose an intent could be to stir the moral core of certain Republicans in Congress. I hope that's the case and my cynicism is unwarranted.
O'Donnell is wrong, as he often is. For those of us who have watched Senator Dan Coats know that he is not the leader of the pack. Instead he went the way that Dick Lugar prescribed after he was elected to serve the last two years of Dan Quayle's term when Quayle became VP. After serving two more terms he retired in 1998. He ran for and won a six year term in 2011 and retired yet again. Not much of a resume but Pence liked him. He was a big Farm Bill/ethanol subsidy guy - I never saw much from him on national security legislation.
I am betting on Nikki Haley who is the only cabinet member with any guts. Pompeo has a brown nose.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with the existence of a member of the Resistance within the Trump administration. After all, we have plenty of "secret Trumpers" operating within the Resistance: Bernie, Chapo Trap House, the Young Turks, about half the Me-Tooers, anyone and everyone who insists on Identity Politics, progressive purists, ultra-smug students who won't let Bill Maher perform on campus, assholes who insist on hurling the word "privileged" at struggling white males who have lost their jobs and may soon lose their houses...
Trumpers all. None of them will admit it, of course. But all of these people are part of the "Trump 2020" campaign.
Elsewhere: I never thought I would root for Marco Effing Rubio. But -- holy shit. Serious question: Is Alex Jones literally certifiable? I'm old enough to recall a time when a guy who acted that way might end up in Camarillo (which used to be southern California's version of Bedlam).
What is the correct way to respond when a cray-cray volcano explodes just a few feet away from you, as happens to Rubio in this video?
Added note. CALL YOUR SENATOR -- TONIGHT. Tell him to vote NO on Kavanaugh. The man's performance today made clear that he intends to enable Trump's criminal conspiracy.
Permalink
Correct way to act in such a situation is violence. Up the ante. Only solution. Bully will turn tail.
Speaking of cowards, look up "Alex Jones" "parking lot incident" for a howler.
posted by Hank : 1:20 AM
I dunno -- s/he (wait: this is a tRump official we're talking about, so definitely he) may not know it, but the snowflake who authored that op-ed is a member of tRump 2020, as well. Basically, rather than doing the right thing and using his privileged (?) position as a member of the inner circle to help bring down tRump legally, he's continuing to earn his paycheck, protect his post-tRump marketability, helping shield Congressional Republicans from being held responsible for their failure to apply any restraints whatsoever to the giant toddler foisted upon us by uneducated, middle-aged white people, -- and fan the flames of the duh-right's [not-really-the-]Deep State paranoia. Admittedly, in some ways withholding information from tRump so he won't do anything stupid with it is not in the least like not telling Kennedy Lumumba is dead basically as a way to fuck with him -- but in other ways it's exactly the same thing. If the author honestly believes Potus is a threat to the nation, let him act like a hero and take the fight public.
posted by maz : 3:22 AM
Yes, plants in the enemy camp are commonplace, but these plants rarely publish anonymous NYT op-eds that undermine their own alleged purpose. Heck, there is virtually no evidence this “senior official” even exists. NYT tells CNN it “did speak to him directly, but wouldn’t even say how so.” It all went through a mysterious go-between although, come to think of it, there’s no really good reason why it should have. Perhaps his name is Dr. Cain-N'Degeocello? I’m smelling a hoax here. I remember how a German magazine’s reputation was all but destroyed when it fell for faked Hitler diaries. -brumel
posted by Anonymous : 5:02 AM
Trump chose to meltdown in front of law enforcement professionals, the sheriffs from across the U.S. at the White House for a photo-op. Don't think that they won't spread the word back home. They know guilt when they see it. What's with republicans and stolen Democratic Party emails, seems Koathanger Kavanaugh was on the receiving end of some when he worked for Bush the Lesser.
On Twitter, Scott Dworkin opened up the floor for a discussion of this topic: What should the Democrats ask Brett Kavanaugh tomorrow? Let's consider some of the more interesting responses...
Will you promise to recuse if Trump case goes before Supreme CRT?
If he does, Trump will rescind the nomination. Won't that be fun?
Ask why he thinks Zina Bash was flashing white power signs behind him in todays's hearing.
