Thursday, July 25, 2019

Mueller: Not Made for TV

I got comfortable in the easy-chair and watched six or seven hours of Mueller yesterday. It started slow and warmed up a little, but this was not a made-for-TV, tl;dr, sound-bite moment in American entertainment. The guy isn't working the social media, he isn't competing for the audience's attention, he clearly does not seek a post-retirement career in show business. He's a lawyer: methodical, unbiased, objective, deliberate, boring.

Mueller was dull, slow, concise, and painfully accurate. He said "I will refer you to the report on that" and "that was not within our purview" more than anything. He did not appear to have the entire nearly-five-hundred-page report memorized. He did not have sarcastic and politically biting responses to dumb questions and point-scoring from Congresspeople, and seemed to be equally annoyed by members of both parties. He had said he did not want to testify, he had said the report was his statement and he would not go beyond it. And he was not going to be pushed into running his mouth in public.

But still, there was something better about seeing him there, and hearing his voice. You know he sat in an office for a couple of years, meeting with lawyers as rich and powerful people lied to them, tried to manipulate them, refused to cooperate, and the team laboriously put the pieces together. They arrested, charged, and convicted a lot of white-collar crooks.

And in the end the report came out, and hardly anybody read it. Instead, the public chose to get it through the filter of the media. The President got in front of the cameras and said, "No collusion, no obstruction," even though that was not what the report said. He claimed to be "totally exonerated" even though Mueller's report said the opposite. Every day the news played contradicting stories and partisans discussed their favorite interpretations, and finally yesterday the author himself sat in front of two committees of Congress and stuck to the facts.

Here is the story that came out. Obama had imposed severe sanctions on Russia, and the oligarchs were losing a lot of money as the Russian economy collapsed, and they wanted to be sure we would elect a President who would lift the sanctions. At the same time, Trump was ... this close ... to closing a deal on a gigantic real-estate project in Moscow, but he needed the approval of Vladimir Putin. For some reason he had decided to run for President right in the middle of getting those papers ready to sign. He knew he can't legally profit from his position as President, so he had to keep the deal quiet. The Russians knew he was breaking the law, but he lied to the American public.

In the meantime, a gang of bottom-feeders joined up with him, people who either owed money to Russians or had some kind of underbelly deals going on with Russia and other authoritarian countries. They ran Trump's campaign, advised him, and went back and forth between Trump and various Russians -- more than a hundred interactions are described in the report. The Russians had some technological skills, which they used to plant propaganda in American media and to break into the Democratic Party's email system, and the rest is history.

Here is a summary, the close of the Intelligence Committee hearing, from Vox with a few edits gleaned from the C-SPAN video:
Schiff: Director Mueller, I want to close out my questions, turn to some of the exchange you had with Mr. [Peter] Welsh [D-VT] a bit earlier. I want to see if we can broaden the aperture at the end of your hearing.

From your testimony today, I’d gather that knowingly accepting assistance from a foreign government during a presidential campaign is an unethical thing to do.

Mueller: And a crime in certain circumstances.

Schiff: To the degree that it undermines our democracy and our institutions, we can agree that it’s also unpatriotic.

Mueller: True.

Schiff: And wrong.

Mueller: True.

Schiff: The behavior of a candidate shouldn’t be merely whether something is criminal. It should be held to a higher standard, you would agree?

Mueller: I’m not going to answer that because it goes to the standards applied by other institutions besides ours.

Schiff: I’m just referring to ethical standards. We should hold our elected officials to a standard higher than mere evidence of criminality.

Mueller: Absolutely.

Schiff: You have served this country for decades, you have taken an oath to defend the Constitution, you hold yourself to a standard of doing what’s right.

Mueller: I would hope.

Schiff: You have. I think we can all see that. Befitting the times, I’m sure your reward will be unending criticism, but we are grateful. The need to act in an ethical manner is not just a moral one, but when people act unethically it also exposes them to compromise particularly in dealing with foreign powers, is that true?

Mueller: True.

Schiff: Because when somebody acts unethically in connection with a foreign partner, that foreign partner can expose their wrongdoing and extort them.

Mueller: True.

Schiff: That unethical conduct can be of a financial nature if you have a financial motive or illicit business dealing, am I right?

Mueller: Yes.

Schiff: It could also just involve deception. If you are lying about something that can be exposed, then you can be blackmailed.

Mueller: Also true.

Schiff: In the case of Michael Flynn, he was secretly doing business with Turkey, correct?

Mueller: Yes.

Schiff: That could open him up to compromise that financial relationship.

Mueller: I presume.

Schiff: He also lied about his discussions with the Russian ambassador and since the Russians were on the other side of the conversation, they could have exposed that, could they not?

Mueller: Yes.

Schiff: If a presidential candidate was doing business in Russia and saying he wasn’t, Russians could expose that too, could they not?

Mueller: I leave that to you.

Schiff: Let’s look at Dmitry Peskov, the spokesperson for the Kremlin, someone that the Trump organization was in contact with, to make that deal happen. Your report indicates that Michael Cohen had a long conversation on the phone with someone from Dmitry Peskov’s office. Presumably the Russians could record that conversation, could they not?

Mueller: Yes.

Schiff: And so if candidate Trump was saying I have had no dealings with the Russians, but the Russians had a tape-recording, they could expose that, could they not?

Mueller: Yes.

Schiff: That’s the stuff of counterintelligence nightmares, is it not?

Mueller: It has to do with counterintelligence and the need for a strong counterintelligence entity.

Schiff: It does indeed. And when this was revealed that there were these communications notwithstanding the president’s denials, the president was confronted about this and he said two things. First of all, that’s not a crime. But I think you and I have already agreed that shouldn’t be the standard, right, Mr. Mueller?

Mueller: True.

Schiff: The second thing you said was why should I miss out on all those opportunities. I mean, why indeed merely running a presidential campaign, why should you miss out on making all that money, was the import of his statement. Were you ever able to ascertain whether Donald Trump still intends to build that tower when he leaves office?

Mueller: Is that a question, sir?

Schiff: Yes. Were you able to ascertain, because he wouldn’t answer your questions completely, whether or if he ever ended that desire to build that tower?

Mueller: I’m not going to speculate on that.

Schiff: If the president was concerned that if he lost his election, he didn’t want to miss out on that money, might he have the same concern about his reelection?

Mueller: Speculation.

Schiff: The difficulty with this, of course, is we are all left to wonder whether the president is representing us or his financial interests. That concludes my questions.

Mr. Nunes, do you have any concluding remarks? [Nunes, oddly, did not]

Schiff: Director Mueller, let me close by returning to where I began. Thank you for your service and thank you for leading this investigation. The facts you set out in your report and have elucidated here today tell a disturbing tale of a massive Russian intervention in our election of a campaign so eager to win, so driven by greed, that it was willing to accept the help of a hostile foreign power in a presidential election decided by a handful of votes in a few key states.

Your work tells of a campaign so determined to conceal their corrupt use of foreign help that they risked going to jail by lying to you, to the FBI and to Congress about it and, indeed, some have gone to jail over such lies.

And your work speaks of a president who committed countless acts of obstruction of justice that in my opinion and that of many other prosecutors, had it been anyone else in the country, they would have been indicted. Notwithstanding the many things you have addressed today and in your report, there were some questions you could not answer given the constraints you’re operating under.

You would not tell us whether you would have indicted the president but for the OLC opinion that you could not. So the Justice Department will have to make that decision when the president leaves office, both as to the crime of obstruction of justice and as to the campaign finance fraud scheme that individual one directed and coordinated and for which Michael Cohen went to jail.

You would not tell us whether the president should be impeached, nor did we ask you since it is our responsibility to determine the proper remedy for the conduct outlined in your report. Whether we decide to impeach the president in the house or we do not, we must take any action necessary to protect the country while he is in office.

You would not tell us the results or whether other bodies looked into Russian compromise in the form of money laundering, so we must do so. You would not tell us whether the counterintelligence investigation revealed whether people still serving within the administration pose a risk of compromise and should never have been given a security clearance, so we must find out.

We did not bother to ask whether financial inducements from any gulf nations were influencing this US policy since it is outside the four corners of your report, and so we must find out. But one thing is clear from your report, your testimony from director Wray’s statements yesterday. The Russians massively intervened in 2016 and they are prepared to do so again in voting that is set to begin a mere eighth months from now.

The president seems to welcome the help again and so we must make all efforts to harden our elections infrastructure, to ensure there is a paper trail for all voting, to deter the Russians from meddling, to discover it when they do, to disrupt it and to make them pay. Protecting the sanctity of our elections begins however with the recognition that accepting foreign help is disloyal to our country, unethical and wrong.

We cannot control what the Russians do, not completely, but we can decide what we do and that this centuries-old experiment we call American democracy is worth cherishing.

Director Mueller, thank you again for being here today.
Mueller would not say the word "impeach" in the hearings, but it became clear that he felt the report had presented sufficient evidence for Congress to use in impeachment, since DOJ does not allow a sitting President to be subjected to the normal justice system. The depth and breadth of the Trump criminal enterprise was brought to light in the hearings, and it seems that the House of Representatives is obligated to consider the feasibility of impeachment, especially since the Trump administration is refusing to comply with subpoenas.


Anonymous “When you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.” No sir, you can't. said...

I am sad for America.

We are better than this.

