Trump 21: Tweeting Us Into the Apocalypse

[onekidanddone]

35 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

Also is that suppose to be the "victims" of obamacare? All the children?

Won't anybody think about the children? 

[Childless]

3 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Guys, I think there is a possibility that the president of the USA is an idiot. 

 

There's no possibility.  There's, unfortunately, only certainty.

[GreyhoundFan]

Grrrrrrrrr: "Federal judge allows Trump commission’s nationwide voter data request to go forward"

Spoiler

A federal judge on Monday allowed President Trump’s voting commission to go forward with seeking voter data from 50 states and the District, ruling that the White House advisory panel is exempt from federal privacy review requirements, whatever additional risk it might pose to Americans’ information.

The ruling averted a public setback for a president who has claimed that widespread fraud cost him the popular vote in November. The commission’s request for the voting information of more than 150 million registered voters remains controversial, with many state leaders from both parties voicing objections about its potential to reveal personal information, suppress voter participation and encroach on states’ oversight of voting laws.

The panel’s June 28 letter to the states requested that they turn over “publicly-available voter roll data,” including names, addresses, dates of birth, party registrations, partial Social Security numbers and voting, military, felony and overseas histories, among other data.

On July 10, the White House clarified that it had scrapped plans to use a Pentagon-operated website to accept the data and had designed a system inside the White House to take the submissions.

Those changes appeared crucial in a 35-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of Washington.

“The mere increased risk of disclosure stemming from the collection and eventual, anonymized disclosure of already publicly available voter roll information is insufficient” to block the data request, she wrote.

Kollar-Kotelly , who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1997, ruled against the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a watchdog group that sought to block the commission’s data request because the panel had not conducted a full privacy impact statement as required by a 2002 federal law for new government electronic data collection systems.

She concluded that although the watchdog group had the right to sue under the law for a privacy review, the commission was a presidential advisory panel, not a federal agency subject to the privacy law.

“Neither the Commission or the Director of White House Information Technology — who is currently charged with collecting voter roll information on behalf of the Commission — are ‘agencies’ ” of the federal government subject to the court’s review in this matter, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

“To the extent the factual circumstances change, however — for example, if the . . . powers of the Commission expand beyond those of a purely advisory body — this determination may need to be revisited.”

Kollar-Kotelly wrote that the only added risk to privacy was if the White House computer systems are more vulnerable to security threats than those of the states, or that its de-identification process would be inadequate.

The commission is led by Vice President Pence, with Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) as vice chairman.

In a statement Monday, Kobach called the ruling “a major victory for government accountability, transparency and the public’s right to know about the integrity of our elections processes,” adding, “We look forward to continuing to work with state election leaders to gather information and identify opportunities to improve election integrity.”

Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said in a statement that the group “will push forward. The Commission cannot evade privacy obligations by playing a shell game with the nation’s voting records.”

The court order was not a final ruling on the commission’s work, with other groups filing lawsuits and one appealing to a higher court to block its action under open records and meeting laws.

But Monday’s ruling removed one legal obstacle even as the commission faces other political head winds. The commission had asked states to hold off submitting the voter data the panel had requested pending the court decision.

At least 44 states have indicated that they won’t provide all their voter data, with some saying they would give nothing and others offering what information they could under state laws.

The vice president’s office has said 20 states have agreed to share at least some data and 16 more are reviewing the request.

Trump has said that widespread voter fraud cost him the popular vote in November, although critics say the claim is unsubstantiated and a pretext for federal laws to suppress voter participation, including by racial minority groups and poor people.

Trump has championed the commission’s work as a way to “strengthen up voting procedures” by identifying “vulnerabilities . . . that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting.” Conservative board members have advocated stricter federal election laws, alleging that a bias in U.S. enforcement has benefited liberals.

Republicans such as Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan had called the commission’s request a “hastily organized experiment,” or a “federal intrusion and overreach,” as Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler (R) put it.

Democratic New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo refused “to perpetuate the myth voter fraud played a role in our election,” while Vermont Secretary of State James C. Condos (D) called the commission “a waste of taxpayer money.”

In court filings, Rotenberg called the privacy implications of creating “a secret database stored in the White House” of hundreds of millions of voter records from across the country “staggering” and lacking legal authorization.