Bash is a former clerk for Kavanaugh, and her odd hand gestures have been various interpreted. Her husband took deep offense at the theory:
We weren’t even familiar with the hateful symbol being attributed to her for the random way she rested her hand during a long hearing. Zina is Mexican on her mother’s side and Jewish on her father’s side. She was born in Mexico. Her grandparents were Holocaust survivors. We of course have nothing to do with hate groups, which aim to terrorize and demean other people — never have and never would.
I think this is the rare case when liberals have stretched conspiracy theory beyond the boundaries of plausibility. With all due apologies to the Bashes, maybe they now understand what the Republicans have put us through: Pizzagate, Qanon, the daily bullshit parade on Infowars and Breitbart...
Is turnabout fair play? I can't say, but I do know that, if you keep hitting someone, you're going to get hit back. No one can deny that Republicans created the current atmosphere of hyper-paranoia.
Let's get back to the questions:
How do you feel about a unindicted co-conspirator nominating you? How did your $200k debt magically disappear recently?
The latter is a perfectly fair question which this blog has not yet discussed, although it has received an airing in many other places. Here is one of the best articles on the topic I've encountered:
According to financial disclosures provided by the White House, the would-be Supreme Court judge reported having between $60,000 and $200,000 in debt accrued on three credit cards and a loan. The cards held between $15,000 and $50,000 in debt each, and his Thrift Savings Plan loan was between $15,000 and $50,000. In a statement, White House spokesman Raj Shah told the Post that Kavanaugh acquired the debt by purchasing Washington Nationals season tickets and playoff game tickets for himself and a “handful” of his friends, in addition to home improvements. While the figures might represent a drop in the bucket for the more wealthy members of the Supreme Court, some of whom are multi-millionaires, that was not the case for Kavanaugh. As a federal circuit court judge he made roughly $220,000 annually, plus $27,000 from lecturing at Harvard Law School last year, while his wife, who didn’t report any income for the four years prior to 2015, makes $66,000 annually as the town manager of Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about Brett’s financial situation or spending habits because, rather fortuitously, “the credit-card debts and loan were either paid off or fell below the reporting requirements in 2017, according to the filings, which do not require details on the nature or source of such payments.”
Who paid the debt?
Back to the questions:
Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about Brett’s financial situation or spending habits because, rather fortuitously, “the credit-card debts and loan were either paid off or fell below the reporting requirements in 2017, according to the filings, which do not require details on the nature or source of such payments.”
Ask Kavanaugh if he thinks Dems should be allowed to take 2 days to fully review his documents - make him say no
Why should Americans trust that you will be absolutely truthful and complete in your answers, given your lies before the Senate during your Appeals Court Hearing?
Will you resign if we later find documents that should have been released for this hearing, would have led to you not being appointed?
From "Trump:Ghost Hunter Believe Me - I Know Ghosts"
"What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The ghost world is forcing their most unwanted ghosts into this reality...
Our reality is very hurt by these ghosts, there are some good ones, which I am very good friends with, but these bad ones are very scary and very bad." ~D. Trump
I have always believed that Donald Trump never wrote a single sentence of prose, but this promo quotation from this book (on Amazon) is just juvenile enough to make me believe that Donald, the narrator, may have have actually owned up to his limited mental capacity.
Maybe Bash's hand signals were meant as a warning and not an affirmation.
It's a slippery slope to advocate that since they lie about us, we are justified in lying about them.
Dr. Kevin Barrett, the "Jews Did 9/11" conspiracy guy, famously declared that the "inside job" 9/11 conspiracy theory had been proven "eleven ways from Sunday" already, so the Truth movement was free to tolerate all kinds of crazy theories that had a chance of getting attention.
posted by Anonymous : 8:02 AM
White Supremacist or victim of an insect bite? That said turnabout is fair play. Koathanger Kavanaugh can be impeached if it's found he purjured himself during his lower court hearing. All his is moot since Democrats would need two republican Senators to defect earning Trump's ire. This ain't gonna happen unless Democrats sign a pledge to vote No as a bloc.
"Flicking his ears"? You mean a discorporeal President Johnson is literally trying to treat Trump like a dog? If this is true, I take back every unkind thing I ever said about LBJ. Vietnam is forgiven.