July 25, 2019 11:09 AM  
Anonymous Garland, Goresuch & Kavanaugh...two outta three ain't bad said...

for you, the best moment of yesterday's hearing was the certifiably insane Adam Schiff trying to put words in Mueller's mouth?

what a sad commentary on the lame Dem attempt to keep the Russia hoax alive

it it had been a court of law, the judge would have told the prosecutor to stop leading the witness

Trump did nothing wrong

doing business in Russia has been encouraged by the government for decades as a way to export capitalism and democracy

we are the most powerful nation on Earth and every country tries to influence our politics because they all have an interest

Russia's attempt wasn't very extensive, or effective

it certainly wasn't the first time they've tried

it is also not wrong to use information that is publicly available, regardless of the source

as far as obstruction, it will never be a crime in America to dissent from ill-advised government prosecution

if Dems change their focus they may have a chance in the next election

but, as of now, there is nothing encouraging or them

July 25, 2019 11:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"as far as obstruction, it will never be a crime in America to dissent from ill-advised government prosecution"

And yet Republicons impeached Clinton for lying about a consensual tryst during the investigation of questionable loans for an Arkansas land deal over a decade earlier.

Monica had nothing to do with Whitewater, and as unseemly as it is, sex in the White House isn't illegal - even if it's not your wife. And Clinton trying to hide that didn't interfere with the Whitewater investigation at all. But that didn't stop Republicons from impeaching him.

If Rump had a (D) after his name, Republicons would be talking "Second Amendment Solutions" to get the Orange traitor out of office.

July 25, 2019 1:13 PM  
Anonymous “When you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.” No sir, you can't. said...

"what a sad commentary on the lame Dem attempt to keep the Russia hoax alive"

What a sad attempt to emulate Rump with one of his constantly repeated lies.

Donald Rump himself is a hoax, built of lies and cheating.

Mueller knows Russia's interference in the 2016 election to aid the campaign of Rump was no hoax.

Yesterday Mueller said "It wasn’t a single attempt. They’re doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign."

During his May press appearance, Mueller said, “I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.”

Also in May, FBI Director Christopher Wray said “the (Russian election interference) threat just keeps escalating and we’re going to have to up our game to stay ahead of it."

The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved two bipartisan bills aimed at deterring foreign actors from interfering in elections and making it a federal crime to hack into a state voting system but Senate leader Bitch McConnell blocked them from a full Senate vote.

"it is also not wrong to use information that is publicly available, regardless of the source"

You think what Wikileaks posted on July 22, 2016 had been publicly available information? On the DNC server?

You'll lie about anything, won't you?

You are so wrong yet again, but by all means, keep right on lying and believing your own lies and fellow Rumpers' conspiracy theories.

Rump, who was not honest in his own answers to Mueller's team and refused to sit for a face to face interview with them, will be indictable the moment he becomes former President Pussy Grabber Bone Spurs Cheeto. At that point Rump will have no choice but to sit for questioning by authorities.

More lies will do nothing to keep Rump from doing the perp walk as did/will his former campaign manager Paul Manafort, his former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, his campaign aide Rick Gates, his personal attorney Michael Cohen, and his former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.

These people plead guilty or were convicted in court.

But of course, nobody did anything wrong, that's all fake news and they went to jail over a hoax.

July 25, 2019 1:50 PM  
Anonymous You reap what you sow said...

During the Obama administration, Rep. Jordan served on the Benghazi Select Committee, a Republican-lead effort that cost about $7 million dollars and held 33 hearings over more than two years into a topic that had already been investigated by seven other Congressional committees. The investigations followed a pair of deadly September 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Libya.

The Select Committee found no wrong-doing on the part of Hillary Clinton, but in an unguarded moment House GOP leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) admitted that lengthy probes had had the desired effect — hurting her popularity.

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought,” he told Fox News’ Sean Hannity in late 2015.

If it worked for Republicons, it's worth seeing if 33 investigations criminal investigations will affect the Rumpster.

July 25, 2019 2:22 PM  
Anonymous In case you missed it said...

Pelosi/Nadler/Schiff/Cummings press conference yesterday, July 24, 2019.

July 25, 2019 3:22 PM  
Anonymous D-Truth-Checker said...

The Washington Post fact-checked the six hours of Mueller hearings, and found a few whoppers. They pointed out, uh, errors by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.), Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.), Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Tex.), Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.), and Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.).

You notice anything?

The rightwing Daily Caller did: Washington Post Fact Checks Only Republicans During Mueller Hearings. Yeah, nuthin but R's in that list.

The same thing happened during the debates. Fact-checkers stayed plenty busy at the Republican debate, but when the Democrats debated, they set up the web site and analyzed the lies and ... didn't find any.

There were many times that Mueller declined to endorse conclusions stated by House members, even when he agreed with them. The Daily Caller tries to assert that those were falsehoods by Democrats. A statement such as “I can’t accept that characterization” meant that Mueller would not officially support a conclusion if it went beyond the report, even if it were correct. The Daily Caller tried to make it sound like these were Democrats lying. No. Bothsiderism loses again.

July 25, 2019 6:38 PM  
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage said...

"Mueller knows Russia's interference in the 2016 election to aid the campaign of Trump was no hoax"

well, everyone knows that

that's not the hoax referred to

the hoax is that Trump worked with the Russians

you know that's what was meant by "Russian hoax"

amazing that you are always calling others a liar when you lie so casually yourself

"Yesterday Mueller said "It wasn’t a single attempt. They’re doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign.""

big deal

he also refused to say whether the Russian attempts had any effect

"During his May press appearance, Mueller said, “I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American.”"


after yesterday, it's pretty clear Mueller is senile

"The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved two bipartisan bills aimed at deterring foreign actors from interfering in elections and making it a federal crime to hack into a state voting system but Senate leader Bitch McConnell blocked them from a full Senate vote."

it's already a crime to hack into voting systems

what else was in the bill?

if it was concocted by Dems, it was likely unconstitutional

"You think what Wikileaks posted on July 22, 2016 had been publicly available information? On the DNC server?"

there is no indication Trump had access to any information before the media did

"Trump will be indictable the moment he becomes former President"

ah, to be indicted you have committed a crime

he would not be convicted by a jury of his peers

"But of course, nobody did anything wrong, that's all fake news and they went to jail over a hoax."

those who went to jail did because of crimes that had nothing to with Trump or the Russian hoax

"the Benghazi Select Committee, a Republican-lead effort that cost about $7 million dollars and held 33 hearings over more than two years"

if your saying the real reason for the Russian hoax is payback for Benghazi, the voters will have yet another reason to reject Dems in the election

"If it worked for Republicans, it's worth seeing if 33 investigations criminal investigations will affect the Trump"

please do

every one will make Trump stronger and voters more disgusted with Dems

at least Nancy Pelosi is smart enough to get that

July 25, 2019 8:33 PM  
Anonymous Robert Mueller...LOL!! said...

TTF needs to go delete the last three years of comments before someone goes back and reads them. You know all the posts about how Mueller knows everything and is methodically growing closer to Trump's inner circle.


So . . . this was Robert Mueller? This? This stumbling, confused, halting fellow — this was the man who would save us from President Trump? I’m not sure the man we watched in two hearings Wednesday could decide which of the early-bird specials to order at a retirement home in West Palm.

One can’t overstate the degree to which Silent Bob Mueller took up pride of place in the hearts and minds of America’s Trump-loathers over the past two years.

His absence from our public life — no statements, no appearances, no nothing — was the evidence of his overwhelming presence. Mueller was working diligently to rescue America from the result of the 2016 election, and woe betide you if you expressed doubt about that in the liberal public square.

Over the course of his two-year investigation, some would say they didn’t think the Russia investigation was necessarily ­going the way liberals hoped it would. They were told that we just had no idea what Mueller knew, that Mueller was the only person who could see the investigation entire and that he was slowly but surely zeroing in on the Trump-Russia conspiracy.

Yes, we'd say, the Paul Manafort indictments are very serious things, but they ­involve behavior before the 2016 election. No, no, TTFers would say. Mueller is playing nine-dimensional chess. Manafort will break and tell all.

Then came the Manafort convictions — which were indications that Manafort had nothing to give Mueller, as he would surely have done whatever he could to save himself from spending the rest of his life in prison. No, no, they said — now Mueller really had Manafort in a corner.

This went far beyond television studios and green rooms. Mueller’s central place in the emotional life of the anti-Trump Resistance was made clear on the evening of Nov. 9, 2018, following the firing of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Thousands massed outside the White House gates and made themselves into a living candelabra that spelled out two words: “Save Mueller.”

Nationwide that night, tens of thousands gathered in righteous panic to demand that Robert Mueller be unmolested in his work. They organized themselves over social media through hashtags like #ProtectMueller.

That specific hashtag has featured thousands of messages like this, from a feed called Democratic Coalition with 256,000 followers: “Great News: Mueller’s office will be able to continue working, even if there is a #TrumpShutdown. Tell Congress to #ProtectMueller.”

Yes, on the verge of a 36-day shutdown of most federal government work, the Resistance was most concerned about the temporary cessation of the Mueller investigation.

July 25, 2019 8:50 PM  
Anonymous Robert Mueller...LOL!! said...

Protect Mueller. Save Mueller. Trust Mueller.

And then came the release of the report, which found no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. That’s what it says. Period.

The crushing disappointment of that simple fact was then buried under an avalanche of “but, the thing is . . .” thinking. And when people are crushingly disappointed but can’t let go, they can get a little . . . emphatic, shall we say.

To wit: The report doesn’t exonerate Trump from the charge of obstruction of justice! The report outlines 10 instances of obstruction of justice! Mueller would surely have indicted Trump on obstruction of justice charges if he hadn’t gone by the ruling of the Office of Legal Counsel that a president can’t be indicted while in office!