The watchdog group said the proposal would increase privacy risks to every registered voter, “including in particular military families whose home addresses would be revealed,” people whose partial Social Security numbers are used as passwords for commercial services, and people with felony convictions.

Trump formed the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in May after repeatedly suggesting that millions of illegal voters cost him the popular vote against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Studies and state officials of both parties have found no evidence of widespread voting fraud.

Led by Pence, the panel’s other members are Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson (R); New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner (D); Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap (D); former Ohio secretary of state Ken Blackwell (R); Christy McCormick (R), commissioner with the U.S. Election Assistance Commission; former Arkansas state representative David Dunn (D); Mark Rhodes, clerk of Wood County, W.Va. (D); Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow of the Heritage Foundation (R); J. Christian Adams (R), a conservative columnist; and Alan Lamar King (D), a probate judge in Alabama.

Kobach said in the court filing that McCormick is not serving in her official capacity as a member of the EAC. Kobach said the Trump commission has “no legal relationship with the EAC,” and that while the president can appoint additional members to the newly formed advisory commission, to Kobach’s knowledge, no other federal agency officials are under consideration.

Although the May 11 executive order stated that the commission would be supported by the General Services Administration — a federal agency subject to privacy requirements — the administration said in fact data would be downloaded onto White House computers, with an employee of Pence’s office and White House information technology staff responsible for collecting and storing it.

This just chaps my hide.

[fraurosena]

Yep. If you want to get them brainwashed, you gotta get 'em young!

 

 

 

-------------------- merged post separation--------------------------

 

4 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

The court order was not a final ruling on the commission’s work, with other groups filing lawsuits and one appealing to a higher court to block its action under open records and meeting laws.

This is a little glimmer of hope, at least.

Question:  Can states still refuse to comply if they so choose?

[fraurosena]

Someone alerted me to the twitter search "boy scouts -my son". These are the results:

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=boy scouts "my son"&src=typd

 

Oh dear. If these reactions are something to go by, the boy scouts are going to have a lot less members after that shameful indoctrination attempt by the presidunce today.

[fraurosena]

Keith Olbermann has a new video.

 

[formergothardite]

Look at Pence's face when Trump says that Obamacare has been going on for 17 years. He shifts his eyes and looks at someone in the background.  He was probably trying to figure out who gets to come up with the alternative fact explanation that Trump was actually correct. 

[GreyhoundFan]

'Trump leaves Sessions twisting in the wind while berating him publicly"

Spoiler

President Trump and his advisers are privately discussing the possibility of replacing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and some confidants are floating prospects who could take his place were he to resign or be fired, according to people familiar with the talks.

Members of Trump’s circle, including White House officials, have increasingly raised the question among themselves in recent days as the president has continued to vent his frustration with the attorney general, the people said.

Replacing Sessions is seen by some Trump associates as potentially being part of a strategy to fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and end his investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

The president took another swipe at Sessions on Monday, calling his attorney general “our beleaguered A.G.” and asking why Sessions was not “looking into Crooked Hillary’s crimes & Russia relations?”

Both points are notable. Sessions was once considered one of Trump’s closest advisers and enjoyed access few others had. Now he is left to endure regular public criticism by his boss.

Trump’s suggestion, too, that his top law enforcement official investigate a former political rival is astounding, and even his allies have said in the past that such a move would be unheard of in the United States. Trump, after the election, had backed away from the idea of possibly prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

Sessions has seen his tight relationship with Trump and the White House unravel since he recused himself in March from the Russia probe. The president had privately complained about that decision for weeks, and in an interview with the New York Times last week he said he would not have appointed Sessions as attorney general had he known in advance of the recusal.

After Sessions recused himself, he passed on the responsibility to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who then appointed Mueller as special counsel overseeing the Russia probe.

Trump could order Rosenstein — and then Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand — to fire Mueller. If they quit instead of doing so, he could appoint an acting attorney general who would. Trump could also appoint an acting attorney general with them in place — effectively passing over Rosenstein and Brand — and order that person to remove the special counsel.