Alas, there are signs that this excerpt is a hoax. Even in these days of lax standards, I doubt that any major publisher would tolerate "past President's" and similar errors. Still, I think we should spread the story anyways, to compensate for the outrageous nonsense published about Hillary.
On a related note: The Capitol Building is allegedly haunted by an entity known as the Demon Cat, affectionately called DC. He appears to guards in the dead of night, originally taking the form of an inoffensive feral feline, mewling its way through the bottom floors of the building. But if a guard should approach, the normal-sized cat will suddenly grow and grow, reaching a the size of a Sabre Tooth. Just before the beast sinks its fangs into the observer, it disappears.
The Demon Cat is said to appear just before a national tragedy. Does anyone know if he made himself known on the evening before January 20, 2017?
The Washington Post, which obtained a copy of the book, reported Tuesday that former Trump attorney John Dowd arranged a mock interview for Jan. 27. As Dowd rattled off a series of questions about the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump reportedly stumbled over his answers and contradicted himself.
“This thing’s a goddamn hoax,” Trump said, sparking a 30-minute rant.
“I don’t really want to testify," he concluded, according to the book.
Dowd then explained to Mueller and Quarles why he was trying to keep the president from testifying: “I’m not going to sit there and let him look like an idiot. And you publish that transcript, because everything leaks in Washington, and the guys overseas are going to say, ‘I told you he was an idiot. I told you he was a goddamn dumbbell. What are we dealing with this idiot for?’ ”
“John, I understand,” Mueller replied, according to Woodward.
Later that month, Dowd told Trump: “Don’t testify. It’s either that or an orange jumpsuit.”
No denial from Dowd yet. Of course, the day is young.
Trump once told Rob Porter that Jeff Sessions was a "traitor," Woodward writes.
Mocking Sessions's accent, Trump added, "This guy is mentally retarded. He's this dumb Southerner. … He couldn't even be a one-person country lawyer down in Alabama."
Days after the nation mourned the death of the Arizona senator and Vietnam war hero John McCain, there are new bombshell disclosures about the depth of Trump’s disdain for the man. Woodward is reported to describe a dinner at which Trump told senior White House officials that McCain had been cowardly in getting himself released early from a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp.
The defense secretary, Jim Mattis, had to correct the president by pointing out that the truth was in fact the direct opposite – McCain had refused an offer of early release from his captors, out of solidarity with fellow prisoners.
Perhaps the most disturbing element of the Post’s rendition of Woodward’s book is the alarm it portrays among top national security officials about Trump’s lack of grip over world affairs. After one high-stakes meeting in January of the National Security Council over the North Korean missile threat, Mattis was so exasperated he told associates that the president had the understanding of a 10-year-old schoolchild.
Top officials plot among themselves, the author writes, in a collective effort to thwart Trump from carrying out his more outlandish desires. Senior officials swipe documents from the president’s Oval Office desk so that he cannot act on them.
When I was a young aide in the DOD, Bob Woodward was working on "The Commanders." Look up "Mike Dugan" and Woodward. I've seen this UP CLOSE. Imma tell you something; unlike some people, he records these interviews. He grinds and grinds and grinds. Prepare for a WH purge.
Oh, goody! I've been waiting an awfully long time to hear the actual recording of Bill Casey wheezing the cryptic words attributed to him at the end of Veil.
A final note: Contact your senators about the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. I don't think his appointment to the Supreme Court can be stopped, but we must try. History has her eyes on us. Even as we speak, the proceedings are devolving into a debacle -- as well they should.
Permalink
Kavanaugh carried the large debt for a decade according to the Washington Post. But let's assume he bought the tickets in 2916 when he reported a $60,000 to $200,000 debt. Season tickets would have been purchased in March of that year at the latest since the season started the last week of March. The debt was cleared the following year. If I was going 60 large to buy tickets for friends, I would expect to be repaid before I handed over the tickets. The credit card interest rate is generally at least 18%. Why did he have to wait a year to get repaid? What kind of financial adviser would allow him to carry that kind of debt? Were his friends so stretched that they couldn't repay him for a year? The whole thing seems rather strange.