Mueller must testify before Congress! He must be freed from executive branch restraint to deliver his findings to Congress and make clear that the last two years weren’t a dud — that his findings provide Congress with what Congress needs to impeach Trump on obstruction grounds!

And so they got their wish. Robert Mueller has testified ­before Congress. Before two committees. At length.

Mueller isn’t going to save anybody from Trump. Hell, I’m not so sure he can even drive himself home.

If anything, what happened yesterday is just another piece of evidence that the Democratic Party’s determination to indulge its base obsessions in the face of polls screaming at them to stop is just going to get Trump ­re-elected.

July 25, 2019 8:52 PM  
Anonymous Wake up and smell the covfefe said...

"after yesterday, it's pretty clear Mueller is senile"

Day After Mueller Testifies Trump Mangles His Words
Here is Trump with a sentence that makes no sense:
Trump appears to say, “and the combat infratroopen badge for his service.”

Trump calls lawmakers “lawmarkers:”

Trump said, ” He has worked in both houses of Congress advising lawmarkers. I can see he had some talent because he won. Was it ninety-eight to what? No, you got ninety right? Can you believe it?”

Republicans are trying to claim that Mueller’s testimony was a great day for Trump, but Donald Trump is showing signs of not being able to take the stress. He is low energy, mangling his words, and clearly unable to handle the job and the stress of the presidency. Trump is falling apart, and this broken down unhealthy human wants you to give him four more years in the White House.

July 26, 2019 8:25 AM  
Anonymous I just love our current Supreme Court said...

"Here is Trump with a sentence that makes no sense:
Trump appears to say, “and the combat infratroopen badge for his service.”

Trump calls lawmakers “lawmarkers:”

Trump said, ” He has worked in both houses of Congress advising lawmarkers. I can see he had some talent because he won. Was it ninety-eight to what? No, you got ninety right? Can you believe it?”"

Trump is actually doing a million things, going a zillion miles an hour

if he occasionally, I guess it something desperate Dems can grasp at but it has no negative political implications for Trump

"Republicans are trying to claim that Mueller’s testimony was a great day for Trump,"

no, everyone is saying it's a bad day for Dems

"He is low energy,"

haha! that's a new one

"this broken down unhealthy human wants you to give him four more years in the White House"

it's a foregone conclusion

July 26, 2019 8:45 AM  
Anonymous “When you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.” No sir, you can't. said...

More witnesses and facts will follow.

I look forward to hearing Don McGahn testify before both of those House committees, don't you?

Those of you who backed every Clinton witness being called to testify and every Benghazi inquiry must also support hearing from every witness to what went on in this White House.

July 26, 2019 9:20 AM  
Anonymous homosexuality doesn't yield life and shouldn't be preferenced said...

oh, I'm in favor of more hearings

each one reminds voters that Dems have commitment to serving the interests of the country

it's fun watching TTFers squirm

yeah, "I look forward to hearing Don McGahn testify"


July 26, 2019 9:34 AM  
Anonymous It's fun watching FOX News' Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Napolitano tell us Rump is a hater said...

“Now hatred is by far the Longest pleasure;

“Men love in haste, but they detest at leisure.”

-- George Gordon, Lord Byron

When I was an undergraduate at Princeton University during the height of the Vietnam War, surrounded by fellow students who condemned it and even some who later left our country to avoid fighting in it, the mantra used by supporters of the war was, "America, love it or leave it." In my misguided "Bomb Hanoi" youth, I uttered this phrase, which I now detest.

The phrase itself – with its command of the government's way or the highway – admits no dissenting opinions, suggests that all is well and proper here, and insinuates that moral norms and cultural values cannot be improved. The phrase itself is un-American.

That era also produced such hate-filled catchphrases as: "Hey, hey, LBJ; how many kids did you kill today?" Those post-JFK and pre-Watergate times were harsh and bitter, as the nation was deeply divided over a war we now all know was useless and based on deception and fraud.


We know from the publication of the Pentagon Papers that the incidents President Lyndon B. Johnson claimed justified the war never occurred, and the president and some of his generals regularly lied to the American public about the war.

The lies and deceptions – combined with the military draft and the deaths of 58,000 Americans – produced much hatred. The hatred was for people, rather than ideas. It was generational and ideological.

Youth hated age. Long hair hated short hair. Conservatives hated liberals. Many people hated LBJ personally. When President Gerald R. Ford declared the war had ended – though in a colossal defeat – the end produced a great national relief because the national hatred of people was over.

Now, that hatred is back.

I have known President Trump personally since 1986. The private Trump I have known is funny, charming and embracing. That is not the public Trump of today. When he loudly called for four members of Congress – women of color who oppose nearly all his initiatives and who have questioned his fitness for office – to go back to the places from which they came, he unleashed a torrent of hatred.

The "Go back" trope was used by white racists toward African-Americans for 100 years, from Reconstruction to the civil rights era, suggesting repulsively that they should go "back" to Africa; never mind their American births. It was uttered by the establishment at my grandfathers and many others who came here from southern Europe as children in the early days of the last century.

"Go back" is a rejection of the nation as a melting pot; a condemnation of one of America's founding values – E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one). It implicates a racial or nativist superiority: We were here before you; this is our land, not yours; get out. Nativist hatred is an implication of moral or even legal superiority that has no constitutional justification in American government...

July 26, 2019 10:25 AM  
Anonymous It's fun watching FOX News' Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Napolitano tell us Rump is a hater said...

...All working in government in America have taken an oath to support the Constitution. The Constitution commands equal protection of the laws by government at all levels. No one is above the laws' obligations and no one is beneath the laws' protections. The Constitution not only commands of government both racial neutrality and color blindness, it generally prohibits government officials from making distinctions among people on the basis of immutable characteristics.

So, when the president defies these moral and constitutional norms and tells women of color to "Go back," he raises a terrifying specter.

The specter is hatred not for ideas he despises but for the people who embrace those ideas. The specter is also a dog whistle to groups around the country that hatred is back in fashion and is acceptable to articulate publicly.

Don't get me wrong. Even though hate speech – speech that expresses hatred for people, as opposed to hatred for ideas – stings and hurts, it is constitutionally protected. The remedy for hate speech is not to silence the hater but to shame him. And the most effective way to do that is with more speech.

But when the hate speech comes from a shameless president, we have a problem.

The problem is that presidential hatred produces division among people and destroys peaceful dialogue. When thousands of people at a Trump rally in North Carolina recently chanted, "Send her back" referring to a congresswoman born in Somalia – and Trump tweeted that the four congresswomen (including three born in the U.S.) should "Go back" to where they came from – the inescapable image was of a president trying to divide rather than unite.

At first, Trump seemed to welcome the chants. Then, two days later, he distanced himself from those who chanted. Then, three days after that, he praised the chanters.

When a Louisiana police officer tweeted that one of the congresswomen Trump targeted deserved a round – he was referring to a bullet – he and a supportive colleague were fired. And in New York City, hatred for cops has led to group assaults on them, along racial lines.

Hatred is so volatile and destructive that, once unleashed, it takes on a life of its own. It is cover for our deepest and darkest instincts. And it is a cousin to violence, as those Louisiana and Manhattan cops know.


It also captivates our attention. Could that be the president's wish – that we think about hatred of his targets rather than the testimony of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who spent two years investigating the president and testified before two House committees Wednesday?

This business of the hatred of people is so dangerous because to some, as Lord Byron wrote, hatred is perversely pleasing. It gives them shelter in a mob, it lets them hurl venom with anonymity, and it regenerates itself. It must be rejected loudly in all its forms – especially when it comes from the president.

July 26, 2019 10:26 AM  
Anonymous In case you missed it said...

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

Director Mueller, thank you for your devoted service to your country. Earlier today you described your report as "detailing a criminal investigation," correct?


Director, since it was outside the purview of your investigation, your report did not reach counterintelligence conclusions regarding the subject matter of your report.

That's true.

For instance, since it was outside your purview, your report did not reach counterintelligence conclusions regarding any Trump administration officials who might potentially be vulnerable to compromise of blackmail by Russia, correct?

Those decisions probably were made in the FBI.

But not in your report, correct?

Not in our report. We avert to the counterintelligence goals of our investigation which were secondary to any criminal wrongdoing that we could find.

Let's talk about one administration official in particularly namely President Donald Trump. Other than Trump Tower Moscow, your report does not address or detail the president's financial ties or dealings with Russia, correct?


Similarly since it was outside your purview your report does not address the question of whether Russian oligarchs engaged in money laundering through any of the president's businesses, correct?


And of course your office did not obtain the president's tax returns which could otherwise show foreign financial sources, correct?

I'm not going to speak to that.

In July 2017 the president said his personal finances were off limits, or outside the purview of your investigation and he drew a "red line," around his personal finances. Were the president's personal finances outside the purview of your investigation?

I'm not going to get in to that.

Were you instructed by anyone not to investigate the president's personal finances?


Mr. Mueller, I'd like to turn your attention to counterintelligence risks associated with lying. Individuals can be subject to blackmail if they lie about their interactions with foreign countries, correct?


For example, you successfully charged former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn of lying to federal agents about this conversations with Russian officials, correct?


Since it was outside the purview of your investigation your report did not address how Flynn's false statements could pose a national security risk because the Russians knew the falsity of those statements, right?

I cannot get in to that, mainly because there are many elements of the FBI that are looking at different aspects of that issue.