Trump’s authority to jump Rosenstein and Brand, though, is murky. The Justice Department has issued opinions in the past saying both that such a move is and isn’t permissible. And his pick for an acting attorney general would have to have Senate confirmation and be serving elsewhere in the government or have worked in the Justice Department for 90 days within the past 365 and be at a certain senior pay level.

Another scenario is that Trump could make a recess appointment, said University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck. Under that plan, Trump could choose an attorney general during the August recess who would serve until the end of the next Senate session, which could be early January. That person would have the same authority as someone who is confirmed by the Senate, Vladeck said.

Among the names being floated as possible Sessions replacements are Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, according to people familiar with the conversations.

Giuliani dismissed a report floating his name as a possible attorney general and told CNN that Sessions “made the right decision under the rules of the Justice Department” to recuse himself. He did not return a message seeking comment.

Cruz had said previously that he “did not think it was necessary to appoint a special counsel,” but when Mueller was appointed, he praised him as “an excellent choice.” A spokesman for Cruz could not be reached for comment.

Some Trump advisers said that this process could be agonizing for the attorney general, with the president’s anger flaring but no decision being reached for weeks or maybe months, leaving Sessions isolated from the White House. Sessions was at the White House complex on Monday for a routine meeting but did not meet with the president.

But not all in Trump’s orbit share the view that Sessions’s days are numbered.

Anthony Scaramucci, the new White House communications director, told CNN on Monday afternoon that Trump and Sessions “need to sit down face-to-face and have a reconciliation and a discussion of the future.”

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a vigorous Trump ally, said in an interview that he and Trump had talked about Sessions and that Trump had indicated “he was very unhappy both with the recusal and the fact that Jeff didn’t talk to him beforehand.” But Gingrich said he would “strongly oppose” the firing of Sessions, because “I think his base likes Sessions.”

“His base thinks that on things like [violent street gangs] and sanctuary cities that Sessions is doing a fine job, and I think his base would be confused,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich also said he believed Sessions could survive the president’s criticisms.

“He said he’s beleaguered, not failed, and he is a little beleaguered,” Gingrich said. “This whole thing has been a mess.”

Trump, though, continues to let Sessions twist in the wind. One person close to Trump said the president asked him about how firing Sessions “would play in the conservative media.” Trump also asked him whether it would help to replace Sessions “with a major conservative,” the person said.

For his part, Sessions shows no signs of stepping down.

On Friday, Sessions traveled to Philadelphia to meet with law enforcement officials. In his speech, he vowed to crack down on illegal immigration and on “sanctuary cities” that are not communicating with federal authorities about undocumented immigrants. He spoke of how hard he is working, despite having none of his U.S. attorneys in place and most of his senior officials still not confirmed by the Senate.

“I do my best every day,” Sessions said, “to fulfill the goals the president and I share.”

Several of Session’s Republican former colleagues on Capitol Hill have defended him in the face of the president’s criticism.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a close friend, said that Sessions was “doing just fine.” He also encouraged the president to try to patch up his relationship with his attorney general.

“They’re both adults, and they can work it out,” Cornyn said.

OMG, AG Ted Cruz? The thought of that is horrifying. And Guiliani? Shudder.

[47of74]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Yep. If you want to get them brainwashed, you gotta get 'em young!

 

 

 

(Shoving a $20 in the swear jar)

Goddamn, that fucking well pisses me off.  The BSA used to stand for something, but now it's just little more than a Hitler Youth organization for a fuckstick who has no business being within a goddamn mile of the Oval Office.  That fucker degraded the BSA by acting as he did at the Jamboree.  And if the BSA thinks I'm game for their popcorn anymore they might want to check the temperature in fucking hell first. 

[candygirl200413]

I was just about to say the same thing. My dad was a boy scout, I was a girl scout and it's just frustrates me to know end. the BSA is honestly gone south so much as their molestation scandals gotten worst. President Obama was a fucking boy scout too! Like is he honestly forreal? I emailed BSA my disgust. Obviously everything has been shitty since Trump started but Lord Jesus my patience has be tested.

[Childless]

7 hours ago, 47of74 said:

(Shoving a $20 in the swear jar)

Goddamn, that fucking well pisses me off.  The BSA used to stand for something, but now it's just little more than a Hitler Youth organization for a fuckstick who has no business being within a goddamn mile of the Oval Office.  That fucker degraded the BSA by acting as he did at the Jamboree.  And if the BSA thinks I'm game for their popcorn anymore they might want to check the temperature in fucking hell first. 

The BSA has always stood for discrimination and exclusion.  Just ask the LGBTQ community.  I have never and will never buy anything from them and my sons will not participate in their organization until they accept everyone, child and adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or ethnicity.  Given their stated beliefs and past actions, Cheeto von Tweeto's invitation and speech are not that surprising.

[nvmbr02]

2 minutes ago, Childless said:

The BSA has always stood for discrimination and exclusion.  Just ask the LGBTQ community.  I have never and will never buy anything from them and my sons will not participate in their organization until they accept everyone, child and adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, or ethnicity.  Given their stated beliefs and past actions, Cheeto von Tweeto's invitation and speech are not that surprising.

I agree that on a National level the BSA has not had a good policy of inclusion. On a local level some troops/packs have been better. In the past year or two there has been a big push toward inclusion and I do think it is the more inclusive packs on the local level that put the pressure on the organization. Sometimes change comes from within and I know some of us were hoping that BSA was moving in the right direction. This just pushed that movement back several years and I am sad about that but not overly surprised. 

My son did 2 years of cubs scouts before moving on to other activities and my husband was a boy scout for many years. I really want to support them since I think they could do a lot of good but I just can't as long as they hold on to these ugly policies. 

[AmazonGrace]

Hello boys and girls. ICYMI, Donald Trump has had his morning covfefe and tweeted 

-declaring Jared's innocence while dragging Barron, 11 yo, into it

-finally admitting McCain is a hero if he votes to take away your healthcare

-attacking Obamacare

-accusing acting FBI head McCabe of Hillary corruption

-attacking Sessions and urging him to investigate a political opponent (Hillary, who else)

-attacking Ukraine and Clinton (h/t Hannity)

In other words, it's Tuesday. 

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

If you didn't catch Rachel Maddow last night, she talked about Chris Wray, Agent Orange's nominee for FBI Director. Well, it turns out that he was Chris Christie's personal attorney during Bridgegate. Oh, and he was paid by the citizens of NJ...for a year after the case had concluded. Definitely sketchy stuff.

[GreyhoundFan]

It looks like Tiffany is taking her place by costing us money: "Report: Tiffany Trump's trip to Germany cost taxpayers more than $22,000"

Spoiler

Being part of America's first family certainly has its perks -- including the ability to jet set around the world with the protection of the Secret Service.

President Trump's youngest daughter, Tiffany Trump, recently enjoyed such a perk when she left the country -- and a CBS News report claims Tiffany's trips are not cheap.

CBS got their hands on purchase orders that showed the government spent more than $22,000 on hotel expenses while Tiffany was in Berlin back in June.

The Secret Service had to set up a makeshift home base inside one of the rooms while they oversaw her security.

NBC News reported that Eric Trump cost taxpayers close to $100,000 for his business trip to Uruguay in January.

And the next month, President Trump and his two eldest sons went to Vancouver for a Trump hotel opening that cost Secret Service about $53,000.

While it may be an unpopular spending maneuver, one of former President Barack Obama's secret service agents told NPR that by protecting the kids, you're "protecting the sanctity of the office of the presidency."

I realize $22K is a drop in the bucket for this group of takers, but why the heck did she need to go abroad? Why wasn't she preparing for law school?

[47of74]

Yeah Michael Moore wasn't having Fuckstick's attempts to turn the BSA into the Trumpler Youth

Quote

It was an extremely disturbing scene, and famous Democratic filmmaker and labor activist Michael Moore took to Twitter to share his disgust.

 

[Flossie]

This is just like when Carly Fiorina led a group of pre-schoolers into an anti-abortion rally she hosted at the botanical gardens in the Greater Des Moines Botanical Gardens back when she was running for president in 2016.  

(The details are sketchy.  The story is that Carly noticed the kids at the Koi pond and joined them to watch the fish, then gave them "Carly for America" stickers, and told them to follow her.  She led them through the gardens to a conference room where she told them to go ahead [so she could be "led" into the rally by cute four year olds that had no idea what was going on].  One of the first kids to enter was a girl wearing a stars and stripes dress.  