Thank you. As you noted in Volume two of your report, Donald Trump repeated five times in one press conference, Mr. Mueller in 2016 "I have nothing to do with Russia."
Of course Michael Cohen said Donald Trump was not being truthful, because at this time Trump was attempting to build Trump Tower Moscow. Your report does not address whether Donald Trump was compromised in any way because of any potential false statements that he made about Trump Tower Moscow, correct?

I think that's right -- I think that's right.

Director Mueller, I want to turn your attention to a couple of other issues. You've served as FBI Director during three presidential elections, correct?


July 26, 2019 3:41 PM  
Anonymous In case you missed it said...

And during those three presidential elections you have never initiated an investigation at the FBI looking in to whether a foreign government interfered in our elections the same way you did in this particular instance, correct?

I would say, I personally no -- but the FBI quite obviously has the defense and attack (ph) such as the Russians undertook in 2016.

Now Director Mueller, is there any information you'd like to share with this Committee that you have not so far today?

Well that's a broad question. And it'd take me a while to get an answer to it, but I'll say no.

Mr. Mueller, you said that every American should pay very close attention to the systematic and sweeping fashion in which the Russians interfered in our democracy. Are you concerned that we are not doing enough currently to prevent this from happening again?

Well I'll speak generally, and what I said in my opening statement this morning -- and hear (ph) that much more needs to be done in order to protect against this intrusions -- not just by the Russians but others as well.

Thank you, Director.

MEANWHILE: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday blocked a House-passed bill that would authorize $775 million to beef up state election systems. GOP leaders made the case that the Trump administration has already made great strides in protecting the vote and they say no more funding is needed.

The Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, called inaction by Congress a “disgrace” and pledged to keep pushing for votes. Mueller’s testimony “should be a wake-up call,” he said.

Also on Thursday the Senate Intelligence Committee released the full results of an investigation that found the Russian government directed “extensive activity” against U.S. election systems ahead of the 2016 election. Two years later, ahead of the midterm election, little had changed, as an intelligence assessment reported, “We are aware of a growing volume of malicious activity targeting election infrastructure in 2018.”

The report encourages states to “take urgent steps to replace outdated and vulnerable voting systems.” It said, “More money may be needed.”

July 26, 2019 3:42 PM  
Anonymous A president who consciously fails to defend the US against a foreign military intelligence attack for his political benefit is surely impeachable. said...

Immediately after the hearing Republicans blocked two bipartisan election security bills that would require campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission about foreign offers of assistance. On Thursday, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell blocked two more, one to require a paper ballot back-up and the other to fund the Election Assistance Commission saying that Democrats wanted to give themselves a "political benefit" which is actually true. They would like the benefit of free and fair elections.

At this point, it is impossible to ignore the fact that Donald Trump isn't the only politician willing to accept foreign interference in our elections. The entire Republican Party now welcomes it as well.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released the first volume of its report on the 2016 election interference Thursday and it contained a fairly shocking revelation. The election systems in all 50 states were targeted, a far bigger attack than we knew and apparently something that went almost completely undetected at the time. The report says that they did nothing with the information they gleaned but darkly suggest that its possible they may have been collecting information for a future date. This is, apparently, fine with President Trump and the Republican leadership.

July 26, 2019 4:00 PM  
Anonymous I reeeeeeeeally like our Supreme Court.and the best is yet to come!!!!!!! said...

"A president who consciously fails to defend the US against a foreign military intelligence attack for his political benefit is surely impeachable"

so, Russia speech opposing Democrats is now "a foreign military intelligence attack"

well, if Dems impeach Trump on those grounds, they'd have to explain why they don't support securing our borders

the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump, and the nation's security, a huge victory by letting the administration redirect $2.5 billion in money approved by Congress for the Pentagon to help build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border

by a 5-4 vote, the court blocked in full a ruling by a federal judge in California barring the president from spending the money on the basis that Congress did not specifically authorize the funds to be spent on the wall project fiercely opposed by Democrats

"Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!" Trump tweeted just minutes after the court acted

July 27, 2019 7:51 AM  
Anonymous People who call themselves Constitutional "Originalists" should know this stuff said...

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7

Congress—and in particular, the House of Representatives—is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government. Massachusetts’ Elbridge Gerry said at the Federal Constitutional Convention that the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”


English history heavily influenced the Constitutional framers. The British House of Commons has the exclusive right to create taxes and spend that revenue, which is considered the ultimate check on royal authority. Indeed, the American colonists’ cry of “No taxation without representation!” referred to the injustice of London imposing taxes on them without the benefit of a voice in Parliament.

July 27, 2019 1:34 PM  
Anonymous People who call themselves Constitutional "Originalists" should know this stuff said...

Constitutional Framing

Debate at the Constitutional Convention centered on two issues. The first was to ensure that the executive would not spend money without congressional authorization. The second concerned the roles the House and Senate would play in setting fiscal policy.

At the Convention, the framers considered the extent to which the Senate—like the House of Lords—should be limited in its consideration of budget bills. The provision was part of a compromise between the large and small states. Smaller states, which would be over-represented in the Senate, would concede the power to originate money bills to the House, where states with larger populations would have greater control. Speaking in favor of the provision, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania said, “It was a maxim that those who feel, can best judge. This end would . . . be best attained, if money affairs were to be confined to the immediate representatives of the people.” The provision in the committee’s report to the Convention was adopted, five to three, with three states divided on the question. The Convention reconsidered the matter over the course of two months, but the provision was finally adopted, nine to two, in September 1787.

The constitutional provision making Congress the ultimate authority on government spending passed with far less debate. The framers were unanimous that Congress, as the representatives of the people, should be in control of public funds—not the President or executive branch agencies. This strongly-held belief was rooted in the framers’ experiences with England, where the king had wide latitude over spending once the money had been raised.

July 27, 2019 1:34 PM  
Anonymous People who call themselves Constitutional "Originalists" should know this stuff said...

Both the House and Senate passed bills that did NOT include money for Rump's vanity wall. So he declared an "Emergency" and re-appropriated funds from the military to get what he wanted. This is precisely the type of maneuver the founders writing the Constitution were keeping the president from doing.

But Republicons are quite happy with their power grab for now. The unconstitutionality of this won't become clear to them until a Democratic president declares a Climate Emergency and re-directs money from the military to cut carbon emissions.

At which point they will start squealing like a stuck pig and completely forget the fact that Mitch McConnell's hand-picked Supreme Court gave Rump the precedent to do exactly that.

Suddenly, Constitutional "Originalism" will be very important to them again.

July 27, 2019 1:44 PM  
Anonymous I reeeeeeeeally like our Supreme Court.and the best is yet to come!!!!!!! said...

"Both the House and Senate passed bills that did NOT include money for Rump's vanity wall. So he declared an "Emergency" and re-appropriated funds from the military to get what he wanted. This is precisely the type of maneuver the founders writing the Constitution were keeping the president from doing.

But Republicons are quite happy with their power grab for now. The unconstitutionality of this won't become clear to them until a Democratic president declares a Climate Emergency and re-directs money from the military to cut carbon emissions."

what the Congress didn't do was overturn their bill that allows Trump to define and declare an "emergency"

Trump gave them ample warning what he was planning and they easily could have narrowed or eliminated the law

they chose not to do so because the public doesn't want the open border the Dems advocate

further, when Trump began floating this idea, Dems said it was ridiculous to say there's an emergency

it has since become clear there is

Trump is on constitutional grounds, as the Supreme Court has affirmed

sorry, Dems

your farm system for replenishing the rolls of Dem voters is history

July 28, 2019 1:02 PM  
Anonymous It's no longer a democracy when a single party controls all levers of power said...

What "emergency" was that actually?

Too many women and children looking for a better life?

Farmers have been using cheap immigrant labor for decades, as has the construction industry, as well as waste management. The Republicons have been cheerleading about how great the economy is and how low unemployment is, so it's not like they're "taking all our jobs."

Rump's emergency is entirely of his own making. The system was working fine before he got his hands on it, and Obama even earned the moniker "deporter in Chief" without separating parents from their children and keeping them in cages.

"Trump is on constitutional grounds, as the Supreme Court has affirmed"

Actually it hasn't - they just said he could move forward while lawsuits work their way through the lower courts. This isn't the last ruling on the matter.

"your farm system for replenishing the rolls of Dem voters is history"

So how many illegal immigrants did Rump's election investigation committee actually find?

"Trump gave them ample warning what he was planning and they easily could have narrowed or eliminated the law"

Rump doesn't have the constitutional power of the purse. That was given to the House of Representatives. The law was already there, and previous presidents somehow managed to follow it. Anyone who calls themself a "Constitutional Originalist" would know that.

Republicons have spent much of the last decade leaving judicial vacancies open while Obama was president so a Republican could appoint conservative judges, gerrymandering voting districts and knocking poor people off of voting roles to keep themselves in power, and now they're willfully ceding Congressional power to their belligerent president. These tactics are clearly designed to promote their single-party rule over multiple branches of government.

We all know how well that has worked out in the past. Historians will look back on this time period as the point where American democracy lurched headlong toward failure.

July 28, 2019 2:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If illegal immigrants were really a problem, the Rumpster should have fired them from his properties before he ran for El Presidente.

July 28, 2019 2:36 PM  
Anonymous Dems run the areas where income inequality is the worst said...

Most large Northeastern cities have been run by Dems for decades

and they are heelholes

and to point that truth out is the latest form of racism uncovered by Dems, who desperately need racism

Say what you want about President Trump’s Twitter habits, he has a way of suddenly bringing an issue to the surface that people have long known about, but never wanted to confront. The only problem with his latest tweetstorm about Baltimore is that he hasn’t gone far enough.