Staffers motioned the kids to the front of the room where a platform was set up that had a couple of upholstered chairs on it.  Several kids doubled up and sat on the chairs, the rest were told to sit on the stage while Carly made a speech about abortion.  

Large photos were hanging up showing fetuses in various stages of development.  Carly gave a speech that included graphic descriptions of abortion and at one point someone brought forward a scale model of a four month old model of a fetus that was sucking it's thumb.  The kids were obviously bored, looked around, played with their shoelaces, poked each other, and made faces at the audience.

During this time, the adults accompanying the children stood in the back and made no effort to stop their charges from being used as props for Ms. Fiorina.  It was said later that the people who owned the daycare center were staunch Republicans and from there it was suggested that the ambush of the fieldtrip was planned.  Several of the parents came forward later to say that they weren't told until after the event what had happened.  One father was extremely upset, because he was only told that his child had "encountered" Fiorina during the field trip.  It wasn't until he saw his son on the news that he realized the full extent of what had actually occurred.)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/21/carly-fiorina-accused-of-ambushing-children-for-anti-abortion-rally
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/carly-fiorina-led-preschoolers-anti-abortion-rally-article-1.2504613
http://time.com/4189092/carly-fiorina-iowa-abortion/

 

[GreyhoundFan]

@Flossie -- wow, I hadn't heard about that. I already despised her, but that just makes her even more despicable in my eyes. She's been making rumblings about running for senate in 2018, challenging Tim Kaine. I'm hoping she's just playing games and doesn't actually run.

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

@Flossie -- wow, I hadn't heard about that. I already despised her, but that just makes her even more despicable in my eyes. She's been making rumblings about running for senate in 2018, challenging Tim Kaine. I'm hoping she's just playing games and doesn't actually run.

Speaking of running... did you guys see Rachel Maddow's charts on the House challengers for 2018?

Here's the first one. Note that the chart starts on the right. You can notice that there is a rather large jump in R-challengers in 2009 (78) ahead of the 2010 House elections. You all know the result: the R's took the House.

Now here's the second chart.

Nuff said, right? 

[JMarie]

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

It looks like Tiffany is taking her place by costing us money: "Report: Tiffany Trump's trip to Germany cost taxpayers more than $22,000"

  Hide contents

Being part of America's first family certainly has its perks -- including the ability to jet set around the world with the protection of the Secret Service.

President Trump's youngest daughter, Tiffany Trump, recently enjoyed such a perk when she left the country -- and a CBS News report claims Tiffany's trips are not cheap.

CBS got their hands on purchase orders that showed the government spent more than $22,000 on hotel expenses while Tiffany was in Berlin back in June.

The Secret Service had to set up a makeshift home base inside one of the rooms while they oversaw her security.

NBC News reported that Eric Trump cost taxpayers close to $100,000 for his business trip to Uruguay in January.

And the next month, President Trump and his two eldest sons went to Vancouver for a Trump hotel opening that cost Secret Service about $53,000.

While it may be an unpopular spending maneuver, one of former President Barack Obama's secret service agents told NPR that by protecting the kids, you're "protecting the sanctity of the office of the presidency."

I realize $22K is a drop in the bucket for this group of takers, but why the heck did she need to go abroad? Why wasn't she preparing for law school?

A European vacation as a graduation gift?  Oh wait, she graduated from college LAST year.

14 hours ago, 47of74 said:

(Shoving a $20 in the swear jar)

Goddamn, that fucking well pisses me off.  The BSA used to stand for something, but now it's just little more than a Hitler Youth organization for a fuckstick who has no business being within a goddamn mile of the Oval Office.  That fucker degraded the BSA by acting as he did at the Jamboree.  And if the BSA thinks I'm game for their popcorn anymore they might want to check the temperature in fucking hell first. 

Darn it!  The Girl Scout jamboree was three weeks ago.  He totally should have gone!  It was in West Virginia , same as the Boy Scout one, so it was nearby, and it was full of impressionable young girls.  I know my twelve-year-old self would have LOVED to hear the president ramble on about stuff unimportant to me, while gathered in the sweltering summer heat, instead of making yet another Eye of God ( you know, those popsicle crosses with the yarn woven around them).

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s latest rage tweets reveal a lawless, out-of-control president"

Spoiler

Last week, President Trump made some deeply unsettling comments that unleashed a storm of alarm over his increasingly lawless presidency. Trump admitted he wouldn’t have picked Jeff Sessions as attorney general if he’d known Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia probe, and claimed the recusal was “very unfair to the president.” Trump viewed it as a betrayal of him that the nation’s top law enforcement official obeyed the rules designed to ensure that the investigation — which is also examining the conduct of Trump and his campaign — remains an impartial one.

Now Trump has, if anything, gone further than that, both on Twitter this morning and in his private conversations about Sessions with his top advisers. The Post reports that Trump is discussing with his advisers whether to replace Sessions:

Replacing Sessions is viewed by some Trump associates as potentially being part of a strategy to fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and end his investigation of whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

As The Post reports, the idea is that Sessions could be replaced with an acting attorney general who would do what Sessions did not — put an end to the probe led by independent counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Meanwhile, the Associated Press confirms today that Trump is seriously thinking of firing Sessions and continues to rage at him over the recusal, which he views as “disloyal.” On top of that, in a pair of tweets this morning, Trump blasted Sessions and the acting director of the FBI for failing to sufficiently investigate Hillary Clinton.

As demented as that tweetstorm is as an attack on Clinton, it has real significance in the context of Trump’s ongoing rage at Sessions over his failure (in Trump’s eyes) to police the Russia probe on his behalf. As Jack Goldsmith, a senior legal adviser in the George W. Bush administration, puts it:

This and other attacks on key law enforcement figures in his own Executive branch goes far beyond breaking norms of investigatory independence. They bring us clearly into the territory, where we may have been for a while, of a president bent on destroying the authority of the Justice Department that he worries, perhaps for reasons only he knows, may destroy him. At no time in modern history (and perhaps ever) has a President been so openly at odds, and bent on discrediting, his senior law enforcement and intelligence officials.

Two additional points about this:

No amount of loyalty or rule-bending is ever enough for Trump. On Sessions, let’s remember the larger context here. Sessions has skirted our norms on Trump’s behalf not once, but twice. First, he participated with Trump and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein in furnishing a rationale for the firing of former FBI director James B. Comey. As Trump subsequently revealed, he had already decided to fire Comey over his handling of the Russia probe (after demanding and not getting his loyalty). But Sessions and Rosenstein handed him a cover story in the form of criticism of Comey’s handling of the Clinton email probe. Sessions arguably should have recused himself from those deliberations to begin with, since he had already recused himself from matters related to Russia, having been a senior member of the Trump campaign. But his participation in providing that rationale raises additional questions and may look worse once more is learned about the process leading up to Comey’s firing.

Second, Sessions only recused himself from the Russia probe in the first place after the news of previously undisclosed meetings with Russian officials during the campaign left him no choice. But it was obvious from the start that Sessions, as a top campaign adviser, could not preside over an impartial probe into the Trump campaign’s conduct. Sessions finally did the right thing under duress, and in so doing, retroactively affirmed the rules that are meant to reassure the public that the investigation will be impartial. But Trump sees this, too, as an act of further disloyalty to him.

This confirms again that Trump evidently harbors no sense of obligation to the public that might lead him to want such rules to be followed in the interests of reassuring the public and seeing an impartial probe. But beyond this, just as Sean Spicer endlessly debased himself by telling Trump’s lies and undermining the media’s institutional role in holding Trump accountable for months, only to find himself cast aside in humiliating fashion, Sessions may be discovering that no amount of loyalty to Trump is ever enough, should Trump irrationally decide that you are failing him (nothing, needless to say, is ever Trump’s fault). As former Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller points out, “Trump will always demand more.”

Republican senators are defending Sessions, but they should do more to defend the rule of law. McClatchy talked to Republican senators about Trump’s ongoing attacks on Sessions, and got this:

“I don’t understand it. There’s no more honorable person I’ve ever met in my life than Jeff Sessions,” said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., a close friend of Sessions and his wife. “The only person who is more upset with Trump about this than me, is my wife.” …

Senators made it clear the attack on one of their own stands to color Trump’s relationship with Senate Republicans, said Inhofe, a senator since 1994.