On Friday, Trump attacked Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, who had been complaining about conditions at the border, by saying “his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous.” Trump called it “a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess.”

He’s right about the rats. Last year, the pest-control service Orkin rated Baltimore as one of the “rattiest cities,“ behind Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Cleveland.

Naturally, Trump’s tweets are being labeled as racist. Never mind that Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders was saying far worse things about the city a few years ago, when he said that when you go to west Baltimore you “would think you were in a Third World country.”

Trump, meanwhile, extended his attack to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home town of San Francisco.

He should widen his lens even further.

July 30, 2019 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Dems run the areas where income inequality is the worst said...

Take a look at the eight other cities that beat Baltimore on Orkin’s rattiest cities list. What do they all have in common? We’ll, let’s see:

Chicago hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1931. Philadelphia last saw a Republican mayor in 1952, Detroit in 1962. San Francisco has been Democrat-controlled since 1964. Washington, D.C., has never had a Republican mayor.

In Los Angeles, Democrats have run the city in all but eight of the past 58 years, in New York, it’s eight in the past 74 (not counting John Lindsay, who switched parties while in office). Cleveland’s been run by Democrats in all but 16 of the past 78 years.

Indeed, if you want to see what liberal Democratic policies tend to produce, go to any one of those cities, or other Democratic strongholds. Democrats promise to help the poor and downtrodden, grow the middle class, make life more fair. But their policies consistently produce the opposite.

These cities are rife with crime. Baltimore ranks No. 1 for robberies and No. 2 for murders. Many of the other rat-infested cities also rank high for violent crimes. Their infrastructure is crumbling. The middle class has largely abandoned them.

And far from tackling inequality, Democrats have made it worse. Washington, San Francisco and New York are all in the top 10 for biggest income inequality levels, according to the Brookings Institution. Other Democrat cities — Providence, Miami, Boston, New Orleans — are also on the list.

Washington, San Francisco, New York, Detroit, and Cleveland are also among the 10 worst-run cities, according to WalletHub. Three other Democratic strongholds — Oakland, Flint, Hartford — make WalletHub’s worst-run list.

Yet, whenever the desperate conditions of these cities get discussed, they’re treated either as if these problems simply fell out of the sky, that somehow Republicans are to blame, or that more taxpayer money will solve everything. The connection to liberal policies never gets made

let's give the media a big thank you for the opportunity to bring clarity to the bankruptcy of Dem policies

July 30, 2019 8:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"they are heelholes"

Are "heelholes" like bone spurs?

Have you be to Appalachia recently?

The destruction of central Appalachia’s economy, environment, social fabric and, ultimately, its people’s health is, in a sense, hidden. But they’re plain enough to see on a map. It could be lung cancer deaths you’re looking at, or diabetes mortality. Or try opioid overdoses. Poverty. Welfare dependency. Chart virtually any measure of human struggle, and there it will be, just right of center on a map of the US—a distinct blotch. This odd cluster is consistently one of America’s worst pockets of affliction.

July 30, 2019 11:09 AM  
Anonymous "and they are heelholes" said...

It looks like we got ourselves another "sloppy spelling bee drop-out"


July 30, 2019 1:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

From Christians Against Christian Nationalism:

As Christians, our faith teaches us everyone is created in God’s image and commands us to love one another. As Americans, we value our system of government and the good that can be accomplished in our constitutional democracy. Today, we are concerned about a persistent threat to both our religious communities and our democracy — Christian nationalism.

Christian nationalism seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian.

It often overlaps with and provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation. We reject this damaging political ideology and invite our Christian brothers and sisters to join us in opposing this threat to our faith and to our nation.

See the list of organizers at their petition site.

July 30, 2019 1:57 PM  
Anonymous Suburban Women Recoil as Trump Dives Into Racial Politics said...

...In more than three dozen interviews by The Associated Press with women in critical suburbs, nearly all expressed dismay — or worse — at Trump’s racially polarizing insults and what was often described as unpresidential treatment of people. Even some who gave Trump credit for the economy or backed his crackdown on immigration acknowledged they were troubled or uncomfortable lining up behind the president.

The interviews in suburbs outside Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Detroit and Denver are a warning light for the Republican president’s reelection campaign. Trump did not win a majority of female voters in 2016, but he won enough — notably winning white women by a roughly 10 percentage-point margin, according to the American National Election Studies survey — to help him eke out victories across the Rust Belt and take the White House.

Since then, there are few signs Trump has expanded his support among women. The 2018 midterms amounted to a strong showing of opposition among women in the suburbs, registering in unprecedented turnout overall, a Democratic House and a record number of women elected in statehouses across the country.

A continuing trend of women voting against Republicans could prove exceedingly difficult for Trump to overcome in his 2020 reelection bid.

“It’s one of the more serious problems that the Republicans face,” said G. Terry Madonna, a pollster and director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania.

The affluent, largely white and politically divided suburbs across the Rust Belt are widely viewed as a top battleground, the places where Trump needs to hold his voters and Democrats are hoping to improve their showing over 2016.

In the Detroit suburb of Novi, where Democrat Hillary Clinton narrowly beat Trump in 2016, pet store worker Emily West says she probably would have cast her ballot for Trump if she had voted in 2016. Now, she’s primed to vote against him.

“It was mainly when he got into office when my opinion started changing,” said West, 26. “Just the way he treats people.”

West spoke days after Trump fired off a tweet calling on four Democratic congresswomen of color to “go back” to their home countries, even though three of the four were born in the United States. Trump’s supporters later turned “send her back” into a rally cry aimed at the one foreign-born member of the group, Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who arrived in the U.S. as a child refugee from Somalia.

Over the weekend, Trump picked up another racial trope, using his Twitter feed to attack Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings and his majority-black Baltimore district by calling it a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess” where “no human being would want to live.”

Pollsters say it is difficult to measure whether female voters will count Trump’s behavior against him more than their male counterparts will in 2020. But interviews with women reveal a clear discomfort with Trump’s character: It emerged again and again in the AP’s interviews and was a consistent objection cited by women across the political spectrum.

“I did not think it was going to be as bad as it is — definitely narcissism and sexism, but I did not think it was going to be as bad as it is,” said Kathy Barnes while shopping in the Denver suburb of conservative-leaning Lone Tree. “I am just ashamed to be an American right now.”...

July 30, 2019 3:02 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Adam Schiff said "Whether we decide to impeach the president in the house or we do not, we must take any action necessary to protect the country while he is in office."


Adam Schiff said "You would not tell us the results or whether other bodies looked into Russian compromise in the form of money laundering, so we must do so."

This is the gaping hole in the Mueller investigation. Since the begginning, the mantra of criminal investigation has been "Follow the money" - something Mueller unforgivably did not do.

Trump lost billions in the 80's and 90's, bankrupting one company after another. American banks stopped lending to him as he always defaulted. In the midst of Trump's financial disaster, DeutscheBank steps in and lends the insolvent Trump hundreds of millions more. Trump defaults on his scheduled repayments and HE sues DeutscheBank for his failure to repay his loans.

Then DeutscheBank proceeds to loan Trump hundreds of millions more - it makes no financial sense...until you consider that DeutscheBank has a long history of money laundering for Russia and has been fined mega-billions for its criminal actions. Obviously, Trump is helping DeutscheBank launder money for Putin and his Oligarch's criminal enterprises.

This money laundering by Trump is entangled with the suprise retirement of Supreme Court Justice Antony Kennedy. He retired suddenly and the evidence shows he did so to get sexual predator Brett Kavanaugh on the supreme court. Justice Kennedy's son is financially involved with illegitimate Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh. Prior to Kavanaugh's crooked confirmation to the supreme court, he mysteriously had hundred's fo thousands in credit card and other debt paid off despite not having the available income to do so himself. Clearly Kavanaugh has been bought off by funds Trump obtained by laundering Russian money. This is why when Trump finds the outcry against his anti-democratic actions to great he falls back to his mobster mentality and says "I've got the Supreme court and bikers, and law enforcement on my side." - in other words, he's bribed people like Brett Kavanaugh to do his anti-democratic will.

Trump could be destroyed by Putin at any moment, Trump is Putin's puppet. Trump is an existential threat to American democracy.

Never before in American history has a massive, multi-faceted, multi-media attack on American democracy with thousands of Russian employees occurred prior to 2016. Obviously, Trump would not be president today without the Russian's sweeping and systematic criminal corruption of the 2016 election.

And Republicans and Trump are doing everything possible to help Russia rig the 2020 election too.

The most corrupt, evil, and dangerous men in the United States today are Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Lindsey Graham. If Trump completes his program of subverting Congress and the judiciary to his will, the United States will become a satellite dictatorship of Russia, and Trump will raid the nation's wealth to pay off his key supporters like Evangelical christian leader Tony Perkins. Your stock market portfolio will be worthless if Trump and his evangelical christian supporters succeed in their grab for complete power.

July 30, 2019 3:08 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anthony Kennedy's son lent one billion dollars to Trump when he worked at DeutscheBank.

It turns out Justice Kennedy has a “special” relationship with Donald Trump. Kennedy’s son, as head of Deutsche Bank’s global real estate capital department, loaned Trump over $1 billion at a time when no other bank would go near Trump’s notoriously fraudulent real estate schemes.

Its not hard to see that former Supreme Court Justice Kennedy and Trump were involved in paying off the hundreds of thousands in debt illegitimate Supreme Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh owed up until just before Trump nominated him to the Supreme Court.