“I’m 100 percent for the president, but I really have a hard time with this,” he said.

“That’s what he does, I don’t think he means harm with those tweets,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said of Trump.

But Hatch added, “I’d prefer that he didn’t do that. We’d like Jeff to be treated fairly.”

The careful reader will note that these senators are defending Sessions on a personal level. But what we really need to hear right now is more condemnation of Trump’s assault on the rule of law and more affirmation of the need for an independent investigation, which Trump is seeking to undermine.

...

The point that the Repug senators are defending Sessions on a personal level, not because of the rule of law is important.

[Cartmann99]

On 7/24/2017 at 8:41 AM, 47of74 said:

Bottom line is that Mrs. Clinton is a strong, intelligent, and independent woman, and such women send conservative men running screaming to defend their manly territory.  (H/T Karen Traviss/Star Wars: Revelation)

I agree that she drives conservative men completely insane, but honestly, I think conservative women hate her even more than conservative men do. 

[GreyhoundFan]

A great editorial from the WaPo: "This is not okay"

Spoiler

WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP attacked Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a tweet Tuesday for not aggressively investigating Hillary Clinton, most attention focused, understandably, on the implications for Mr. Sessions. Yet even more alarming than the president’s assault on his own attorney general is Mr. Trump’s return to the “lock her up” theme of his 2016 campaign. We need to recall, once again, what it means to live under the rule of law. Since his inauguration six months ago, so many comparisons have been made to “banana republics” that it is almost unfair to bananas. But there is a serious point to be made about the difference between the United States of America and a state ruled by personal whim.

In a rule-of-law state, government’s awesome powers to police, prosecute and imprison are wielded impartially, with restraint and according to clearly defined rules. These rules apply equally to rich and poor, powerful and weak, ruling party and opposition. In such states, individuals advance on the basis of their talent and initiative, not whom they know. Companies invest where they think the returns will be highest, not to please those in power. The result is that, over time, rule-of-law states prosper. Banana republics do not.

No country ever has attained perfection in this regard, but the United States has been the envy of the world because certain norms have been accepted. After hard-fought elections, the losing side concedes and the winning side leaves the loser in peace to fight another day. Leaders are expected to speak truthfully to their citizens. They respect the essential nonpartisan nature of law enforcement and the military and of key civic organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America. They show respect too for the political opposition.

To list those basic expectations is to understand how low Mr. Trump is bringing his office. Just in the past few days, he urged Navy men and women to call Congress on behalf of his political goals and turned the National Scout Jamboree into an unseemly political rally, calling the nation’s politics a “cesspool” and a “sewer”and disparaging his predecessor and the media. Routinely he trades in untruths, even after they have been exposed and disproved. He has launched an unprecedented rhetorical assault on the independence of the Justice Department, the FBI and the special counsel’s office — and now he is again threatening his defeated 2016 opponent.

Members of Congress who are, properly, investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 race have not questioned Mr. Trump’s legitimacy. Ms. Clinton herself graciously conceded. The FBI thoroughly investigated her email practices and found no basis to prosecute. Yet Mr. Trump now attacks Mr. Sessions for taking “a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes,” implying that a politically inspired re-investigation might help the attorney general keep his job. It is disgusting.

Timidly, belatedly, but encouragingly, members of Mr. Trump’s party are beginning to push back. Last week, Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who chairs the Homeland Security Committee, told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell that there would be “a tremendous backlash” from Republicans as well as Democrats if Mr. Trump attempted to fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating Russia’s behavior in 2016 and any possible Trump campaign involvement. On Monday, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) also came to the counsel’s defense. “I don’t think many people are saying Bob Mueller is a person who is a biased partisan,” Mr. Ryan said. “He’s really sort of anything but.”

What’s at stake is much more than the careers of any particular attorney general or special counsel. The United States has been a role model for the world, and a source of pride for Americans, because it has strived to implement the law fairly. When he attacks that process and seeks revenge on his opponents, Mr. Trump betrays bedrock American values. It’s crucial that other political leaders say so.

 

[fraurosena]

Well, well, well... the TT's slight of Bannon in the recent shake-up just might have some very far-reaching consequences indeed.

(Note: the link embedded in the tweet leads to the Breitbart site, so don't click on it if you don't want to go there.)

This is incredibly noteworthy. Breitbart represents the alt-right, white-supremasist voters. If they drop their support for the presidunce, he's going to lose an incredibly large chunk of his BT base. And the repercussions of that for the 2018 elections are immense.

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"America’s Golden Age of Stupidity"

Spoiler

“Hello, you have reached the United States of America. We’re sorry no one is here to take your call right now. We have taken leave of our senses and are unsure when they’ll return. Please try again in three-and-a-half years.”

If America had a voice-mail message to the world, this would be it. We are running an experiment in exploring the consequences of suddenly having the world’s most important power go absent without leave on the world stage.

Some of the signs of U.S. withdrawal have made international headlines. But some of the ways we are abandoning our leadership role are less visible.  For example, few things are more directly associated with American leadership than our standing as a source of innovation, research, and scientific and technological expertise. Yet, President Trump — who has struggled to successfully conceive or maintain many policy initiatives — has shown remarkable steadfastness in his campaign against science.

George W. Bush had the War on Terror. Donald Trump has the War on Truth.

In the past  month, the last few scientists have exited the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP) Science Division. The OSTP is staffed at approximately a third of the level it was during the Obama administration; President Trump has yet to name a head of the office. Last week, the State Department’s top science and technology adviser, Vaughan Turekian, resigned amid a swirl of rumors that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was planning on shuttering his entire science and tech operation. There have been a number of non-scientist appointments in posts with major scientific elements, including the appointment of Samuel Clovis to be undersecretary in charge of the Agriculture Department’s research, education and economic efforts. Clovis, who has virtually no science background, will oversee efforts on vital issues ranging from the spread of diseases to the effects of pesticides.

Clovis, like many in the administration, is a climate-change “skeptic.” So, too, is Scott Pruitt,  the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. As giant chunks of Antarctica snap off the continent’s ice pack and weather patterns continue to confirm the conclusions of 97 percent of the scientific community that anthropogenic climate change is real, Trump has surrounded himself with people such as Clovis and Pruitt who simply disregard the facts, putting all of us at risk.

Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a study on the track record of the administration during its first six months entitled “Sidelining Science from Day One.” The study condemns the Trump team for “eroding the ability of science, facts, and evidence to inform public policy decisions” and asserts “emerging patterns reveal tactics to diminish the role of science in our democracy.”

Speaking of the need for qualified scientists in top jobs, Arati Prabhakar, the former head of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), put it succinctly when she told me, “These positions demand deep expertise and thoughtful leadership. Anything less risks the future.”

Of course, it is not just science under siege. More broadly the administration attacks facts and evidence wherever they do not suit their policy views. All evidence-based communities are under attack — the intelligence community, law enforcement, think tanks and journalists. Attacks come in all forms — disregard for data, ad hominem attacks on the messengers and their motives, deflections and false analogies.

The opposite of knowledge is ignorance. But the willful disregard of knowledge — regardless of motive — is stupidity. That is because those who battle facts are at war with reality. It is an unwinnable proposition. Furthermore, specialized knowledge, particularly that of scientists, is essential if we are to do what leaders must, anticipate change, understand its consequences and harness the opportunities it presents. Trump, in waging a systematic campaign to rid the government of the experts and ideas he sees as threats to his agenda, has done more than just usher in a Golden Age of Stupidity. He is unwittingly asking a question it doesn’t take an expert to figure out: “What happens when you lobotomize the world’s leading power?”

We, too, need to understand the deadly certain consequences of what Trump is choosing to risk. It reminds me of an experiment my father, a scientist, once conducted. In his last years, he was tormented by kidney failure, a legacy of his suffering as a child in Nazi Austria. Dialysis was demeaning and debilitating. So, he went to his doctor and said, “Let’s see what would happen if we skip dialysis for a couple weeks.” The doctor said, “You will surely die.” My dad said, “The only way we can be sure of the outcome is if we test the theory.” To borrow a Hemingway phrase he favored, the outcome was never in doubt.

He passed away days later.

The attack on the truth is appalling.