It is fair then to ask: Why is Kennedy really retiring? Was he paid off? What involvement/knowledge does he have concerning Trump’s money laundering connections with Russian oligarchs? Money laundering that was facilitated by his own son. Is he afraid he will be subpoenaed by Mueller? Did he resign to allow Trump to choose another right-wing lunatic judge while he still can?

What we do know is that Kennedy rode off into the sunset one step ahead of Mueller’s posse.

July 30, 2019 3:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Donald Trump has continued attacking Rep. Elijah Cummings, who has represented the Baltimore area in Congress since 1996. Trump’s racist smears against the congressman and the district he represents appear to be related to the fact the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Rep. Cummings, approved subpoenas last week to investigate the use of personal emails, devices, and encrypted message-sharing apps for government business. Details on the House investigation from The New York Times:

“The committee has obtained direct evidence that multiple high-level White House officials have been violating the Presidential Records Act by using personal email accounts, text messaging services and even encrypted applications for official business — and not preserving those records in compliance with federal law,” said Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland and the chairman of the committee. “What we do not yet know is why these White House officials were attempting to conceal these communications.”

Those “high-level White House officials” include Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, and that’s what is likely sending Trump into a tizzy. Less than 48 hours after the committee approved the subpoenas, Donald Trump was parroting Fox News when he called Baltimore "a disgusting, rat and rodent-infested mess." The Republican Super PAC operating as a cable news network had just done a segment comparing conditions at border detention facilities to Rep. Cummings’ district.

It’s more than a little ironic that Donald Trump attacked Baltimore for impoverished conditions. Some of Donald Trump’s wealth (and the wealth of son-in-law Jared Kushner, too) came from owning and operating squalid housing in Maryland. In fact, the Maryland properties owned by the Trump Organization were so bad that Donald Trump’s own father was arrested in 1976 when he flew there to meet with local officials.


July 30, 2019 3:33 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

How Mitch McConnell Persuaded a Senior House Democrat to Back Impeachment

Since Mueller’s appearance on Wednesday, more than a dozen House Democrats—and two of their colleagues in the Senate—have been converted: They’ve announced their support for launching an impeachment inquiry into the president. This surge has brought the total number of pro-impeachment Democrats in the House to 107—nearly half of the caucus. Among them are two so-called front-liners, from the group of mostly freshman lawmakers most vulnerable in 2020, as well as a member of House leadership, Representative Katherine Clark of Massachusetts.

In an interview, Clark told me that, despite the curious timing of her announcement, her newfound support for impeachment wasn’t motivated by Mueller per se. Her chief focus, she said, is protecting the U.S. election system, and she’s dismayed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s recent handling of election-related bills. Statements from other Democrats share a similar theme with Clark’s comments: American democracy is under threat from foreign influence—as emphasized by Mueller’s report and testimony—and the country has run out of options.

I spoke with Clark, the vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, about the Trump administration’s stonewalling of committee investigations and whether time is running out to launch an impeachment inquiry. Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Elaine Godfrey: I wanted to start with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony last week. What did you think of it? Did you hear anything new?

Katherine Clark: What really struck me about Mueller’s testimony was his clear assessment that the threat from the Russians to our elections is real, it’s dangerous, and it’s ongoing. That, coupled with the Senate report that came out showing all 50 states had their elections attacked by the Russians, and with the Senate turning around on the same day as Mueller’s testimony and blocking a vote on two bills that could have helped us protect our elections.

Those factors all, for me, came together to convince me that now is the time for us to open an impeachment inquiry and use the strongest tool that we have to get the facts before the American people and to hold this president accountable.

Godfrey: Can you expound on that? What does the Senate’s rejection of election-security bills have to do with Trump’s leadership as president?

Clark: As Mueller said the Russians are continuing to attack our elections right now, as he sat there in that room testifying, on the same day, Mitch McConnell said, We don’t need paper ballots to back up [electronic voting systems]. We’re not going to even bring to a vote legislation that proposed that if you are offered election aid from a foreign power, that you report that. These common-sense protections for the integrity of our vote were brushed aside by Mitch McConnell.

Godfrey: What does the surge of pro-impeachment announcements reflect within the Democratic caucus?

Clark: I think it reflects our ongoing dismay and frustration with the unprecedented obstruction that we are getting from this administration. They are blocking witnesses from coming and testifying. We are having to take every subpoena to court. And while we’re winning in court, the process is slow. More members coming out in favour of opening a formal process is showing that frustration—and that it’s time we use all the tools we have to try and hold this president accountable.

July 31, 2019 5:54 AM  
Anonymous heterosexuality is how life is perpetuated and it has a privileged status said...

China is conducting an aggressive disinformation and influence campaign designed to block the re-election of President Trump in 2020, according to a dissident Chinese billionaire who until recently was close to senior Beijing leaders.

Guo Wengui, an exiled Chinese real estate tycoon-turned-anti-communist critic, said in an interview that details of the influence operation were disclosed recently by Chinese Vice President Wang Qishan in Beijing.

The campaign has been underway since the 2018 mid-term election and involves enlisting pro-China elements inside the United States to end the Trump administration after four years.

"China has been protesting western powers trying to interfere in the domestic politics of China but in fact China is not only trying interfere in the domestic politics of the United States, they are interfering publicly with U.S. elections," Guo told the Washington Free Beacon.

According to Guo, who has known current Chinese President Xi Jinping for more than 10 years, the anti-Trump influence operation is being directed by Xi and Wang through the Communist Party of China (CCP) National Security Commission, a high-level body created in 2013 that since then has tightened control over all other security organs.

"For the 2020 U.S. presidential election, the security committee has given very clear instructions that it is not permissible for Trump to win the 2020 election," Guo said speaking through an interpreter.

By deploying its intelligence and influence resources in the United States, the CCP is working to exploit the harsh political divisions between Democrats and Republicans in seeking to unseat the Trump administration.

"President Trump has already caused a lot of damage to the CCP, so they have declared he will not be allowed to have another four years in power," the dissident said.

July 31, 2019 6:58 AM  
Anonymous More Moonie crap said...

via the Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism website financially backed by Paul Singer, an off-shore hedge fund manager, vulture capitalist, conservative activist, and a strong opponent of raising taxes for the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers.

July 31, 2019 9:16 AM  
Anonymous The most common age of Hispanics in America is 11. said...

Two demographic trends are expected to reshape the United States over the next 30 years. One is that the average age of Americans will creep steadily upward. The other is that the density of white Americans as a percentage of the population will slip steadily downward.

On Tuesday, we got a vivid reminder of the existence of those two trends, courtesy of analysis from the Pew Research Center. Pew’s Katherine Schaeffer looked at Census Bureau age data by race and ethnicity and came to a startling realization.

The most common age in the United States is 27, a function of the population boom that marked the millennial generation and of the natural effects of the baby boomers getting older. But that most-common age is not the same across racial or ethnic groups. Among black Americans, the most common age is 27, as it is for nonwhite Americans overall. The most common age among whites?


Nearly 6 in 10 nonwhite U.S. residents are younger than 38 (the upper bound of the millennial generation, per Pew). Fifty-six percent of whites are 38 or older.

The most common age for a white U.S. resident is more than five times that of a Hispanic. When those Hispanic 11-year-olds are 40, those white 58-year-olds will be nearly 90.

July 31, 2019 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Worse than Baltimore? Trump won't attack ravaged red states because his friends run them said...

President Donald Trump is right when he says Baltimore’s got problems. Like all big cities, it has crime, drugs, corruption, pockets of poverty and yes, rodents. But it also has wonderful neighborhoods, beautiful parks, a world class university, rich history and a lively, vibrant culture.

Obviously, Trump hasn’t singled out Charm City because he's concerned about it. It's only 40 miles away, but he has never visited as president and hasn't offered to lift a finger to help. Shouldn't presidents want to make things better for all Americans? Not Trump, whose only concern is that Rep. Elijah Cummings, the powerful Democratic chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, believes in the Constitution and its time-honored system of checks and balances — and is using his authority to probe the president and his administration. And half of Cummings' district is in Baltimore.

Or perhaps I’m wrong and Trump really does care. But if that’s the case, why stop at Baltimore? His loud criticism of it can be contrasted with his silence on other places that also have serious problems.

The least educated states are, from 46th to 50th: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia and Mississippi.

Highest poverty rates (46th to 50th): Kentucky, West Virginia, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi.

Most dangerous (46th to 50th): Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico.

Highest share of people on food stamps in 2017 (46th to 50th): Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, New Mexico.

Most dependent on federal aid — i.e., “socialism” (46th to 50th): Kentucky, Arizona, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi.

Most polluted (46th to 50th): Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana.

Most people lacking health insurance (46th to 50th): Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Oklahoma, Texas.

What’s interesting is that of the 16 states mentioned in these seven categories, 15 are red states that voted for Trump in 2016. Trump can't mention their problems, because he fears offending people who voted for him.

Deep red hellholes in the South

Trump thinks Baltimore’s a hellhole? The data shows Mississippi, a deep red state, is poorly educated and mired in poverty and crime and heavily dependent on federal aid. Of course, because Mississippi’s governor, two senators and three out of four Congressmen are Republicans who are all in the tank for him, Trump won’t say a word. The good people of Mississippi deserve — and should demand — better.

The good people of Kentucky also deserve better. Another state that can’t support itself and is heavily dependent on Washington (it gets $2.61 for every dollar it sends to Washington), the Bluegrass State also ranks poorly on the poverty and pollution scale.

Trump criticizes Cummings, who has been in Washington since 1996. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has been in the Senate since 1984 — what’s he done? Besides watering down and flat-out blocking efforts to safeguard our electoral process, I mean. Turning a blind eye to Russian attacks on our democracy — which has kept him busy since the Obama era — is nothing less than dereliction of duty, and although he bristles at his new nickname, “Moscow Mitch,” I say if the boot fits, comrade, wear it.

July 31, 2019 10:22 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "heterosexuality is how life is perpetuated and it has a privileged status"

I and I think all the readers here would benefit from hearing why this is more important to you two than anything else in life, please tell us.

It can't be because there is any concern that humans aren't having enough babies, given our population explosion that is an existential threat to all life on earth including ourselves.

So, please tell us why the highest prominence you give to your mission is to make lgbt people "lesser than"?

July 31, 2019 2:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"The most common age of Hispanics in America is 11. said...

Two demographic trends are expected to reshape the United States over the next 30 years. One is that the average age of Americans will creep steadily upward. The other is that the density of white Americans as a percentage of the population will slip steadily downward."

White Trump supporters should think carefully about how they're abusing people of colour in this time and trying to scare them away from voting - white Americans don't want to provoke a backlash against themselves when people of colour have the same power over whites that whites now have over people of colour.

July 31, 2019 2:39 PM  
Anonymous “When you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.” No sir, you can't. said...

Republicans are quitting in impressive numbers:

In the past 10 days or so, we’ve had some very intriguing tea leaves about the 2020 elections: Notably, five House Republicans have announced that they’re retiring.

Only one of the five, Texas’ Pete Olson, is in a sharply contested seat. Representatives Rob Bishop of Utah, Mike Conaway of Texas, Paul Mitchell of Michigan and Martha Roby of Alabama will all likely be replaced by candidates of the same party. Even so, they join a string of Republicans who have so far announced that they plan to retire or seek other offices this cycle, with months still to go until various state filing deadlines.

What does a trend like this tell us? One interpretation is that Republicans don’t expect to return to a House majority in 2020. The current breakdown is 235 Democrats, 197 Republicans, one independent (the former Republican Justin Amash), and two vacancies last held by Republicans. So the party, if it holds the two open seats and wins back Amash’s, would only need to gain 18 others to restore its majority. A spate of retirements signals that they don’t really think that’s likely.

The thing about House elections is that expectations matter. A lot. The more a party thinks it’s going to be a good year, the more it will attract the resources needed to win, including strong candidates. It’s true that in the current era of partisan polarization candidate strength may not matter as much as it once did. But overall it’s still better to have strong candidates, plenty of money and tons of volunteer hours, all of which are far likelier when party actors think the partisan tides are favorable.

As for the timing? It’s possible that all the new retirements were long planned. It’s interesting, though, that they come after Robert Mueller’s testimony revived interest in President Donald Trump’s scandals – and, perhaps more relevant, after Trump’s “send her back” rally and his continuing series of bigoted tweets. It’s not crazy to speculate that one or more of these Republicans just didn’t want to campaign for reelection in that kind of atmosphere.

Conaway is particularly interesting. He's a powerful member of the House Intelligence Committee who presumably knows all the redacted material. One would think he'd be a patriot and speak out if there's something in all that which makes him want out but these Republican officials don't seem to be made that way.

This is something worth keeping an eye on. It's unexpected --- most of these people could win re-election. There's another reason they are jumping ship. Maybe a belated attempt to hold on to a tiny bit of human decency?

August 01, 2019 7:27 AM  
Anonymous That's a pretty good hoax! said...

Washington has already had a summer’s worth of 90-degree days, and August has only just begun

The Greenland ice sheet poured 197 billion tons of water into the North Atlantic in July alone

And no worries. Those are simply Chinese trained crisis-actor whales that keep washing up on our shores.

August 01, 2019 5:59 PM  
Anonymous Another rare GOPer throws in the towel said...

Rep. Will Hurd, the lone black Republican in the House and the rare GOP lawmaker to at times criticize President Trump, will not seek reelection, he told The Washington Post.

Hurd’s retirement is the third by a Texas Republican in the past week and the ninth by a party incumbent, dealing a blow to GOP efforts to regain control of the House in next year’s election.

With Hurd’s retirement, Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.) would be the lone black Republican in Congress.

Hurd barely held the seat last year and Trump lost the congressional district, which covers more than 58,000 square miles between San Antonio and El Paso along the Mexican border...

August 02, 2019 7:42 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

NORTH CAROLINA: Dem Gov. Roy Cooper Signs Exec Order Banning Use Of State Funds For Ex-Gay Torture

Charlotte’s ABC News affiliate reports:

On Friday, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper signed into law Executive Order No. 97, which directs the N.C. Dept. of Health and Human Services to ensure no state tax money is used for conversion "therapy" for LGBTQ children. The order prohibits any medical or mental health provider receiving state or federal funds allocated to the North Carolina DHHS to use those funds for conversion "therapy" for patients under 18 years of age.

In a statement on the bill, Gov. Cooper said, “State taxpayer money shouldn’t be used for a practice on children that major medical associations agree is harmful and ineffective. Conversion "therapy" has been shown to pose serious health risks, and we should be protecting all of our children, including those who identify as LGBTQ, instead of subjecting them to a dangerous practice.”

August 02, 2019 1:35 PM  
Anonymous I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. said...

"Preserve, protect and defend" can be open to interpretation and many of us will have different ideas of what that might mean. But I don't think there's anyone in the country, of any political stripe, who does not think that the president has a sworn obligation to protect the nation from attack by a foreign nation. It's the most important duty of the job.

Thursday, President Trump made it clear that he will do absolutely nothing to stop any further electoral cyber-attacks from happening:

REPORTER: "Mueller said last week that Russia is interfering in US elections right now. Did you raise that with Putin?"

TRUMP: "You don't really believe this, do you?"

REPORTER: "He said it last week. Did you raise it?"

TRUMP: "We didn't talk about that."

It's hard to overstate how serious that is. Donald Trump denied that Russia is currently interfering in our elections, contradicting his own government experts and outside observers. It's always been possible that Trump denied that it happened in 2016 simply because he believed that would call his own legitimacy into question. But insisting that it won't happen in 2020 is a different thing altogether. Any foreign country has to see our president turning a blind eye as a green light to further incursions. After two and a half years of being immersed in this issue, no one can excuse Trump by saying he doesn't understand that this is a betrayal of his oath of office.

If a sitting president who virtually invites a foreign adversary to intervene in his re-election isn't worthy of an impeachment inquiry, literally nothing is.

When Mueller delivered his testimony last week, most pundits dismissed it as a dud that didn't change anything. That is beginning to look like an incorrect assessment. The political sands are shifting. Six Republican members of Congress have announced their retirements in the last two weeks. None of them have named the Russia issue as their reasoning, of course. They are Republicans. But three of them, all from Texas districts that could plausibly be Democratic targets, are highly involved in intelligence and cyber-security matters. Rep. Mike Conaway is a powerful member of the House Intelligence Committee who handled the Russia probe when former chair Devin Nunes was forced to (sort of) recuse himself. Rep. Mike McCaul sits on the Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs committees. Rep. Will Hurd, the last remaining African American in the GOP caucus, is a former CIA officer with a special interest in cyber-security who sits on both the House Oversight and Intelligence committees.

Those could be a coincidences. Any Republican could be looking for reasons to abandon ship at this point. But consider what's happened on the Democratic side, where 23 House members have come out in favor of launching an impeachment inquiry since Mueller testified, bringing the total to 118. A majority of the Democratic caucus now favors beginning a process that could lead to the impeachment of President Trump.

August 02, 2019 1:36 PM  
Anonymous Mitch McConnell said...

A bill to ensure trustworthy, transparent, clean and secure U.S. elections would create an uneven playing field.

August 02, 2019 1:48 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Castro says impeaching Trump is good politics

At Wednesday’s presidential debate, former HUD Secretary Julián Castro made an argument that most of his fellow Democrats aren’t even making: Impeaching Donald Trump is better politics than not impeaching Donald Trump.

And he may have changed a rival’s mind on the issue.

“I think that folks are making a mistake by not pursuing impeachment,” Castro said onstage in Detroit. “What’s going to happen in the fall of next year, 2020, if [House Democrats] don’t impeach [Trump], is he’s gonna say, ‘You see? You see? The Democrats didn’t go after me on impeachment. And you know why? Because I didn’t do anything wrong.’”

As the crowd cheered, the former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, continued to press his case that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and Trump’s attempts to cover it up not only necessitated action, but that such action would boost Democrats in 2020.

“Conversely, if [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell is the one that lets [Trump] off the hook, we’re going to be able to say, ‘Well, sure they impeached him in the House — but his friend Mitch McConnell, Moscow Mitch, let him off the hook,’” Castro said.

August 02, 2019 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Joy Reid said...

This "you'd better appeal to the Trump voter by not doing anything that upsets them or they'll vote for him again" schtick is the "dress pretty and don't burn the dinner and maybe he won't beat you anymore" of political punditry.

August 02, 2019 2:55 PM  
Anonymous LMAO said...

Ratcliffe withdraws from consideration for intelligence chief

August 02, 2019 2:57 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

July job creation:

Last 3 years of Obama vs First 3 years of Trump

2014 227,000
2015 293,000
2016 336,000

Total 856,000

2017 204,000
2018 178,000
2019 164,000

Total 546,000

+ Trump exploded the deficit with tax cuts for the rich while consumers pay his tariff taxes.

August 02, 2019 6:45 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Only one in four Canadians opposes same sex marriage: poll :)

August 03, 2019 2:07 PM  
Anonymous Lyndon B. Johnson said...

I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best coloured man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.

August 03, 2019 6:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Is that what its about Wyatt/Regina? Is it that you need someone to feel better than? Is that why nothing is more important to you than making lgbt people lesser than?

August 03, 2019 6:03 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A Racist Stuck in the Past

In Trump’s mind, it’s still 1989.

Let’s get the obvious stuff out of the way. Yes, Donald Trump is a vile racist. He regularly uses dehumanizing language about nonwhites, including members of Congress. And while some argue that this is a cynical strategy designed to turn out Trump’s base, it is at most a strategy that builds on Trump’s pre-existing bigotry. He would be saying these things regardless (and was saying such things long before he ran for president); his team is simply trying to turn bigoted lemons into political lemonade.

What I haven’t seen pointed out much, however, is that Trump’s racism rests on a vision of America that is decades out of date. In his mind it’s always 1989. And that’s not an accident: The ways America has changed over the past three decades, both good and bad, are utterly inconsistent with Trump-style racism.

Why 1989? That was the year he demanded bringing back the death penalty in response to the case of the Central Park Five, black and Latino teenagers convicted of raping a white jogger in Central Park. They were, in fact, innocent; their convictions were vacated in 2002. Trump, nevertheless, has refused to apologize or admit that he was wrong.

His behavior then and later was vicious, and it is no excuse to acknowledge that at the time America was suffering from a crime wave. Still, there was indeed such a wave, and it was fairly common to talk about social collapse in inner-city urban communities.

But Trump doesn’t seem to be aware that times have changed. His vision of “American carnage” is one of a nation whose principal social problem is inner-city violence, perpetrated by nonwhites. That’s a comfortable vision if you’re a racist who considers nonwhites inferior. But it’s completely wrong as a picture of America today.

For one thing, violent crime has fallen drastically since the early 1990s, especially in big cities. Our cities certainly aren’t perfectly safe, and some cities — like Baltimore — haven’t shared in the progress. But the social state of urban America is vastly better than it was.

August 03, 2019 6:21 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

On the other hand, the social state of rural America — white rural America — is deteriorating. To the extent that there really is such a thing as American carnage — and we are in fact seeing rising age-adjusted mortality and declining life expectancy — it’s concentrated among less-educated whites, especially in rural areas, who are suffering from a surge in “deaths of despair” from opioids, suicide and alcohol that has pushed their mortality rates above those of African-Americans.

And indicators of social collapse, like the percentage of prime-age men not working, have also surged in the small town and rural areas of the “eastern heartland,” with its mostly white population.

What this says to me is that the racists, and even those who claimed that there was some peculiar problem with black culture, were wrong, and the sociologist William Julius Wilson was right.

When social collapse seemed to be basically a problem for inner-city blacks, it was possible to argue that its roots lay in some unique cultural dysfunction, and quite a few commentators hinted — or in some cases declared openly — that there was something about being nonwhite that predisposed people toward antisocial behavior.

What Wilson argued, however, was that social dysfunction was an effect, not a cause. His work, culminating in the justly celebrated book “When Work Disappears,” made the case that declining job opportunities for urban workers, rather than some underlying cultural or racial disposition, explained the decline in prime-age employment, the decline of the traditional family, and more.

How might one test Wilson’s hypothesis? Well, you could destroy job opportunities for a number of white people, and see if they experienced a decline in propensity to work, stopped forming stable families, and so on. And sure enough, that’s exactly what has happened to parts of nonmetropolitan America effectively stranded by a changing economy.

August 03, 2019 6:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I’m not saying that there’s something wrong or inferior about the inhabitants of, say, eastern Kentucky (and no American politician would dare suggest such a thing). On the contrary: What the changing face of American social problems shows is that people are pretty much the same, whatever the color of their skin. Give them reasonable opportunities for economic and personal advancement, and they will thrive; deprive them of those opportunities, and they won’t.

Which brings us back to Trump and his attack on Representative Elijah Cummings, whom he accused of representing a district that is a “mess” where “no human being would want to live.” Actually, part of the district is quite affluent and well educated, and in any case, Trump is debasing his office by, in effect, asserting that some Americans don’t deserve political representation.

But the real irony is that if you ask which congressional districts really are “messes” in the sense of suffering from severe social problems, many — probably most — strongly supported Trump in 2016. And Trump is, of course, doing nothing to help those districts. All he has to offer is hate.

August 03, 2019 6:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

If your taxes went up $1,000 for #Medicare4All but you no longer had to pay $5,000 in premiums, $75 co-pays and $500 deductible You still come out ahead!

Geez, how effin hard is that to understand?

August 03, 2019 8:42 PM  
Anonymous Thoughts and prayers said...

The mass shooting at an El Paso, Texas, Walmart Saturday killed 20 people and left 26 others wounded. It came about 13 hours before a second mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio, left nine people dead and 27 wounded.

Patrick Wood Crusius, 21, the accused gunman in the El Paso shooting is the purported author of a racist, anti-immigrant manifesto. Officials said Sunday they were treating massacre as a case of domestic terrorism and exploring federal hate crime charges.

Authorities said the suspected shooter drove eight hours from the Dallas-Fort Worth area to El Paso, which is directly across the border from Mexico’s Ciudad Juarez and is about 80 percent Hispanic. The alleged manifesto describes fears of a Latino “invasion,” which Trump critics were quick to note echoes rhetoric the president has used about migrants, particularly ahead of the 2018 midterms.

Presidential candidate and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), who left the campaign trail to return to his hometown of El Paso after the shooting, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that racist rhetoric from the president had created the climate leading to the attack.

"Let's be very clear about what is causing this and who the president is. He is an open avowed racist and encouraging more racism in this country," O'Rourke said Sunday.

"This cannot be open for debate and you as well as I have a responsibility to call that out to make sure the American people know what is being done in their name," O'Rourke told CNN’s Jake Tapper. "He doesn't even pretend to respect our differences or understand we are all created equal. He is saying some people are inherently defected."

August 04, 2019 2:50 PM  
Anonymous GOP rumper tries to deflect blame said...

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said video games could contribute to future mass shootings when asked about it in a television interview on Sunday morning. Appearing on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" in the wake of mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, McCarthy was asked about how to understand factors contributing to a shooting.

"This may be a place where we could find this ahead of time," said McCarthy who discussed ways to detect future shooters.

"The idea that these video games that dehumanize individuals to have a game of shooting individuals," continued McCarthy, "I've always felt that it's a problem for future generations and others..."

So what did and does McCarthy have to say about Rump having dehumanized Mexicans this way: "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."


August 04, 2019 3:15 PM  
Anonymous 8chan said...

The El Paso massacre began like the fatal attacks earlier this year at mosques in New Zealand and a San Diego-area synagogue: with a racist manifesto and announcement on the anonymous message board 8chan, one of the Web’s most venomous refuges for extremist hate.

Like after the shootings in Christchurch and the Chabad of Poway synagogue, the El Paso attack was celebrated on 8chan as well: One of the most active threads early Sunday urged people to create memes and original content, or OC, that could make it easier to distribute and “celebrate the [gunman’s] heroic action.”

“You know what to do!!! Make OC, Spread OC, Share OC, Inspire OC,” an anonymous poster wrote. “Make the world a better place.”

The message board’s ties to mass violence have fueled worries over how to combat a Web-fueled wave of racist bloodshed. The El Paso shooting also prompted the site’s founder to urge its owners to “do the world a favor and shut it off.”

“Once again, a terrorist used 8chan to spread his message as he knew people would save it and spread it,” Fredrick Brennan, who founded 8chan in 2013 but stopped working with the site’s owners in December, told The Washington Post. “The board is a receptive audience for domestic terrorists.”

Twenty people were killed at an El Paso shopping center following an attack by a gunman, who police believe posted a jumbled and racist screed to 8chan minutes before the shooting that ranted against a “Hispanic invasion.” The writer claims he was inspired by the Christchurch massacre, which also began with an 8chan post, and he urged viewers to “do your part and spread this brothers!”

Nine people were killed following a separate attack in Dayton, Ohio, early Sunday morning, hours after the El Paso shooting. It’s unclear if that shooter or attack had any connection to 8chan...

The site has survived, extremism experts said, in part due to a reluctance from some law-enforcement and intelligence officials to categorize white-supremacist and far-right movements as terrorism threats. The site has for years been shielded by U.S. laws that limit websites’ legal liability for what their users post and has been further protected by an Internet infrastructure that makes it difficult to take sites down.

Some online researchers also fear that a shutdown of 8chan would only spur hate groups to organize elsewhere. The site’s leaders have appeared emboldened in the face of criticism, adding a message in recent months at the top of its homepage: “Embrace infamy.”

August 04, 2019 4:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"video games"? Video games are responsible for a white man shooting latinos? How effin stupid is that?!

Video games don't single out Mexicans for villification and targets of hate and violence. Trump is the one who's done that with the biggest megaphone of all, the presidency.

Obviously Trump spreading hate and encouraging racism is the cause of these mass shootings.

August 04, 2019 4:18 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This cartoon pretty much sums it up.

August 05, 2019 12:51 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bill Clinton banned assault weapons in 1994, mass shootings dropped by 43%.

Bush and the Republicans let the ban expire in 2004; they went up over 230%.

August 05, 2019 1:02 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home